The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in King v. Burwell is whether the U.S. Treasury Department properly interpreted the intent of the drafters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act regarding the availability of tax credit subsidies for health plans sold on state health benefit exchanges. More specifically, whether Treasury is correct in determining the subsidies are available to qualified individuals regardless of whether an exchange is established by a state or if the federal government operates the exchange under a default provision of the Affordable Care Act if a state opts not to do so.
The high court could look to other parts of the statute for context as it discerns Congress’s intent regarding the availability of the subsidies. One element of the law that could support Treasury’s position is at Section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act. Section 1334 creates a federally-chartered Multi-State health plan (MSP) that must be offered in all state exchanges by 2017. The policy intent is to bolster competition and consumer choice, particularly in states with smaller populations and fewer plan issuers.
In the context of the question before the Supreme Court in King, the government might argue Congress could not have intended that the subsidies are available only for MSPs offered in states that chose to establish an exchange but not in those that did not. Especially given the objective of MSPs to make individual and small group health coverage more widely available. In a proposed rulemaking issued last week, the federal Office of Personnel Management (which charters MSPs) noted it “intends to ensure that MSP coverage is available as expansively and as soon as practicable.”
Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email