Judge rules ACA subsidies are valid

Modern Healthcare reports in "Obamacare tax credits for HealthCare.gov plans upheld by second judge" that:

"A second federal judge has sided with the Obama administration in a legal battle whose ultimate outcome may determine whether Obamacare coverage is affordable for millions of Americans.

U.S. District Judge James Spencer, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, ruled this week (PDF) that the Internal Revenue Service has congressional authority to give premium tax credits to Americans in 36 states who buy coverage through the federally operated insurance exchange."

To read more, click here.

Supreme Court Justice Temporarily Halts Enforcement of Contraceptive Mandate Against Nuns

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on December 31 issued an order temporarily blocking enforcement of the contraceptive mandate against a nonprofit religious group, ordering the federal government to respond by January 3 (Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius).

The emergency application by the Little Sisters of the Poor came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said an injunction pending appeal was not warranted at this stage after the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the group’s injunction motion.

ERIC members and trial members can read more here.

Supreme Court Grants Temporary Relief in #ACA Contraception Case

Politico reports in "W.H. stands by birth-control rule" that:

"The Obama administration Wednesday said the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulations are fair – and they don’t really hurt the Denver-based religious organization that got a temporary New Year’s Eve reprieve from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“We defer to the Department of Justice on litigation matters, but remain confident that our final rules strike the balance of providing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing non-profit religious employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage,” a White House official said."

To read more, click here.

Analysis of ACA Contraceptive Coverage Issues

In "A Guide to the Supreme Court's Review of the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement", Kaiser explains:

"Shortly after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the new federal rule that required all new private plans to cover prescribed FDA approved contraceptive methods without cost-sharing, a number of corporations sued claiming that this new requirement violates their religious rights. These lawsuits have worked their way through the Federal Courts and, on November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that involve for-profit corporations. The Court agreed to hear a case from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,which ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based chain of craft stores owned by a Christian family who claim that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates their company’s religious freedom. The Court also agreed to hear a case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the corporation and its owners, finding that Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet manufacturer, does not have religious rights. The Supreme Court decided to take these cases to resolve the conflict between these two decisions and other U.S. Courts of Appeals’ rulings."

To read more, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear ACA Contraception Case

Bloomberg reports in "Health Law’s Birth-Control Rule Gets Supreme Court Review" that:

"The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a challenge to part of President Barack Obama’s health-care law by companies claiming a religious exemption to the requirement that they provide birth-control coverage for employees.

The justices said today they will hear two cases involving family-run businesses whose owners say they view some forms of contraception as immoral."

To read more, click here.
For court documents, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Deciding ACA Contraception Cases

In "Birth-control mandate: Which case to review?", SCOTUSblog reports:

"With lawyers in different cases arguing that theirs is the best one for the Supreme Court to use in deciding the legality of the birth-control mandate in the new federal health care law, the Court on Monday indicated that it will examine all four pending cases together later this month. The Court’s electronic docket said the four will be considered on November 26. If any are granted then or soon afterward, the Court probably would hear and decide them in the current Term."

To read more, click here.

Supreme Court Asked to Decide ACA Contraception Cases

The Hill reports in "Supreme Court asked to rule on ObamaCare birth control mandate" that:

"The ObamaCare birth control mandate appears headed to the Supreme Court after two separate cases on the contraception policy were referred Thursday to the justices.

The simultaneous appeals were filed by the U.S. government and a Mennonite cabinetmaking company that opposes the mandate that employers include birth control in their employee health plans.

The petitions come amid a growing split among circuit courts on the mandate, which requires most employers to cover a range of birth control methods for their workers."

To read the entire article, click here.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius is available here.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is available here.

Professor Proposes Solution to Contraception Coverage Mandate

Professor Ed Zelinsky recently posted a new article "The Hobby Lobby Problem and the HSA/HRA Solution" that articulates an alternative approach for the contraception coverage mandate. The abstract for the article states:

"The controversy about the contraception mandate is unnecessary. The tax law contains devices for reconciling the religious concerns of employers like Hobby Lobby with the policy of expanding medical coverage: health savings accounts (HSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). The current regulatory exemption should be amended in two respects, to include for-profit employers and to exempt from the federal mandate employers (both nonprofit and profit-making) that maintain HSAs or HRAs for their employees."

To read the entire article, click here.

ACA Contraception Coverage Cases Continue

Kaiser Health News, in "A Guide To The Lawsuits Challenging Obamacare’s Contraception Coverage Requirements", explains the recent ACA contraception coverage litigation. The article explains:

"Even with so much attention focused on the Oct. 1 launch of the health law's state insurance exchanges, one of the Affordable Care Act's most controversial elements is still percolating through the nation's legal system. The Department of Health and Human Services regulation requiring that many companies -- including religious ones -- with more than 50 employees provide health insurance coverage for birth control, the "Plan B" pill and other forms of contraception for women is still being actively disputed in federal courts. There have been dozens of pending and dropped challenges -- the National Women's Law Center counts 77 and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is tracking 67-- in which for-profit and nonprofit organizations maintain the requirement is counter to their personal or institutional religious views."

To read the full article, click here.

ACA Contraception Case Picks up Speed

In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, for-profit employers are challenging the contraception provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). They argue that these provisions violate their rights to religious freedom.

This case gained national attention when Hobby Lobby’s request for emergency relief was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court and sent back to the lower courts.

The case takes on a new twist as the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently granted Hobby Lobby’s requests for expedited oral arguments and for the full court to hear the appeal instead of a three-judge panel. Typically, Circuit Court cases are heard by a three-judge panel and then the losing party would ask for the full court to hear the case. By skipping the three-judge panel step and expediting oral argument, the Circuit Court is accelerating the process by which the case will be decided by the courts.

If Hobby Lobby is ultimately granted an injunction, for-profit companies that are founded on religious principles may be able to avoid covering certain types of contraceptive services. However, this would not allow plans to avoid other requirements under the ACA.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius