By the end of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce its third Affordable Care Act ruling on the legality of the association.
The Affordable Care Act ruling, which involves subsidies provided to individuals who purchase insurance via Healthcare.gov, has the potential to dramatically shake up the healthcare industry.
The lawsuit, King v. Burwell, specifically addresses whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the ACA. Under the statute, tax credits are available for health insurance that is purchased through an exchange “established by the State.” However, after most states failed to create their own marketplaces, the IRS extended the subsidies to insurance purchased through the federal government’s exchange, which is operated via Healthcare.gov. More than six million people have purchased insurance through the federal exchange – the majority of whom received the tax subsidy.
The federal courts that have addressed whether the subsidies are limited to state exchanges have reached differing conclusions. Rather then wait to let a circuit split emerge, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to intervene in the fate of the ACA. If the Court adopts a narrow interpretation of the statute, the whole healthcare scheme could be thrown into a tailspin. Citizens of states that failed to set up their own insurance marketplaces would not receive a tax subsidy and would also not be penalized for failing to obtain health insurance. Experts predict that if a significant number of Americans left the program, the cost of insurance would skyrocket and put it out of reach for many.
For businesses, the Supreme Court’s decision could also eviscerate the employer mandate. Under the ACA, businesses with 50 or more employees will be required to offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. If the Court strikes down the subsidies for the federal exchange, the penalty for failing to comply would not be triggered since it only applies when workers receive tax credits for health insurance purchased via one of the exchanges.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Supreme Court Affordable Care Act Ruling Could Upend Employer Mandate
Author: Dan Brecher
By the end of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce its third Affordable Care Act ruling on the legality of the association.
The Affordable Care Act ruling, which involves subsidies provided to individuals who purchase insurance via Healthcare.gov, has the potential to dramatically shake up the healthcare industry.
The lawsuit, King v. Burwell, specifically addresses whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the ACA. Under the statute, tax credits are available for health insurance that is purchased through an exchange “established by the State.” However, after most states failed to create their own marketplaces, the IRS extended the subsidies to insurance purchased through the federal government’s exchange, which is operated via Healthcare.gov. More than six million people have purchased insurance through the federal exchange – the majority of whom received the tax subsidy.
The federal courts that have addressed whether the subsidies are limited to state exchanges have reached differing conclusions. Rather then wait to let a circuit split emerge, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to intervene in the fate of the ACA. If the Court adopts a narrow interpretation of the statute, the whole healthcare scheme could be thrown into a tailspin. Citizens of states that failed to set up their own insurance marketplaces would not receive a tax subsidy and would also not be penalized for failing to obtain health insurance. Experts predict that if a significant number of Americans left the program, the cost of insurance would skyrocket and put it out of reach for many.
For businesses, the Supreme Court’s decision could also eviscerate the employer mandate. Under the ACA, businesses with 50 or more employees will be required to offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. If the Court strikes down the subsidies for the federal exchange, the penalty for failing to comply would not be triggered since it only applies when workers receive tax credits for health insurance purchased via one of the exchanges.
