The U.S. Supreme Court has laid to rest any doubts about who is eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act with its decision in King v. Burwell, but employers who are barreling ahead to comply with the law's reporting requirements might still be looking for more changes to the law.
The June 25 6-3 ruling is the high court's second in three years to preserve Obamacare in the face of Republican-backed legal attacks. It averts a collapse in state insurance markets and lets millions of Americans keep using federal tax credits designed to make policies affordable ( see related story in this issue).
Attorneys and representatives of employer groups told Bloomberg BNA on the day of the decision that although the ruling upholds the status quo, employers will still be pushing for other changes to the ACA.
“I think it's good to have this behind us and resolved and I would say that for employers it's business as usual,” said Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy at the National Business Group on Health.
Vanessa A. Scott, a partner at Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP in Washington, said that the decision means employers are just dealing with the status quo.
“For employers, the decision means that the employer mandate to provide coverage to full-time employees remains intact, and that employers will still be subject to tax penalties if any of their employees receive federal tax subsides to purchase coverage on an Exchange, whether that Exchange is run by the federal government or by a state,” she said.
Oral arguments for King v. Burwell took place in early March, where divisions among the justices were already clear.
James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, said that while the decision makes the outlook clearer for the future, there are still a lot of aspects of the ACA that need to be addressed to make the law “workable” for employers offering health coverage to their employees.
“Now that the court has clarified the situation for the 6 million people getting coverage on the individual marketplace, it's time for them to address some real problems confronting health plans that cover over 150 million people in the employer marketplace,” Klein said.
Two issues Klein pointed to were the possibility of repealing the 40 percent excise tax on high cost coverage and streamlining employer reporting requirements. These issues were part of a list of six ACA-related policy issues the ABC wants looked at now that the decision has been handed down.
One of the ABC's policy suggestions entails enabling employers to fund health reimbursement accounts that individuals could use to purchase coverage on the exchanges, something that the Internal Revenue Service doesn't currently condone.
“This is an opportunity now to look at how large employers, who can't directly participate in the public exchanges, can nonetheless offer an opportunity for their employees to get coverage through those exchanges,” Klein said.
The ABC wasn't the only employer group asking for changes to the ACA,, as the ERISA Industry Committee said in a statement issued after the ruling was announced that it would like to not only see the Cadillac tax repealed, but also the employer mandate.
“With the legal case settled, Congress should use this opportunity to repeal the burdensome and unnecessary taxes, mandates and reporting requirements imposed by the ACA,” Annette Guarisco Fildes, president and CEO of ERIC, said in the statement. “Specifically, we want Congress to repeal the 40 percent health care excise tax, the employer mandate and all the related reporting requirements.”
The NBGH's Wojcik said his group wants a returned focus to what it sees as “the real health reform,” which is looking at how health care is paid for and delivered in the U.S.
Excerpted from a story that ran in Pension & Benefits Daily (06/26/2015).
Gain access to the most reliable source for comprehensive pension and benefits and executive compensation research with a free trial to the Benefits Practice Resource Center.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)