DOJ Tells Court to Nullify ACA; What’s Next?

After a period of relative stability, the future of the Affordable Care Act has once again been thrown into uncertainty.

In a surprise move, the Department of Justice announced that it would not further pursue an appeal of a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, and instead asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the decision he made in December 2018.

O’Connor had ruled that Congress eliminating the penalty for not complying with the law’s individual mandate had in fact made the entire law invalid.

But, even though the DOJ won’t be pursuing defense of the law and challenging the ruling on appeal, a number of states’ attorneys general have stepped up to fight the ruling.

What this means for the future of the employer mandate is unclear, as the court process still has a long way to go. The ruling could be overturned on appeal and invariably whatever the 5th Circuit decides, the case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Already there has been fallout in the private health insurance market since the individual mandate penalty was eliminated, but the employer mandate, which requires that organizations with 50 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent workers offer health coverage to their employees, remains intact.

As the case winds on, it will be some time before anything changes. The 5th Circuit has not yet scheduled arguments. The DOJ has asked for a hearing date for July 8, and Democratic states’ attorneys general agreed.

Despite the DOJ’s announcement, the law stands and applicable large employers must continue complying with its requirements.

Analysis

The move was surprising because in the past President Trump had signaled that he wanted to keep parts of the ACA, particularly the barring of insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. If the entire law is scrapped, so will that facet – as well as other popular provisions, like allowing adult children to stay on their parents’ policy until the age of 26.

Trump said his administration has a plan for something much better to replace the ACA.

Democrats have introduced some legislation to try to stabilize markets and improve on some ACA shortfalls. Their legislation aims to cut premiums for individuals buying on exchanges by expanding premium tax credits. Another bill would reaffirm the pre-existing condition protections, and restore enrollment outreach resources, which have been cut back under the Trump administration.

But with a divided Congress, the likelihood of anything reaching Trump’s desk are slim to none.

Meanwhile, the success of the ACA has been spotty. In some parts of the country, usually in areas with high population density, competition among plans ensures lower prices for people shopping on exchanges. But in smaller regions, cost increases are rampant.

A new analysis by the Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think-tank, finds that more than half (271) of the country’s 498 rating regions have only one or two insurers participating in the ACA marketplace. Those regions are disproportionately in sparsely populated areas.

Regions with little competition tend to have much higher premiums. In a region with only one insurer, the median benchmark plan for a 40-year-old nonsmoker is $592 a month. That compares to $376 for the same consumer in a region with at least five plans.

Surprise Medical Bills and ‘Balance Billing’ in Crosshairs

When your medical care provider charges more than your insurance company is willing to reimburse, you may get a bill asking you to pay the difference – a practice called “balance billing.” The Trump administration is moving to put a stop to the practice.

In a recent White House round table on limiting health care expenditures, President Trump vowed to end balance billing, citing a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation that showed that four out of 10 Americans had received a surprise medical bill in the past year.

The practice is already banned for participating Medicare and Medicaid providers, though non-participating Medicare providers who haven’t completely opted out of the program can still impose a surcharge of up to 15%.

How does balance billing happen?

Balance billing often results in a surprise medical bill, received after the services are rendered. It’s especially common when:

  • A patient doesn’t ask about actual medical costs at the time of service.
  • A patient accidentally receives services from an out-of-network provider.
  • A patient receives a service not covered under their plan.

In theory, it should be easy to check whether your provider is in your network before seeking medical services. In practice though, things aren’t so easy. For example, even if your hospital is in-network, you can get a surprise invoice via balance billing under circumstances like these:

  • They bring in an out-of-network radiologist;
  • They use an out-of-network laboratory;
  • They hire an out-of-network anesthesiologist; or
  • They bring in an out-of-network consultant.

This is true even though someone else picked the provider, not you. You may not even have been conscious at the time.

Some states have already moved to restrict the practice – but state laws so far have generally only protected people on state-regulated plans. Those on self-insured employer plans, for example, don’t receive much protection under these state laws.

But federal officials are pushing for more transparency: The Department of Health and Human Services has already required hospitals to publicly post their list prices of all their services online, effective Jan. 1 this year.

There is also some legislation pending in Congress. Under the No More Surprise Medical Bills Act of 2018 (S. 3592) sponsored by Maggie Hassan (D-NH), providers can only charge a patient an in-network amount, unless the patient has been properly notified about the charge and has consented to it.

That bill was referred to committee last year, though its future in the new Congress is uncertain.

There’s also yet unnamed draft legislation from a bipartisan group of senators that would protect patients from out-of-network billing, set payment standards, and prevent balance billing.

The draft was written by Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Todd Young (R-IN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO).