‘Obamacare’ Insurers May Win a $12 Billion Claim in Supreme Court

December 11, 2019by David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a sympathetic hearing Tuesday to health insurers who were promised their losses would be covered if they expanded coverage under the Affordable Care Act, only to have the Republican-controlled Congress later refuse to pay.

“This case involves a massive government bait-and-switch and the fundamental question of whether the government has to keep its word,” Washington attorney Paul D. Clement told the court.

Most of the justices sounded both surprised and skeptical of the Justice Department’s claim that Congress was free from having to pay for its past promises.

At issue is a provision of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as “Obamacare,” that encouraged health insurers to offer coverage at reasonable rates to people who had been denied because of preexisting medical conditions. The law said the government “shall pay” insurers if they lost money by offering this coverage. However, they were required to pay the government if they made extra profits from the high-risk group.

But when the coverage began in 2014, the losses for insurers were higher than expected. And a year later, Republican lawmakers said they would not appropriate the money to cover those losses from 2014 to 2016. Many GOP lawmakers characterized the payments under the so-called risk corridors as a government “bailout.”

The insurers, some of whom were driven out of business, later filed claims in federal court that totaled $12 billion.

A U.S. court of claims ruled for the insurers, but a federal appeals court reversed that decision and said Congress had the final word on whether to appropriate money to pay for earlier promises.

“Although we agree with (health insurer) Moda that Section 1342 obligated the government to pay the full amount of risk corridors payments according to the formula it set forth,” the appeals court said, “we hold that the riders on the relevant appropriations effected a suspension of that obligation for each of the relevant years.”

The humanitarian organization is helping kids around the world, around the clock.

During Tuesday’s argument, lawyers clashed over whether a law passed by one Congress could be binding on appropriators of the next.

Defending the government’s refusal to pay, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said “any payment (promised by the 2010 law) was contingent on a future appropriation.” It would be a “dramatic change” if the court were to “impose unprecedented liability on the United States.”

But Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. all said it would be strange to rule Congress could promise private companies it “shall pay” them to undertake a certain task while reserving the right to not pay once the task was complete.

Kneedler insisted there was “no language of promise in this statute, no language of entitlement.”

The chief justice interrupted, quoting the law. “‘Shall pay,’ right?”

“Well, it’s an instruction to an agency to pay,” Kneedler replied.

Roberts objected again. “Are you suggesting just because the government told the agency to pay, that doesn’t mean the agency has to?”

Kneedler said that without an appropriation from Congress, the agency could not disburse the money.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said Congress often says in a law that funding is subject to a future appropriation. But the Affordable Care Act did not include such a warning, he noted.

Kagan also pointed out that under the government’s view, insurers were required to hand over any excess profits to Washington, but their losses were not covered. “You pay in, that’s obligatory. We commit ourselves to paying out — it turns out — if we feel like it. What kind of a statute is that?” she asked.

Seven years ago, Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, led the legal attack on the Affordable Care Act. Then, he argued the mandate for individuals to have health insurance, a key pillar of the law, was unconstitutional. But in a 5-4 ruling written by the chief justice, the court upheld most of the law. However, the justices agreed with Clement on one issue and ruled that states could not be required to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people.

Tuesday’s argument had none of the ideological intensity of the earlier disputes over Obamacare. Instead, Clement focused on how the Congress of 2010 had enlisted the help of private insurers to take more risk by expanding their coverage.

“The program depended on a clear and enforceable promise that the government would pay for a portion of any losses incurred by the health insurance companies that stepped forward,” he said. Congress made “a clear promise to pay” to cover those losses, he said.

If the high court agrees, it could leave Congress facing a $12 billion debt.

The case heard Tuesday, called Maine Community Health Options vs. United States, combined appeals from insurers in different regions of the country. It will be several months before the justices issue a ruling.

———

©2019 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Won't Halt Challenged Border Wall Projects
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Won't Halt Challenged Border Wall Projects

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court declined by a 5-4 vote Friday to halt the Trump administration's construction of portions of the border wall with Mexico following a recent lower court ruling that the administration improperly diverted money to the project. The court's four liberal justices dissented, saying... Read More

With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?
Immigration
With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?

President Donald Trump came into office vowing to repeal and replace Obamacare. While he successfully neutralized the health care law’s requirement that everyone carry insurance, the law remains in effect. When Fox News host Chris Wallace noted that Trump has yet to put forward a replacement... Read More

John Roberts’ Latest Deciding Vote Spurs Wrath of Conservatives
Supreme Court
John Roberts’ Latest Deciding Vote Spurs Wrath of Conservatives

The latest Supreme Court vote cast by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejecting an effort by a Nevada church to ease limits on attendance at its services during the coronavirus pandemic, was condemned by conservative lawmakers. Roberts was the decider late Friday, joining the court’s liberals in... Read More

With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?
Political News
With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?

President Donald Trump came into office vowing to repeal and replace Obamacare. While he successfully neutralized the health care law’s requirement that everyone carry insurance, the law remains in effect. When Fox News host Chris Wallace noted that Trump has yet to put forward a replacement... Read More

Justice Ginsburg Says Cancer Has Returned, But She Won't Retire
Supreme Court
Justice Ginsburg Says Cancer Has Returned, But She Won't Retire
July 17, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday she is receiving chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer, but has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court. The 87-year-old Ginsburg, who spent time in the hospital this week for a possible infection, said she began chemotherapy... Read More

Despite Supreme Court Ruling, Administration Rejects New DACA Applications
Immigration
Despite Supreme Court Ruling, Administration Rejects New DACA Applications

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is venturing onto increasingly shaky legal ground as officials reject new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, sidestepping a Supreme Court ruling reinstating DACA, legal experts and lawmakers say. The court ruled last month that the Trump administration... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top