Supreme Court Rules Insurers Can Collect $12 Billion From Congress for ACA Losses

April 27, 2020 by Dan McCue
A sign is held up that reads "ACA Is Here To Stay"after ruling was announced in favor of the Affordable Care Act. June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress acted unlawfully when it reneged on a commitment to shield Affordable Care Act insurers from financial losses in the early years of its implementation.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices held insurers are entitled to the money under a provision of the health care act that promised to provide them with a cushion against losses they might incur by selling coverage to people through health care marketplaces.

The provision, known as the “Risk Corridors” program, was a temporary framework inserted into the law to limit the plans’ profits and losses during the exchanges’ first three years (2014 through 2016).

The program established a bar under which the federal government would compensate insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans; under the same formula, insurers that made significant profits had to pay the government.

Some plans did indeed make money and the government collected the money owed. But when insurers suffered losses and sought reimbursement, the government balked.

It did this by an act of Congress — a provision inserted into the Health and Human Services Department’s spending bills from 2015 to 2017 — that limited payments under the “risk corridors” program.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations had argued that the provision means the government has no obligation to pay.

In their petitions to the Supreme Court, the insurers cite Health and Human Services Department statistics to claim they are owed $12 billion.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “in establishing the temporary Risk Corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under §1342’s formula.

“[B]y failing to appropriate enough sums for payments already owed, Congress did simply that and no more: The appropriation bills neither repealed nor discharged §1342’s unique obligation,” she continued. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief … petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Sotomayor went on to say the court’s holding reflects “a principle as old as the nation itself: The Government should honor its obligations.”

“Soon after ratification,” the justice wrote, “Alexander Hamilton stressed this insight as a cornerstone of fiscal policy. ‘States,’ he wrote, ‘who observe their engagements … are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those … who pursue an opposite conduct.’”

Sotomayor was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Steven Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the majority in all but one part of the decision.

The lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito, said in his view, in order for the petitioners to recover the money sought, federal law must provide a right of action for damages.

He says that while the Tucker Act, under which the petitioners brought their lawsuit, provides a waiver of sovereign immunity and a grant of federal-court jurisdiction, “it does not create any right of action.”

“Nor does any other federal statute expressly create such a right of action,” Alito continued. “The Court, however, holds that §1342 of the Affordable Care Act does so by implication.

“Because §1342 says that the United States ‘shall pay’ for the companies’ losses, the Court finds it is proper to infer a private right of action to recover for these losses,” he said. “This is an important step. Under the Court’s decision, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question. This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose.

“Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further. The Court characterizes provisions like §1342 as ‘rare,’ but the phrase the “Secretary shall pay”– the language that the Court construes as creating a cause of action — appears in many other federal statutes,” Alito warned.

Supreme Court

Constitution Does Not Bar Issuance of State Criminal Subpoena to Sitting President
Supreme Court
Constitution Does Not Bar Issuance of State Criminal Subpoena to Sitting President
July 9, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that neither Article II of the Constitution nor the Supremacy Clause categorically preclude or require a heightened standard for the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting president. The 7-2 ruling by the high court in... Read More

Supreme Court Rules Job Discrimination Laws Don’t Protect Church-School Teachers
Employment
Supreme Court Rules Job Discrimination Laws Don’t Protect Church-School Teachers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday banned teachers who work at church-run schools from filing discrimination lawsuits against their employers, ruling that the Constitution’s protection for religious liberty exempts church schools from state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The justices, by a 7-2 vote, shielded two... Read More

Justices Allow Limited Access to Free Birth Control Under ACA
Supreme Court
Justices Allow Limited Access to Free Birth Control Under ACA
July 8, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Trump administration regulation that lets employers with religious objections limit women’s access to free birth control under the Affordable Care Act. The 7-2 decision could have a profound, immediate effect on as many as 126,000 women who... Read More

Chief Justice John Roberts Briefly Hospitalized in June
Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Roberts Briefly Hospitalized in June
July 8, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice John Roberts spent a night in the hospital last month after he fell and injured his forehead while walking for exercise near his home, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Tuesday night. According to court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg, Roberts' injuries required sutures and... Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Cellphone Robocall Ban
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Cellphone Robocall Ban
July 6, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a 1991 law that bars robocalls to cellphones. The case, argued by telephone in May because of the coronavirus pandemic, stems from a 2015 decision by Congress to carve out an exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The... Read More

Supreme Court Rules States Can Penalize Faithless Electors
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Rules States Can Penalize Faithless Electors
July 6, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that so-called faithless electors can be penalized if they renege on their pledge to vote for their state voters' choice for president. Writing for a nearly unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan began with a summation of the electoral... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top