THCB

Awaiting the Court’s Decision on Healthcare

The Supreme Court has already decided the fate of the health reform law, and in a few short weeks the rest of us will know whether it is upheld, struck down entirely, or badly damaged. Of the possible decisions, four are the most likely and each would have significant ramifications.

1)  The Court could uphold the law. Prior to oral arguments, this was the conventional wisdom. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s stinging questions led many to change this view, but he has surprised Court watchers before.

If he springs another surprise and supports the individual mandate, the law’s implementation would continue unabated. States that have waited for the Court’s decision would start moving on exchanges and essential benefits.

HHS would issue more regulations: on subsidies, employer penalties, insurance requirements, and others. However, it is common knowledge that many of the more controversial rules are being slow walked until after November 6th so as to not complicate President Obama’s reelection chances.

Upholding the law would certainly raise the stakes of the November elections. Should Democrats hold the Senate and/or President Obama win reelection, it’s likely the law would be permanently ensconced. On the other hand, should Republicans control the House and Senate and Governor Romney win the presidency, they will try to repeal the law or gut it through budget reconciliation before major provisions take effect in 2014.

But based on the “train wreck” of oral arguments, it seems unlikely that the law will escape the Court unscathed. It is more likely that the law will be damaged.  The question is, to what extent?

2)  The Court could rule that the mandate is unconstitutional and such a central piece of the law that it is not severable from the rest, thus striking down the entire law.

When a law is voided, it’s as though it never existed, like the memory hole in Orwell’s 1984. That means all insurance requirements would be gone, including the universal contraception mandate, medical loss ratio, and covering children with pre-existing conditions. Gone, too, would be drug benefit rebates for seniors, quality demonstrations, and every new program.

Providers would have to sue the federal government to recover losses from reimbursement cuts. Pharmaceutical manufacturers would have to file suit to recover the billions of dollars in fees they have paid. HHS could try to recover grant funding.

While we would avoid the catastrophe of a federally-dominated health system, we would pay a huge opportunity cost: the healthcare system would still be broken, and Washington would be so damaged that the prospects of any meaningful reforms in the coming years would be near zero.

This scenario is possible, but precedent on severability seems to make it fairly unlikely.

3)  The Court could rule that the mandate is unconstitutional and also grant the government’s request that if the mandate is overturned, two key provisions should go as well: 1) guaranteed issue, which would require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, and 2) community rating, which would equalize premiums for everyone.

The Justices seemed very skeptical of the Court deciding which provisions are related to the mandate and which are not, making the likelihood of this decision very slim.

4)  The Court could strike down the individual mandate by itself.  Based on the blistering questions from the five conservative Justices and case precedent, this seems to be the most likely decision.

What would happen in the individual and small-group markets if the mandate is overturned but guaranteed issue and community rating remain? By allowing individuals to sign up for a policy when they are sick and pay a low premium, insurers would take a staggering financial hit. To make up for the tremendous loss, premiums in group or employer plans would skyrocket – the ultimate cost shift.

The individual and small-group markets outside of the exchanges would likely disappear, as the child-only market did in 2010 because of the guaranteed issue requirement for kids.

HHS could try to postpone some implementation dates while it seeks a regulatory solution. Congressional Democrats could try to replace the mandate with stronger high-risk pools or auto-enrollment for employer-sponsored insurance. But given the narrow control either party will likely have in the Senate, a legislative solution would be a remote possibility at best.

It would be a huge mess.

Like the children’s book series Choose Your Own Adventure, all of these potential decisions carry great risks. Let’s hope that through the chaos, we can find our way back to the path that actually improves care, expands coverage, and lowers costs.

Merritt has been a health policy adviser to three presidential campaigns. He is a senior advisor at Leavitt Partners. This post first appeared at The Hill.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

13
Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
JEPittsburghMaggie MaharSteveHBobbyGDeterminedMD Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Maggie Mahar
Guest

JE Pittsburgh– Totally agree with one of your comments: Even if the mandate is struck down, the subsidies, along with Medicare, expanded Medicaid, & tax benefits for smal businesses will mean that many more people will have insurance. Health reform will go forward,. Though at the same time, premiums will be higher. (This will be a problem, which is why we will need to find another way to enforce the mandate) But I’m afraid that your earlier comment is somewhat misleading. I had written that “In New York State, you can’t buy insurance unless you can show that you have… Read more »

JEPittsburgh
Guest
JEPittsburgh

I have spent 20+ yrs in healthcare and health policy and I have always thought that the individual mandate was a key part of the ACA. However, a recent study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation showed that only 6-7% of people are impacted by the individual mandate. This number is derived from the fact that the other 93% are covered by employer based insurance, existing individual insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and the new subsidies in the ACA. Where eliminating the mandate has a big impact is premiums – the report found that premiums would increase between 10-25% without the mandate… Read more »

JEPittsburgh
Guest
JEPittsburgh

“In New York State, you can’t buy insurance unless you can show that you have been continuously insured” I used to work in health policy in NY and I have no idea where you are getting this. I think you are confusing purchasing health with pre-existing condition exclusions b/c there is nothing stopping a person from buying coverage b/c they have been uninsured. Quite the opposite – NY has community rating and guaranteed issue in the individual insurance market making it virtually impossible for an insurer to turn anyone down. You are correct NY does have some good programs to… Read more »

Maggie Mahar
Guest

If only the mandate is struck down, the court will be saying that it is unconsitutional to charge people a penalty if they dont’ buy insurance. But there are other ways to persuade nearly everyone to buy insurance. In New York State, you can’t buy insurance unless you can show that you have been continuously insured– as I recall if you lose your job and your insurance, you have 3 months to get new insurance through Cobra or in the market. For low-income people, New York offers “Healthy New York”– relatively low-cost insurance. Meanwhile insurers cannot charge you more based… Read more »

DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

Wow, what choices we have, first a partisan congress and president that concocted this crap legislation without accepting important input from parties directly involved in what was politically crafted, and now 2 years later await what appears to be equally partisan decisions to stop the legislation. Does anyone who reads at this site think and act like a true moderate, an invested independent, who just sees the two polar extremes that run the Democrat and Republican parties as merging into one minority group trying to run this society as their own monarchy? If someone reacts extremely against this growing tide… Read more »

BobbyG
Guest

“If someone reacts extremely against this growing tide of dictating without representation, I won’t feel much pain or anguish. I would feel for innocent bystanders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time though.”
___

Is that an advocation of violence? Against the President, maybe? Or, Democrats in Congress. You goin’ all Ted Nugent on us here?

DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

No, just tired of bullshit run amok amongst a society that has no clue what really is needed done to try to rectify the black hole we skirt the periphery now. Dependency is the real cancer that is devouring Americans. Money, toys, quick outs, drugs are fourth or lower on the list.

And the usual suspects here just want it presented in a pretty box and a flamboyant bow that is Obamacare.

Society has to contract to survive. But, the public can’t handle the truth.

As does most of the usual commenters here.

BobbyG
Guest

I just finished reading David Graeber’s “Debt: the first 5,000 years.”

The U.S. is SO far in denial. We are screwed. Not gonna be pretty.

DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

Watch George Carlin’s show Back in Town, 1996, last 5 minutes. Sums up politics perfectly for me. We are governed by Republocrats, all that is different is the mascot and color every 4 to 8 years these past 20 plus years.

What a choice, the blatant greed of the right, or the clueless redistribution of wealth to eventually go to the few from the left.

Who is worst, the guy who robs you with a knife, or the guy who picks your pocket? Still out the money at the end of the day.

Jared J. Balis
Guest

David, thanks for putting the four main possibilities in such an easy-to-understand format. I’ve been sorting through the information on the web to determine the possible outcomes, because my career as an insurance agent hinges on the outcome of this decision. I was quite happy to see your article show up on my smartphone rss feed. Thanks for presenting it so clearly.

Sincerely,

Jared J. Balis

tomd39
Guest
tomd39

The Affordable Care Act is a miserable compromise in a country not willing to move to the single-payer model and not willing to address the true cost hiding relationship between health insurance and healthcare providers. I’m not sure that a court decision against isn’t all that bad because it would cause us to examine the crisis with greater care and insight.

BobbyG
Guest

Yeah.

I followed the development of PPACA closely.

http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2009/08/public-optional.html

The whole “affordable coverage” stuff therein is indeed a byzantine mess.

SteveH
Guest
SteveH

“a country not willing to move to the single-payer model”

Most countries don’t have single-payer models. Germany doesn’t, Japan doesn’t, the Netherlands doesn’t, France doesn’t. Need I go on? The idea that the rest of the world has single-payer and the ACA is a botched job because it’s not single-payer is pernicious.