|
 The justices considered a challenge by a group of insurers of a
lower court's ruling that Congress had suspended the government's
obligation to make such payments. The insurers have said that ruling
constituted a "bait-and-switch" that would enable the government to
withhold money the companies were promised.
The court's four liberal justices, in addition to Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, all asked questions indicating
they are inclined to vote for the insurers.
"Why doesn't the government have to pay its contracts just like
everybody else?" said Justice Stephen Breyer.
Moda Health Plan Inc and other insurers sued in an effort to compel
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make the
payments. The program in question was designed to help insurers
recover from early losses they suffered after the 2010 passage of
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Democratic former President
Barack Obama.
The law, dubbed Obamacare, has enabled millions of Americans who
previously had no medical coverage to obtain insurance, including
those with pre-existing medical conditions.
Unlike other court cases involving Obamacare, this dispute before
the justices concerns only payments to insurers and does not
directly challenge the law itself.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed most supportive of the
government.
"Has there ever been a case where this court has, in effect,
required Congress to appropriate ... billions of dollars for private
businesses?" he asked the insurers' lawyer, Paul Clement.
Other insurers involved in the case include Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of North Carolina, Maine Community Health Options and Land of
Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company.
If the Supreme Court sides with the insurers, it could result in a
significant one-time cash infusion for major companies such as
Humana Inc, Anthem Inc and Centene Corp, according to a note by
Evercore ISI. Shares of all three were up slightly on Tuesday.
[to top of second column] |
Payments would have come through the law's risk corridor program
designed to mitigate insurers' risks from 2014 to 2016, when they
sold coverage to previously uninsured people through exchanges
established under the ACA.
Under the program, insurers that paid out significantly less in
claims on policies sold through the exchanges than they took in from
premiums provided some of their gains to the government. Insurers
that paid out more were entitled to government compensation for part
of their losses.
Roberts questioned whether any of the insurers would have
participated in the program if the payments were not available.
"Its a good business opportunity for them because the government
promised to pay," he said.
Republicans, who have opposed Obamacare from the outset and numerous
times sought to repeal it in Congress, have called the risk corridor
program a "bailout" for the insurance industry.
From 2015 through 2017, Congress each year passed appropriations
bills that included language barring HHS from using general funds to
pay the government's risk corridor obligations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 in 2018
that Congress effectively repealed its obligation to pay the
insurers.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond
in Boston; Editing by Bill Berkrot)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |
