Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act

This morning, as the last opinion of its 2012 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision upholding the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on very narrow grounds. As a consequence, all of the provisions of the Act remain in effect, except for a provision relating to enforcement of expanded Medicaid eligibility. Employers, human resource professionals, health care insurers and other service providers should continue to meet the Act's requirements as they unfold over time.

Individual Mandate Upheld Under Taxing Power

What is the Mandate?

The ACA individual mandate (also called a "shared responsibility" provision) requires Americans who are not exempt for religious or other reasons, and who can afford health care coverage but do not obtain it beginning in 2014, to pay a penalty assessed (starting in 2016) by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). ACA permits those who believe that they cannot afford health care coverage to seek a waiver and avoid the penalty.

What Did the Court Do?

In the cases before the Court, the federal government (represented by the Solicitor General) justified the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the Constitution. The government relied upon Congress' enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the clause permitting the levying of taxes.

Explaining that the Court does not address the wisdom or soundness of the policies animating the ACA, Chief Justice Roberts (who wrote and read the narrow decision this morning) focused on the Court's single responsibility: to determine whether Congress acted within its powers under the Constitution.

The Court first rejected the Government's justification for the mandate under the Commerce Clause and found that the Commerce Clause only permitted Congress to "regulate" activities in commerce. The Chief Justice noted that the Framers of the Constitution "understood the difference between doing something and doing nothing." For these reasons, the Court also rejected the government's justification under the Necessary and Proper Clause, finding the mandate, though necessary to the ACA's goals, an improper exercise of power.

The Court did accept the government's justification for the mandate under Congress' authority to levy taxes. The ACA authorizes a penalty beginning in 2016 to be assessed "in the same manner as a tax" by the IRS against non-exempted individuals who can afford but who fail to obtain health care coverage. The Court concluded that Congress was authorized under the Taxing Clause to impose this penalty. In essence, individuals can choose not to purchase health care coverage and pay the penalty.

Implications for Employers, HR and Service Providers

Patterned after the individual mandate signed into Massachusetts law by then Governor Romney in 2006, the ACA individual mandate does not affect the vast majority of American workers and their families, who are offered health care coverage through their employment.

The likely result of the decision for employed workers with health care coverage will be simple paperwork at tax time. Many, if not most, third-party administrators ("TPAs') and insurers for national employers and/or national health care plans have experience with such documentation. When the Massachusetts penalty provision took effect, for example, TPAs and insurers provided HC 1099s to covered employers with self-insured or insured plans for distribution to their Massachusetts employees. The HC 1099s described the employees' health care plans and group numbers, and the employees then completed a single half page of their state income tax forms with that information, thereby avoiding any penalty.

For those employers that do not offer health care to their employees, and for uninsured individuals, the state health care exchanges will offer a variety of options of coverage, with levels of benefits and coverages keyed to premium costs. At least 36 states have provided preliminary designs for their health care exchanges, which must be in place to offer health care coverage in 2014. In previous Alerts, we have described employer responsibilities for modification of existing health plans and penalties for failing to offer health care coverage:

Employers will need further guidance as they work towards implementing ACA's provisions, especially those relating to the 2014 employer "shared responsibility" provisions and the implementation of the state health care exchanges.

Medicaid Expansion

On a less followed issue, the Court upheld Congress' expansion of Medicaid eligibility, but struck down the provision that permitted the federal government to withhold existing Medicaid funds if a state declined to accept the expansion. Under ACA, more individuals can receive Medicaid benefits under a higher income threshold than several states now permit.

© 2013 Schiff Hardin LLP

About the Author

Of Counsel

Diane M. Soubly concentrates her practice in ERISA litigation and labor and employment litigation, including class action litigation. She has represented an array of public and private sector clients, including Fortune 500 clients, in agency proceedings, in intraplan procedures, and in federal and state court. From the vantage point of having served as both in-house and outside counsel, she emphasizes early collaboration with clients and proactive litigation risk reduction. She is a frequent author of amicus briefs for national employer organizations (including the Equal Employment...

312-258-5622

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.