It’s been 6 years since the passing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the House of Representatives has been battling the Obama administration ever since. As tensions regarding health care reform grew, the House took a legal step in 2014, filing a lawsuit that attempted to hold President Obama accountable for supposed abuses of power.
House efforts were rewarded in May of 2016, when one of their cases was ruled against the Obama administration. The lawsuit focused on the funding for cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments within the ACA, as well as the lack of appropriation for such funding. The presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer concluded that the action of reimbursing insurers for any cost incurred while fulfilling requirements under the ACA to be unconstitutional. These costs include reducing cost-sharing for individuals with income levels below 250% of the poverty line.
We all know that health care in this day-and-age is expensive. Cost-sharing reduction payments are important in making more affordable health insurance and health care accessible to the low-income families of America.
CSR payments work in two ways: (1) Reducing the out-of-pocket maximum, and (2) Increasing the actuarial value of silver plans.
Simply put, CSR payments save us money and insurers take on the financial burden.
But, of course, someone had to pay their reimbursement—the U.S. Treasury.
The House formed their argument in court around our Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law….” (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7).
Meaning, money can’t be taken from the Treasury’s funds without it being set aside for that specific use. After hearing the facts, Judge Collyer declared that CSR payments must be stopped.
Appeals, though none have been filed, are expected to be heard in the fall of 2016.
