Policy & Regulation News

King v. Burwell Aftermath: Summary of Reactions and Responses

By Jacqueline DiChiara

- Big healthcare news is finally here. Reactions to today’s landmark King v. Burwell decision from the Supreme Court are plentiful. Here is a summary of recently acquired statements from various corners of the healthcare industry today in reaction to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision. King v. Burwell examines whether or not federal premium subsidies issued to residents in states without a state-established exchange are permissible.

King v. Burwell

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the millions of Americans who now have affordable health care – many of them for the first time in their lives – because of Obamacare,” says Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a statement released today. "It is long past time for Republicans to end their efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act and join us in fulfilling the promise of quality, affordable health care for all," says Boxer.

States Lily Eskelsen García, The National Education Association (NEA) President, “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell will let millions of Americans breathe a little easier knowing that their health insurance is secure and will remain affordable. The subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act help increase school children’s access to quality health insurance and medical care.”

“This is a key opportunity for Congress and the Administration to work together to solve health care's seemingly intractable affordability issues. They can start by tweaking the current system of subsidies to incentivize patients, insurers, and providers to bring down health costs,” says Joel White, President of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage. “Altogether, these steps would increase access to affordable health coverage and promote greater health plan choice, while lowering costs for states, taxpayers, and consumers,” confirms White.

  • WA Non-Profit Health System Will Reimburse Patients in Charity Care Agreement
  • Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Spending Increased Leading Up to Pandemic
  • CMS Proposed Rule Modernizes Discharge Planning Requirements
  • “This disastrous decision is a terrible attack on the rule of law because it sends the message that the rule of law does not matter; whoever has most power, the strongest attorneys and the biggest voice wins,” according to Twila Brase, President and Co-Founder of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF). “Without the rule of law, it becomes the rule of power – all up to interpretation. Claims of intent and outside interpretations of intent will now rule, not the actual words written in the law. When we start allowing the loose interpretation of law based on after-the-fact claims of intent, the foundation of the rule of law crumbles,” Brase claims.

    “Today’s ruling assures Midwestern families of moderate means that they will not be forced to choose between paying for essentials, such as food and rent, or health insurance,” maintains Sabra Rosener, Vice President of Government Relations at UnityPoint Health. 

    Regardless of your own opinion on the ruling, today is a monumental day for the healthcare industry with an impact that is essentially both far-reaching and transitionary.