Just as employers are gearing up to prepare for compliance with the Shared Responsibility rules under the ACA, a pair of decisions from two federal appeals courts has thrown a curve ball into what was already a complicated assessment of risk for employers and raised new questions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
It’s summer now, mid-year 2014. Open enrollment for the 2015 health plan year is just around the corner. . .
We want to make sure that all employers are ready. We want to ensure, as well, that government contractors specifically understand the intersection of the Service Contract Act (SCA) with other federal laws.
To be
The Department of Labor (DOL) has published proposed regulations containing amendments to the COBRA notice provisions. The amendments are intended to align the model general and election notices with the Affordable Care Act provisions already in effect and to ensure that the DOL will have flexibility to modify the model notices going forward.
The proposed
Employer shared responsibility and reporting requirements delayed one year.
Continue Reading ACA Employer Mandate Delayed One Year
We are pleased to announce the launch of Jackson Lewis’ Health Care Reform Resource Center. Our Resource Center provides one convenient place for you to obtain key health care reform-related law, agency guidance, Jackson Lewis articles and related information. We hope you find this resource helpful.
The individual mandate provision of the 2010 health care reform law is unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in Florida v. HHS on August 12th. The Sixth Circuit previously held in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama that the individual mandate is constitutional. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit decision creates a
Group health plans that are not grandfathered under the 2010 health care reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) must provide women’s contraception without cost-sharing beginning with the first plan year that starts on or after August 1, 2012. The three agencies
Write the Rules on Employer Health Care Reform Penalties
Employers now have an opportunity to influence how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s “employer responsibility” “assessable payment” will apply in 2014.
Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code, added by the PPACA, imposes a penalty on employers with more than 50 full-time employees
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to engage in expedited review of the decision of a Virginia District Court that held unconstitutional the individual mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”). The Supreme Court’s April 25 decision suggests there will be a long road to resolution of the constitutional attack on
Federal District Court Judge, Roger Vinson, for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division struck down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), the Federal health reform law dubbed by its critics as “Obamacare,” on Constitutional grounds yesterday. Judge Vinson agreed with the Attorneys General of 26 states that the mandates of the law exceeded the authority granted to the Federal government under the Commerce Clause to the U.S. Constitution. See Bondi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, (N.D. Fla. 1/31/2011). The decision follows three prior Federal District Court decisions, two upholding the law and one striking it down for similar reasons.
The essence of the decision is that the law’s “individual mandate” – which requires all Americans to purchase a minimum level of health insurance beginning in 2014 or incur a penalty, goes beyond the Federal government’s power to regulate interstate commence rooted in what is known as the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. The District Court also held, citing the Justice Department’s own arguments concerning the critical function the individual mandate serves with respect to the PPACA as a whole, that the law “cannot survive without the individual mandate” and must therefore fail along with the individual mandate. In so ruling, Judge Vinson wrote:
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Bondi decision, although it represents a significant victory for opponents of the health reform law, was not a total victory on all points for the Attorneys General and others who filed the lawsuit. Significantly, the District Court declined to order the Federal government to cease its activities in implementing the PPACA. It also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the PPACA’s provisions requiring States to pay for a portion of the expansion of Medicaid beginning in 2014 improperly interfered with State sovereignty.
As a result of these limitations, Bondi will have little immediate practical effect on the implementation of the health reform law. The U.S. Justice Department immediately announced that it would appeal the District Court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
It is unclear how the Eleventh Circuit or the Supreme Court will resolve these legal issues should the case proceed as most expect it will, or what changes might be made to the law in the coming days and weeks as Republicans buoyed by the decision are marshaling their forces in Congress to advance legislation to “repeal and replace.” We’ll all be staying tuned.
The following are some excerpts from the decision which provide a view into the reasoning of the Court . . .