The next attack on the Affordable Care Act may cost you free preventive health care

The next attack on the Affordable Care Act may cost you free preventive  health care

Many Americans breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court left the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place following its third major legal challenge in June 2021. This decision left widely supported policies in place, like ensuring coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, coverage for dependents up to age 26 on their parents’ plan and removal of annual and lifetime benefit limits.

But the hits keep coming. One of the most popular benefits offered by the ACA, free preventive care through many employer-based and marketplace insurance plans, is under attack by another legal domino, Kelley v. Becerra. As University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley sees it, “[t]his time, the law’s opponents stand a good chance of succeeding.”

We are public health and economics researchers at Boston University who have been studying how preventive care is covered by the ACA and what this means for patients. With this policy now in jeopardy, health care in the U.S. stands to take a big step backward.

What did the ACA do for preventive health?

The Affordable Care Act tried to achieve the twin ideals of making health care more accessible while reducing health care spending. It created marketplaces for individuals to purchase health insurance and expanded Medicaid to increase coverage for more low-income people.

One way it has tried to reach both goals is to prioritize preventive services that maximize patient health and minimize cost, like cancer screenings, vaccinations and access to contraception. Eliminating financial barriers to health screenings increases the likelihood that common but costly chronic conditions, such as heart disease, will be diagnosed early on.

Section 2713 of the ACA requires insurers to offer full coverage of preventive services that are endorsed by three federal groups: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Health Resources and Services Administration. This means that eligible preventive services ordered by your doctor won’t cost you anything out of pocket. For example, the CARES Act used this provision to ensure COVID-19 vaccines would be free for many Americans.

Removing the financial barrier has drastically reduced the average cost of a range of preventive services. Our study found that the costs of well-child visits and mammograms were reduced by 56% and 74%, respectively, from 2006 to 2018. We also found that the ACA reduced the share of children’s preventive checkups that included out-of-pocket costs from over 50% in 2010 to under 15% in 2018.

Residual costs for preventive services remain

Despite these reductions in costs, there are limitations to this benefit. For example, it doesn’t cover follow-up tests or treatments. This means that if a routine mammogram or colonoscopy reveals something that requires further care, patients may have to pay for the initial screening test, too. And some patients still receive unexpected bills for preventive care that should have been covered. This can happen, for example, when providers submit incorrect billing codes to insurers, which have specific and often idiosyncratic preventive care guidelines.

We also studied the residual out-of-pocket costs that privately insured Americans had after using eligible preventive services in 2018. We found that these patients paid between $75 million to $219 million per year combined for services that should have been free for them. Unexpected preventive care bills were most likely to hit patients living in rural areas or the South, as well as those seeking women’s services such as contraception and other reproductive health care. Among patients attempting to get a free wellness visit from their doctor, nearly 1 in 5 were later asked to pay for it.

Nevertheless, the preventive health provision of the ACA has resulted in significant reductions in patient costs for many essential and popular services. And removing financial barriers is a key way to encourage patients to use preventive services intended to protect their health.

The threat of Kelley v. Becerra

The plaintiffs who brought the latest legal challenge to the ACA, Kelley v. Becerra, object to covering contraception and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV on religious and moral grounds. The case is currently awaiting decision in a district court in Texas, but seems to be headed to the Supreme Court.

The case rests on two legal issues: 1) violation of the nondelegation doctrine, and 2) the appointments clause of the Constitution. The nondelegation doctrine is a rarely used legal argument that requires Congress to specify how their powers should be used. It essentially argues that Congress was too vague by not specifying which preventive services would be included in Section 2713 up front. The appointments clause specifies that the people using government powers must be “officers of the United States.” In this case, it is unclear whether those in the federal groups that determine eligible preventive care services qualify.

Texas District Judge Reed O’Connor has indicated so far that he takes a kind view toward the plaintiff’s case. He could rule that this provision of the ACA is unconstitutional and put the case on a path to the Supreme Court.

Patients stand to lose more than just money

If Section 2713 were repealed, insurers would have the freedom to reimpose patient cost-sharing for preventive care. In the short run, this could increase the financial strain that patients face when seeking preventive care and discourage them from doing so. In the long run, this could result in increased rates of preventable and expensive-to-treat chronic conditions. And because Section 2713 is what allows free COVID-19 vaccines for those with private health insurance, some patients may have to pay for their vaccines and future boosters if the provision is axed.

The ACA has been instrumental in expanding access to preventive care for millions of Americans. While the ACA’s preventive health coverage provision isn’t perfect, a lot of progress that has been made toward lower-cost, higher-value care may be erased if Section 2713 is repealed.

Lower-income patients will stand to lose the most. And it could make ending the COVID-19 pandemic that much harder.

340B Drug Payment Case Heads to Supreme Court

Supreme court to hear 340B drug payment case

The US Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear an ongoing debate over cuts to 340B drug payments to Medicare hospitals.

The case will be heard during the Supreme Court’s upcoming term, which starts in October. A decision is expected sometime next year.

The case was brought on by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other national hospital groups seeking to overturn HHS’ decision to reduce Medicare reimbursement to hospitals in the 340B Drug Pricing Program by nearly 30 percent.

HHS had finalized the cuts in the 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rule. The federal department said in a fact sheet that the cuts address the “recent trends of increasing drug prices, for which some of the cost burden falls to Medicare beneficiaries.”

Hospital groups led by the AHA challenged the cuts, arguing that reduced drug payments would harm access to care since the 340B Drug Pricing Program includes safety-net hospitals. An appeals court did not agree with their arguments in August 2020, ruling in favor of HHS.

We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the compelling arguments in our case on payments cuts to the 340B drug pricing program that are adversely impacting care to patients,” Melinda Hatton, the AHA’s general counsel, said publicly on Friday.

“We are hopeful that the Court will reject the appellate court decision deferring to the government’s interpretation of the law that clearly imperils the important services that the 340B program helps allow eligible hospitals and health systems to provide to vulnerable communities, many of which would otherwise be unavailable,” Hatton continued.

Other hospital groups also cheered the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the 340B drug payment case.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the appellate court decision, which we believe was legally flawed,”  Maureen Testoni, CEO of 340B Health, said on the group’s website.* “We are hopeful that the justices will reverse the lower court decision that upheld these damaging cuts to many 340B hospitals treating patients with low incomes. In the meantime, we continue to urge the Biden administration to change this harmful policy by abandoning the payment cuts for 2022 and beyond.”

The other plaintiff, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), also said it is looking forward to the consideration of the case.

“The current reimbursement rates reduce the 340B drug discounts granted to safety-net providers, many of which are teaching hospitals,” explained David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC president and CEO. “These hospitals use the current savings to deliver critical health care services to low-income and vulnerable patients, which includes providing free or substantially discounted drugs to low-income patients, establishing neighborhood clinics, and improving access to specialized care previously unavailable in some areas. A reversal of the cuts will ensure that low-income, rural, and other underserved patients and communities are able to access the vital services they need.”

Neither HHS nor CMS provided a public statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the 340B drug payment case.

The Supreme Court lets site-neutral payment policies proceed

https://mailchi.mp/bfba3731d0e6/the-weekly-gist-july-2-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Senators urge CMS to reconsider proposal to expand site-neutral policies |  AHA News

This week, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal challenging Medicare’s 2019 regulation calling for “site-neutral payment” for services provided by hospitals in outpatient settings, clearing the way for the rule’s implementation. The appeal was filed by the American Hospital Association (AHA), along with numerous hospitals and health systems, after a lower court ruling last year upheld the change to Medicare’s reimbursement policies.

The rule aims to level the playing field between independent providers and hospital-owned clinics by curtailing hospitals’ ability to charge higher “facility fees” for services provided in locations they own. Site-neutral payment has been a longstanding target of criticism by health economists and policymakers, who cite the pricing advantage as a driver of consolidation in the industry, which has tended to push the cost of care upward.

The AHA expressed disappointment in the Court’s decision not to hear the appeal, saying that the changes to payment policy “directly undercut the clear intent of Congress to protect them because of the many real and crucial differences between them and other sites of care.” The primary difference, of course, is hospitals’ need to fully allocate their costs across all the services they bill for, making care in lower-acuity settings more expensive than similar care delivered by practices that don’t have to subsidize inpatient hospitals and other costly assets.

Over the years that legitimate business need has turned into a deliberate business model—purchasing independent practices in order to take advantage of higher hospital pricing. As Medicare looks to manage Baby Boomer-driven cost growth, and employers and consumers grapple with rising health spending, expect increasingly rigorous efforts to push back against these kinds of pricing strategies.

An epic ACA trilogy draws to a close

https://mailchi.mp/bade80e9bbb7/the-weekly-gist-june-18-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Affordable Care Act, leaving it in  place | News | albanyherald.com
\

Ruling by a decisive 7-2 margin, in what dissenting Justice Samuel Alito described as the third in “our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy”, the Supreme Court rejected the latest—and likely the last—effort to overturn the 2010 health reform law. Holding that the states and individuals that brought the latest challenge to the law did not have “standing”—the legal right to sue—the high court effectively closed the book on a decade-long series of challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Those efforts have included two previous Supreme Court cases, numerous promises to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, and the neutering of the law’s “individual mandate” to buy health insurance, which led to this latest case, Texas v. California.

At issue in the case was whether, by zeroing out the penalty for not purchasing insurance, Congress effectively removed the ACA’s status as a taxation measure, which the Court had previously held as central to the constitutionality of the law. In Alito’s dissenting opinion, the full implications of the issue are laid out: in his view, by invalidating the mandate, Congress rendered the entire law unconstitutional, meaning that it should be overturned. But a majority of seven Justices, including Kavanaugh and Barrett (both appointed by President Trump) disagreed, joining Justice Breyer in his opinion that no harm had been done to the states that brought the suit, and ordering that the case be returned to the lower court for dismissal.
 
More than ten years after the passage of the ACA, it now (finally) seems as though the law is here to stay. Bolstering its central provisions—subsidized individual insurance coverage, expanded Medicaid benefits, protections for those who purchase insurance—is a centerpiece of the Biden administration’s policy program, featured first in the American Rescue Plan Act, and now in the recovery legislation currently being debated. Republicans, who had long opposed the ACA, barely mentioned it during the last presidential campaign, instead turning their focus to thwarting Democrats’ plans to expand coverage by lowering the Medicare eligibility age or implementing a government-run “public option”.

Given the evenly split makeup of the Senate, however, we continue to believe the greatest hurdle such proposals will face is not Republican opposition, but reluctance on the part of conservative Democrats, like Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), whose votes will be needed for any legislation to pass.

With the Supreme Court calling a third strike against challenges to the ACA, and the new administration eager to advance its other priorities (infrastructure, childcare, jobs), for the first time in over a decade, we might just be in for a period of relative calm on the healthcare policy front.

Five takeaways on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision

Obamacare Returns as Galvanizing Issue After Ginsburg Death and Barrett  Nomination - The New York Times

In what has become something of a Washington tradition, the Supreme Court again upheld the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, in the third major case from Republican challengers to reach the high court. 

The margin this time was larger, 7-2, as the High Court appears less and less interested in revisiting the health care law through the judiciary. 

Democrats hailed the ruling as a boost to their signature law, and Republicans were left to figure out a path forward on health care amid another defeat. 

Here are five takeaways:

This could be the last gasp of repeal efforts

It is impossible to ever fully rule out another lawsuit challenging the health law or another repeal push if Republicans win back Congress. 

But after more than 10 years of fighting the Affordable Care Act, GOP efforts at fighting the law are seriously deflated, as many Republicans themselves acknowledge. 

“It’s been my public view for some time that the Affordable Care Act is largely baked into the health care system in a way that it’s unlikely to change or be eliminated,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of Senate GOP leadership. 

Asked if he still wanted to repeal and replace the law, which was the GOP rallying cry for years, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said instead, “I think I want to make sure it works,” before attacking former President Obama’s promises about the law’s benefits. 

Even Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who helped bring the lawsuit against the health law as attorney general of Missouri, said Thursday that the Supreme Court had made clear “they’re not going to entertain a constitutional challenge to the ACA.”

Supporters of the law said it is now even more entrenched, despite years of GOP attacks

“The war appears to be over and the Affordable Care Act has won,” said Stan Dorn, senior fellow at the health care advocacy group Families USA. 

Still, not all Republicans are throwing in the towel on at least verbally attacking the law. 

“The ruling does not change the fact that Obamacare failed to meet its promises and is hurting hard-working American families,” said House GOP leaders Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Steve Scalise (La.) and Elise Stefanik (N.Y.). 

And there is at least one ACA-related lawsuit still working its way through the lower courts. Kelley v. Becerra challenges provisions of the health law around insurance plans covering preventive care including birth control.

The Supreme Court was fairly united 

The margin of victory for the health law was fairly large, with even more conservative justices such as Clarence ThomasAmy Coney BarrettBrett Kavanaugh and John Roberts ruling to uphold the law, joining the opinion from liberal Justice Stephen Breyer

The court’s other two liberals, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, also joined the majority of seven. Two conservatives, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented and would have struck down the law. 

Through the three major Supreme Court cases on ObamaCare, the margin of victory has risen from 5-4 to 6-3 to 7-2. 

“There’s a real message there about the Supreme Court’s willingness to tolerate these kinds of lawsuits,” Andy Pincus, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, said of the growing margin of victory. 

The case was decided on fairly technical grounds. The Court ruled that the challengers did not have standing to sue, given that the penalty for not having health insurance at the center of the case had been reduced to zero, so it was not causing any actual harm that could be the basis for a lawsuit. 

Republicans did get some vindication in that Democrats had fiercely attacked Barrett during her confirmation hearings for being a vote to overturn the health law, when in fact she ended up voting to maintain the law. 

The ACA is stabilizing

The early years of the Affordable Care Act were marked with the turbulence of a website that failed at launch, premium increases, and major insurers dropping out of the markets given financial losses. 

Now, though, the markets are far more stable. For example, 78 percent of ACA enrollees now have the choice of three or more insurers, up from 57 percent in 2017, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Democrats, now in control of the House, Senate and White House, were able to pass earlier this year expansions of the law’s financial assistance to help further bring down premium costs. 

The Biden administration announced earlier this month that a record 31 million people were covered under the ACA, including both the private insurance marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid. 

“We are no longer in the Affordable Care Act, ‘How’s it going to go? Is it going to survive?’ mode,” said Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA. “We really are in a whole new phase. It really is: ‘How do we improve it?’”

Republicans face questions on their health care message

The Republican health care message for years was summed up with the simple slogan “repeal and replace.

But now those efforts have failed in Congress, in 2017, and have failed for a third time in the courts. 

That leaves uncertainty about what the Republican health care message is. The party has famously struggled to unite around an alternative to the ACA, so there is no consensus alternative for the party to turn to. 

The statement from McCarthy, Scalise, and Stefanik calling the ACA “failed,” shows that party leaders are not fully ready to accept the law.

The leaders added that “House Republicans are committed to actually lowering health care costs,” which has been a possible area for the party to focus that is not simply about repealing the ACA. 

But any discussion of health care costs is fraught with complications. Republicans, for example, overwhelmingly oppose House Democrats’ legislation to allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices, arguing it would harm innovation from the pharmaceutical industry. 

Grassley reached a bipartisan deal on somewhat less sweeping drug pricing legislation with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in 2019, but that bill went too far for many Republicans as well. 

Democrats want to go farther, but face an uphill climb

With the ACA further entrenched, and control of the House, Senate and White House, Democrats are looking at ways to build on the health law. 

The main health care proposal from the presidential campaign, a government-run “public option” for health insurance, has faded from the conversation and is not expected to be a part of a major legislative package on infrastructure and other priorities Democrats are pushing for this year. 

While the health care industry has largely made its peace with the ACA, pushing for a public option or lowering health care costs means taking on a fight with powerful industry groups. 

Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have instead poured their energy into expanding Medicare benefits to include dental, vision, and hearing coverage, and lowering the eligibility age to 60. 

Allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices also could make it into the package.

“Now, we’re going to try to make it bigger and better — establish, once and for all, affordable health care as a basic right of every American citizen,” said Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.). “What a day.”

Supreme Court upholds ACA in 7-2 decision, leaving intact landmark US health law during pandemic

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act by a 7-2 vote, allowing millions to keep their insurance coverage amid the coronavirus pandemic.

In the decision, the court reversed a lower court ruling finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. However, the court did not get to the key question of whether the individual mandate is severable from the rest of the law. Instead, the court held the plaintiffs do not have standing in the case, or a legal right to bring the suit.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

Breyer wrote that a court must address a plaintiffs’ injuries. But Breyer found there were no injuries, so he asked: “What is that relief? The plaintiffs did not obtain damages.” Breyer added, “There is no one, and nothing, to enjoin.”

A wide swath of industry cheered Thursday’s news.

The American Medical Association called it a victory for patients, so too did America’s Essential Hospitals, a safety net trade group that called it a win. The American Hospital Association said the more than 30 million of Americans who obtained coverage from the law can “breathe a sigh of relief.”

Millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s landmark law passed in 2010 and reshaped virtually every corner of American healthcare. The latest challenge threatened to undo coverage gains under the law that helped drive down the uninsured rate to a record low.

Proponents feared the law was in greater jeopardy following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, part of the court’s liberal wing, which shrunk to just three of a total of nine justices without her.

Those fears now seem to be overblown. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the courts liberals in upholding the law, as did two of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In a rare move, Trump’s DOJ declined to defend the ACA, when the challenge was brought by a group of red states and two men with marketplace plans. Former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now HHS secretary, led a group of blue states to defend the law in federal court. 

Recap of the controversial case

The case centers on the individual mandate, the part of the law that compelled Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fee. The framers of the ACA believed the mandate would help drive healthy people to ensure they weren’t just filled with sick people, risking higher costs and adverse selection for insurers.

Congress effectively killed the mandate in 2017 by setting the penalty to $0.

The plaintiffs’ legal argument was strategic. They directly targeted the linchpin that saved the law in 2012. The Supreme Court largely upheld the ACA in 2012 when it ruled the mandate could be considered a tax and therefore was constitutional. Roberts infuriated conservatives by siding with liberals in that case.

Take that penalty away, by zeroing it out, and the plaintiffs argue the law is no longer constitutional because it can no longer be considered a tax if no money is collected

The key question before the Supreme Court was whether they could simply pluck the individual mandate from the remainder of the monumental health law, throw the entire law out or find some middle ground. 

The plaintiffs have argued that the individual mandate is so intertwined and closely linked to the rest of the law that the entire piece of legislation must fall if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Before arriving at the Supreme Courta lower court ruled in 2019 the mandate was unconstitutional but sent back the key question of whether the mandate could be extracted from the remainder of the law back to the district court. The federal appeals court ruling by a three-judge panel came down along party lines: two Republicans and one Democrat.     

A question of standing

Some legal experts have criticized the challenge because the individual plaintiffs, two Texas men, no longer face any financial penalty if they were to forgo coverage. SCOTUS’ ruling agrees with that logic.

The two men joined the case originally brought by a group of red states. Legal experts said it would have been harder for the group of red states to prove an injury than the two men, John Nantz and Neill Hurley.    

The court seemed skeptical of whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case during oral arguments in November. Justices spent a large portion of the two-hour hearing on the topic. 

The word standing was mentioned at least 59 times, according to the court’s transcript of the hearing, outnumbering other key words such as severability, another important legal concept in the case. 

In one now-telling exchange from oral arguments, Gorsuch seemed confused over the premise of the challenge to begin with: “I guess I’m a little unclear who exactly they want me to enjoin and what exactly do they want me to enjoin them from doing?”

Supreme Court upholds Affordable Care Act

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-affordable-care-act

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a decision released this morning. 

The Republican state plaintiffs, led by Texas, have failed to show they have standing to attack as unconstitutional the ACA’s minimum essential coverage provision, the justices said. 

“Therefore, we reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in respect to standing, vacate the judgment, and remand the case with instructions to dismiss,” they said.

Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined. 

Justice Samuel Alito filed the dissenting opinion in which Judge Neil Gorsuch joined. 

Supreme Court’s ACA ruling looms

Some States Make Obamacare Backup Plans, As Supreme Court Decision Looms :  Shots - Health News : NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court is heading into the last month of its current term with one major healthcare case, the move to invalidate the ACA, yet to be decided, The New York Times reported June 1. 

A coalition of Republican-leaning states, led by Texas, have asked the court to strike down the ACA, signed into law in 2010. The states argue that the entire ACA is invalid because, in December 2017, Congress eliminated the law’s tax penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. The states argue that the individual mandate requiring Americans to gain health insurance or pay a penalty is inseparable from the rest of the law and became unconstitutional when the tax penalty was eliminated.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November, and at least five Supreme Court justices indicated support for not striking down the entire ACA.

The court is expected to rule on the matter before its nine-month term ends at the end of June, Reuters reported. 

HHS asks Supreme Court to keep site-neutral payments in place

Dive Brief:

  • The United States Supreme Court should keep in place a lower court ruling that bars hospitals from receiving higher Medicare reimbursements for outpatient services compared to other providers, according to a brief HHS filed late last week.
  • The 33-page brief filed with the high court is in response to a petition by the American Hospital Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges to hear the case. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last July that HHS had the right to cut payments to hospital-owned facilities in order to achieve site neutrality, reversing the judgment of a district court.
  • Hospitals and HHS have been wrangling about the issue since the federal agency moved to cut payments to hospital-owned outpatient sites in 2019. The Supreme Court will have the final say, whether it decides to hear the case or not.

Dive Insight:

Site-neutral payments have been a hot button issue in the healthcare world for the better part of a decade, after many larger hospital systems began buying up physician practices. Hospitals are reimbursed by Medicare for evaluation and management services at a higher rate than standalone physician groups.

They began collecting those higher fees at the outpatient sites they acquired or opened. From 2012 to 2015, E&M encounters per Medicare enrollee grew at outpatient sites by 22%, versus a 1% drop at physician practices, HHS noted in its brief.

That strategy not only drove up costs to the Medicare program but also put more pressure on individual medical practices to merge with one another to better compete with hospital-owned practices, or be bought out. HHS attempted to remedy the issue by moving toward a site-neutral payment scheme beginning in 2019. Acute care providers, led by AHA and AAMC, sued to stop the change. They appealed to the Supreme Court last summer.

The brief filed by HHS attorneys with the high court asked that its new site-neutral payment policy be retained. The department argued that it did not act beyond the powers delegated to it by Congress, and that body would remedy such a disturbing financial trend on its own if it needed to.

The likelihood the high court will hear the case is low. Attorneys note that the Supreme Court only agrees to hear no more than 5% of cases brought to it for review that involve a federal agency. Moreover, they are even less likely to act if there is no conflict on the issue between the appeals court — which HHS noted in its brief.

If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the appellate court ruling would stand and the site neutral payment rule would remain on the books.

Supreme Court pulls Medicaid work requirements case off docket

The Supreme Court announced Thursday it will no longer hear oral arguments later this month on an appeal over the controversial Medicaid work requirements program in New Hampshire and Arkansas.

Legal experts say the move likely means the case won’t be heard this term and possibly may not be heard at all, especially with the Biden administration signaling a different approach to work requirements.

“By taking the cases off the docket, the court is signaling that it won’t hear them this term and probably that it’ll never hear them at all,” University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley told Fierce Healthcare.

A major question mark, though, is whether the court will vacate the decisions by several appellate courts that upheld lower court rulings that the programs should be struck down. 

“If the Supreme Court is not going to vacate the D.C. Circuit ruling, that means the decision on the books is one that clearly explains why work requirements are not permitted under the Medicaid statute,” said Rachel Sachs, associate professor of law at Washington University, in an interview with Fierce Healthcare. 

She added that it is unlikely for the case to come back and “extremely unlikely that this issue will return in the near future.”

The Biden administration asked the court back in February to cancel the oral arguments originally scheduled for March 29. The administration said in a filing that allowing the requirements to take effect won’t promote the objectives of Medicaid to extend health insurance to low-income people.

President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice called for the court to vacate judgments of appeals courts and remand the case back to the Department of Health and Human Services so it can finish a review of all the waivers.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement back in February that the legal filing seeking the delay was a “politically motivated stunt designed to avoid a Supreme Court decision upholding a program that encourages personal responsibility while still providing healthcare coverage for those seeking gainful employment.”

Arkansas’ work requirements program was installed in 2018 and led to approximately 18,000 people losing Medicaid coverage before the program was struck down by a federal judge.

Appellate courts upheld judgments from lower courts that New Hampshire and Arkansas’ programs did not meet the objectives of the Medicaid program. The states appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the cases late last year.

Court rulings have also struck down programs in other states including Kentucky and Michigan. Kentucky pulled its program in 2019 after a Democrat was elected governor.

Arkansas and New Hampshire’s attorneys general did not return requests for comment on the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday.