Healthcare Technology Featured Article

September 20, 2012

Oklahoma Fighting Healthcare Reform, with a Twist


Healthcare costs are inching up more slowly than they have in a long time, at a slightly higher rate for employers than employees. But one state is afraid of the penalties employers will face if they didn't offer affordable health coverage to their workers.

Oklahoma's attorney general on Wednesday filed a fresh legal challenge to the federal health-overhaul law, adding a “new twist” to protests against the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Oklahoma and 25 other states had previously argued that the 2010 law was unconstitutional because it mandated that individuals must purchase insurance or pay a fee. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality in June.

The new complaint focuses on the law's distribution of tax credits for low-income Americans to purchase insurance.

The health law was set up to have state-run exchanges set up where consumers could compare insurance plans and apply for federal subsidies to be used toward the cost of premiums. Sixteen states, of which Oklahoma is one, have decided not to set up exchanges and will have the government do it for them.

The law also penalizes employers that don't offer affordable coverage to workers if those workers receive a federal subsidy.

Conservative opponents of the overhaul “believe the law's wording suggests that only state-run programs can offer the insurance tax credits,” arguing that the Internal Revenue Service could not issue a regulation in May that made clear that “credits would go to people in a federally run exchange starting in 2014.”

"Employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the employer mandate," said the complaint, brought by Republican Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

"We are confident that providing tax credits to individuals in every state is supported by the statute and our authority to interpret it," said Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury spokeswoman.

Some lawyers have expressed doubts over whether the state has standing to bring the case. The state also has to demonstrate that the case should go forward because it already is being harmed by the law.

The jury’s out on whether the state will win its case. Some say yes, others, no, that it’s too specious an argument to go anywhere. Time will tell.




Edited by Brooke Neuman
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. [Free eNews Subscription]




SHARE THIS ARTICLE



FREE eNewsletter

Click here to receive your targeted Healthcare Technology Community eNewsletter.
[Subscribe Now]