Timothy Jost on the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision
<p>In a 6-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court today decided that the government can provide subsidies to lower- and moderate-income Americans who purchase health plans through federally run marketplaces, or exchanges, established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).</p><p>In a new post on <em>The Commonwealth Fund Blog</em> and the <em>Health Affairs Blog</em>, Washington and Lee University School of Law’s Timothy Jost, J.D., looks back at the history of the <em>King v. Burwell </em>case and reviews the Court’s ruling.</p>
<p>As Jost explains, the Court concluded that the phrase in the law at the center of case, “Exchange established by the state,” was ambiguous. The majority cited other ACA provisions that assume tax credits are available everywhere in the nation, regardless of who operates the exchange.</p>
<p>Given this ambiguity, the Court “turned to the broader structure of the Act to determine its meaning,” Jost says, finding “ample evidence that reading the statute as the plaintiffs argued it would contravene the purpose of the ACA. It would destabilize insurance markets, creating the problem Congress adopted the law to avoid.”</p>
<p>Jost notes that the Court’s decision is also likely to send a message to lower courts that it is time to conclude other ongoing ACA litigation.</p>