Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

Supreme Court tells U.S. government to pay insurers $12 billion under Obamacare

Published 04/27/2020, 10:13 AM
Updated 04/27/2020, 04:00 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Supreme Court Building

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal government must "honor its obligations" and pay private insurers $12 billion owed to them under an Obamacare provision aimed at encouraging them to offer medical coverage to uninsured Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The 8-1 ruling authored by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor paves the way for a significant one-time cash infusion for major companies such as Humana Inc (NYSE:HUM), Anthem (NYSE:ANTM) Inc and Centene (NYSE:CNC) Corp. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that Congress had suspended the government's obligation to make such payments under the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare.

Unlike other litigation involving Obamacare - long targeted by Republicans for repeal in Congress or invalidation through the courts - this case concerned only payments to insurers and did not directly challenge the law itself.

The Supreme Court in its next term, which starts in October, is set to hear a more politically freighted case concerning a bid by 20 Democratic-led states including California and New York to preserve Obamacare in the face of a challenge by Republican-led states backed by President Donald Trump's administration. [L1N2AV0MJ]

In Monday's ruling, the court sided with insurers that had argued that the lower court ruling would have let the government pull a "bait-and-switch" and withhold money the companies were promised.

"The government should honor its obligations," Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the five conservative justices, was the sole dissenter, saying the court's ruling "has the effect of providing a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost."

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

Moda Health Plan Inc and other insurers that sued to try to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make the payments have said the government was supposed to help them recover from early losses they suffered after the law was passed by Congress in 2010 and signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

The law has enabled millions of Americans who previously had no medical coverage to obtain insurance, including those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Other insurers involved in the case included Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Maine Community Health Options and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company.

"We appreciate that today's Supreme Court 8-1 decision ensures that the federal government honors the obligations it made for services the private sector already delivered," said Matt Eyles, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group representing insurers.

An HHS spokeswoman said officials were "disappointed in the court's ruling."

Payments would have come through the law's so-called risk corridor program designed to mitigate insurers' risks from 2014 to 2016, when they sold coverage to previously uninsured people through exchanges established under Obamacare.

Insurers that paid out significantly less in claims on policies sold through the exchanges than they took in from premiums provided some of their gains to the government. Insurers that paid out more were entitled to government compensation for part of their losses.

From 2015 through 2017, Congress passed legislation barring HHS from using general funds to pay the government's risk corridor obligations. Health insurers turned to federal courts to obtain the payments.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in 2018 that Congress effectively repealed its obligation to pay the insurers, prompting the insurers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In a case directly challenging Obamacare, the Supreme Court in 2012 upheld the bulk of the law. Three years later, it rejected another challenge to it.

Latest comments

Supreme court got it right can't ignore the law you passed.
Obama's failed legacies continue to be costly even after his presidency. The timing couldn't have been more grotesque than what it is.
So you're saying the gov't was right to bailout the banks that created the Great Recession with their own greed during the Busch adm. Loosening of banking laws. But it's wrong to pay out an obligation that was and is still law? I don't like seeing insurance co's get rich off something that should be a right to American people but remember the republicans blocked the public option so that all the money would flow to the private insurers.
  I like your passive-aggressive implication of me supposedly being in favour of the banks having been bailed out even though I didn't mention any such thing. I realize that through the use of a morally fueled fake counter statement you are trying to reach a moral high ground to give validity to your view. Except that when you employ such tactics the basis of your argument is weakened since your reaction was fuelled by some anti-republican emotion instead of something genuine. Sorry kiddo, but if you can't make a counter statement without insinuating something I did not mention then it's better to not say anything. Oh, and it was Bill Clinton and his partner in crime then secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo, who sped up the easy-housing policies and resulting in the inflated housing bubble, and on top of that Billie boy repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 by the Financial Modernization Act in 1999 i.e. deregulating banking laws BEFORE George W Bush took office.
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.