Sign Up for Email Alerts Visit us on Twitter Visit us on Facebook Visit us on YouTube Subscribe to RSS Feeds


Home > Covering Health Issues: A Sourcebook for Journalists Fall 2013 - Table of Contents > Chapter 1 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
 

Chapter 1 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Change Text Size:   Smaller Text Size   Larger Text Size   Default Text Size    

NOTE: Charts and graphs for this chapter are listed in the right column of the page.
CHAPTER 1 - PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Content Last Updated: 2/27/2015 3:10:09 PM
Graphics Last Updated: 10/1/2013 8:56:15 AM
Note: Terms in green will show glossary definitions when clicked.

Written by Julie Rovner, NPR. Updated February 2015 by Sabah Bhatnagar and Deanna Okrent, Alliance for Health Reform

WHAT'S NEXT

  • A newly elected Republican Congress could impact the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). For example, a bill that has already passed in the House seeks to define full time work as 40 hours a week instead of 30. Enactment of the bill could make it easier for employers to avoid paying a penalty for not providing health insurance coverage for their employees.1 
  • The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments March 4, 2015 in the King v. Burwell case that questions the legality of subsidies offered through the federal health insurance marketplace, and is likely to hand down a decision in June.2 
  • Demographic data from the 2015 open enrollment period will impact premiums for 2016. As of January, a higher rate of young adults enrolled in marketplace plans for 2015 compared to 2014. But, demographic make-up may change due to an influx of sign-ups at the end of the open enrollment period.3  
  • CMS announced a special enrollment period extension, between March 15 and April 30 2015, for those facing a penalty when filing taxes for not having health insurance in 2014.4  

FAST FACTS

  • The percentage of uninsured individuals has dropped by 30 percent following the 2015 open enrollment period.5
  • Out of the 37 states using the healthcare.gov marketplace, 7.1 million individuals have chosen plans or been automatically reenrolled as of January 2015. In states operating their own marketplaces, 2.4 million selected a plan during the same time period.6
  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that marketplace enrollment will reach 25 million by 2017.7 
  • The CBO projects that the share of legal, nonelderly residents with insurance will rise from 86 percent in 2014 to 92 percent by 2017.8 
  • The number of uninsured Americans fell from 37 million in 2010, about 20 percent of the population, to 29 million, or about 16 percent of the population, after the first open enrollment period ended in 2014.9
  • Enrollment numbers continue to rise, even in states opposed to the ACA. For example, 43 percent of those eligible for coverage in North Carolina are enrolled in a health plan as of January 2015.10

BACKGROUND

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) officially rolled out its major coverage provisions on October 1, 2013, but it remained as controversial as the day President Obama signed it, according to polls. And the public remained confused about what the sweeping law does – and does not – do, even as the major provisions neared implementation.11

Some of the confusion likely came because lawmakers were forced to write the law in two separate parts. Due to the political situation arising from the loss of the Democrats’ 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in January of 2010, Congress could not finish work on the law in the normal manner: by convening a House-Senate conference committee to work out differences in the versions of bills passed by the House in November of 2009, and by the Senate that Christmas Eve.12 13

As a result, the health law is actually two separate laws. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is actually the Senate-passed bill as passed without change by the House on March 21. The ACA’s March 23 signing by the president was followed a week later by that of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which included the changes to the bill negotiated by House and Senate Democrats. Both passed without Republican votes.14 15 

Within hours of the law’s signing, legal challenges were filed, including one that would ultimately be joined by more than half the states. It asserted that the law’s requirement for most people to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority.16

SUPREME COURT

Although implementation was proceeding as scheduled, it was not until June 28, 2012, that the Supreme Court settled the threshold legal question. In a 5 to 4 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, the court held that Congress could, in fact, impose the controversial so-called individual mandate, although not as an exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce, as asserted in the law and by the Obama administration in court. Rather, wrote Justice Roberts, because the penalty for lacking insurance is paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), it is a tax, and therefore the law is acceptable under Congress’ taxing power.17

But while the court upheld the individual insurance requirement, it did impose a significant — and unexpected — change to the law. The states had also argued that the law’s expansion of Medicaid — the joint federal-state health program for those with low incomes — was unfairly coercive. The states argued that the law essentially blackmailed them by making them either expand Medicaid to everyone with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (amounting to $15,282 for an individual in 2013), or give up all their Medicaid funds. The court agreed, and the justices held that the Medicaid expansion is effectively a state option.

In November 2014, the Supreme Court announced its plans to hear King vs. Burwell, a case that questions the legality of subsidies offered through the federal health insurance marketplace. The plaintiff argues that wording in the ACA prohibits the issuance of tax credits and cost-sharing reductions offered by states that do not operate their own exchanges. The Supreme Court plans to hear oral arguments in the case on March 4, 2015.18 A verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could result in millions losing their subsidies and likely their health coverage.19 During 2014 enrollment, 87 percent of individuals enrolling through the federal marketplace were eligible for premium tax credits.20

WHAT THE ACA DOES 

The coverage provisions of the law have gained by far the most attention. But they are only one of three major pieces of a multi-part measure. There are many comprehensive summaries of the law (including several located at the links at the end of this chapter). What follows is a much more rudimentary summary that can serve as a beginner’s guide to the law:

Insurance Reforms

Most portions of the law that are already in effect attempt to establish new rights and benefits for patients from private insurance companies.

Several of the insurance-related provisions ensure that patients can see certain specialists without having to get permission from a primary care doctor and get preventive care services without having to pay deductibles or copayments. They also bar insurance companies from dropping coverage because a person gets sick.21 Also, parents now may keep adult children on their health insurance plans until age 26.

Another rule highly touted by the Obama administration requires insurance companies to spend 80 to 85 percent of each premium dollar (depending on the policy) on direct medical expenses, rather than on administrative costs or profit. If a plan exceeds the limit, called a medical loss ratio, it must refund the difference.22

And, the law requires that premium increases greater than 10 percent be automatically reviewed, making it easier for states to deny rate hikes.23

Controversy erupted late in 2013 when millions of individuals lost health insurance plans that did not comply with the ACA. The Obama administration responded to consumer complaints by giving health plans an additional two years to meet the law’s standards.24

Quality Improvement, Delivery System Changes and Cost Containment

One of the most frequent complaints about the ACA is that it does not do enough to contain the rising cost of health care. But it does include changes intended to test possible ways to make care more efficient, effective, and, hopefully, less expensive in the future. Here are just a few:

  • Patient-Centered Medical Homes are intended to encourage doctors to work in partnership with nurses and other health professionals to provide primary care services. The idea is to give patients a one-stop shopping experience where they can get multiple medical needs met. But it is also intended to offload minor tasks to junior members of the team and free up physicians for activities that require their level of training.25

  • Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, are groups of physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers that band together to manage the health of a population of patients, and take the financial risk for keeping those patients healthy across a wide variety of care settings. ACOs, which are similar to health maintenance organizations and other types of managed care plans, are designed to encourage care quality improvement.26
  • Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, one of the more controversial cost-related provisions of the ACA, called for a 15-member panel to make recommendations for keeping Medicare spending within certain limits compared to the growth of the economy as a whole. Starting in 2013, Congress was required to act on IPAB’s proposals or pass legislation that would save the same amount of money. If Congress failed to act, the secretary of health and human services was required to implement the cuts as recommended. However, as of January 2015, the Obama administration had not appointed anyone to the board. For the moment the matter is moot – since passage of the ACA, the growth of Medicare spending has slowed to the point that no action to launch IPAB appears imminent.27

Health Insurance Coverage Expansion

Most of the major expansions of insurance coverage are set to begin Jan. 1, 2014, and the law has already extended coverage to millions. An estimated three million young adults are covered on their parents’ plans, while insurers are barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing health conditions. 

Much of the attention, when it comes to expanding coverage, has gone to the health insurance exchanges, which the Obama administration has renamed health insurance marketplaces. These are online portals where, at least at first, individuals and small businesses will go to shop for insurance, find out if they qualify for tax credits or subsidies to help them afford coverage and, if they have very low incomes, get referred for enrollment in Medicaid.28

Originally, Medicaid was expected to account for half of the law’s increase in coverage; about 17 million more people by the year 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). After the Supreme Court’s ruling, though, the Medicaid expansion estimate dropped. (See Medicaid chapter). 29 30

But while many people are expected to obtain insurance coverage under the ACA because they will be able to afford it for the first time, others will be able to get insurance because of the rule taking effect in 2014 that bars insurance companies from refusing to sell people insurance because they have a pre-existing health condition, or charging them more because of that.

It is that provision that prompted Congress — at the urging of the insurance industry — to also include the requirement for nearly every American to maintain insurance coverage, so the costs of people who are sicker can be more evenly spread across the broadest possible population.31 The insurance industry, however, has maintained that the penalties for failure to obtain that insurance — starting at the greater of $95 or one percent of taxable income in 2014 — is lower than the cost of purchasing insurance.32

Public Health and Prevention

The ACA also includes provisions geared toward improving population health. (See Public Health and Prevention chapter.) The law created the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF).33 Money is used for activities ranging from prevention programs to workforce building initiatives. These activities include community and clinical prevention initiatives; research, surveillance and tracking; public health infrastructure; immunizations and screenings; tobacco prevention; and public health workforce and training.34 The ACA originally allocated $15 billion over its first 10 years for the PPHF. On February 22, 2012, President Obama signed legislation cutting the PPHF budget by $5 billion over 10 years to help pay for the continuation of payroll tax breaks and other initiatives.35 Due to these cuts and other budgetary decreases, federal funding for fiscal year 2014 was $1 billion instead of $1.5 billion, removing any money allocated toward ACA implementation.36 37

Long-Term Services and Supports

One thing the law will not include is a program to help people pay for long-term care services provided in the home. (See Long-Term Services and Supports chapter.) As part of the year-end bill to address the “fiscal cliff,” at the end of 2012, Congress repealed the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. It had been the last legislative wish of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The Department of Health and Human Services had stopped implementation of the measure in the autumn of 2011, declaring it financially non-viable. But supporters of the measure had maintained hope that a way could be found for the measure to be mended rather than repealed.38

ISSUES AND LIKELY POLICY DEBATES

  • Affordability. The ACA was expressly designed to help spread the cost of insurance more broadly. That will help mostly older and/or sicker people pay lower premiums, thus making insurance more affordable. But to make that happen, others will pay more, mostly those who are younger and/or healthier.

    Insurance companies have referred to these higher premiums for the younger and healthier as “rate shock.” And they say that two things may happen. In the individual market, where people have a choice between purchasing coverage or paying a fine, many younger people will opt to simply pay the fine, since in most cases it will be far less than the cost of coverage, even after penalties are fully phased in. Though it may not be known how many people will pay fines for lacking coverage in 2014 until tax year 2014 Internal Revenue Service records are analyzed, it appears that rate shock will not materialize in 2015. A study analyzing premiums in cities in 15 states indicates a slight decline in premiums for benchmark insurance plans in 2015.39
  • King vs. Burwell. A verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could result in a few scenarios.  One possibility is that Congress will change the law’s wording to include subsidies offered through federally-facilitated marketplaces. Another option is for state legislatures to create their own exchanges in order to avoid the loss of subsidies, which advocates say are necessary for plan affordability and to avoid drop-off.

    Due to the complicated process involved in setting up a marketplace, the federal government could start defining “partnership exchanges” as state-based marketplaces. This challenge could also drive states to seek innovation waivers in order for them to design and implement an alternative plan that does not meet all ACA requirements, but still expands coverage.40
  • Employer Impact. Because young people will be more directly subsidizing older people (older people can only be charged three times more than younger people, compared to five or even seven times more under many states’ previous limits), their insurance could become unaffordable and they may be forced to drop it and pay the fine.41

Insurance companies and policymakers worry that businesses will stop offering coverage to workers, or cut back their hours, so they won’t be covered by the requirement that employers with 100 or more full-time workers provide a minimum level of insurance. That requirement was originally scheduled to take effect at the beginning of 2014, but the Obama administration delayed its start until 2015. The same requirement for employers with 50-99 employees has been delayed until 2016 (See Employment-Based Health Coverage chapter.)42

Some companies that have already made such cutbacks, however, have seen a public relations backlash. And, workers who no longer are eligible for workplace coverage will be able to obtain coverage in the new health care exchanges, likely with federal subsidies. That could, however, end up increasing the cost of the law to taxpayers.43

  • Cost Containment. Many critics have complained that the law doesn’t do enough to rein in health care spending, or that what it does do may not work.44

But there remains a huge debate about what would work. Republicans generally want to limit government involvement in health care and let markets work more freely. Democrats want to stay the course with the ACA and have been taking credit for the recent slowdown in health spending, even though it is far from clear that the slowdown it can be attributed to the law, or that the trend will continue.45 46

According to CMS, Medicare ACOs and Medicare Shared Savings Plans have improved quality and contained cost growth.47  Though, almost half of Pioneer ACOs have dropped out since 2011 due to financial losses and mixed results.48

A new CBO report issued late January 2015, reduced the cost estimate for providing health insurance coverage under the ACA. The new cost estimate of  $571 billion in the fiscal years 2015 through 2019 is 20 percent lower than the original estimate of  $710 billion for the same period,  according to the release.49

  • Contraception. The ACA includes a contraceptive mandate requiring that all forms of FDA-approved contraception be provided, without deductible or copay, to women of reproductive age as part of the essential benefits package.50 51However, some recent controversy has erupted over who gets to opt out. Some of the fights over details of the law have risen to levels nearly as high-profile as the fate of the law itself.

    The original proposal exempted churches and other houses of worship, but not religious hospitals, universities, and other entities that employ people of multiple religions. Religious entities, particularly the Catholic Church, objected. They complained that being required to provide contraception, and particularly the morning-after pill, violated their religious freedom.52

    After much negotiation and discussion, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sought a compromise that attempted to guarantee access to contraception to women who work for religious entities, while protecting the religious rights of the employers. But  lawsuits continue around the country. In March 2014, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a large arts and crafts company with thousands of employees. Hobby Lobby argued that the ACA requirement to cover contraception violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court ultimately found for the plaintiff, Hobby Lobby.53 

EXPERTS

Analysts/Advocates

Henry Aaron, senior fellow, economic studies, Brookings Institution, 202/797-6128, haaron@brookings.edu

Drew Altman, president and CEO, Kaiser Family Foundation, 650/854-9400

Stuart Altman, professor of national health policy, Brandeis University 781/736-3804 altman@brandeis.edu

Joseph Antos, Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy, American Enterprise Institute, 202/862-5800, jantos@aei.org

Deborah H. Bae, senior program officer, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
609/627-5812, dbae@rwjf.org

Joe Baker, president, Medicare Rights Center, 212/869-3850, jbaker@medicarerights.org

Georges Benjamin, executive director, American Public Health Association, 202/777-2742

Linda Blumberg, senior fellow, Health Policy Center, Urban Institute, 202/261-5709, LBlumber@ui.urban.org

Stuart Butler, The Brookings Institution,
202/797-6105, smbutler@brookings.edu

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies, Cato Institute, 202/789-5200,
mcannon@cato.org

Nancy Chockley, president and CEO, National Institute for Health Care Management, 202/296-4426, nchockley@nihcm.org

Gary Claxton, vice president and director, Health Care Marketplace Project, Kaiser
Family Foundation, 202/347-5270

Sabrina Corlette, research professor and project director, Health Policy Institute,
Georgetown University, 202/687-3003, sc732@georgetown.edu

Richard Curtis, president, Institute for Health Policy Solutions, 202/789-1491

Judy Feder, professor, Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, 202/687-8397

Paul Fronstin, director, Health Research Program, Employee Benefit Research Institute, 202/775-6352, fronstin@ebri.org

Jon Gabel, senior fellow, National Opinion Research Center, 301/634-9313,
Gabel-Jon@norc.org

Paul Ginsburg, Norman Topping Chair in Medicine and Public Policy
Professor of the Practice of Health Policy and Management, USCPrice 202/494-9499, ginsburg@usc.edu
 
Stuart Guterman, vice president, The Commonwealth Fund, 202/292-6735,
SXG@cmwf.org

Dan Hawkins, senior vice president for public policy and research, National Association of Community Health Centers, 202/296-0131, dhawkins@nachc.org

Sinsi Hernández-Cancio, health equity director, Families USA, 202/628-3030,
shernandez-cancio@familiesusa.org

G. William Hoagland, senior vice president, Bipartisan Policy Center, 202/204-2400, gwhoagland@bipartisanpolicy.org

John Holahan, fellow, Health Policy Center, Urban Institute, 202/261-5666

Andrew Hyman, team director and senior program officer, Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, 609/627-5764, ahyman@rwjf.org

Timothy Jost, Robert L. Willett Family Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law, 540/421-1529, 540/564-2524, jostt@wlu.edu

Genevieve M. Kenney, co-director and senior fellow, Health Policy Center, Urban
Institute, 202/261-5568, jkenney@urban.org

Robert Laszewski, president, Health Policy Strategy Associates, 703/727-9517,
robert.laszewski@healthpol.com

Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 888/631-9989

John Lumpkin, senior vice president and director, Health Care Group, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 609/627-5724, jlumpkin@rwjf.org

Enrique Martinez-Vidal, vice president for state policy and technical assistance,
Academy Health, 202/292-6729, Enrique.Martinez-Vidal@academyhealth.org

Dan Mendelson, founder and CEO, Avalere Health, 202/207-1310,
dmendelson@avalerehealth.net

Tom Miller, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 202/862-5886

Robert Moffitt, senior fellow, Heritage Foundation, 202/608-6210,
Bob.Moffit@heritage.org

Len Nichols, director, Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics, George Mason
University, 703/993-1978

Edwin Park, vice president for health policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 510/524-8033, park@cbpp.org

Kip Piper, president, Health Results Group, 202/558-5658,
piper@healthresultsgroup.com

Ron Pollack, executive director, Families USA, 202/628-3030

Karen Pollitz, senior fellow, Kaiser Family Foundation, 202/654-1307

Robert Reischauer, distinguished institute fellow and president emeritus, Urban
Institute, 202/261-5400, Rreischauer@urban.org

Sara Rosenbaum, Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Department of Health Policy, 202/994-4230, sarar@gwu.edu

John Rother, president and CEO, National Coalition on Health Care, 202/638-7151 x110, jrother@nchc.org

Diane Rowland, executive vice president, Kaiser Family Foundation, 202/347-5270,
drowland@kff.org

James Tallon, president, United Hospital Fund, 212/494-0777, jtallon@uhfnyc.org

Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute, 703/299-8900

Paul Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 202/408-1080

Alan Weil, Health Affairs, 202/903-0101

Gail Wilensky, senior fellow, Project HOPE, 301/656-7401, gwilensky@projecthope.org

Cynthia Woodcock, executive director, The Hilltop Institute at UMBC, 410/455-6274, cwoodcock@hilltop.umbc.edu

Steve Zuckerman, co-director and senior fellow, Health Policy Center, Urban Institute, 202/833-7200, SZuckerman@urban.org

Government/Government Related

Michael Hash, director, Office of Health Reform, Department of Health and Human
Services, 202/205-1424, michael.hash@hhs.gov

Joy Wilson, health policy director, National Conference of State Legislatures, 202/624-5400

Vicky Wachino, acting director, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 401/786-3871

Mark Miller, executive director, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 202/220-3700

Matt Salo, executive director, National Association of Medicaid Directors,
202/403-8620, matt.salo@namd-us.org

Stakeholders

Brenda Craine, director of media and editorial, American Medical Association, 202/789-7447

Elizabeth Fowler, vice president of global health policy, Johnson & Johnson,
202/589-1000, LFowler3@ITS.jnj.com

Alissa Fox, senior vice president, office of policy and representation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, 202/626-8618, alissa.fox@bcbsa.com

Ida Hellander, director of policy and programs, Physicians for a National Health Program, 312/782-6006, Ida@pnhp.org

Karen Ignagni, president and CEO, America’s Health Insurance Plans, 202/778-3203, kignagni@ahip.org

Charles Kahn, president and CEO, Federation of American Hospitals, 202/624-1500

Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO, Catholic Health Association, 202/296-3993

Gerald Shea, project director,  Buying Value Project, National Quality Forum, 202/256-7577

Bruce Siegel, CEO, America’s Essential Hospitals, 202/585-0100

Janet Trautwein, CEO, National Association of Health Underwriters, 202/552-5060

Richard Umbdenstock, president and CEO, American Hospital Association, 202/626-4628

WEBSITES

Alliance for Health Reform: www.allhealth.org

American Enterprise Institute: www.aei.org  

Altarum Institute: www.altarum.org  

Avalere Health: www.avalerehealth.net  

Brookings Institution: www.brookings.edu

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: www.Healthcare.gov

Center for Studying Health System Change: www.hschange.com  

The Commonwealth Fund: www.commonwealthfund.org  

Congressional Budget Office: www.cbo.gov  

Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org  

Kaiser Family Foundation: www.kff.org  

National Academy for State Health Policy: www.nashp.org  

National Governors Association: www.nga.org

National Institute for Health Care Management: www.nihcm.org  

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: www.rwjf.org  

Urban Institute: www.urban.org

ENDNOTES

1 Ydstie, John. Congressional Republicans Take Another Swing At Obamacare (January 8, 2015). NPR. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/vLa9M5 

2 Oral Argument Calendar, Session Beginning February 23, 2015. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/cWGWB 

3 Health Insurance Marketplace 2015 Open Enrollment Period: January Enrollment Report (January 27, 2015). ASPE. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/zaTc5w 

4 O’Donnell, J. and Ungar, L. Feds Grant Another ACA Deadline Extension. USA Today (February 20, 2015). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/rr6CY8 

5 Rattner, S. (February 21, 2015). For Tens of Millions, Obamacare Is Working. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/YCym7P 

6 Health Insurance Marketplace 2015 Open Enrollment Period: January Enrollment Report (January 27, 2015). ASPE. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/zaTc5w 

7 How Many Individuals Might Have Marketplace Coverage After the 2015 Open Enrollment Period? ASPE (November 10, 2014). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/sqjxEp 

8 Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act – CBO’s February 2014 Baseline(February 2014). Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/sUqwYI 

9 Collins, S. et al. The Rise in Health Care Coverage and Affordability Since Health Reform Took Effect. The Commonwealth Fund(January 15, 2015). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/fTqcZK 

10 Pradhan, Rachana. Red States See Insurance Rise Despite Obamacare Opposition. Politico Pro (January 29, 2015). Retrieve from http://goo.gl/HnY0Vi 

11 Public Opinion on Health Care Issues. Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, 5(March, 2013). Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/XB8lzm 

12 Hulse C. and Pear R. (Nov. 7, 2009) Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House. The New York Times A1. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/4Z0hXt 

13 Pear, R. (Dec. 25, 2009). Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote. The New York Times, A1. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/vhZaKV 

14 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law 111-148(March 23, 2010). U.S Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/gquATY 

15 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Public Law 111-152(March 30, 2010). U.S Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/jH2TsC 

16 14 States Sue to Block Health Care Law(March 23, 2010). CNN Wire Staff. CNN.Com. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/imGGSj 

17 National Federation of Independent Business et al v Sebelius. No. 11-393( June 28, 2012). Retrieved from http://goo.gl/rukDRW 

18 Oral Argument Calendar, Session Beginning February 23, 2015. Supreme Court of the United States. http://goo.gl/8hfUbO 

19 Bagley, N. et al (January 8, 2015). Predicting the Fallout from King v. Burwell — Exchanges and the ACA. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/IxzxpO 

20 Jost, T. (June 18, 2014). Implementing Health Reform: Premiums And Choice In The 2014 Health Insurance Marketplace (Updated). Health Affairs Blog. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/azEFrV 

21 How does the health care law protect me? HealthCare.Gov. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/8IdGLj 

22 New Affordable Care Act Rules Give Consumers Better Value for Insurance Premiums(Nov. 22, 2010). HHS Press Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/jNX6jG 

23 Affordable Care Act helps fight unreasonable health insurance premium increases(May 19, 2011). HHS Press Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/NPzevz 

24Radnofsky, L. (March 5, 2014). Obama Gives Health Plans Added Two-Year Reprieve. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/bl5duC 

25 Defining the Patient-Centered Medical Home. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/u5ziyy 

26 Accountable Care Organizations: Improving Care Coordination for People with Medicare(December 21, 2010). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. HealthCare.Gov. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/PP8Xq5 

27 Zigmond, J. Reform Update: It’s funding gutted, IPAB fades into background. January 2014. http://goo.gl/sY1tlE 

28 About the Health Insurance Marketplace. HealthCare.Gov. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/SBnvIt 

29 CBO and JCT’s Estimates of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Number of People Obtaining Employer-Based Insurance(March 2012). 13. Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/A22tx3 

30 Congressional Budget Office. (July 2012.) Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision. 18. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/tFudMA 

31 Abelson, R. (Oct. 26, 2011). Insurers Weigh in on Health Care Law. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/CWhDYF 

32 Time for Affordability. America’s Health Insurance Plans. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/LpzIH4 

33 Prevention and Public Health Fund Factsheet. American Public Health Association. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/dbRpE1 

34 Prevention and Public Health Fund (2012). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/X6hNfK 

35 The Prevention and Public Health Fund (February 23, 2012). HealthAffairs. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/jNEIi 

36 Updated Chart of Prevention and Public Health Fund Allocations, FY 2010 enacted through FY 2014. APHA. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/Cg9AMN 

37 Kliff, S. (April 19, 2013) The Incredible Shrinking Prevention Fund. The Washington Post Wonkblog. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/uvBHeU 

38 Christy, J. (Jan. 3, 2013). Congress’ Fiscal Cliff Agreement Repeals CLASS Act. LeadingAge California Policy Bulletin. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/VJi7pA 

39 Premiums set to decline slightly for benchmark ACA marketplace insurance plans in 2015. Kaiser Family Foundation. September 2015. http://goo.gl/RmY6l7 

40 Baglkey, N. et al. (January 8, 2015). Predicting the Fallout from King v. Burwell — Exchanges and the ACA. The New England Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/acKmO7 

41 Blodgett, H. (July 2, 2102). Here’s How Much the Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/kSlCLK 

42 Eilperin, J and Goldstein A. “White House Delays Health Insurance Mandate for Medium Size Employers until 2016”. The Washington Post. February 10, 2014. http://goo.gl/nbBAKf 

43 Melloy, J. (Dec. 4, 2012). Red Lobster Fears Diner Backlash From Anti-Obamacare Stance. CNBC.com. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/168MBT 

44 Laszewski, R. (April 10, 2011). What will it take to Bring America’s Health Care Costs under Control? Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/DjCpQU 

45 Antle, J. (July 3, 2012). Health Care Reform and GOP Alternatives. The American Spectator Spectacle Blog. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/VjAJ48 

46 Sebelius, K. (March 7, 2103). Good News on Health Care Spending. HealthCare Blog, HealthCare.Gov. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/VjAJ48 

47 Medicare ACOs continue to succeed in improving care, lowering cost growth, CMS.gov. September 2014. http://goo.gl/SwQemX 

48 Pennic, J. (October 7, 2014). Pioneer ACOs Dropout: Why Are Providers Leaving in Droves? HIT Consultant. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/s87237 

49 Pear, R. “Budget Office Slashes Estimated Cost of Health Coverage.” NYT January 26, 2015. http://goo.gl/MXb6eL 

50 Nocera, K. (July 19, 2011.) Institute of Medicine report: Insurers should cover birth control as preventive care. PoliticoPro. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/E0QJDM 

51 Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventive Services At No Additional Cost (August 1, 2011). HHS Press Office. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/EDtCU9 

52 USCCB Urges Rescission of HHS Contraceptive Mandate, Criticizes ‘Inexplicably Narrow’ Definition of Religious Freedom(Aug. 31, 2011). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/pr9BDY

53 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. SCOTUSblog. March 25, 2014. http://goo.gl/kTne1F

 
Search Sourcebook
Please enter your search word or words below to search the current sourcebook.


Sister Carol Keehan on Health Law Enrollment Challenges this Year


Graphics for This Chapter

Figure 1.1 Major Revenue Sources

Figure 1.2 Paying for Coverage Expansions

Figure 1.3 Health Coverage Under ACA

Figure 1.4 Timeline of Key Elements

Figure 1.5 The Requirement to Buy Coverage

 

This sourcebook for journalists was made possible with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Copyright 1997-2015 Alliance for Health Reform
1444 Eye Street, NW, Suite 910 Washington, DC 20005-6573      202-789-2300      202-789-2233 fax      info@allhealth.org      Sitemap