Denver, CO - Should the federal government be allowed to help pay for health insurance for people anywhere in the country, or only in states that have set up health exchanges? That's the question before the U.S. Supreme Court today (Wed.) with King v. Burwell. Advocates of the Affordable Care Act say millions of Americans could lose coverage if the court sides with the challengers. Comments from Melissa Hart, director, Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at CU-Boulder; and Adam Fox, director, Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. Image available: Photo of U.S. Supreme Court building.

The U-S Supreme Court will hear King versus Burwell today, a case that challenges whether the federal government can provide financial assistance for health insurance across the nation, or only in states that have set up health exchanges. Advocates for the current law say more than nine-million Americans could lose health insurance coverage if the Court sides with the plaintiffs. Melissa Hart with the Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at C-U Boulder says the ruling could have a big impact here in Colorado.

"If the court rules as the challengers are asking them to, the Affordable Care Act will not work, and even in states like Colorado where we have an exchange, it's not going to work anymore."

Hart says if the court strips away financial assistance for consumers on the federal marketplace, poor and working families could lose tax credits that make coverage affordable, which could drive up the cost of premiums for everyone. She says that could throw the entire healthcare system into chaos.

Adam Fox with the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative says the Affordable Care Act is working - more than 10 million people nationwide now have health coverage who did not have it before. He says more than half of those who got insurance through Colorado's health exchange qualified for financial assistance.

"There are a lot of people that find the cost of health insurance out of their reach, and these financial assistance subsidies that exist really make sure that everybody has at least some access to basic health coverage."

The plaintiffs in the case say the court shouldn't base its decision on possible negative outcomes, but only on the written text of the law. Hart adds key votes on the court, like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, have taken the effects of the court's actions into account in the past, and that could make a big difference in the outcome of this case.

The outcome of a case being heard today at the U-S Supreme Court could have a big impact on health care in Colorado. Eric Galatas has more.

Eric Galatas

Reach Melissa Hart at (303) 229-5323, Adam Fox at (303) 839-1261. Follow the case on the Supreme Court's blog, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/.





get more stories like this via email

After more than 50 years of use, some Michigan lawmakers say naloxone may not be the best choice in an overdose situation.

Naloxone is sometimes called the "Lazarus drug" because of its powerful ability to seemingly resurrect people after a drug overdose.

Sen. Kevin Hertel, D-St. Clair Shores, and some of his colleagues have introduced a bill which would open the door for what they say are more costly, but more powerful, antidotes.

"Given the prevalence of fentanyl in our communities, and how much stronger some of these drugs that we're now seeing are, we believe -- and in talking with others -- that there should be other tools to respond to an overdose," Hertel explained. "To make sure we're doing everything we can to save somebody's life."

Not everyone is on board with the proposed legislation, Senate Bill 542. Opponents argued the more expensive naloxone alternatives are not necessary, and using them would only increase profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Jonathan Stoltman, director of the Opioid Policy Institute in Grand Rapids, said while the naloxone alternatives do help in overdose situations, they can also cause nasty side effects.

"The newer approaches, they put people into more severe withdrawal," Stoltman pointed out. "That's a pretty profound negative side effect. The one approach is very inexpensive and works great; the other approach is far more expensive and has this strong negative side effect."

Sponsors of the bill say they're hoping to give Michigan residents a chance to chime in on the issue in a public hearing sometime in June. Michigan saw more than 3,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2021.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico saw record enrollment numbers for the Affordable Care Act this year and is now setting its sights on lowering out-of-pocket costs - those not reimbursed by insurance. More than 56,000 New Mexicans are enrolled in a medical health insurance plan on the state exchange - an increase of 12,000 people overall.

Colin Baillio, deputy superintendent with the state's Office of Insurance, said the state has boosted its outreach and made efforts to improve the overall consumer experience.

"We saw a 40% year-over-year increase, and New Mexico saw the biggest percentage increase during the open-enrollment period among all of the state-based marketplaces," he explained

Part of the enrollment increase is due to what's called the "unwinding" - a federal directive that required all states to redetermine Medicaid eligibility following a three-year pause on checks during the COVID pandemic. He said by using expanded tools made available by the federal and state government, 8% of New Mexico's population is now uninsured - down from 23% in 2010.

Following approval by lawmakers in the 2024 legislative session, the New Mexico governor signed seven health care-related bills into law - one of which requires annual reporting of prescription drug pricing. Baililo said the Affordable Care Act built the foundation that has allowed the state to pursue additional affordability initiatives.

"I'm really glad to see that there's so much interest in the next step of health reform, really leaning into these out-of-pocket cost issues and making it easier for people to afford to stay covered and see their doctors," he continued.

Two years ago, the state also passed a one-of-a-kind law that did away with behavioral health co-pays for people in certain insurance plans.

New York's medical aid-in-dying bill is gaining further support. The Medical Society of the State of New York is supporting the bill. New York's bill allows terminally ill people with only six months to live to use this option, with safeguards requiring two physicians' approval.

The bill's Assembly sponsor Amy Paulin, D-Westchester, said despite the growing support, other hurdles lie ahead.

"Now we have what I believe, if it came to the floor, a majority. There's still a hesitation on the part of leadership. You know, we need members to assure leadership that they no longer have reservations," she said.

Other newly resolved concerns center on making sure insurance companies and doctors who don't support this aren't held liable. She's optimistic the bill will pass after nine years in the Legislature. New York would be the 11th state along with Washington, D.C. to have medical aid in dying legislation.

Corinne Carey, senior New York campaign director with Compassion and Choices finds the pandemic drew a vivid picture of a person's end-of-life experience. There were images of people dying on ventilators, apart from loved ones, and unable to communicate. She said people began thinking about a "good death."

"And, what is a good death is being surrounded by loved ones, having some measure of control, experiencing the touch of your loved ones, and being the one in the driver's seat," she explained.

Now people have different options for end-of-life care, each of which presents various challenges. Polls show medical aid in dying has garnered considerable support since being introduced in 2015. A 2022 Compassion and Choices poll finds 57% of nurses support medical aid in dying professionally, although fewer support it personally.