HHS Releases Proposed Rule To Extend ACA Enrollment, Add More Windows During Year
Another proposed regulation would rescind a Trump administration waiver that allows states to privatize their marketplace exchanges, bypassing healthcare.gov. Meanwhile, lawmakers look to further tweak the Affordable Care Act since the health law survived its latest Supreme Court challenge.
Modern Healthcare:
Biden Wants To Tweak Obamacare Marketplaces To Expand Coverage
The Biden administration is proposing several changes aimed at boosting access to high-quality, affordable health insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplaces, according to a proposed rule released Monday. CMS wants to give people an additional 30 days to enroll in marketplace plans by expanding the annual enrollment period. It currently starts on November 1 and ends December 15, but the new plan would give people until January 15 to enroll in coverage beginning in 2022. The agency also plans to establish a monthly special enrollment period to allow people with low incomes more opportunities to enroll in a premium-free silver plan. (Brady, 6/28)
Bloomberg Law:
Biden Obamacare Proposal Reverses Trump Waiver Of HealthCare.Gov
An HHS proposed rule released Monday would do away with a Trump-era policy allowing states to bypass HealthCare.gov when seeking enrollees for Obamacare plans. The Department of Health and Human Services is also proposing to extend the annual regular open enrollment period for Affordable Care Act plans by an additional month, from Nov. 1 to Jan. 15 as compared with the current end date of Dec. 15. (Johnson, 6/28)
The New York Times:
Obamacare’s Survival Is Now Assured, But It Still Has One Big Problem
Some Democrats are eager to build on their Affordable Care Act victories in the Supreme Court by filling a gaping hole created along the way: the lack of Medicaid coverage for millions of low-income Americans in 12 states. But so far, Republican leaders in those states are refusing to use the health law to expand Medicaid, despite considerable financial incentives offered under the law and sweetened under the Biden administration. Some are trying to defy the will of their own voters, who passed ballot initiatives calling for expansion. And in Washington, Democrats who want to act are divided about when and how. (Kliff, 6/28)
In other news from the Supreme Court —
Modern Healthcare:
Supreme Court Won't Review HHS' Site-Neutral Pay Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal challenging HHS' site-neutral pay policy, allowing the regulation to move forward. A trial court initially struck down the controversial policy in 2019, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed that decision in 2020. The appellate panel said the cuts to off-site outpatient departments were legal because the changes were volume-control measures that don't have to be budget-neutral. The American Hospital Association and Association of American Medical Colleges claimed the D.C. Circuit gave HHS too much authority to interpret the law. The groups estimated the 2019 rule would cost providers about $380 million in 2019 and $760 million from a separate 2020 site-neutral rule. (6/28)
CNN:
Supreme Court Gives Victory To Transgender Student Who Sued To Use Bathroom That Corresponded To His Gender Identity
The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a decision that allowed a transgender student to use the bathroom that corresponded to his gender identity, a victory for the LGBTQ community that has been fearful the high court would take up the case and reverse a lower court opinion. The case concerns the scope of Title IX that prohibits schools from discriminating "on the basis of sex." It began when Gavin Grimm, a transgender male who was then a high-school student, challenged the local school board's decision to require him to use either a unisex restroom or a restroom that corresponds to the sex, female, he was assigned at birth. (de Vogue and Duster, 6/28)
NBC News:
Clarence Thomas Says Federal Laws Against Marijuana May No Longer Be Necessary
Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices, said Monday that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer make sense. "A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government's piecemeal approach," he wrote. (Williams, 6/28)
