There Is No ‘Real-World Emergency’ That Would Require Supreme Court To Expedite Health Law Case, GOP Says
Democrats had urged the Supreme Court to take up the case in the current term as it is unlikely otherwise to be decided upon before the 2020 elections. The Republicans, including the Trump administration, were given until Friday to respond. They said there's no need to rush the case through the system.
The New York Times:
Trump Administration Says Obamacare Lawsuit Can Wait Until After The Election
The Trump administration came into office with its top legislative priority clear: Repeal the Affordable Care Act. It failed. Then, when a group of Republican states tried to throw out Obamacare through a lawsuit, the administration agreed that a key part of the law was unconstitutional. But now that defenders of the law have asked the Supreme Court to settle the case quickly, the president’s lawyers say they are in no particular hurry. The case, which seeks to invalidate the entire health care law, can wait for the lower courts to consider certain questions more carefully, they said in a filing to the Supreme Court on Friday. (Sanger-Katz, 1/10)
The Washington Post:
Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court No Need To Rush An Obamacare Ruling
They said the court should not grant a motion by the House of Representatives and Democratic-led states to expedite review of a decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last month. The panel struck down the law’s mandate that individuals buy health insurance but sent back to a lower court the question of whether the rest of the statute can stand without it. (Barnes, 1/10)
Modern Healthcare:
Trump Administration, Red States Urge Supreme Court To Deny Quick Review Of Obamacare Case
Should the Supreme Court take up the issue now, "it would have to confront the severability of statutory provisions spanning 900 pages without the benefit of any decision from the court of appeals on that question, or of a decision from the district court applying the more granular analysis that the court of appeals prescribed." The Republican states challenging the ACA likewise argued that review of the case is premature. They wrote in a brief Friday that Democrats would have filed a petition earlier if there were a true emergency requiring expedited consideration. They further said that undecided issues must be resolved before heading to the Supreme Court. (Livingston, 1/10)
The Hill:
Trump Administration Wants Supreme Court To Delay Hearing On ObamaCare Case
“As the case comes to this Court, no lower-court ruling exists on severability or the appropriate remedy. Far from being urgently needed, this Court’s review thus would be premature,” Francisco wrote. “Absent any operative ruling invalidating the ACA’s other provisions in the interim, the accelerated review petitioners seek is unnecessary,” Francisco wrote of the Affordable Care Act. (Weixel, 1/10)
Politico:
Trump, Red States Ask Supreme Court To Refuse Obamacare Case Before Election
It takes five Supreme Court justices to expedite review. Legal observers believe the court’s four liberal justices would support Democrats’ request to fast-track the case, meaning just one conservative justice would need to agree. Some think that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has previously authored two decisions upholding Obamacare, would provide that vote. Though the Supreme Court rarely intervenes in a dispute before it's been fully resolved in the lower courts, observers posit that the Obamacare case's high stakes could move them to step in, rather than prolong uncertainty for the health system and millions of people with Obamacare coverage. (Luthi, 1/10)
Vox:
Trump Administration Wants The Supreme Court To Wait On Obamacare Ruling
The case carries heavy implications for the US health care system, and for the 2020 elections as well. Should the Republican plaintiffs succeed in getting the ACA struck down, the Urban Institute estimates that about 20 million people in the US will lose their health insurance. And the result of a Supreme Court ruling could have stark effects on both Democratic and Republican pitches to voters ahead of November’s elections. (Burns, 1/11)
In other health law news —
Modern Healthcare:
Next Generation ACO Model Hasn't Saved Money, Study Finds
The experimental Next Generation Accountable Care Organization model didn't save Medicare money during the first two performance years, according to an analysis released Friday from the agency. Rather than reducing Medicare spending, the Next Generation ACO model, which is now in its fifth and final year, added $93.9 million to net Medicare spending during 2016 and 2017, the first two years of the program, the analysis found. The study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago and commissioned by the CMS, said the increase wasn't statistically significant although at first glance it appears to be a blow for supporters of the model who claimed its been saving Medicare money. (Castellucci, 1/10)
