The D.C. Circuit Got it Wrong. Congressional Intent on Exchange Subsidies Is Clear, If You Know Where to Look

By Robert I. Field

Why would Congress have limited Affordable Care Act subsidies to residents of only some states – those that establish their own insurance exchanges? The law authorizes credits for the purchase of insurance “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.” The D.C. Circuit found that this wording excludes federally established exchanges and that Congress might have intended this to induce states to establish their own exchanges rather than letting the federal government take over.

But the Court acknowledged that there is no evidence of such intent in the legislative history. And such a purpose would conflict with the ACA’s overall goal of extending health insurance access to all Americans.

With no legislative history as a guide, is there another plausible explanation of Congressional intent? Is the best answer to the D.C. Circuit’s opinion that the phrase was a drafting error, as the dissent seems to imply? Why else would it have found its way into the law?

Inartful though it may be, the wording can be seen to serve a different purpose that is consistent with the rest of the ACA. It can be understood not as a way to distinguish exchanges established by a state from those established by the federal government but to distinguish those established publicly from those created privately.

Continue reading

ACA Litigation – Oklahoma’s “Federalism Unit” Piles On

By Nicole Huberfeld

We Who Follow ACA Litigation will continue to be in business.  [On September 19], Oklahoma’s Attorney General sought leave to amend the state’s original complaint regarding the individual mandate.  Now the state claims that the tax subsidies offered to those qualifying for financial assistance to obtain insurance through the exchanges are impermissible.  This amended complaint builds on an existing thread of new challenges that was promoted before NFIB was decided.  (The amended complaint also asks the court to consider the state’s nullification law, which should be struck down based on the Supremacy Clause.)  The ACA challengers that never advanced beyond district court have been seeking leave to amend their complaints with regularity.  Last week I posted about the Pacific Legal Foundation’s new strategy, which is rooted in the Orgination Clause.  (The case was also noted over at Balkinization.)

Oklahoma’s amended complaint is grounded in theories advanced by Jonathan Adler and the Cato Institute.  The argument is that tax credits to support the purchase of health insurance through qualified health plans in the exchanges are only available when the exchanges are created by the states, not the federal government.  They claim that section 1311 of the ACA only contemplated providing tax subsidies in state-run exchanges to incentivize states to create the exchanges and that the federally-established exchanges cannot offer the same tax benefit.  In testimony to Congress, they argued the problem is that the proposed IRS regulation implementing the subsidies for people from 100-400% of the FPL in the exchanges applies to both state and federally-run exchanges, not just state exchanges.  Thus, they claim that the IRS has exceeded its statutory authority.  As Tim Jost noted here, the ACA did intend to permit tax credits in federal exchanges.  I agree with Tim’s analysis and would add that the Anti-Injunction Act probably would apply to this provision; unlike the “penalty” of the individual mandate, this is actually described as a “tax.”  Also, the states are not the appropriate parties to raise this issue; individuals benefit from tax credits, individuals would need to pursue the alleged problem.

Continue reading