The US Supreme Court ended yet another significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act this week, bolstering the law’s place in the individual and group benefits market.
Had it been successful, a suit filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA would have eliminated the so-called individual mandate that requires Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
The Supreme Court declined to take up the case after the groups appealed following a win for the Obama administration from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A district court judge also ruled against the challengers in 2012.
The challenge is one of several the Supreme Court has deflected with regard to the 2010 law, including the key 2012 case in which the Court ruled in favor of the majority of the law on a 5-4 vote.
It isn’t the end of legal problems for the ACA, however. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a separate challenge to a key part of the law that would leave millions of Americans without tax-credit subsidies to help them afford health insurance.
Without the subsidies, many believe health reform—particular the requirements placed on employers—would be rendered toothless.
For agents and brokers working in the space, however, either outcome would be beneficial from a business standpoint.
“At some level, brokers will always win because they’re advisors,” Scott Sinder, partner at Steptoe & Johnson and general counsel for the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers told
Insurance Business America. “The [Supreme Court case] will cause confusion, and employers and individuals will need guidance through the confusion.
“From my vantage point, that makes the broker a key player in all these discussions regardless of the case’s outcome.”
You may also be interested in: "What the SCOTUS battle over Obamacare subsidies means for producers"
"House GOP sues Obama over health insurance mandate delay"
"ACA approval rating reaches historic point"
