SUBSCRIBE NOW
$5 for 3 months. Save 83%.
SUBSCRIBE NOW
$5 for 3 months. Save 83%.

After SCOTUS decision, Gov. Tom Wolf to withdraw state-run insurance market

SARA BLUMBERG
YorkDispatch

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf will be withdrawing his plan to set up a state-based health insurance market after a Supreme Court ruling Thursday upheld subsidies of the Affordable Care Act.

" As a result of this decision, roughly 382,000 Pennsylvanians will keep their much-needed assistance to help them afford health care," he said in a statement. "I am pleased to say that we will no longer need to rely on this plan."

On Thursday, The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.

The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement.

The decision in Pennsylvania brought support and opposition.

Local reaction: Andy Carter, president and CEO of the Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, said residents could now rest easy.

"About 81 percent of Pensylvanians who have secured health coverage through the federal marketplace receive these vital subsidies," Carter said. "That is more than 380,000 Pennsylvanians who rely on this financial support to keep their and their family's necessary health coverage."

Jenny Englerth, CEO of Family First Health, said the ruling was moving the country one step closer to affordable healthcare coverage.

"As a community health center, Family First Health sees patients at all income levels, many of whom rely on subsidies to maintain their health care coverage," she said in a statement.

U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said he would work to replace Obamacare.

Some officials weren't satisfied with the outcome.

"Today's court ruling does not change the fundamental fact that Obamacare is inflicting widespread damage on our economy and our healthcare system," he said in statement.

U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-York County, said he was disappointed overall, and the Affordable Care Act made a promise to cut costs and make coverage more affordable for families.

"However, his claims haven't held up to the facts," Perry said in a statement. "Many 4th District families, small business owners and medical providers I've met have told me about the increased cost of health insurance under this law and its unbearable mandates."

Dr. David Hawk, medical director for the York City Bureau of Health, said that while his organization does not have an official position on the ruling, creating access to affordable healthcare is important.

"We support people getting health insurance," he said. "The Affordable Care Act has helped with that, and that's a good thing."

Ruling: Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.

Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

The challenge devised by die-hard opponents of the law, often derided by critics as "Obamacare," relied on four words — established by the state — in the more than 900-page law.

The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government.

In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only available to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.

The administration, congressional Democrats and 22 states responded that it would make no sense to construct the law the way its opponents suggested. The idea behind the law's structure was to decrease the number of uninsured. The law prevents insurers from denying coverage because of "pre-existing" health conditions. It requires almost everyone to be insured and provides financial help to consumers who otherwise would spend too much of their paycheck on their premiums.

The point of the last piece, the subsidies, is to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a so-called death spiral of declining enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people and premium increases by insurers.

Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said that subsidies would be limited, and several states said in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchange for their residents to get tax credits.

The 2012 case took place in the midst of Obama's re-election campaign, when he touted the largest expansion of the social safety net since the advent of Medicare nearly a half-century earlier. But at the time, the benefits of the Affordable Care Act were mostly in the future. Many of its provisions had yet to take effect.

In 2015, the landscape has changed, although the partisan and ideological divisions remain for a law that passed Congress in 2010 with no Republican votes.

The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.