This Pathfinder addresses the new sources of payment to acute care providers and the particular claims disputes that are likely to arise under the Affordable Care Act.
No Lawyer-Client Relationship Created
This guide does not create in any way, shape or form an attorney-client relationship. Once again, no attorney-client relationship is formed nor should any such relationship be implied. In addition, any information sent by email through the internet is not confidential and does not create a lawyer-client, advisory, or fiduciary, relationship.
The Affordable Care Act adds distinct groups of newly insured persons who will receive coverage under its provisions and thus generate health care claims for the providers of these services.
First, there is an expansion of Medicaid eligibility for those individuals and families with income below specified income limits. There are active challenges to the implementation of this section of the law because it does not provide for subsidization of health care exchanges operated by the federal government.
Second, there is an expansion of insurance to individuals and families who do not have access to health insurance through their employer.
Third, there is an expansion of insurance to certain individuals under the umbrella of the insurance coverage of a parent.
Fourth, there is expanded access to insurance for individuals with preexisting conditions because insurers will no longer be able to exclude coverage nor charge extra for patients with preexisting conditions.
Fifth, there is expanded access to employees of companies with 50 or more full time employees. Implementation of this feature is presently delayed until 1/1/2015.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted by Public Law 111-148 of 2010, in the 111th Congress. The source bill is H.R. 3590 111 Cong.
No Legal Advice Provided
The material on our research guide’s website is intended to provide only general information and comment to our clients and the public. This research guide is created for educational purposes only. Although we make our best efforts to ensure that the information found on our website is accurate and timely, we cannot, and do not, guarantee that the information is either. Nor do we guarantee the accuracy of any information contained on websites to which our website provides links.
Do not, under any circumstances, rely on information found on our website as legal advice. Legal matters are often complicated. The law changes frequently and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Being general in nature, the information and materials provided may not apply to any specific factual and/or legal set of circumstances. For assistance with your specific legal problem or inquiry please contact a knowledgeable lawyer, who practices in your area of need and would be pleased to determine whether she or he can assist you. The State Bar Association is ordinarily a good source for referrals for competent attorneys.
In Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), the US Supreme Court heldl that the ACA's imposition of minimum essential health insurance coverage to be invalid under the Commerce Clause but that it was a valid as a "tax" which cleared the way for states to implement insurance clearing houses for individuals to purchase health insurance policies. Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. at 2591 and 2601 (2012).
Additionally, the Court held that the statutory provision allowing HHS to penalize whose States which did not participate in Medicaid expansion exceeded Congress's power under the Spending Clause. Id. at 2608.
