Individual Mandate

Subscribe to Individual Mandate

On December 15, 2022, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) published final regulations that make permanent certain relief and changes relating to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) reporting requirements. Specifically, the final regulations (1) include an automatic 30-day extension for providing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to covered individuals and employees, which would otherwise be due on…

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) recently issued proposed regulations affecting certain reporting deadlines under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).  Specifically, proposed regulations would make permanent an automatic 30-day extension for issuing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to covered individuals and employees, which would otherwise be due by January 31. The proposed regulations also…

Roughly a year ago, we reported on a district court judge’s determination that the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) individual mandate was unconstitutional and that, therefore, the entire ACA was invalid. A detailed summary of the district court’s decision can be found in our December 17, 2018 post. Not surprisingly, this ruling was appealed to…

The Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate (i.e., the requirement that most individuals obtain adequate health insurance or pay a penalty) is dead.  A side effect of the ACA mandate’s demise is that states are beginning to step-in and pass their own versions of the individual mandate.  Massachusetts, of course, has long had an individual mandate…

In a surprising turn of events, on Friday, December 14th, a district court judge in the Northern District of Texas declared that the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) individual mandate is unconstitutional and that, a result, the entire ACA is invalid. Although the ACA remains in effect for the time being and an immediate appeal to the 5th Circuit is a near certainty, the decision, if upheld, could be expected to have a significant impact on health care delivery. Following a high-level summary of the litigation, we highlight the major implications this ruling could have on employers and plan sponsors.

After health care reform efforts failed in late-Spring/early-Summer, things have been quiet. However, Congress returned to DC this week. Although legislative focus now appears to be on general tax reform, we expect some health care reform legislation (whether stand-alone or as part of tax reform) during the new session. Recent developments are provided below.

  • Senator

…

Below is a summary of significant health care reform developments over the past two weeks.

  • GOP Repeal and Replace Efforts Stalled. After releasing a revised version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) on July 13, 2017, Senate Republican leadership pushed strongly for its passage. After the BCRA failed to get sufficient support, the

…

On June 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court released its much anticipated King v. Burwell decision regarding the validity of premium assistance issued by Federally-run Marketplaces.  Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, agreed with the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) interpretation that premium assistance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “ACA”) is available to individuals who purchase coverage on both State-run and Federally-run Marketplaces.  With the Supreme Court’s King ruling, the provisions of the ACA have prevailed in two of four key challenges (the Court upheld the individual mandate, but rejected a requirement that states expand Medicaid, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and rejected the contraceptive mandate in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.).