By

Jill Schlesinger /

MoneyWatch/ June 28, 2012, 11:08 AM

Health care ruling: What it means for you

CBS/iStockphoto

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed comprehensive health reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. Today, the Supreme Court has largely upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by ruling that the cornerstone provision of the law, the individual mandate, was constitutional.

ACA required U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health coverage or else face a penalty up to 2.5 percent of income. The court noted that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

Read the Supreme Court Decision

The court limited, but did not invalidate the Medicaid provision, which would have expanded Medicaid to all individuals under 65, with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), or around $30,000 a year for a family of four. (Note: there is a quirk to this oft-reported 133 percent: ACA adds a five percentage point deduction from the FPL, which means that the Medicaid eligibility threshold is effectively 138 percent of FPL).

Complete coverage of health care decision
10 best places to retire
When should you take Social Security?

The expansion would have provided coverage to 16 million Americans. However, a majority of the Court held that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.

Given the scope of the law, it was meant to be phased in over a number of years. (The Kaiser Family Foundation ACA timeline is a great resource to track what happens, when). The Supreme Court ruling means that the original timeline of events will largely remain in place.

ACA BENEFITS ALREADY IN PLACE: NO CHANGE

Young adults up to age 26: Approximately 2.5 million young adults are now covered on their parents' policies. Before the decision, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), Aetna Inc. (AET) and Humana Inc. announced that they would keep children on plans to age 26. Additionally, many states had laws on the books that support the young-adult rule.

Watch CBS News' special report on the Supreme Court's ruling.

Ban on lifetime limits: The three insurance companies noted above have also said that they would have kept these popular rules in effect

Ban on denying care due to pre-existing conditions: The insurance industry had said that it would be willing to abide by this rule, except in cases of fraud (i.e. when people lie about their conditions on the application). This provision would have been expensive, however, without the mandate, because of the possibility that only sick people would have signed up for insurance.

Preventive healthcare benefits without imposing co-pays/other out-of-pocket charges: Some of the popular tests that this rule covers are mammograms and colonoscopies. About 54 million Americans now have expanded coverage of at least one preventive service since the law went into effect, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Additionally, 32.5 million seniors took advantage of these preventive services.

Gap in Medicare coverage (aka the "doughnut hole"): Seniors who fell into this coverage gap have enjoyed a 50 percent discount on covered brand-name drugs and 14 percent savings on generic drugs.

Temporary insurance coverage: Two programs have provided coverage for retirees who are over age 55 but not eligible for Medicare and for adults with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. These pools were intended to create coverage until 2014, when permanent solutions are in place.

Require health plans to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs and provide rebates to consumers: When the law went into effect, insurance companies paid out 74 cents on every dollar -- new rules required that amount rise to 80-85 cents

Watch CBS News' special report on the Supreme Court's ruling.

Requirement that insurance companies justify "unreasonably" large healthcare premium increases: ACA also established standards for insurers to use in providing information on benefits and coverage and will eventually create a new federal body that will have power to block insurers from raising rates

Small Business Tax Credits: Employers with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that provide health insurance for employees will receive tax credits for providing coverage

ACA PROVISIONS TO GO INTO EFFECT IN 2014: CHANGE TO MEDICAID PROVISION

Medicaid Expansion: The ACA was supposed to expand Medicaid to all individuals under 65 earning less than 133 percent of the poverty line, or around $30,000 a year for a family of four. The expansion would have provided coverage to 16 million Americans. The Court prohibited the federal government from punishing states for not complying. The feds can withhold new funds from states that don't comply, but cannot withhold all Medicaid funding.

State insurance exchanges: Exchanges will be established to provide access to insurance for those who don't have coverage through work. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 23 million Americans will gain coverage through the state exchanges by 2019. The government will provide tax credits for individuals and families making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which is currently $92,000 for a family of four.

Paying for ACA: The law will be paid for through new taxes and penalties:

-- A new excise tax on high-premium insurance (Cadillac) plans, equal to 40 percent of premiums paid on plans costing more than $27,500 annually for a family, starting in 2018

-- An increase in Medicare payroll taxes on couples with income of more than $250,000 a year

-- Unearned income, like capital gains, subject to additional 3.8 percent tax

-- Customers of indoor tanning salons would pay a 10 percent tax

-- Fees on insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, including $33 billion over 10 years on fees on drug makers, starting in 2014

-- A tax on individuals without qualifying coverage, maximum penalty set at 2.5 percent of income


12 Photos

The day in politics: June 28

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
  • Jill Schlesinger On Twitter » On Google+ »

    View all articles by Jill Schlesinger on CBS MoneyWatch »
    Jill Schlesinger, CFP®, is a business analyst for CBS News. She covers the economy, markets, investing or anything else with a dollar sign. Previously, Jill was the chief investment officer for an independent investment advisory firm. In her infancy, she was an options trader on the Commodities Exchange of New York.

109 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
dano1515 says:
I am in the healthcare industry. I understand all the ins and outs of health coverage. I find it funny that people that do not understand how their own insurance deductibles, co-pays, limitations and plan costs work are the first people that want Healthcare reform. You owe it to yourself to educate yourself on this because the old adage still applies - be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
robert1129 says:
Based on this article, the best thing a rational being can figure is that the Repubs are opposing the law out of habit which is to oppose anything Obama can take credit for. Also, that the large insurance companies have lined their pockets.
reply
dano1515 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Robert. Thanks for your input. A little point you missed is that insurance is to limit risk. Case in point, you buy auto insurance in case you wreck your car. Your risk is the deductible and it does not cover oil changes. But people buy health insurance to reduce costs. This is misguided. The more that is covered the more the costs are. After you agreed on buying a car at a price then added options like different wheels, sunroof or remote starter the price of the car would increase - well health coverage deso the same thing. Insurance companies do not make the prices for premiums - they are reflective. If 10 people cost $1000/yr to insure then following 80/20 MLR (medical loss ratio) the yearly premium would be $1,200. Each would cost $120/yr to insure or $10/mo. If you add more coverage then the $1,200 increases and so does the $10/mo. The big issues are over utilization, malpractice insurance and increased coverage.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Ulgnud says:
Has everyone forgotten that Congress carefully excluded themselves from compliance and penalties for Obamacare when they shoved it down our throats? If it was so good they would be with the rest of us.
reply
sallychicago replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Good comment because Congress gets the BEST insurance in the country, maybe the world. Let us get the same insurance that Congress gets.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rayward73446 says:
Many are griping about what the ACA will cost them, well too bad.

We who have had insurance for decades have been paying your share for health care. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own health care costs, I for one am tired of paying your bills just because you don't want to be responsible for yourself.
Those who really can't afford to get insurance will be offered very low cost, or no cost plans. For the rest of you who have been negligent in covering your own health care, you will FINALLY have to be reponsible and get insurance.

That means my insurance rates, and everyone else like me, may go down. The GOP is pissed because their wealthy insurance company backers will be forced to cut their own inflated salaries to meet the guidelines of the ACA.
Some insurance companies only paid out 50 cents of every dollar in premiums they received.
Jill Schlesinger fudged on the figure in her article the percentage quoted is incorrect. Where are her comments about how the law helps real people?, Saves lives?
CBS should be ashamed for allowing this one sided reporting to exist. Jill Schlesinger, who is too important to deal with the less than well to do, will be no more be ashamed of her lack of details on the this subject than her articles are truthful, or factual.
reply
Ulgnud replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You cannot possibly be that naive. The Congressional Budget Office has already pointed out we were lied to about the costs. Taxes will go up. Somebody has to pay for the handouts.
sallychicago replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I agree and want to thank you Rayward for being one of the taxpayers that paid for my colonoscopy at the County Hospital when I was unemployed and uninsured. Now I'm working and feel the same way you do. I believe if you can afford insurance and if you can get insurance, then do so. That takes the burden off of us who are working and paying (health) insurance taxes.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Prince_Albert_ says:
I know what it means for me - higher premiums to pay for Illegal Immigrant Healthcare

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hhs-obamacare-funded-health-centers-migrants-wont-check-immigration-status



Liberals will be the Death of the US. Should we -seriously- examine dividing this country in two?
reply
sjc_1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.

Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html?tag=re1.channel
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
I think it is odd that it is OK with people that the government forces us to send our kids to war, outsource our jobs to China and give huge tax welfare to the rich but if they force us to have health care that is a big problem.

And no one on the right was screaming about the costs of the immoral and illegal wars, the Medicare Part D giveaway or the massive tax cuts for the rich.
reply
Prince_Albert_ replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The "kids" volunteered, outsourcing of jobs is not controlled by any government and cutting taxes means those who PAID money got money back

All foreign ideas to liberals
sjc_1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The majority of people in this country decide if the $70 billion in tax breaks for the rich expire soon. Representative democracy decides this and I hope they let them expire this year. That is the price the PEOPLE decide is to be paid by the rich, if they do not like it they can LEAVE.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
RepubsRFiscallyLiberal says:
by Misanthrope

What rights will our leaders and the SCOTUS trample on next?

----------

Did you forget the Patriot Act, which stripped us of many 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 6th Amendment rights?

Of course you did.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
This sounds like a really good, well though out plan. I am assuming Republicons had not much to do with that although they are the ones who were pushing for the individual mandate.

Obama does care about Americans
reply
sjc_1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ACA got NO Republican votes in the house nor the Senate, just like Clinton's bill that helped balance the budget. It seems like whether it is Social Security, Medicare of ACA, the Republicans have been the Party of No for a long time but people come to like the programs.
dragonsrme replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Sure he does !!! ANYONE who thinks obama cares about anyone but himself is delusional !!! So everyone who voted for him THANKS FOR INCREASING ALL TAXES !!!! LMAO he did say change though didn't he !!!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jschm2681 says:
So because of the 5-4 decision this should be considered an activist court as Obama said. Roberts has given Romney a big campaign present.
reply
jschm2681 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Obama4- considering 58% are against the healthcare bill, when the rest find out the costs to pay for it, Obama will be losing big.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Osprey4 says:
As a proud "reactionary right winger" (LOL!), I'd just like to mention that I'm perfectly fine with imposing a tax on those who don't buy health insurance. But who's going to collect it from the 15 million illegal aliens who live here, or the 46% of filers who pay no federal income tax right now? And I would very much like to know why unions are exempt from the tax on "Cadillac" health insurance policies? Any why the administration has seen fit to grant nearly 1000 exemptions, primarily to unions.
reply
Ilegalandproud replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Just like a typical conservative right winger! always hve to go and pt the blame on the Latinos.
KnowerseekerReturns replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The *poor* filers who pay no taxes are covered under medicaid.
See all 109 Comments
Scroll Left Scroll Right