[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: North Carolina Blue Cross and Blue Shield Sues U.S. Over Health-Care Payments
Source: WSJ
URL Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/north-c ... ealth-care-payments-1464895038
Published: Jun 5, 2016
Author: staff
Post Date: 2016-06-05 11:40:19 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 1082
Comments: 6

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina sued the federal government, becoming the latest health insurer to claim it is owed money under the Affordable Care Act.

The suit, filed on Thursday in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., says the U.S. failed to live up to obligation to pay the insurer more than $147 million owed under an ACA program known as “risk corridors,” which aimed to limit the financial risks borne by insurers entering the new health-law markets.

The suit argues that the federal government violated the language of the health law, as well as a contractual obligation to the North Carolina insurer. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina says it’s owed money. ENLARGE Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina says it’s owed money. Photo: Zuma Press

The suit follows a similar one filed last month by Highmark Health’s insurance arm, and an earlier one in February from Health Republic Insurance Co., which is seeking class-action status.

The move signals the Obama administration is likely to face a growing legal challenge from insurers seeking risk-corridor payouts, as the 2010 health law continues to generate court battles on a number of different fronts.

Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers such as the North Carolina nonprofit and Pittsburgh-based Highmark are backbones of the law’s insurance marketplaces, with the largest enrollments in many states’ exchanges. But many of them have run up significant losses on the ACA plans, causing a financial squeeze.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina said it lost more than $400 million on ACA products in 2014 and 2015 and the risk-corridor payment shortfall exacerbated the losses.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services announced last fall that insurers initially would receive only 12.6% of the money they claimed under the risk-corridor program for 2014, its first year of operation, though federal officials said the insurers would receive more later. The program was supposed to bolster insurers suffering losses by using payments from other insurers that did relatively well on the new ACA business. However, the amount owed was far greater than the sum collected.

According to the suit, federal officials initially signaled that payments would be made even if the inflows weren’t sufficient, but they later said the program would be “budget neutral,” a stance reinforced by Congress in a 2014 spending bill.

A Health and Human Services spokesman didn’t have an immediate comment.

As damages, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is seeking the amount it says it is owed for 2014 under the risk-corridor program, which is more than $147 million, minus the amount it has been paid so far, which is currently around $18 million. The North Carolina insurer also is seeking interest and legal expenses.

The North Carolina insurer also wants the court to force the U.S. to make risk-corridor payments when they are due for later years, and the insurer estimates that it will be owed more than $175 million for 2015.

The suit says that federal plans to backfill the payments owed for 2014 over time, as risk-corridor funds come in for later years, “is contrary to the nature, purpose, intent and language” in the health law.


The US government is so broke, it can't pay the debt it promised for 0bamakare. Why anyone would believe a lying, stealin', cheatin' GOP/DEM government is a mystery.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: buckeroo (#0)

"says the U.S. failed to live up to obligation to pay the insurer more than $147 million owed under an ACA program known as “risk corridors,”

I wonder how much insurance premiums would have gone up had the insurers charged what it really cost, rather than being reimbursed by the federal government (the taxpayers) through the backdoor.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-05   11:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

I wonder how much insurance premiums would have gone up had the insurers charged what it really cost, rather than being reimbursed by the federal government (the taxpayers) through the backdoor.

Every year I see increased payments for privately funded medical insurance. I believe government involvement ensures increased payments for what-ever-they-call a plan. The reason is the legal environment for frivolous lawsuits while creating a monopoly of and about medical equipment and medications.

The over-reach of federal regulations is destroying America.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-06-05   14:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: buckeroo, misterwhite (#0)

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01967/169149/73 [Justia]

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01967/169149/73/0.pdf [38-page Opinion PDF]

U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, Civil Action No. 14-1967 (RMC) (D.D.C. May 12, 2016)

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

OPINION

This Court previously held that the U.S. House of Representatives "has standing to pursue its allegations that the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and of the Treasury violated Article I, § 9, cl. 7 of the Constitution when they spent public monies that were not appropriated by the Congress." U.S. House of Reps. v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53, 81 (D.D.C. 2015). The merits of that claim are now before the Court.

This case involves two sections of the Affordable Care Act: 1401 and 1402. Section 1401 provides tax credits to make insurance premiums more affordable, while Section 1402 reduces deductibles, co-pays, and other means of "cost sharing" by insurers. Section 1401 was funded by adding it to a preexisting list of permanently-appropriated tax credits and refunds. Section 1402 was not added to that list. The question is whether Section 1402 can nonetheless be funded through the same, permanent appropriation. It cannot.

"If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms." King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015). Although the "meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context," id., the statutory provisions in this case are clear in isolation and in context. The Affordable Care Act unambiguously appropriates money for Section 1401 premium tax credits but not for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Such an appropriation cannot be inferred. None of Secretaries' extra-textual arguments—whether based on economics, "unintended" results, or legislative history—is persuasive. The Court will enter judgment in favor of the House of Representatives and enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers under Section 1402. The Court will stay its injunction, however, pending appeal by either or both parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_v._Burwell

On May 12, 2016, judge Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives saying that although the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act were authorized by Congress, since Congress did not specifically appropriate money for the subsidies, public money can not be used to fund the subsidies. The ruling has been stayed, and the subsidies will continue, pending an expected appeal.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judge-billions-spent-illegally-on-aca-benefits/

Judge: Billions spent illegally on ACA benefits

Lyle Denniston Independent Contractor Reporter
SCOTUS Blog
Posted Thu, May 12th, 2016 1:59 pm

The often-challenged Affordable Care Act suffered a potentially crippling constitutional blow in federal court on Thursday, when a trial judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the government had wrongly spent billions of dollars in the past two years to reimburse insurance companies for providing health coverage at lower costs to low- and moderate-income consumers.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, in a thirty-eight-page ruling upholding a constitutional challenge pursued by the U.S. House of Representatives, did not take any immediate action to stop that spending. Instead, she put her decision on hold to allow it to be challenged in an appeal — either to a federal court of appeals or directly to the Supreme Court.

It seems quite unlikely that the dispute will be finally settled before President Barack Obama’s term ends next January. The near-term future and ultimate fate of the entire ACA program probably depends upon the outcome of this year’s presidential election, in which it has already been a major issue.

The lawsuit decided Thursday — U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell — involved only the latest in a string of federal court challenges to Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative. The administration has won more than it has lost, but is now awaiting the outcome of a major case in the Supreme Court: the fate of the ACA birth-control mandate as it applies to religious charities, hospitals, and colleges.

There is no doubt that the administration will pursue an appeal of Collyer’s new ruling because this particular controversy goes to the heart of whether the private insurance industry will remain willing to provide lower-cost health coverage through the ACA exchanges, or marketplaces, that have now enrolled millions of new consumers.

At issue in the case, as decided on Thursday, was the part of the ACA program that required insurance companies to provide coverage to low- and moderate-income consumers, mainly through policies sold on the exchanges, with the costs to the consumers lowered by reduced co-pays and back-up or co-insurance, along with lower deductibles. The insurance companies, however, do not have to absorb those costs; the ACA mandated that the government directly reimburse such “cost-sharing” arrangements, with federal funds.

Along with that part of the ACA, the law also provided tax credits to consumers at low or moderate income levels to help them afford the premiums charged for the insurance they obtained on the exchanges.

Together, the two programs were estimated to cost the government about $5 billion a year. In her new ruling, Collyer decided that the cost-sharing program, as implemented since January 2014, has been spending money that Congress did not approve. It is unconstitutional, she ruled, because no money can be taken out of the federal treasury if it has not been specifically provided by act of Congress.

“Paying out reimbursement,” she wrote, “without an appropriation [from Congress] violates the Constitution. Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the fiscal year 2014 budget or since. Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

The judge estimated that, in the past two years, the government has spent billions of dollars without the authority to do so. The judge, however, found that Congress had provided authority to cover the spending for the tax credits to consumers who use them to help afford health coverage. That was funded, she said, through a permanent appropriation measure.

Collyer sharply ridiculed the government’s basic argument that the tax credit and cost-reimbursement parts of the ACA program were interconnected, and thus could both be funded out of that permanent appropriation for tax credits. (Under ACA, insurance companies can only provide cost-sharing arrangements to consumers who are eligible for the tax-credit subsidies.)

The government’s overall argument about linking the two approaches, the judge commented, is “most curious and convoluted.” Its “mother was undoubtedly necessity,” she added, with some sarcasm.

Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.

If the normal route of appeal is followed, the case would move on next to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the administration also has the option of trying to move the case straight to the Supreme Court by asking the Justices to take it on without waiting for the D.C. Circuit to rule.

At an earlier point in the House of Representatives case against the ACA, the administration had tried to have the case dismissed on the theory that the House had no right to sue on the premise that it would not suffer any injury for how the government made spending decisions under ACA. Collyer last September upheld the right of the House to sue, although she did narrow significantly the number of specific challenges the House had made.

Because the judge refused to allow the government to appeal her ruling allowing the case to proceed (and, on Thursday, turned down a government request to reconsider that point), that question of the House’s “standing” will remain an issue for the government to contest when it does file an appeal. It is highly unusual for courts to allow one house of Congress, or individual lawmakers, to sue in federal court, so the “standing” issue could become decisive when an appeal is decided.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-05   19:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#3)

When you simply cite something in response to a posted article, I have no fucking idea what point you are trying to make. Therefore, your post is a waste of my time.

Make your point then support that point with a link if you mu must must.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-06   9:40:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#4)

When you wade through all the legal opinion, judge rulings, etc, it still boils down that no one is going to stop it. Because to oppose king Obunghole is rasis.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us.

President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur

Stoner  posted on  2016-06-06   11:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#4)

When you simply cite something in response to a posted article, I have no fucking idea what point you are trying to make. Therefore, your post is a waste of my time.

Evidently, you did not waste the time to read my post and have no fuckiing idea that I did not simply cite something, I quoted the relevant part of a court opinion and quoted an entire SCOTUS Blog article for people who have trouble reading legal opinions.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-06   13:35:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com