To: Brumar89 who wrote (796794 ) 7/24/2014 5:41:48 PM From: J_F_Shepard Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1579709 Two U.S. appeals courts issued conflicting rulings on whether consumers can get subsidies for health coverage bought on the Affordable Care Act's federal exchange, escalating a legal battle that could complicate fall insurance enrollment and jeopardize tax credits for millions of Americans. Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Rulings on Health-Law Subsidies Subsidies Seen as Crucial to Implementation of Affordable Care Act In a blow to President Barack Obama 's signature legislative achievement, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that implemented a key piece of the 2010 health law. The regulation said subsidies for health insurance were available to qualifying middle- and low-income consumers whether they bought coverage on a state or federally run exchange. Two hours later, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., reached the opposite conclusion, unanimously ruling that consumers in states relying on the federal marketplace could receive subsidies. That handed the White House a victory that counteracted the administration's loss in the other case. Tuesday's rulings won't have an immediate impact on the subsidies that an estimated 4.7 million Americans have received on the federal exchange. But they raise a new cloud of legal unknowns that likely won't be settled before open enrollment begins Nov. 15, because the cases could take a year or more to conclude in the courts. If the two courts remain in conflict, it is a near certainty the Supreme Court will have to step in to resolve the dispute, setting the stage for a third high-court ruling on the health law. Should the D.C. Circuit's ruling eventually prevail, it could cripple the law by making subsidies unavailable in as many as 36 states where the federal government has run some or all of the insurance exchanges. The Obama administration said it would ask the full D.C. appeals court, which might be more sympathetic to its position, to reconsider the case. "This just lays another layer of uncertainty on top of an already confused environment," said Ruth Krystopolski, president of nonprofit Sanford Health Plan, which sells plans to individuals in North Dakota and South Dakota. Several insurers said they had no current plans to change how they sell policies through the federal exchange. Hospital executives said the cases complicate efforts to plan annual budgets, because losing the subsidies would likely increase the number of uninsured patients coming through their doors.