This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Hematology, oncology communities react to ACA decision
The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a favorable response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act in states without exchanges.
The 6-3 ruling for King v. Burwell on June 25 stipulated that the Internal Revenue Service may extend tax credits and premium subsidies for consumers who purchase health insurance through state or federal exchanges under the ACA. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2010. The court began hearing oral arguments for King v. Burwell in early March.
In a statement, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, FASTRO, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) chair, discussed how the decision impacts patients with cancer.
Bruce G. Haffty
“On behalf of the more than one million cancer patients we care for each year, ASTRO appreciates the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the consumer tax credits under the ACA,” Haffty said in the statement. “The Court’s ruling ensures that millions of Americans will have access to affordable, quality health care. Most importantly, the ACA will allow us to continue our efforts to develop new treatments and save the lives of patients with cancer, particularly through patient participation in clinical trials and coverage for cancer screenings. The ACA is an essential component in the reformation of America’s health care infrastructure focused on access, affordability and quality.”
HemOnc Today reached out to experts in the field for their thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling. See below for their responses.
Perspective
Back to Top
I was optimistic that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the government’s position, based on the overall intent of the Affordable Care Act, which is to make insurance affordable and accessible through either state or federal insurance exchanges. However, many of my colleagues who follow this issue closely were quite concerned that a literal reading of the law would lead the Supreme Court to rule against those insurance subsidies and really undermine one of the central pillars of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for the millions of Americans who are receiving subsidized insurance coverage through healthcare.gov. If the Supreme Court had ruled against those subsidies, it would have left those many Americans with unaffordable insurance, resulting in significant disruptions to their care.
Perspective
Back to Top
The major issue is that if the Supreme Court had ruled against the Affordable Care Act, subsidies would cease to be available for nearly 10 million Americans — at a cost of about $30 billion, according to the Urban Institute — in the 34 states using the federal government to run their health care exchanges. That would have made obtaining affordable insurance simply impossible for all of those people. With this ruling, things will go back to the current status quo, with all of the positive and negative implications of the current Affordable Care Act stipulations. This is an important and necessary ruling.