//  5/24/17  //  Quick Reactions

On Monday, the House of Representatives and the Trump Administration filed their latest status update in House v. Price, a lawsuit brought by the House involving the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reductions that has been covered repeatedly for this blog. According to the latest update, the parties “continue to discuss measures that would obviate the need for judicial determination of this appeal, including potential legislative action,” and as such they request the abeyance be continued. On its face, this status update appears to be a non-decision, a punt to the next status update 90 days from now. But in reality, this inaction masks the uncertainty it creates in the insurance markets.

I’ve written about this issue before for Take Care, but the point is worth emphasizing. Insurance companies are filing their applications for 2018 plans and rates now, with the last deadline in some states coming on June 21, and with many having passed already. If you’re an insurance company not only watching Congress try to pass health care reform, but also watching the Republicans in both branches of government decide whether or not to pay you under this lawsuit, how can you set those rates for next year? If you don’t know what the rules of the game will be, how can you play it?

So far, at least some insurers are pricing their plans for next year assuming the cost-sharing reductions will not be paid out. This means they’re requesting much higher rates, citing the uncertainty from the lawsuit as one major contributor. Some may drop out altogether. But the ultimate irony? This charade is costing the federal government more than it’s saving. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the federal government would end up spending $2.3 billion more in 2018, and $31 billion more over the next decade, if it eliminated these payments. That’s not a good deal for America.

For other House v. Price news, go read Nick Bagley’s explainer about the motion to intervene filed last week by fifteen states and the District of Columbia and its potential impact on the lawsuit. 


Versus Trump: Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, and More

5/16/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Versus Trump: Trump Versus Trump's Banks

5/9/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a new lawsuit by the President seeking to prevent two banks from responding to Congressional subpoenas that seek information about the his business dealings. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Versus Trump: 2-For-39

5/2/19  //  Commentary

This week on Versus Trump, Jason discusses some fascinating research about how the Trump Administration has fared in the courts with Bethany Davis Noll, the Litigation Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. They discuss challenges to Trump's regulatory agenda, why the Administration is losing at a historic rate, what is slipping through the cracks, and what come next. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens