WEBVTT - Trump Wins Ruling in Effort to Undo Obamacare

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Trump won

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:23.319
<v Speaker 1>a legal round in his effort to undo Obamacare. A

0:00:23.400 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 1>DC federal judge rules that the Trump administration can expand

0:00:27.040 --> 0:00:30.480
<v Speaker 1>the sale of short term health insurance policies that don't

0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:33.360
<v Speaker 1>meet the standards of the Affordable Care Act. Joining me

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:37.280
<v Speaker 1>as Timothy Jos, professor at Washington n Ley School of Law,

0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:42.120
<v Speaker 1>explain what these short term health insurance policies are and

0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:46.200
<v Speaker 1>why they don't meet the standards of Obamacare. The Health

0:00:46.240 --> 0:00:53.199
<v Speaker 1>Insurance Portability and Accountability Act back in impose some regulations

0:00:53.200 --> 0:00:57.240
<v Speaker 1>on the individual health insurance market, but excluded what it

0:00:57.320 --> 0:01:01.720
<v Speaker 1>referred to a short term, limited duration health plans, and

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:04.920
<v Speaker 1>when the a c A was adopted in two thousand

0:01:04.959 --> 0:01:09.040
<v Speaker 1>and ten, it carried over the definition of individual health

0:01:09.080 --> 0:01:13.720
<v Speaker 1>insurance coverage and thus implicitly that exclusion of these plans.

0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 1>The Obama administration and two thousand and fifteen I believe

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:23.480
<v Speaker 1>adopted a regulation that would limit them to three months

0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:29.759
<v Speaker 1>non renewable, and the Trump administration then last year expanded

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:32.840
<v Speaker 1>them so that they can now extend up to three

0:01:33.200 --> 0:01:35.800
<v Speaker 1>and sixty four days or at least less than a year,

0:01:36.319 --> 0:01:39.520
<v Speaker 1>and can be renewed for up to three years. And

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the reason for doing that, it explained, was to create

0:01:42.800 --> 0:01:47.560
<v Speaker 1>an alternative to the individual health insurance market. And the

0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.400
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs in this case in the d C. District Court

0:01:51.960 --> 0:01:55.400
<v Speaker 1>sued claiming that that's exactly what Congress didn't want. That

0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:58.440
<v Speaker 1>they wanted to get all of individual health insurance coverage

0:01:58.440 --> 0:02:00.760
<v Speaker 1>into the a C, A comply and more market with

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:04.200
<v Speaker 1>its consumer protections. So that's what the case was about.

0:02:04.720 --> 0:02:08.480
<v Speaker 1>Did the federal judge, Judge Richard Leon Bases ruling on

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the impact of these policies on the whole of Obamacare. No,

0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:17.840
<v Speaker 1>he simply held, and held it in a number of

0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 1>different ways, that the term short term limited duration was

0:02:22.360 --> 0:02:26.920
<v Speaker 1>not defined in the law, and therefore the Department of

0:02:26.960 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 1>Health and Human Services could define it anyway at once too,

0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:33.840
<v Speaker 1>And so he said that they had acted within their

0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:37.280
<v Speaker 1>discretion in defining it in this way. So what are

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 1>the concerns of the plaintiffs about having these short term

0:02:41.400 --> 0:02:45.040
<v Speaker 1>health insurance policies available. Well, I think there are two concerns.

0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 1>One is that the policies themselves have some very serious drawbacks.

0:02:50.919 --> 0:02:55.960
<v Speaker 1>They don't cover pre existing conditions, they have annual in

0:02:56.000 --> 0:02:59.880
<v Speaker 1>lifetime limits, which are prohibited under the Affordable Care Act,

0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:04.240
<v Speaker 1>many of them have very high deductibles, and they don't

0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:09.680
<v Speaker 1>offer much protection to consumers. A second problem is that

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:14.600
<v Speaker 1>the theory is that healthy people will purchase these policies

0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:18.720
<v Speaker 1>and leave the individual health insurance market. And in fact,

0:03:19.360 --> 0:03:22.760
<v Speaker 1>the Department admitted in its preface to the regulations that

0:03:22.880 --> 0:03:25.959
<v Speaker 1>a million people could do that. It could be much

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:29.959
<v Speaker 1>more than that. And if healthy people leave the a

0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:34.960
<v Speaker 1>regulated individual insurance market, that's going to drive up premiums

0:03:35.000 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 1>for everyone left behind, those people with pre existing conditions.

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:43.840
<v Speaker 1>A third problem actually is the market any of these products.

0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:48.720
<v Speaker 1>They are pushed very hard. People that are listeners may

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:53.440
<v Speaker 1>have gotten calls urging them to purchase these kinds of policies.

0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:58.080
<v Speaker 1>They're pushed very hard by brokers, by websites, and it's

0:03:58.160 --> 0:04:02.640
<v Speaker 1>often very unclear either they're a compliant or not, and

0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:06.120
<v Speaker 1>people who are looking for a c a compliance policies

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>are often steered to these products. So now other federal

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>judges have rejected some of the Trump administration's sort of

0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:19.480
<v Speaker 1>and runs around Obamacare, for example, the rule permitting small

0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:25.200
<v Speaker 1>businesses to join together to offer plans exempt from the rules.

0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:29.160
<v Speaker 1>So how much does this particular judges ruling advance the

0:04:29.240 --> 0:04:33.400
<v Speaker 1>president's effort to undo Obamacare. Well, I think it is

0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:37.920
<v Speaker 1>a very significant ruling. Of course, the biggest case pending

0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:40.880
<v Speaker 1>right now is the case in New Orleans and the

0:04:40.920 --> 0:04:46.039
<v Speaker 1>Fifth Circuit that would completely destroy the Affordable Care Act

0:04:46.120 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>and all of its provisions. But I think this is

0:04:49.320 --> 0:04:54.160
<v Speaker 1>a very important case because the short term limited duration plans,

0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>I think are for many people the most immediately available

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>alternative to a see A compliant policies and will probably

0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:07.880
<v Speaker 1>have the greatest impact on increasing premiums for people who

0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:10.520
<v Speaker 1>have to remain in the a c A compliant market.

0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:15.839
<v Speaker 1>We assume that the case you were talking about the

0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans that will end up

0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:21.480
<v Speaker 1>at the Supreme Court. Are these cases where the judges

0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:26.120
<v Speaker 1>are ruling on certain rules that the Trump administration put forth,

0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:28.320
<v Speaker 1>are they likely to end up at the Supreme Court

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:31.560
<v Speaker 1>as well? They could end up at the Supreme Court.

0:05:31.920 --> 0:05:35.560
<v Speaker 1>I think that they're less likely to because they have

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:39.960
<v Speaker 1>less of an impact then the case in New Orleans,

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:43.599
<v Speaker 1>but they certainly could end up in the Supreme Court.

0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:46.359
<v Speaker 1>Right now, they're both headed for the d C. Circuit

0:05:46.440 --> 0:05:50.919
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals, and uh, I think that they could

0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:56.159
<v Speaker 1>very likely end up there. We've talked before about that case.

0:05:56.360 --> 0:06:00.919
<v Speaker 1>The Federal Appeals Court is considering weighing request to overrule

0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:05.240
<v Speaker 1>a Texas judges decision late last year to strike down Obamacare,

0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:08.920
<v Speaker 1>and it's entirely now that there have been oral arguments.

0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:12.000
<v Speaker 1>Do you still feel that the Texas judge really was

0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:15.880
<v Speaker 1>out of bounds in doing that? Oh? Absolutely, I mean,

0:06:16.000 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 1>and people across the political spectrum, including for example, Senator Collins,

0:06:22.360 --> 0:06:26.200
<v Speaker 1>have said that the decision was contrary to the law

0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 1>and often have said that it's absurd. But I've listened

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:34.039
<v Speaker 1>to the oral argument, and it's not at all clear

0:06:34.160 --> 0:06:37.359
<v Speaker 1>that the majority of the judges and the Fifth Circuit

0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:40.640
<v Speaker 1>will we'll go along with that. There's a chance that

0:06:40.720 --> 0:06:43.240
<v Speaker 1>at least part of his ruling is going to be upheld.

0:06:44.000 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>They were very enlightening, Thank you so much, as you

0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:50.280
<v Speaker 1>are as well. That's Professor Timothy just of the Washington

0:06:50.360 --> 0:06:55.400
<v Speaker 1>and Lee School of Law. Thanks for listening to the

0:06:55.440 --> 0:06:58.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

0:06:58.839 --> 0:07:02.400
<v Speaker 1>show on Apple pod podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:12.440
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg m