Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Health Insurance Exchanges: A $12B Judgment

By Edward I. Leeds & Ada B. Okafor on May 1, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the federal government must pay over $12 billion to certain health insurers that participated in health insurance exchanges in the first three years that those exchanges were in effect. In Maine Community Health Options v. United States, the court ruled that health insurers that suffered financial losses beyond the corridors established under the Affordable Care Act’s Risk Corridors Program are entitled to recover for those losses.

The ACA created the temporary Risk Corridors Program as part of an effort to stabilize health insurance premiums, incentivize insurers to participate in the exchanges, and mitigate financial risks borne by insurers for offering new products to new populations, including those with preexisting conditions. The Program applied from 2014-2016 and provided that health insurers that achieved a certain level of financial success under the program would pay some of their profits into the program, which would be used to make payments out to others that did not fare as well. In each of the three years in which it operated, the Program ran at a substantial deficit, and Congress refused to appropriate funds to make up the shortfall. As a result, insurers that stayed in the exchanges raised their premiums substantially. Other insurers left the exchanges, with some filing for bankruptcy. The lawsuits ensued.

The Supreme Court found that:

  • In enacting the Risk Corridors Program, Congress created a statutory obligation on the government to pay insurers for the losses that were to be recoverable under the Program.
  • In failing to appropriate funds to pay insurers, Congress did not repeal its obligation to make those payments.
  • The insurers had the right to bring private lawsuits against the federal government in this instance, a finding challenged by Justice Samuel Alito in his lone dissent.

The case has now been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Although the ruling presents a victory for insurers, questions remain about when payments will be made, where within the federal government the funds will come from, how insurers will share in the recovery, and how any recovery by insurers may be applied.

Ada B. Okafor

okafora@ballardspahr.com | 215.864.8121 | view full bio

Ada’s practice encompasses qualified retirement plans, nonqualified deferred compensation plans, governmental plans, church plans, health and welfare benefits, and fringe benefit arrangements. She applies knowledge gained from her years as an employee benefits litigator to provide…

okafora@ballardspahr.com | 215.864.8121 | view full bio

Ada’s practice encompasses qualified retirement plans, nonqualified deferred compensation plans, governmental plans, church plans, health and welfare benefits, and fringe benefit arrangements. She applies knowledge gained from her years as an employee benefits litigator to provide practical, comprehensive legal and business counsel on plan implementation, qualification, design, eligibility, vesting, contributions, distributions, loans, and day-to-day benefits administration.

Read more about Ada B. OkaforEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    Health Care Reform Dashboard
  • Organization:
    Ballard Spahr LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo