By: Stacy Van Alstyne​

On Tuesday, July 22, two federal appeals courts issued conflicting decisions affecting the Affordable Care Acts individual mandate.

The first decision, issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, said that ACA does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal exchange. The law refers only to state exchanges. This means that in 36 states, individuals who purchased coverage through the federal exchange would have to bear the full cost of their insurance.

Then came the next ruling . . .

7.23_Conflictin-aca-court-decisions.jpg Hours later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled​ exactly opposite, stating that the IRS has the discretion to issue subsidies in the federal exchange given the ambiguous language of the law. They argued that the intent of the law is to provide subsidies to individuals who purchase insurance through either the state or federal exchanges.

In both cases, the judges anticipated the decisions to be appealed (the Obama administration has already said it will appeal the D.C. Circuit Court decision), so the application of the rulings will not be immediate. However, the contradictory rulings could be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court and have major implications to the health care law.

Should the D.C. Circuit Courts decision be upheld, it has the potential to impact employers’ ACA requirements, especially for employers that were relying on the public exchanges to cover their employees. Without the subsidies, those on the federal exchange can expect a premium increase of up to 76%.

There is some speculation that this could be a huge game changer for some employers.  A Forb​es column issued later on Tuesday speculated that the conflicting decisions would cause “chaos” for companies in low-wage industries as they plan their 2015 health care benefit coverage.  The Forbes piece suggested companies were counting on the subsidies to soften the blow to employees being pushed into the exchanges. Also, the lack of subsidies could interfere with the enforcement of employer mandate penalties. The employer penalties are initiated when any employee signs up for health coverage at an exchange and receives a subsidy. If there are no subsidies in the states with federally run exchanges, the penalty would never be triggered.

To put this in perspective, note that the International Foundations 2014 ACA Survey showed that a large majority of employers are planning to continue providing health care coverage to employees in 2015. Less than 1%  (0.3%) of plan sponsors were definitely dropping coverage.  Another 1.1% were “very likely” to drop coverage and an additional 1.1% were “likely” to drop coverage.

Bottom line:  The story is not over. Analysts continue to debate both sides of the argument—the intent of the law versus how the law was written.


Stacy Van Alstyne, CEBS

Communications Director at the International Foundation 

Favorite Foundation service/product: Personalized research services. The information the specialists come up with is gold—so much better than Google searches.

Benefits related topics that get her attention: Given she works in PR, whatever is hot now. Retirement security—loves the chance to encourage people, especially those starting out, to save.

Favorite Foundation conference/event moment: Meeting the President during the DOL’s Savers Summit which the Foundation helped produce; experiencing the power of 6,000 members in one room during Annual Conference’s opening session; trying not to cry during Scott Hamilton’s talk in 2012. Felt better when I saw a Teamster next to me sniffling.

Personal Insight: What does Stacy do to unwind from the stresses of life in the PR pressure cooker? She paints cows. No, not paint on cows. Paintings of cows. As our resident “foodie,” Stacy’s lunch leftovers are a delicacy to her office mates.


Recommended Posts

New Mental Health Parity Guidance: More Clarity, But More Compliance Obligations

Anne Newhouse

According to speaker John Barlament, Shareholder, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, S.C., in his webcast “New Mental Health Parity Guidance: More Clarity, But More Compliance Obligations,” held on August 30, 2023, new guidance has been “desperately needed” on the topic of mental health […]

Legal & Legislative Reporter: Medical Provider May Not Bring Claim on Behalf of Participants and Beneficiaries

Guest Contributor

Every month, the International Foundation releases the Legal and Legislative Reporter, a compilation of new employee benefits–related case summaries. Below is a summary we thought you’d be interested in. Content provided by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The U.S. District Court for the […]

Five Steps to Nurture Belonging in the Workplace

Guest Contributor

Benefits Magazine Extras articles provide you with bonus content on a mix of benefits topics as well as deep dives and analyses on the latest benefit trends and compliance issues. Visit to see the latest Benefits Magazine Extras as well as the bimonthly print […]

Navigating Uncertainty

Christine Vazquez, CEBS

In today’s business environment, change is constant. Earning a Certified Employee Benefit Specialist® (CEBS®) designation can help benefits professionals improve their ability to manage organizational change. The self-study CEBS courses provide critical knowledge and skills to scan the environment and strategically tailor benefit […]