A US Supreme court has thrown out a provision of the Affordable Care Act that says companies with more than 10 workers cannot impose their own health care plan on employees.
The justices ruled that the law violates the commerce clause of the US constitution, which prohibits states from regulating commerce with interstate commerce.
The court’s decision in the case of US v.
Johnson and Johnson came less than a week after a similar decision by a lower court.
The US Supreme was asked by the court to rule on the constitutionality of the “disparal impact” clause, which allows employers with fewer than 10 employees to impose health insurance plans for the same workers.
The provision allows companies to impose the same health care plans for employees in the same industry, including for their family members.
But the Supreme Court decided last year that the clause was not constitutional because it allowed states to impose different insurance plans on different classes of employees.
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling “unprecedented and deeply troubling” because it could allow employers to impose their health insurance plan on their own workers.
“If Congress intended to enact a disincentive to employers to adopt health care benefits plans for their employees, it could have written the provision as narrowly as possible to permit employers to charge an exorbitant premium for their own employees,” he wrote.
“Instead, the Congress did not do so.”
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter again in the coming months.
(Reuters)The justices, in a 4-3 ruling, ruled that employees in a business with more that 10 employees cannot be required to purchase a health insurance policy that covers all of their employees.
“A disincentor for employers to engage in the purchase of health insurance for all employees is not created by the statute, but by a provision in the ACA which allows such an exclusion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.
“The exclusion is not based on a disinterested desire to provide health care to all employees, but on the legislative purpose to impose an exordium on employers and thereby limit competition,” Kennedy added.
The case, Johnson v Johnson and Health Insurers Assurance Companies of America Inc., involved a group of states in a dispute over whether to adopt a requirement that insurers cover all of the members of a health plan for workers.
In April 2018, a federal judge struck down the so-called “disposable health coverage” provision of Obamacare, saying it did not provide sufficient protection for workers who lack insurance.
The courts decision on Thursday came as the Trump administration sought to delay a federal rule that would require insurers to provide workers with health insurance.
But on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the high court refused to block the rule, saying that it could be enforced by a federal agency if a state did not seek a federal court order.