As the country awaits and debates the Supreme Court's pending decision on health care reform, about the only thing insurers, providers and patients can agree on is the need for clarity.

The court's decision, expected within the month and perhaps as soon as today, could give direction to a health care system that has been in a holding pattern since challenges to the law's constitutionality were heard in March.

Some aspects of the Affordable Care Act that passed in 2010 have already launched, such as extended coverage for young adults on their parents' insurance. Others, like the more controversial requirement for all Americans to buy insurance, would take effect in 2014. Most states are waiting on the court's move to start organizing insurance markets as called for by next year.

"Everybody is ready for this decision to come down," said Ryan Barker, director of health policy for the Missouri Foundation for Health. "Regardless of what the decision is, we need to move forward."

The ruling is certain to produce a torrent of reaction and election-year posturing no matter what the decision. Both political parties have been preparing for the possible outcomes, distributing talking points and laying contingency plans for piecemeal legislation if all or part of the law is struck down.

Some experts believe that the potential of a split decision striking down the individual insurance mandate while leaving other portions of the law intact would trigger an especially chaotic political situation.

"It would be a colossal mess, even if we assume good faith on the part of our elected officials," remarked Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University. "As a practical matter, it would be almost the worst of all political worlds."

Insurance companies have rushed to ease fears about the more popular aspects of the law. Several of the industry's major players have vowed to continue covering dependents until age 26 and free preventive care such as immunizations, regardless of the court's decision.

"Health plans' top priorities are providing peace of mind and continuity of coverage to their beneficiaries," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, in a statement. "No matter what the Supreme Court decides, individuals and families should rest assured that their current coverage will remain in effect."

What's less clear is how much the cost of insurance premiums will change if any or all of the law is tossed out.

Read the original here:

Counting down to a healthcare decision

Associated Press

(AP) Congressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.

Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.

Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.

Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.

Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.

"We're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies," Obama said this spring at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. He expressed confidence the court would uphold the law, and neither he nor his aides have said what fallback plans are under discussion. "We will be prepared in any eventuality," White House aide David Plouffe said Sunday on ABC's "This Week," although he declined to elaborate.

Among Republicans, aides to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other key lawmakers have convened a series of meetings in recent weeks to plan a post-ruling strategy.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected within the next two weeks on a challenge to the law, which has drawn fierce opposition among most Republicans for its requirement that most individuals carry health insurance.

While three big insurance companies announced plans this past week to retain certain protections for an estimated 40 percent of all individuals who receive their coverage through work, there has been no advance word from the drug industry on how prescription costs for older people might be affected by a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

See more here:

GOP on health care: No quick replacement

WASHINGTON

Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law as the "decision of the century." But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:

---

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court's endorsement.

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he's re-elected.

Read this article:

Possible outcomes in pending health care law case

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Winners and losers are the natural consequence of the American legal system. In the Supreme Court, five majority votes among the nine members are enough to fundamentally change lives and legacies.

The high court in coming days will issue rulings in perhaps its most important appeal in a dozen years: whether the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.

The stakes cannot be overstated -- what the justices decide on a quartet of separate questions will have immediate and long-term impact on every American, not only in the field of medicine but in vast, untold areas of "commerce." Health care expenditures alone currently make up 18% of the U.S. economy, and the new law promises to significantly expand that share.

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney. "The oral arguments [in March] might have changed their minds around the margin. But we won't find out until the end of June."

A century of federal efforts to offer universal health care culminated in the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After months of bare-knuckled fights over politics and policy, the legislation signed by Obama reached 2,700 pages, nine major sections and 450-some provisions.

At issue is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Twenty-six states in opposition say if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go. The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed traditional hot-button topics: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy. The high court now has the final word.

The court will not say precisely when the health care opinions will be released, but the last scheduled public session of the term is set for June 25. Depending on how long it takes the justices to finish up, that deadline could easily slip a few days.

The justices have already secretly voted on the health care cases, as well as a dozen or so other separate appeals. They met privately as a group just days after the late March arguments, voting preliminarily. Individual justices were assigned to write the one or more opinions, as well as separate dissents. Only they and their law clerks know how this will end.

Continue reading here:

Health care ruling will affect all of us

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Winners and losers are the natural consequence of the American legal system. In the Supreme Court, five majority votes among the nine members are enough to fundamentally change lives and legacies.

The high court in coming days will issue rulings in perhaps its most important appeal in a dozen years: whether the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.

The stakes cannot be overstated -- what the justices decide on a quartet of separate questions will have immediate and long-term impact on every American, not only in the field of medicine but in vast, untold areas of "commerce." Health care expenditures alone currently make up 18% of the U.S. economy, and the new law promises to significantly expand that share.

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney. "The oral arguments [in March] might have changed their minds around the margin. But we won't find out until the end of June."

A century of federal efforts to offer universal health care culminated in the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After months of bare-knuckled fights over politics and policy, the legislation signed by Obama reached 2,700 pages, nine major sections and 450-some provisions.

At issue is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Twenty-six states in opposition say if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go. The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed traditional hot-button topics: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy. The high court now has the final word.

The court will not say precisely when the health care opinions will be released, but the last scheduled public session of the term is set for June 25. Depending on how long it takes the justices to finish up, that deadline could easily slip a few days.

The justices have already secretly voted on the health care cases, as well as a dozen or so other separate appeals. They met privately as a group just days after the late March arguments, voting preliminarily. Individual justices were assigned to write the one or more opinions, as well as separate dissents. Only they and their law clerks know how this will end.

More here:

Health care ruling will be among high court's most important

By Anna Edney - 2012-06-18T04:00:01Z

Venture capitalists seeking to profit from innovations in health care are turning to startups that make smartphone and tablet applications for doctors and hospitals.

Two years ago, patients would be surprised to see their doctors pulling out an Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhone to check their blood sugar, or cardiogram results. Now theyre finding such practices commonplace as investment in the kinds of companies that make health information apps rose 78 percent in 2011 to $766 million. Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) has started a $100 million fund, Insight Venture Partners is putting $40 million into a startup and Oprah Winfrey is dipping in as well, with her company investing in a website that helps doctors and patients interact.

Were at a sea change, said David Jahns, managing partner of Galen Partners LP, a Stamford, Connecticut-based private equity firm that invested in a company called Sharecare.

Demand for apps that let doctors and nurses see test results quickly and monitor vital signs remotely, combined with a push from government and insurers to collect better data to contain rising medical costs, is propelling investor interest in an array of health information technology, Jahns said.

We really have to improve our costs, he said. The best thing that our country can do is invest in technology that gets better outcomes with fewer procedures.

Timothy Kreth, a cardiologist at TriStar Summit Medical Center in Hermitage, Tennessee, uses an application from AirStrip Technologies that lets him view emergency room patients electrocardiograms on his iPhone.

Its more convenient for the patient, Kreth said in a telephone interview. I can look at it and determine some of the subtle nuances the emergency room doctor maybe could not. It gives us the opportunity to make diagnoses quicker.

Kreth and the five other cardiologists have used the AirStrip technology for about six weeks at his hospital, which is part of HCA Holdings Inc. (HCA) Previously, emergency room doctors faxed cardiologists the EKGs, Kreth said.

AirStrip, based in San Antonio, Texas, was the first investment from the $100 million Qualcomm Life Fund that formed in December. Qualcomm Life doesnt disclose how much it invests, though typically puts down $2 million to $5 million, Jack Young, who manages the fund, said by telephone.

The rest is here:

Oprah Aids Doctors as App Investments Soar: Health

WASHINGTONCongressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.

Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.

Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.

Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.

Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.

"We're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies," Obama said this spring at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. He expressed confidence the court would uphold the law, and neither he nor his aides have said what fallback plans are under discussion. "We will be prepared in any eventuality," White House aide David Plouffe said Sunday on ABC's "This

Among Republicans, aides to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other key lawmakers have convened a series of meetings in recent weeks to plan a post-ruling strategy.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected within the next two weeks on a challenge to the law, which has drawn fierce opposition among most Republicans for its requirement that most individuals carry health insurance.

While three big insurance companies announced plans this past week to retain certain protections for an estimated 40 percent of all individuals who receive their coverage through work, there has been no advance word from the drug industry on how prescription costs for older people might be affected by a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

Even so, Republicans say they have no plans for assuring continuity of a provision that reduces out-of-pocket costs for seniors with high drug expenses. This coverage gap is known as "doughnut hole."

View original post here:

4 presumed dead after avalanche on Mount McKinley

Richmond, Va. --

The issues being decided in the monumental U.S. Supreme Court review of health care reform hit home for John Rayfield. When the uninsured 64-year-old self-employed carpenter needed heart bypass surgery in December 2010, he had no way to pay for it.

Rayfield, who described himself as a "walking time bomb," was able to have life-saving surgery when Access Now, a privately run program that arranges for low-income, uninsured people to get care from specialists, found a doctor and hospital to take his case and donate their time and costs.

The court's decision could be a game changer for such organizations as Access Now, and the local free clinics, community health centers and private providers that make up a health care safety net, providing health care to patients who otherwise might go without.

"If all the Obamacare goes through and everything's constitutional, and we go ahead, probably 50 to 60 percent of our patients are going to qualify for Medicaid," said Connie Moslow, executive director of the Free Clinic of Powhatan.

"Now, does that mean they are going to take it? It puts the free clinics in kind of a precarious situation also, because our thing is we provide health care to the uninsured," she said. "How do we adjust?"

Soon, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on two controversial provisions of the 2010 health care reform law: Can people be required to buy health insurance, and what the expansion of Medicaid will look like.

The individual mandate of health care reform would require most people to maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage starting in 2014. There would be federal subsidies and tax credits to help people afford the costs.

Critical to the individual mandate is the creation of health benefit exchanges, state-managed marketplaces where people could shop for affordable health plans without the risk of being turned down because they have medical problems such as heart disease or cancer.

Also, under health care reform, state-run Medicaid programs would have to expand coverage to nearly all people under age 65 with household incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level beginning in January 2014. For a family of one, that's an annual household income of $14,856 in 2012.

More:

Health care reform uncertainty has safety-net providers in limbo

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court in coming days will issue perhaps as many as four separate opinions on the constitutionality of the health care law.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) was signed into law March 23, 2010, passed by a Democratic congressional majority and championed by President Barack Obama. It has about 2,700 pages and contains 450 some provisions.

Here are the four issues the high court tackled separately during oral arguments in late March. Those issues are expected to play key roles in the judges' final decisions.

The gateway issue: Anti-Injunction Act

Would those challenging the law be barred from making any legal or constitutional claims until the key provision -- the individual mandate -- goes into effect in 2014? The obscure Anti-Injunction Act, dating back 145 years, prevents asking for a refund on a tax until that tax has been collected and paid. Judges in two federal appeals courts have made that "threshold" argument, which would effectively stop the current legal fight in its tracks.

Citing that law might give the court-- particularly its conservative members -- a way out of deciding the explosive issue in an election year. The majority could decide that the political branches can best resolve the conflicts, at least for now, or that the matter can be handled after the November elections. It could potentially delay a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for at least four years.

The key Issue: Individual mandate

This provision would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face financial penalties. May the federal government, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, regulate economic "inactivity?" Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope." That "circuit split" all but assured the Supreme Court would step in to decide the matter.

View post:

Health care's big four issues: What the justices are tackling

The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, affects most major components of the health care system. Here’s a look at Florida’s role in the health insurance debate.

Read more:

High court decision on health-care bill will set off a Florida scramble

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court is set to release within a few days its much-anticipated rulings on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the comprehensive health care law enacted two years ago.

The election-year rulings will not only guide how every American receives medical care but will also establish precedent-setting boundaries for how government regulation can affect a range of social areas. Your health and your finances could be on the line.

The outcome's possibilities are myriad: a narrow or sweeping decision? A road map to congressional authority in coming decades? Which bloc of justices, which legal argument will win the day?

Here are five scenarios -- strategic markers of a sort -- to watch as the high court weighs in on health care.

Wait another day?

The first question the high court tackled in its seven-hour marathon argument in March was something few observers had expected: It boiled down to whether the law's individual mandate is a "tax" that could prevent the court from considering the broader constitutional questions.

A little-known federal law -- the Anti-Injunction Act, dating back to 1867-- bars claimants from asking for a refund on a tax until it has been paid.

This "gateway" issue could render moot all the other pending health care questions if the justices think the minimum coverage requirement amounts to a tax.

View original post here:

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court in coming days will issue perhaps as many as four separate opinions on the constitutionality of the health care law.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) was signed into law March 23, 2010, passed by a Democratic congressional majority and championed by President Barack Obama. It has about 2,700 pages and contains 450 some provisions.

Here are the four issues the high court tackled separately during oral arguments in late March. Those issues are expected to play key roles in the judges' final decisions.

The gateway issue: Anti-Injunction Act

Would those challenging the law be barred from making any legal or constitutional claims until the key provision -- the individual mandate -- goes into effect in 2014? The obscure Anti-Injunction Act, dating back 145 years, prevents asking for a refund on a tax until that tax has been collected and paid. Judges in two federal appeals courts have made that "threshold" argument, which would effectively stop the current legal fight in its tracks.

Citing that law might give the court-- particularly its conservative members -- a way out of deciding the explosive issue in an election year. The majority could decide that the political branches can best resolve the conflicts, at least for now, or that the matter can be handled after the November elections. It could potentially delay a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for at least four years.

The key Issue: Individual mandate

This provision would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face financial penalties. May the federal government, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, regulate economic "inactivity?" Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope." That "circuit split" all but assured the Supreme Court would step in to decide the matter.

See the article here:

Health care's big four issues

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Winners and losers are the natural consequence of the American legal system. In the Supreme Court, five majority votes among the nine members are enough to fundamentally change lives and legacies.

The high court in coming days will issue rulings in perhaps its most important appeal in a dozen years: whether the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.

The stakes cannot be overstated -- what the justices decide on a quartet of separate questions will have immediate and long-term impact on every American, not only in the field of medicine but in vast, untold areas of "commerce." Health care expenditures alone currently make up 18% of the U.S. economy, and the new law promises to significantly expand that share.

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney. "The oral arguments [in March] might have changed their minds around the margin. But we won't find out until the end of June."

A century of federal efforts to offer universal health care culminated in the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After months of bare-knuckled fights over politics and policy, the legislation signed by Obama reached 2,700 pages, nine major sections and 450-some provisions.

At issue is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Twenty-six states in opposition say if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go. The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed traditional hot-button topics: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy. The high court now has the final word.

The court will not say precisely when the health care opinions will be released, but the last scheduled public session of the term is set for June 25. Depending on how long it takes the justices to finish up, that deadline could easily slip a few days.

The justices have already secretly voted on the health care cases, as well as a dozen or so other separate appeals. They met privately as a group just days after the late March arguments, voting preliminarily. Individual justices were assigned to write the one or more opinions, as well as separate dissents. Only they and their law clerks know how this will end.

See original here:

Looming health care ruling will be among Supreme Court's most important

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.

Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.

Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.

Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.

Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.

"We're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies," Obama said this spring at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. He expressed confidence the court would uphold the law, and neither he nor his aides have said what fallback plans are under discussion. "We will be prepared in any eventuality," White House aide David Plouffe said Sunday on ABC's "This Week," although he declined to elaborate.

Among Republicans, aides to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other key lawmakers have convened a series of meetings in recent weeks to plan a post-ruling strategy.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected within the next two weeks on a challenge to the law, which has drawn fierce opposition among most Republicans for its requirement that most individuals carry health insurance.

While three big insurance companies announced plans this past week to retain certain protections for an estimated 40 percent of all individuals who receive their coverage through work, there has been no advance word from the drug industry on how prescription costs for older people might be affected by a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

Even so, Republicans say they have no plans for assuring continuity of a provision that reduces out-of-pocket costs for seniors with high drug expenses. This coverage gap is known as "doughnut hole."

Read the original here:

GOP on health care: Repeal quickly, replace slowly

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Winners and losers are the natural consequence of the American legal system. In the Supreme Court, five majority votes among the nine members are enough to fundamentally change lives and legacies.

The high court in coming days will issue rulings in perhaps its most important appeal in a dozen years: whether the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.

The stakes cannot be overstated -- what the justices decide on a quartet of separate questions will have immediate and long-term impact on every American, not only in the field of medicine but in vast, untold areas of "commerce." Health care expenditures alone currently make up 18% of the U.S. economy, and the new law promises to significantly expand that share.

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney. "The oral arguments [in March] might have changed their minds around the margin. But we won't find out until the end of June."

A century of federal efforts to offer universal health care culminated in the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After months of bare-knuckled fights over politics and policy, the legislation signed by Obama reached 2,700 pages, nine major sections and 450-some provisions.

At issue is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Twenty-six states in opposition say if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go. The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed traditional hot-button topics: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy. The high court now has the final word.

The court will not say precisely when the health care opinions will be released, but the last scheduled public session of the term is set for June 25. Depending on how long it takes the justices to finish up, that deadline could easily slip a few days.

The justices have already secretly voted on the health care cases, as well as a dozen or so other separate appeals. They met privately as a group just days after the late March arguments, voting preliminarily. Individual justices were assigned to write the one or more opinions, as well as separate dissents. Only they and their law clerks know how this will end.

Read this article:

Health care decision looms over Supreme Court

Navigating the health care system can be challenging, and for the more than 9 million people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, it can be especially difficult.

Read more from the original source:

Understanding Medicare and Medicaid

Included as a measure in the federal health-care reform act, an excise tax set to take effect in 2013 would be imposed on medical devices sold and made in the United States. It is one of many taxes included in the health-care bill to pay for insurance subsidies for 30 million uninsured Americans.

NAPLES Greg Riemer didn't back out of a deal to acquire a small Florida business to expand his company that makes components for medical devices, even though he knew his profit margin soon may drop.

MRPC, his family-owned company based in Wisconsin that's been in business since 1921, went forward two months ago with buying ETI Incorporated, a Tampa-area maker of custom silicone injection molding.

ETI's expansion plans may hinge on what the Senate does this summer with a medical device excise tax set to take effect in 2013. However, the Democrat-controlled Senate isn't expected to repeal the tax like the House did recently.

Included as a measure in the federal health-care reform act, the excise tax would be imposed on medical devices sold and made in the United States. It is one of many taxes included in the health-care bill to pay for insurance subsidies for 30 million uninsured Americans.

The Florida manufacturers consortium says the state is a leader for medical device manufacturers with 528 companies, and more component makers. The industry employs more than 20,000 Floridians with an average wage of $63,000. The vast majority of the companies are small firms with 25 or fewer employees.

Riemer knows with certainty what the trickle-down effect will be if the tax of 2.3 percent on sales revenue not on profits is allowed to take effect in January.

"The reality of any tax on a business is it ultimately gets pushed down to some sort of consumer," said Riemer, the company president. "Suppliers like us are asked to take price reductions."

Naples-based Arthrex Inc., which manufactures 6,000 medical devices for minimally invasive orthopedic surgery and achieved more than $1 billion in revenue in 2010, is keeping a close eye on what's happening with the health-care reform act and tax.

"We are following the action in both the legislative and judicial branches," Jon Cheek, vice president of finance for Arthrex, said in a statement. "Short of a Supreme Court decision to overturn the entire reform package, we do not expect closure on this until after the November election. Although Arthrex will incur significant cash flow reduction as a result of this tax, we have not changed our assessment of future demand, and therefore remain committed to our growth plans as previously set forth."

Read the original post:

New federal health-care tax on medical devices concerns Florida manufacturers

AUSTIN --- Any day now the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the landmark legislation the then-Democrat-controlled Congress passed two years ago and President Barack Obama signed into law.In the long history of the high court, few rulings have been as anticipated as this one.

Original post:

Texas leaders split on health care ruling outcome, costs

WASHINGTONSome are already anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law as the "decision of the century." But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he's re-elected.

The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama's law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.

Read the original:

Possible outcomes in pivotal health care law case

By Jack Torry and Peggy O'Farrell Staff Writers 7:05 PM Saturday, June 16, 2012

WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling on the new health care law, a decision that could throw health care into temporary chaos as providers and patients scramble to adjust to a wave of uncertainty in the system.

The justices might issue their decision as early as this week. They could deliver a staggering political blow to President Barack Obama by striking down the 2010 law, the signature achievement of the presidents first term that was designed to extend health care to millions of Americans currently without insurance.

The court also could stun conservative Republicans by giving their seal of approval to the law. Republicans in Congress joined by GOP state attorneys general objected that it unconstitutionally forced individuals to buy health insurance.

Instead, a growing number of analysts suggest that five of the justices will cobble together a fractured series of opinions that could leave parts of the law intact while striking down other sections. Such a ruling could create a chaotic situation for hospitals, physicians and patients.

I think hospitals wants clear direction either way, not just in the Supreme Court decision, but in all areas of public policy, said Jonathan Archey, a lobbyist for the Ohio Hospital Association. Whatever the Supreme Court does, were still going to have the issues that the (law) was designed to deal with.

Just about everyone will be affected by the courts decision: Business owners, health care providers, consumers, insurers and public administrators are all anxiously waiting for the justices decision.

SUBHEAD

For Marty Grunder, owner of Grunder Landscaping in Miamisburg, the law means more regulations for small-business owners already burdened by red tape.

It scares me, just in that its more regulation that we dont totally understand, and entrepreneurs, I feel, already have enough regulations to deal with, Grunder said. I hear administrators on both sides of the aisle telling everyone how important small business owners are and were the backbone of the American economy, and thats true. But I dont see a whole lot of action from the Obama side that makes me feel warm and fuzzy about whats going on here.

The rest is here:

Ruling could throw health care into chaos