With arguments complete and questions answered, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to deliver a decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in June.
A recent survey by the Midwest Business Group on Health (MBGH) found that 42 percent of businesses hope to see the law repealed entirely. Many would like certain provisions, such as those which require cash value of benefits to be reported on W-2 forms or cap contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts, to be struck down. There is also a degree of support for other measures that are part of the sweeping bill, including a mandate that coverage include preventive services and the elimination of annual and lifetime limits on essential health benefits.
Other provisions caused divided opinions, in part associated with the size of the employer. Researchers reported that many respondents indicated the cost of benefit and HR compliance associated with the new law was lower than anticipated, particularly among larger companies.
During the last day of arguments, several justices seemed open to the idea that parts of the law could be struck down without declaring it entirely unconstitutional, according to The Associated Press. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chief Justice John Roberts each made comments suggesting that some of the law's provisions are essentially unrelated to the individual mandate which is at the heart of the case, the news source reports.
Opponents of the PPACA have called for it to be completely eliminated, in some cases. Its defenders, on the other hand, have suggested that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional then only related provisions should be struck down with it. They cited mandates requiring insurers to provide coverage regardless of prior conditions and health- and age-based limits on premiums, saying these changes are tied to the individual mandate.
"From the employers' perspective, if the individual mandate goes down, we would hope somehow the employer mandate would go down too," National Business Group on Health vice president of public policy Steve Wojcik told Human Resource Executive Online.
The individual mandate, he noted, would decrease employee benefit costs because having more people purchasing coverage would lower costs for each individual, whether their coverage was employer-based or personal. Without it, Wojcik suggests that mandates targeting employers would instead lead to higher costs.
