Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30849664/Crs-on-Health-Care-Fines
Timestamp: 2014-12-20 00:36:19
Document Index: 437224543

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1312', '§ 1513', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§ 8901', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§1312', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§1312', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§ 1312', '§ 8906', '§1301', '§1312', '§ 1311', '§ 1312']

P. 1Crs on Health Care FinesCrs on Health Care FinesRatings: (0)|Views: 84
|Likes: 3Published by YidwithlidMore info:Published by: Yidwithlid on May 03, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/30849664/Crs-on-Health-Care-Fines06/30/2010pdftextoriginal Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov
Hon. Tom PriceAttention: Emily Henehan Murry
Jennifer Staman, Edward Liu, Erika Lunder, Kenneth ThomasLegislative Attorneys
Questions Regarding Employer Responsibility Requirements and Section 1312(d)(3)(D)of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
You have requested a memorandum analyzing whether, in light of § 1312(d)(3)(D) of the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),
whether the federal government is (1) required to pay aportion of the premiums for Members of Congress and congressional staff, similar to the FederalEmployees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP),
and (2) subject to the employer responsibilityrequirements under § 1513 of PPACA, as amended. You have also asked whether state and localgovernments can be subject to the employer responsibility requirements, and whether imposing theserequirements on a state and local government would run afoul of the Tenth Amendment.
Implications of § 1312(d)(3)(D) of PPACA
With respect to health insurance for Members of Congress and congressional staff, § 1312(d)(3)(D) of PPACA specifically requires that:
the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress andcongressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shallbe health plans that are--(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, ___ Stat. ____ § 1312(d)(3)(D) (2010) [hereinafter PPACA].
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 8901 to 8914) established the FEHB program to provide federalemployees and retirees with subsidized health care benefits.
at § 1312(d)(3)(D)(i)
Section 1312(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act defines the term “Member of Congress” as “any member of theHouse of Representatives or the Senate.”
In addition, this section provides a definition for the term“congressional staff,” that includes “all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official officeof a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.”
As a general rule, when interpreting the meaning of legislative language, courts will often use methods of statutory construction commonly referred to as “canons,” or general principles for drawing inferencesabout language. Perhaps the most common “canon of construction” is the plain meaning rule, whichassumes that the legislative body meant what it said when it adopted the language in the statute. Phrasedanother way, if the meaning of the statutory language is “plain,” the court will simply apply that meaningand end its inquiry.
As the United States Supreme Court stated in
Connecticut National Bank v.Germain
[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others. Wehave stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it meansand means in a statute what it says there .... When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, thisfirst canon is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete.
Does § 1312(d)(3)(D) of PPACA require the federal government to make acontribution to Members of Congress’ or congressional staff’s health insurancecoverage, similar to FEHBP?
Assuming that Members of Congress and congressional staff are ineligible for FEHBP once §1312(d)(3)(D) becomes effective, one question that arises under this new section is whether an employercontribution may be provided to pay a portion of the premiums for the health coverage of Members of Congress and congressional staff.
Based on the language of § 1312(d)(3)(D), while it does not appearthat the contribution must be similar to the contribution provided under FEHBP, it seems the section mayprovide the authority for the federal government to make a contribution to the health insurance premiumsof Members of Congress and congressional staff.
Under FEHBP, the federal government and the federal employee or annuitant share the cost of theemployee’s or annuitant’s health insurance premium.
The government’s share of premiums is set at 72%of the weighted average premium of all plans in the program, not to exceed 75% of any given plan’s
at § 1312(d)(3)(D)(ii)(I).
at § 1312(d)(3)(D)(ii)(II).
See Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A.
, 530 U.S. 1 (2000);
see also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
,519 U.S. 337 (1997);
Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
, 503 U.S. 249 (1992);
, 490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989).
Connecticut National Bank , 503 U.S. at 253–54 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
An analysis of whether Members of Congress and congressional staff maintain their eligibility for FEHBP in light of §1312(d)(3)(D) is addressed in a congressional distribution memo dated April 2, 2010, which CRS has provided to you.
It should be noted that this memorandum only provides an analysis of whether the statutory language of § 1312(d)(3)(D) couldpermit the federal government to provide a contribution to the health insurance coverage of Members of Congress andcongressional staff. All other issues regarding possible implementation of an employer contribution under this section are beyondthe scope of this memorandum.
For additional discussion of requirements under FEHBP, see CRS Report RS21974,
Federal Employees Health BenefitsProgram: Available Health Insurance Options
, by Hinda Chaikind.
Annuitants and active employees pay the same premium amounts, although active employeeshave the option of paying premiums on a pre-tax basis. Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of PPACA does not addressthe availability of an employer contribution, and accordingly, it does not apply the contribution levels of FEHBP to the coverage available to Members of Congress and congressional staff under § 1312(d)(3)(D).Thus, if an employer contribution is offered to Members of Congress and congressional staff, thereappears to be no requirement for this contribution to be given at the same levels as the current FEHBP, orat any other specific level.In evaluating whether the federal government is authorized to make a contribution to the health insurancepremiums of Members of Congress and congressional staff under § 1312(d)(3)(D), one may look to theplain language of the provision. This section specifies that the only health plans that the federalgovernment may
to Members of Congress and congressional staff are those plans that arecreated by PPACA (or an amendment made by PPACA) or a plan offered through an American HealthBenefit Exchange (“Exchange”), as set forth in subtitle D of Title I of PPACA.
Examining this language,it does not seem clear what it means for the federal government to “make available” specific health plansto Members of Congress and congressional staff. In situations where the plain meaning of statutorylanguage is ambiguous, courts may resort to examining legislative history in order to derive legislativeintent. However, CRS is unaware of any legislative history that addresses the provision of an employercontribution under this section.
In interpreting statutory language, courts may also rely on the fact that words that are not terms of art andthat are not statutorily defined are customarily given their ordinary meanings, often derived from thedictionary.
Based on its ordinary meaning, one could reasonably argue that the term “make available”means to provide,
and that, following this line of reasoning, if the federal employer was not financiallycontributing to the health insurance coverage, it would not be making coverage available. As Members of Congress and congressional staff may be eligible to participate in an Exchange without any assistancefrom the federal government,
the federal government makes this coverage available by paying a portionof the premiums.
5 U.S.C. § 8906.
Under subtitle D of Title I of PPACA, no later than January 1, 2014, each state must establish an American Health BenefitExchange (“Exchange”) to provide health coverage to qualified individuals and/or employers. P.L. 111-148, §1301. PPACA alsoprovides that for states that do not elect to establish an Exchange, or if the Secretary determines that a state will not have anoperational Exchange by January 1, 2014 or has not taken certain actions, the Secretary must establish and operate an Exchangewithin the state. However, while the federal government may “make available” health plans that are offered through a stateexchange, §1312(f)(2) of PPACA provides that large employers of over 101 individuals may not be able to participate in a state’sexchange until 2017.
While CRS was not able to find much discussion surrounding the intent of the provision, as noted by Senator Grassley, the ideabehind offering a similar amendment that limited the health coverage available to Members and staff was “to require thatMembers of Congress and congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as …constituents.” 156 CONG.
REC. S1821 (Mar. 23, 2010).
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994)(Supreme Court notes that in the absence of a statutory definition, “we construe astatutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.”)
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 948 (11th ed. 2003).
Chesapeake Ranch Water Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs,401 F.3d 274 (4
Cir. 2005) (“To “’make available” ordinarily means to “render” “suitable or ready for use.’”).
Under PPACA, the definition of the individuals who are eligible to participate in Exchanges is fairly broad. Under § 1311 of PPACA, Exchanges must make available qualified health plans to “qualified individuals” and “qualified employers. A ‘‘qualifiedindividual’’ means, with respect to an Exchange, an individual who is seeking to enroll in a plan in the individual market offeredthrough the Exchange, and resides in the state that established the Exchange. P.L. 111-148, § 1312(f). However, individuals whoare incarcerated or are unlawful residents of the U.S. cannot be qualified individuals.
Activity (2)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readstbCCZ9 liked thisLoad more
7_20_10_DEI_to_FHFA_Countrywide_VIP
gorlickall
bill_text
29620582 STATE of FLORIDA Et Al v U S DHHS Et Al 18 ORDER...
29297844-Tea-Party-Memo-April-2010
Sen Barr as So Letter
Dcor031810bbk3 Likely Targets Web
Stephenson.letter
03-24-apb
031810 Obama Health Care Web
BHI Health Care Reform as Job Killer(5)
Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37, l05401, Doi:10.102...
Acorn FBI Docs
Judicial Watch v. CIA