House GOP asks court to put House v. Burwell on hold
Until the case is resolved, insurers will continue to be paid funds on a monthly basis for covering low-income consumers on the ACA exchanges.
Because President-elect Trump is expected to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, general counsel for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to temporarily halt proceedings in House v. Burwell.
House v Burwell threatens to cut federal funds paid to insurers for covering low-income consumers who buy plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
General Counsel Thomas Hungar has asked for a temporary stay of the briefing schedule - which currently mandates the House to file its next brief by December 23 - until at least after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump on January 20. This would give time for Trump's administration to consider whether to continue with the case or otherwise resolve the appeal.
[Also: DOJ tells high court to stay out of dispute on House v. Burwell appeal]
"In light of public statements by the president-elect and his campaign, there is at least significant possibility of a meaningful change in policy in the new Administration that could either obviate the need for resolution of this appeal or affect the nature and scope of the issues presented for review," Hungar wrote in the motion filed Nov. 21.
Until the case is resolved, insurers will continue to be paid funds on a monthly basis, he said.
The issue pertains to insurers' subsidizing of deductibles, copayments and out-of-pocket costs to help lower the price of health insurance coverage for products sold on the ACA exchanges.
The ACA established a tax credit and insurer cost-sharing program to help low- and moderate-income residents gain health insurance.
[Also: House panel leaders scold HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell about stolen laptop]
Republican House members filed the House v. Burwell lawsuit in 2014, charging Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell with unconstitutionally spending money that Congress had not formally appropriated.
In May, they won their case in U.S. District Court. The lower court said the ACA cost-sharing program reimbursing health insurers wasn't legal because Congress never appropriated the funds to pay them.
The Obama administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Twitter: @SusanJMorse
