|
TUCSON, Ariz.—On Thursday a U.S. District Court issued a preliminary ruling stopping new provisions from being placed on the Affordable Care Act, at least temporarily. This stems from a lawsuit filed in federal court by a group that Pima County joined last month, spearheaded by Democracy Forward, a PCAO national coalition partner.
The U.S. District Court of Maryland ruled in favor of the coalition that included Pima County, the City of Columbus, Ohio; the City of Baltimore; the City of Chicago; Doctors for America; and the Main Street Alliance. The court granted a stay against all 8 provisions of a new 2026 rule that could have impacted tens of thousands of Pima County residents. The order states that the Trump administration’s “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” healthcare rule could potentially and unlawfully impose new fees, weaken coverage standards, and create barriers that would make it harder, and in some cases impossible, for Americans to obtain healthcare.
Both Pima County Attorney Laura Conover and Pima County Health Department Director Dr. Teresa Cullen say the ruling is a step in the right direction.
“Tens of thousands of Pima County residents could be negatively affected by these devastating cuts to the Affordable Care Act. My message, as always, is this: We have your back. We will go to court to protect your health care, your victims’ rights, your right to vote, and anything else they throw at us. As of today, we have a perfect winning record, and plan to continue speaking up for the people of Pima County wherever necessary.” said Conover.
“This stay helps to address policy changes that would have created unnecessary hurdles to accessing affordable health insurance. Protecting insurance coverage is essential to safeguarding the health of individuals and families.” Cullen said.
The following provisions are prohibited from going into effect until a final ruling is handed down.
1. Mandatory income verification for low-income enrollees in the ACA
2. Revocation of the option for enrollees to attest to their income (rather than provide documentary proof, which is a much higher burden and may often not be possible)
3. The imposition of special enrollment period verification
4. Increased maximum out-of-pocket limits
5. Expanding “catastrophic plans” to allow nearly anyone to enroll in this type of plan (the catastrophic plans provide no preventive health care, very little other coverage, carry immense OOP costs to the enrollee, and drain the resources from the overall coverage pool)
6. Relaxation of network adequacy standards
7. Elimination of the requirement to offer standardized insurance plans; limitations on non-standardized plans
8. The failure to reconcile policy in the rule’s amendment of 45 C.F.R. § 155.305(f)(4).
Democracy Forward represented the coalition in the litigation.
Democracy Forward represented the coalition in the litigation.
|
