{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["http://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=17e65fe6-c819-4f22-9475-355a3c5b524a", "Senate GOP Leaders: Americans Deserve To Know Impact Of King v. Burwell Decision", "2014-12-17", "2014", "2014-12", "Republican", "House", "MO", "Roy Blunt", "B000575", "www.blunt.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.), Vice Chairman of the U.S. Senate Republican Conference, joined U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Barrasso (Wyo.) and their fellow Senate Republican leaders, including Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Whip John Cornyn (Texas), and Conference Chairman John Thune (S.D.) in calling on the Obama Administration to inform Americans how an upcoming Supreme Court case of King v. Burwell could potentially affect their out of pocket share of premiums, tax liabilities, and coverage options.  \u00a0  In a letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Burwell, the Senators wrote:\u00a0   \u00a0  \u201cObamacare\u2019s tax credits were important for the administration since they obscure the true cost of the law\u2019s many mandates and regulations by passing these expenses to taxpayers. Although the tax credits in federal exchanges may therefore be the Administration\u2019s preferred policy, they are unambiguously inconsistent with the law. Already, two lower courts have concluded that the IRS rule is \u2018not in accordance with the law.\u2019\u2026Without the tax credits, millions of people will be confronted with Obamacare\u2019s true cost and will face much higher premiums. Some could see their coverage cancelled. It is imperative that people understand this risk as they contemplate signing up for coverage.\u201d  \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0   The Senate leaders specifically requested that Secretaries Lew and Burwell use their departments\u2019 Fiscal Year 2016 budget submission to inform Congress and the American people of how the Administration plans to respond to a possible Supreme Court ruling that finds IRS's tax credit rule is at odds with the law.  \u00a0  The full leadership letter is included below:\r\nDecember 17, 2014  \u00a0  The Honorable Jacob J. Lew  Secretary  Department of Treasury  1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.  Washington, D.C. 20220  \u00a0  The Honorable Sylvia M. Burwell  Secretary   U.S. Department of Health & Human Services  200 Independence Avenue SW  Washington, D.C. 20201  \u00a0  Dear Secretary Lew and Secretary Burwell:  \u00a0  On November 7th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of King v. Burwell. The issue before the Court is whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule extending tax credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to people purchasing coverage in states that do not establish and operate their own exchange is legal. While PPACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare, instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish exchanges in states that opted not to create their own, the law only allows the tax credits for people purchasing coverage in an \u201cExchange established by the State.\u201d We write to ask about the Administration\u2019s preparations in the event the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that the IRS rule at question is improper and inconsistent with the statute.  \u00a0  Obamacare\u2019s tax credits were important for the administration since they obscure the true cost of the law\u2019s many mandates and regulations by passing these expenses to taxpayers. Although the tax credits in federal exchanges may therefore be the Administration\u2019s preferred policy, they are unambiguously inconsistent with the law. Already, two lower courts have concluded that the IRS rule is \u201cnot in accordance with the law.\u201d Based on a plain reading of the law, IRS\u2019s decision to extend the tax credits to federal exchanges increases taxes and spending by hundreds of billions of dollars beyond what Congress authorized.  \u00a0  The Supreme Court ruling could eliminate the tax credits in states that participate in the federal exchanges. Moreover, the tax credits could end immediately after the ruling. Obamacare would then require many credit recipients to repay some or all of the credit amount already received. Without the tax credits, millions of people will be confronted with Obamacare\u2019s true cost and will face much higher premiums. Some could see their coverage cancelled. It is imperative that people understand this risk as they contemplate signing up for coverage.   \u00a0  On December 9, 2014, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner testified that the administration does not plan to inform federal exchange enrollees that they could face much higher tax bills and higher premiums next year should the Court find that the IRS was improperly providing the tax credits.\u00a0 Without this information, many families could turn down more-secure coverage options (e.g., through a different employer) in favor of less-secure Obamacare coverage. We urge you to reconsider this position and to ensure that these Americans have all available information as they make decisions about health insurance coverage next year.  \u00a0  We also are concerned that the IRS\u2019s interpretation of the law may be inappropriately subjecting individuals and businesses to excessive taxes and mandates. Since the tax credits trigger the tax penalties under the law\u2019s employer mandate and individual mandate, the IRS\u2019s rule extends those penalties to people and employers in states that opted not to create a state exchange. One expert estimated that 57 million people residing in states participating in the federal exchanges would otherwise be exempt from these mandates.   \u00a0  Furthermore, while the Administration has decided not to inform people about the potential ramifications of King, the administration has protected insurers, at their request, from a ruling that strikes down the IRS rule.\u00a0 According to an October report, at the request of insurers, the contracts between CMS and insurers \u201cinclude a new clause assuring issuers that they may pull out of the contracts, subject to state laws, should federal subsidies cease to flow. \u2026 The language in the clause says that CMS acknowledges that the issuer has developed its products for the FFM \u2018based on the assumption that (advanced payment tax credits) and (cost-sharing reduction payments) will be available to qualifying (e)nrollees.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 In the House hearing, Administrator Tavenner testified that CMS negotiated these contracts with insurers over the summer and that every contract has the same clause.\u00a0 It is troubling that the administration decided to protect insurers from a King ruling that restricts the law\u2019s tax credits to state exchanges while at the same time failed to inform people enrolled or considering enrolling in federal exchanges of the potential consequences of such a decision.   \u00a0  Given the enormity of the financial stakes involved, we request that you use your department\u2019s fiscal year (FY) 2016 budget submission to inform Congress of how the Administration plans to respond to a possible ruling in King that recognizes that the IRS\u2019s rule is at odds with the law. We also urge you to inform all current federal exchange enrollees and all visitors to HealthCare.gov about the King suit and how a ruling against the administration could affect them. Finally, please provide information on any actions that the Administration is preparing to ensure that people inappropriately subjected to Obamacare\u2019s individual and employer mandates and associated tax penalties are not punished further.\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["http://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=17e65fe6-c819-4f22-9475-355a3c5b524a"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 3.309474093839526, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}