Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Health Plans in Landmark $13 Billion Affordable Care Act Case
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.28.20
On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Maine Cmty. Health Options et al v. United States, ruling in favor of Maine and companion insurers in the long running Affordable Care Act §1342 “risk corridors” litigation, and confirming the government’s obligation to pay insurers approximately $13 billion for their work related to the ACA. Under the risk corridors program, the government and the health plans shared risk during the first three years of the ACA exchanges, and had reciprocal statutory payment obligations; however, after the health plans performed, the government refused to make full payment, arguing that Congress’ refusal to appropriate funds vitiated the government’s payment obligation. Reversing the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the statute contained an unambiguous payment mandate, which was not repealed or otherwise suspended by Congress’ failure to make appropriations available. While a failure to appropriate funds prevents agencies from making the payment, the failure does not relieve the United States of its obligation to pay. Speaking for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “These holdings reflect a principle as old as the Nation itself: The Government should honor its obligations. Soon after ratification, Alexander Hamilton stressed this insight as a cornerstone of fiscal policy. ‘States,’ he wrote, ‘who observe their engagements . . . are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those . . . who pursue an opposite conduct.’” C&M partner Steve McBrady called the decision “important” noting that it “cements bedrock principles of fairness into money mandating statute jurisprudence.” Crowell & Moring represented Maine Community Health Options.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.27.25
U.S. Departments of State and Treasury Issue Immediate Sanctions Relief for Syria
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India