That three-year-old challenge could determine the fate of those subsidies.
The CSR payments are crucial for insurers, compensating them for covering some out-of-pocket costs for certain low-income consumers. Instead it reduced the federal share of the cost to the pre-Obamacare level.
Trump could still yank the payments. The excess cost will be shifted to the larger consumer base through higher premiums. "Health Care Service Corp., a huge exchange player in five states, filed for average increases including 8.3% in Oklahoma, 23.6% in Texas, and 16% in IL", the WSJ reports.
Republican legislators have become more vocal in advocating for CSR payments. But if they lose the government subsidies, they will have to raise premiums by about 19 percent, Pellegrini said. Those tax credits were not part of the suit.
President Barack Obama requested that Congress explicitly authorize the spending required to reimburse insurers with low-income customers, but Congress denied him. Federal District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in the House's favor in April 2016, and the Obama administration filed an appeal that July.
The order accepted the three key arguments by the states: that their interests would be seriously harmed if the subsidies at issue were ended, that the Trump Administration will not adequately protect their interests, and that there is at least an open legal question about whether the Administration could simply choose to end the subsidies by its own action.
He elaborated in an earlier tweet, "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies...will end very soon!" The appellate court order allowing states to intervene means the Trump administration can not unilaterally stop the CSR payments and dismiss the appeal, according to Tim Jost, emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law and an expert on healthcare reform.
Yet, on the singularly important issue of health care, Republican President Donald J. Trump and the GOP leadership in Congress have largely ignored what governors of both parties have been saying since the repeal and replacement of Obamacare were made the top priority.
But millions of people who buy individual health care policies without any financial assistance from the government would face prohibitive cost increases.
On Tuesday, an appeals court ruled that 16 attorneys general - including Maura Healey of MA - could intervene in a lawsuit involving the subsidies.
It's not accurate to call the cost-sharing subsidies a bailout, said Tim Jost, a professor emeritus at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Virginia.
If Trump hasn't announced a decision by then, all eyes will be on the administration to see whether the funding is sent.
Insurers across the country must decide in the next month whether to participate in the individual marketplaces and finalize their rates for 2018. Some of those remaining are raising the specter that they could leave more markets, adding to the 20 counties that are on track to have no insurers for next year. Many have dropped out of the market, citing losses as claims for medical care exceeded their expectations.
Responding to Saturday´s tweet, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said that if the president carried out that threat, "every expert agrees that insurance premiums will go up and health care will be more expensive for millions of Americans".
"We're at a bit of a tipping point of where things could go".
We support Senator Rand Paul's Constitutional Amendment created to require our government to live under the same laws that they make for us. His White House budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, said the government could cut off monthly payments to insurance companies that help the poor buy insurance, a move that would most likely lead to further increases in insurance premiums in the individual market. Baker and McAuliffe lead the National Governors Association's Health and Human Services Committee.