Financial Planning What the Health Care Decision Law Means for You Read the Article Open Share Drawer Share this: Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn Written by Mint Published Jun 28, 2012 - [Updated Feb 18, 2021] 3 min read Advertising Disclosure The views expressed on this blog are those of the bloggers, and not necessarily those of Intuit. Third-party blogger may have received compensation for their time and services. Click here to read full disclosure on third-party bloggers. This blog does not provide legal, financial, accounting or tax advice. The content on this blog is "as is" and carries no warranties. Intuit does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the content on this blog. After 20 days, comments are closed on posts. Intuit may, but has no obligation to, monitor comments. Comments that include profanity or abusive language will not be posted. Click here to read full Terms of Service. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld all key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed in 2010. Individual Mandate One major aspect of the PPACA is the individual mandate. This requires individuals to have some form of health insurance, whether they get it through their employer or by purchasing it on their own, or pay a penalty. The court upheld the general substance of the individual mandate. However, the Supreme Court did make one slight change: the penalty for not having health insurance must be classified as a tax, as it falls under Congress’ taxing authority, or the Constitutional right to “lay and collect taxes.” Medicaid Expansion The PPACA originally stated that families earning as much as 133 percent of the federal poverty line are now eligible for Medicaid. The court upheld the expansion of Medicaid but with one crucial caveat: The federal government may not withhold all Medicaid funds to states that fail to comply with the expansion of Medicaid, instead only permitting the federal government to withhold new Medicaid funding from noncompliant states. This essentially means the Medicaid expansion is now optional for states. Upheld Provisions The rest of the law largely remains intact after the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Upheld provisions of PPACA include: Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers may not deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, one of the key planks of the overall insurance industry reform outlined in the bill. Slacker Mandate: The so-called “slacker mandate” requires insurance companies to offer coverage for the children of policyholders under the age of 26. Donut Hole Closed: PPACA attempts to address the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare Part D coverage. This is the gap between the catastrophic coverage threshold and the initial coverage limit. Put simply, Medicare recipients are responsible for all costs above the initial coverage limit but under the catastrophic coverage threshold. The gap will gradually close until 2020, when it is eliminated entirely. Cadillac Insurance Tax: A 40 percent excise tax will be levied on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans beginning in 2018. The tax applies to individual coverage costs in excess of $10,200 and family costs above $27,500. The threshold is higher for individuals and families in high-risk professions. Indoor Tanning Tax: The 10 percent tax on indoor tanning that took effect on July 1, 2010 is still in effect. Other Insurance Industry Reforms: Your insurer may not drop coverage because you get sick. The industry must have an appeals process in place for claims and coverage determination. Fight Not Over Yet While this is certainly a landmark decision with far-reaching consequences, the fight over PPACA isn’t over yet. Some political candidates have reoriented their 2012 electoral campaigns toward repealing the bill after the 2012 elections. Further, the National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius is only one of multiple suits challenging the bill. No matter which side you fall on, PPACA is an undeniably contentious issue, which is surely going to be a hot topic this election year. Nicholas Pell is a freelance writer based in Hollywood, CA. He has followed the fight over PPACA closely for the last three years. Previous Post MintStyle with Rachel Weingarten: Traveling in Style Next Post DIY Solutions to Your Home Garden Disasters Written by Mint Mint is passionate about helping you to achieve financial goals through education and with powerful tools, personalized insights, and much more. More from Mint Browse Related Articles Mint App News Intuit Credit Karma welcomes all Minters! Retirement 101 5 Things the SECURE 2.0 Act changes about retirement Home Buying 101 What Are Homeowners Association (HOA) Fees and What Do They Cover? Financial Planning What Are Tax Deductions and Credits? 20 Ways To Save on Taxes Financial Planning What Is Income Tax and How Is It Calculated? Investing 101 The 15 Best Investments for 2023 Investing 101 How To Buy Stocks: A Beginner’s Guide Investing 101 What Is Real Estate Wholesaling? Life What Is A Brushing Scam? Financial Planning WTFinance: Annuities vs Life Insurance