Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or
Delay the Affordable Care Act
C. Stephen Redhead
Specialist in Health Policy
Janet Kinzer
Information Research Specialist
October 30, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43289
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background on the Affordable Care Act .......................................................................................... 2
How ACA Implementation Affects Federal Spending ..................................................................... 3
Tables
Table A-1. Enacted Authorizing Legislation That Amends the ACA .............................................. 7
Table B-1. ACA Provisions in Bills Approved by the House in the 112th and 113th
Congresses .................................................................................................................................. 10
Table C-1. ACA-Related Provisions in Appropriations Acts, FY2011-FY2014 ............................ 13
Table D-1. Administrative Delays in ACA Implementation .......................................................... 18
Appendixes
Appendix A. ACA Provisions in Enacted Authorizing Legislation in the 111th and
112th Congresses............................................................................................................................ 6
Appendix B. ACA Provisions in Bills Approved by the House in the 112th and 113th
Congresses .................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix C. ACA Provisions in Appropriations Acts (FY2011-FY2014) .................................... 12
Appendix D. Administrative Actions to Delay ACA Implementation ........................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Introduction
Congress is deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010.1 Since the ACA’s enactment,
lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA, or to the entire law, have debated
implementation of the law on numerous occasions and considered multiple bills to repeal, defund,
delay, or otherwise amend the law. Most of the legislative activity on these ACA-related bills has
taken place in the House. The legislation has included stand-alone bills as well as provisions in
broader, often unrelated measures that would (1) repeal the ACA in its entirety and, in some
cases, replace it with new law; (2) repeal, or by amendment restrict or otherwise limit, specific
provisions in the ACA; (3) eliminate appropriations provided by the ACA and rescind all
unobligated funds;2 (4) replace the mandatory appropriations for one or more ACA programs with
authorizations of (discretionary) appropriations, and rescind all unobligated funds; and (5) block
or otherwise delay implementation of specific ACA provisions. A few bills containing provisions
to amend the ACA that have attracted sufficiently broad and bipartisan support have been
approved in both the House and the Senate and signed into law.
Some lawmakers also have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate
funding for the ACA or delay its implementation. Several ACA-related provisions were included
in enacted appropriations acts for FY2011-FY2013. Congress has yet to complete legislative
action on any of the 12 annual appropriations bills to fund the routine operations of the federal
government for FY2014, which began on October 1, 2013. Moreover, lawmakers initially were
unable to agree on a continuing appropriations bill, or a continuing resolution (CR), to provide
funding for the new fiscal year. The House repeatedly attached provisions to the CR to defund or
delay ACA implementation, which the Senate rejected. The resulting lapse in funding at the
beginning of FY2014 led to a partial shutdown of the federal government. Lawmakers finally
reached agreement on legislative language on October 16, and the President signed the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46), the following day to reopen the government.3
P.L. 113-46, which funds the federal government through January 15, 2014, does not include any
provisions to defund or delay ACA implementation. Instead, it requires the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to certify to Congress that the ACA health insurance exchanges are
1 The ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010 (P.L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119). A week later, on March 30, 2010, the
President signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA; P.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029), which
amended multiple health care and revenue provisions in the ACA. All references to the ACA in this report refer to the
law as amended by HCERA.
2 Appropriations bills provide agencies with budget authority, which is the legal authority to incur financial obligations
(e.g., hire employees, purchase services, award grants, or sign contracts) that result in immediate or future government
expenditures (or outlays). Budget authority is generally made available for obligation during a specified time period,
typically the upcoming fiscal year. Once budget authority reaches the end of that time period, it “expires,” meaning that
it is no longer available for obligation. A rescission is a provision of law that cancels budget authority prior to when it
would otherwise expire, making it unavailable for future obligation. For further explanations of these terms, see GAO,
A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP, September 2005, pp. 85-86, available at
http://www.gao.gov.
3 P.L. 113-46, 127 Stat. 558. For more analysis of the various legal and procedural considerations arising from the use
of the appropriations process to delay or defund the ACA, see CRS Report R43246, Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the
Appropriations Process: FAQs Regarding Potential Legislative Changes and Effects of a Government Shutdown,
coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead.
Congressional Research Service
1
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
verifying the eligibility of individuals applying for subsidies to help cover the cost of purchasing
insurance coverage.
This report summarizes legislative and other actions taken to repeal, defund, or delay the ACA
since the law’s enactment. The information is presented in four appendixes. Table A-1 in
Appendix A summarizes the authorizing legislation to amend the ACA that has been approved by
both chambers and enacted into law. Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes the ACA provisions
in authorizing legislation that passed the House in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) but was not
approved by the Senate. It also lists the ACA-related legislation that the House has passed to date
in the 113th Congress (2013-2014), but which has not been taken up by the Senate. Table C-1 in
Appendix C summarizes the ACA-related provisions in enacted annual appropriations acts for
FY2011-FY2013, and in the FY2014 continuing appropriations act. Also included is a brief
overview of all the ACA-related provisions added to appropriations bills considered, and in most
cases reported, by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees since FY2011. Finally,
Table D-1 in Appendix D summarizes the administrative decisions taken by HHS and the
Department of the Treasury to delay implementation of specific ACA requirements by one year.
To help provide context for the information presented in the appendixes, the report continues with
some background on the core provisions of the ACA. That is followed by an overview of the
law’s impact on federal spending. This report will be updated periodically to reflect legislative
and other developments.
Background on the Affordable Care Act4
Among its many provisions, the ACA reforms the private health insurance market and sets
minimum standards for health coverage. The law creates competitive private health insurance
marketplaces—or exchanges—in each state through which individuals and small employers will
be able to shop for, select, and enroll in qualified health plans. The exchanges began open
enrollment on October 1, 2013. Insurance coverage bought through the exchanges will begin on
January 1, 2014. Plans offered through the exchanges, and certain other plans, must meet
essential health benefit standards requiring them to cover emergency services, hospital care,
physician services, preventive care, prescription drugs, and mental health and substance use
disorder treatment, among other specified services.
Refundable tax credits will be available to certain individuals and families with incomes between
100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to help offset the cost of purchasing insurance
coverage through the exchanges. In addition, certain individuals and families receiving the
premium credit will be eligible for a subsidy to lower their cost-sharing (i.e., out-of-pocket costs
such as deductibles and co-pays).
The ACA also establishes new federal requirements for private health insurance, some of which
have already taken effect. For example, health plans may not deny coverage to children up to age
4 The information provided in this section is drawn from CRS Report R41664, ACA: A Brief Overview of the Law,
Implementation, and Legal Challenges, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead. While a detailed examination of the ACA
is beyond the scope of this report, numerous CRS products that provide more in-depth information on the many new
programs and activities authorized and funded by the law are available at http://www.crs.gov/pages/subissue.aspx?
cliid=3746&parentid=13&preview=False.
Congressional Research Service
2
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
19 based on a preexisting condition, young adults up to age 26 generally must be allowed to
remain on their parents’ health plans, and plans must cover preventive services and
immunizations recommended by various specified entities without any cost-sharing. The
remaining health insurance requirements take effect in 2014, when health plans will be required
to sell and renew policies to all individuals, and may not deny coverage for preexisting conditions
at any age or otherwise discriminate based on health status. Premiums may vary by limited
amounts, but only based on age, family size, geographic area, and tobacco use.5
Also beginning in 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to have health
insurance. Those who remain uninsured may have to pay a penalty. As plans will no longer be
able to restrict coverage of individuals with health problems, the ACA’s individual insurance
mandate is intended to ensure that healthy individuals participate in the insurance market rather
than waiting until they need health care services. Increasing the number of healthy persons in the
risk pool helps spread the risk and reduce premiums.
In addition to expanding access to private health insurance coverage, the ACA, as enacted,
requires state Medicaid programs to expand coverage to all eligible nonelderly, non-pregnant
individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the FPL. The federal government will
initially cover 100% of the expansion costs, phasing down to 90% of the costs by 2020.
Moreover, Medicaid law authorizes the HHS Secretary to withhold existing federal Medicaid
matching funds if states refuse to comply with the expansion. However, in National Federation of
Independent Business v. Sebelius, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Medicaid expansion
unconstitutionally coerced the states by threatening them with the loss of their existing federal
Medicaid matching funds.6 The Court precluded the HHS Secretary from penalizing states that
choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion, a decision that effectively makes Medicaid
expansion an option for states.7
How ACA Implementation Affects
Federal Spending
Implementation of the ACA is projected to have a significant impact on both mandatory and
discretionary spending. Mandatory spending—also referred to as direct spending—is controlled
through authorizing laws.8 It includes spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and
Social Security. Such spending may be funded through provisions in the authorizing law that
provide temporary or permanent appropriations for that purpose. Alternatively, when the
authorizing law contains no appropriations, such mandatory programs are funded through the
annual appropriations process. This is sometimes referred to as “appropriated mandatory” or
5 For more information, see CRS Report R42069, Private Health Insurance Market Reforms in the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (ACA), by Annie L. Mach and Bernadette Fernandez.
6 NFIB v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, slip op. (June 28, 2012), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf.
7 For more information, see CRS Report R42367, Medicaid and Federal Grant Conditions After NFIB v. Sebelius:
Constitutional Issues and Analysis, by Kenneth R. Thomas.
8 An authorization may generally be described as a statutory provision that defines the authority of the government to
act. It can establish or continue a federal agency, program, policy, project, or activity. Further, it may establish policies
and restrictions and deal with organizational and administrative matters. It may also explicitly authorize subsequent
congressional action to provide appropriations. For further information, see CRS Report R42098, Authorization of
Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup and Brian T. Yeh.
Congressional Research Service
3
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
“appropriated entitlement” spending.9 Discretionary spending is both controlled and funded
through the annual appropriations process. It typically covers the routine costs of running federal
agencies and offices, including wages and salaries.10
Federal spending on ACA implementation can be grouped into three categories: (1) mandatory
spending to expand insurance coverage through the exchanges and Medicaid, (2) other mandatory
spending provided in the ACA, and (3) discretionary spending on administering and enforcing the
ACA.
Mandatory Spending on Expanding Insurance Coverage
The first category, which accounts for most of the federal spending under the ACA, includes the
exchange subsidies (i.e., premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies), the federal
government’s share of the costs of Medicaid expansion, and tax credits for small employers. The
Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) estimate of the budgetary impact of the ACA projected
that those costs would be offset by revenues from new taxes and fees established in the law, and
by savings from the law’s changes to Medicare payments that are designed to slow the growth in
future spending on this program.11
Mandatory Spending for Other Programs
The ACA included numerous appropriations that provide billions of dollars of mandatory funding
to support grant programs and other activities authorized by the law.12 For example, the ACA
provided funding for several temporary insurance programs for targeted groups, including a
temporary high-risk pool for uninsured individuals with preexisting conditions, and a reinsurance
program to reimburse employers for a portion of the health insurance claims’ costs for their 55- to
64-year-old retirees. It provided funding for grants to states to plan and establish health insurance
exchanges. The ACA also provided a permanent appropriation, available for 10-year periods, for
the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMI), within the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), to test and implement innovative health care payment and service
delivery models.
In addition, the ACA created four special funds and appropriated amounts to each one. First, the
Community Health Center Fund (CHCF) is providing $11 billion over five years to help support
community health center operations and the National Health Service Corps. Second, the Patient-
Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) is supporting comparative effectiveness
research through FY2019 with a mix of appropriations, fees on health plans, and transfers from
the Medicare trust funds. Third, the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF), for which the
9 For further information on direct spending, see CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in
the Federal Budget Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.
10 For further information on discretionary spending, see CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations
Process: An Introduction, by Jessica Tollestrup.
11 For more analysis of the ACA’s projected impact on federal direct spending and revenues, including details of
CBO’s budgetary estimates, see CRS Report R42051, Budget Control Act: Potential Impact of Sequestration on Health
Reform Spending, by C. Stephen Redhead.
12 For a summary of all the ACA’s mandatory appropriations, and the status of obligation of those funds, see CRS
Report R41301, Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), by C.
Stephen Redhead.
Congressional Research Service
4
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
ACA provided a permanent annual appropriation, is intended to support prevention, wellness, and
other public health-related programs and activities. Finally, the Health Insurance Reform
Implementation Fund (HIRIF), for which the ACA appropriated $1 billion, is helping cover the
administrative costs of implementing the law.
Discretionary Spending
Besides its impact on mandatory spending, implementation of the ACA is likely to affect
discretionary spending, which is controlled through the annual appropriations process. First, the
ACA created numerous new discretionary grant programs and provided most of them with an
authorization of appropriations. To date, however, few of these programs have received
discretionary funding, though several of them have been supported with mandatory funds from
the PPHF.13
Second, the two agencies largely responsible for the law’s implementation—CMS and the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—are projected to incur substantial costs in connection with
administering and enforcing the law. To date, the agencies have used a mix of discretionary funds
from agency accounts (e.g., CMS Program Management), including transfers from other HHS
agency accounts, as well as ACA mandatory funds (e.g., HIRIF, PPHF) to support
implementation activities. CMS and the IRS have both requested additional discretionary funding
for ACA-related activities in their annual budget submissions. For FY2013, CMS requested an
additional $1 billion for ACA implementation, and the IRS requested an additional $360 million
to administer and enforce the ACA’s tax-related provisions. The Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6, Division F) did not provide any of these requested funds
for ACA implementation.14 The Administration’s FY2014 budget request included $1.4 billion in
new funds for CMS for ongoing ACA implementation, plus an additional $440 million for the
IRS for its ACA-related activities. The temporary FY2014 continuing appropriations act (P.L.
113-46), under which the federal government is currently operating, does not provide any new
funding for ACA implementation.
13 The ACA also reauthorized funding for many existing discretionary grant programs authorized under the PHSA;
notably, the federal health workforce programs administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA). The authorization of appropriations for many of these programs expired prior to the ACA’s enactment, though
they continued to receive an annual appropriation. The ACA also permanently reauthorized appropriations for the
federal health centers program and for programs and services provided by the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Congressional appropriators have in general continued to provide discretionary funding for these longstanding
programs, though typically at funding levels below the amounts authorized by the ACA. For more details on all the
authorizations (and reauthorizations) of discretionary funding in ACA, including the FY2011-FY2013 funding levels
for programs that received an appropriation, see CRS Report R41390, Discretionary Spending in the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (ACA), coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead.
14 For more discussion on federal spending to administer and enforce ACA, see CRS Report R42051, Budget Control
Act: Potential Impact of Sequestration on Health Reform Spending, by C. Stephen Redhead, pp. 19-21.
Congressional Research Service
5
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Appendix A. ACA Provisions in Enacted
Authorizing Legislation in the 111th and
112th Congresses
Table A-1 summarizes the authorizing legislation enacted to date to amend the ACA. Each table
entry includes the public law number and date of enactment, the original bill number and sponsor,
and a brief description and explanation of the change(s) made to the ACA. The laws are listed in
chronological order beginning with the first measure signed into law following the enactment of
the ACA and the accompanying package of amendments in the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act.15 In compiling the table, CRS made decisions about which laws—or specific
provisions in a particular law—to include, and which ones to leave out. Generally, CRS has
included only those laws that amend, or make changes that relate to, new programs and activities
established under the ACA. CRS has excluded laws that amend or extend established programs
and activities that were subject to prior amendment by the ACA. For example, the ACA extended
multiple existing Medicare and Medicaid program payments and activities that have since been
further extended and/or modified by more recently enacted laws. None of these laws are included
in Table A-1.
The following laws are referred to in the tables by their acronym:
• Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA; P.L. 111-152)
• Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
• Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA; P.L. 110-275)
• Social Security Act (SSA)
15 See footnote 1.
Congressional Research Service
6
Table A-1. Enacted Authorizing Legislation That Amends the ACA
Public Law
and Date of
Enactment
Bill (Sponsor)
Summary of ACA Provisions
111th Congress
P.L. 111-159
H.R. 4887 (Skelton)
TRICARE Affirmation Act. Amended IRC Section 5000A(f)(1)(A), as added by ACA Section 5101(b), to clarify that health
Apr. 26, 2010
care provided under TRICARE, TRICARE for Life, and the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits program constitutes minimal
essential health care coverage as required by the ACA. [Beginning in 2014, the ACA requires most U.S. citizens and legal
residents to have minimal essential health care coverage or pay a penalty.]
P.L. 111-173
H.R. 5014 (Filner)
[No title.] Amended IRC Section 5000A(f)(1)(A), as added by ACA Section 5101(b), to clarify that health care provided by the
May 27, 2010
Department of Veterans Affairs constitutes minimal essential health care coverage as required by the ACA. [Beginning in 2014,
the ACA requires most U.S. citizens and legal residents to have minimal essential health care coverage or pay a penalty.]
P.L. 111-226
H.R. 1586 (Rangel)
FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. Among its many provisions, P.L. 111-226
Aug. 10, 2010
amended SSA Section 1927(k)(1)(B)(i)(IV) (as added by ACA Section 2503(a)(2)(B), as amended by HCERA Section 1101(c)) by
modifying the definition of average manufacturer price (AMP) to include inhalation, infusion, implanted, or injectable drugs that
are not general y dispensed through a retail community pharmacy.
P.L. 111-309
H.R. 4994 (Lewis)
Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010. To help offset the costs of the Medicare and Medicaid program extensions
Dec. 15, 2010
and the postponement of cuts in Medicare physician payments, P.L. 111-309 amended IRC Section 36B (as added by ACA Section
1401(a)) to modify the amount of excess premium tax credits that individuals would have to repay. The law created a sliding scale
for such repayments based on household income. [Under the ACA, the amount received in premium credits is based on income
as reported on tax returns. These amounts are reconciled the following year, which could result in an overpayment of credits if
income increases. The ACA placed limits on the amount of any premium credit overpayment that had to be repaid to the
government.]
P.L. 111-312
H.R. 4853 (Oberstar)
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Amended ACA Section 10909
Dec. 17, 2010
to extend the nonrefundable adoption tax credit through tax year 2012. The adoption tax credit helps offset the cost of qualified
adoption expenses. [Subsequently, P.L. 112-240 made the nonrefundable adoption tax credit permanent.]
P.L. 111-383
H.R. 6523 (Skelton)
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Extended TRICARE coverage to dependent adult
Jan. 7, 2011
children up to age 26, to conform with the private health insurance requirements under the ACA.
112th Congress
P.L. 112-9
H.R. 4 (Lungren)
Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011.
Apr. 14, 2011
Amended IRC Section 6041, as amended by ACA Section 9006, to repeal the requirement that businesses file an information
report (IRS Form 1099) whenever they pay a vendor more than $600 for goods in a single year. To pay for the 1099 repeal, P.L.
112-9 further amended IRC Section 36B, as added by ACA Section 1401(a), by modifying the amount of excess premium tax
credits that individuals would have to repay based on household income (see entry for P.L. 111-309, above).
CRS-7
Public Law
and Date of
Enactment
Bill (Sponsor)
Summary of ACA Provisions
P.L. 112-56
H.R. 674 (Herger)
3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act. Among its many provisions, P.L. 112-56 amended IRC Section 36B, as added
Nov. 21, 2011
by ACA section 1401(a) (as amended), by modifying the calculation of Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) to include Social
Security benefits. MAGI will be used to determine eligibility for exchange subsidies and Medicaid, beginning in 2014.
P.L. 112-96
H.R. 3630 (Camp)
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Among its many provisions, P.L. 112-96:
Feb. 22, 2012
•
Amended ACA Section 4002 to reduce the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) annual appropriations over the period
FY2013-FY2021 by a total of $6.25 billion to help offset the cost of extending the payroll tax cut and other programs in P.L.
112-96.
•
Amended SSA Section 1923(f) to extend by one year the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotment reduction
imposed by ACA Section 3203.
•
Amended SSA Section 1905(aa), as added by ACA Section 2006, to make a technical correction to the formula to phase
down the Medicaid disaster-recovery Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) adjustment as originally intended. [The
purpose of the adjustment was to help Louisiana avoid a significant reduction in its federal Medicaid match (i.e., FMAP) in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As written in ACA Section 2006, the formula for the disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment
unintentionally caused the FMAP adjustment to increase, rather than phase down, each year the state qualifies for the
adjustment.]
P.L. 112-141
H.R. 4348 (Mica)
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or “MAP-21”. Among its many provisions, P.L. 112-141 further
July 6, 2012
modified the Medicaid disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment (see entry for P.L. 112-96, above) by changing the adjustment factor
and the effective date.
P.L. 112-240
H.R. 8 (Camp)
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Among its many provisions, P.L. 112-240:
Jan. 2, 2013
•
Amended MIPAA Section 119 to provide a total of $25 million for FY2013 for the four outreach and assistance programs,
which ACA Section 3306 funded through FY2012.
•
Amended SSA Section 501(c)(1)(A) to provide $5 million for FY2013 for the family-to-family information centers, which
ACA Section 5507(b) funded through FY2012.
•
Transferred 10% of the remaining unobligated Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program funds to a new
CO-OP contingency fund (to provide assistance and oversight to CO-OP loan recipients) and rescinded the other 90% of
those funds (see entries for P.L. 112-10 and P.L. 112-74, which predate this act, in Table C-1).a
•
Repealed ACA Title VIII, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act.
•
Repealed the ACA’s appropriations for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information and rescinded al
unobligated funds.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the text of the public laws listed in the table.
a. P.L. 112-10 and P.L. 112-74 rescinded a total of $2.6 billion of the ACA’s original $6 billion appropriation for the CO-OP program (see Table C-1). At the time P.L.
112-240 was enacted, according to HHS budget documents, the CO-OP program had an unobligated balance of $2.532 billion. P.L. 112-240 rescinded 90% of that
amount (i.e., $2.279 billion), and remaining funds (i.e., $253 million) were transferred to the contingency fund. In all, Congress has rescinded $4.879 billion of the $6
billion CO-OP program appropriation.
CRS-8
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Appendix B. ACA Provisions in Bills Approved by
the House in the 112th and 113th Congresses
As noted earlier in this report, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA, or to the
entire law, have debated implementation of the law on numerous occasions and considered
multiple bills to repeal, defund, or delay the law. Most of this legislative activity has taken place
in the House. However, a few bills containing provisions to amend the ACA that have attracted
sufficiently broad and bipartisan support have been approved in both the House and the Senate
and signed into law. Those laws are summarized in Table A-1 in Appendix A.
This appendix summarizes the ACA provisions in authorizing legislation that passed the House in
the 112th Congress, but was not approved by the Senate. It also lists the ACA-related legislation
that the House has passed to date in the 113th Congress, but which has not been taken up by the
Senate. This appendix includes only legislation that, if enacted, would have a direct impact on the
ACA and its implementation; measures that would not have such an effect are not included. Thus,
budget resolutions, which are concurrent resolutions and not eligible to become public law, are
not included.16
16 Both the House and the Senate have taken multiple votes on amendments to, and passage of, budget resolutions that
expressed support for a full repeal of the ACA, or the repeal or amendment of specific provisions in the law. However,
budget resolutions are concurrent resolutions that apply only to the Congress. They are not presented to the President
for his signature and do not have the force of law. In the 112th Congress, for example, the House voted on several
ACA-related amendments to, and passage of, the FY2012 and FY2013 budget resolutions (H.Con.Res. 34 and
H.Con.Res. 112, respectively).
Congressional Research Service
9
Table B-1. ACA Provisions in Bills Approved by the House in the 112th and 113th Congresses
Bill (Sponsor)
Bill Title, House Vote, Summary of ACA Provisions
112th Congress
H.R. 2 (Cantor)
Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. Passed the House by a vote of 245-189 on January 19, 2011. It was offered as an
amendment during Senate floor debate on an unrelated bill (S. 223) and rejected on a procedural motion by a vote of 47-51. H.R. 2 would have
repealed the ACA in its entirety and restored the provisions of law amended or repealed by the ACA as if it had not been enacted.
H.R. 5 (Gingrey)
Protecting Access to Healthcare Act. Passed the House by a vote of 223-181 on March 22, 2012. Title II of H.R. 5 would have repealed the
authority and appropriations for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
H.R. 358 (Pitts)
Protect Life Act. Passed the House by a vote of 251-172 on October 13, 2011. H.R. 358 would have prohibited using any funds authorized or
appropriated by the ACA to pay for an abortion or to pay for any part of the costs of a health plan that covers abortions, except if the
pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant female is at risk unless an abortion is performed. It would have required
insurers that offer plans through the exchanges that cover abortion services to offer identical plans that do not cover abortion services. It also
would have prohibited federal, state or local government programs that receive ACA funding from discriminating against health care entities that
refuse to provide abortion services or abortion training.
H.R. 436 (Paulsen)
Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012. Passed the House by a vote of 270-146 on June 7, 2012. H.R. 436 would have (1) repealed
ACA’s 2.3% excise tax on medical devices; (2) repealed the law’s restrictions on using tax-preferred accounts to pay for over-the-counter drugs;
(3) allowed individuals to recoup up to $500 of unused funds remaining in their flexible spending account (FSA) after the end of the plan year;
and (4) eliminated all limits on repayment of any premium credit overpayment, making individuals liable for the full amount.
H.R. 1173 (Boustany)
Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2012. Passed the House by a vote of 267-159 on February 1, 2012. H.R. 1173
would have repealed Title VIII of the ACA, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. [Note: P.L. 112-240, enacted
January 2, 2013, included a repeal of the CLASS Act; see Table A-1 in Appendix A.]
H.R. 1213 (Upton)
A bill to repeal ACA funding for health insurance exchanges. Passed the House by a vote of 238-183 on May 3, 2011. H.R. 1213 would
have repealed the authority and appropriations for state exchange planning and establishment grants and rescinded al unobligated funds.
H.R. 1214 (Burgess)
A bill to repeal ACA funding for school-based health center (SBHC) construction. Passed the House by a vote of 235-191 on May 4,
2011. H.R. 1214 would have repealed the authority and appropriations for SBHC construction grants and rescinded al unobligated funds.
H.R. 1216 (Guthrie)
A bill to convert funding for graduate medical education (GME) in qualified teaching health centers (THCs) to an
authorization of appropriations. Passed the House by a vote of 234-185 on May 25, 2011. H.R. 1216 would have replaced the appropriation
for GME payments to THCs with an authorization of appropriations for each of FY2012 through FY2015, and rescinded al unobligated funds. It
would have prohibited the GME funds from being used to provide abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or when the woman’s life is in
danger.
H.R. 1217 (Pitts)
A bill to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF). Passed the House by a vote of 236-183 on April 13, 2011. H.R. 1217
would have repealed the authority and appropriations for the PPHF and rescinded all unobligated funds.
CRS-10
Bill (Sponsor)
Bill Title, House Vote, Summary of ACA Provisions
H.R. 4628 (Biggert)
Interest Rate Reduction Act. Passed the House by a vote of 215-195 on April 27, 2012. H.R. 4628 would have postponed by one year a
scheduled increase in Stafford education loan rates and, to offset the costs of that adjustment, repealed the authority and appropriations for the
PPHF and rescinded all unobligated funds. [Note: The one-year Stafford loan rate extension was incorporated as Division F, Title III of MAP-21,
the surface transportation reauthorization bill (see entry for P.L. 112-141 in Table A-1 in Appendix A). The provision in H.R. 4628 to repeal
the PPHF and rescind al unobligated funds was not included in MAP-21.]
H.R. 5652 (Ryan)
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. Passed the House by a vote of 218-199 on May 10, 2012. H.R. 5652, which was
introduced pursuant to the reconciliation instructions in the House FY2013 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), would have replaced the
FY2013 sequestration of discretionary spending (as required under the Budget Control Act of 2011) with a $19 billion reduction in the FY2013
discretionary cap, and would have implemented a series of mandatory program savings recommended by six House committees. Among its
many provisions, H.R. 5652 would have (1) eliminated al limits on repayment of any premium credit overpayment, making individuals liable for
the ful amount; (2) repealed the authority and appropriations for the exchange planning and establishment grants and rescinded all unobligated
funds; (3) repealed the authority and appropriations for the PPHF and rescinded all unobligated funds; (4) rescinded all remaining unobligated
funds for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program; (5) extended by one year the disproportionate share hospital (DSH)
al otment reduction imposed by the ACA; and (6) repealed the ACA’s Medicaid maintenance of effort requirements.
H.R. 6079 (Cantor)
Repeal of Obamacare Act. Passed the House by a vote of 244-185 on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would have repealed the ACA in its entirety
and restored the provisions of law amended or repealed by the ACA as if it had not been enacted.
113th Congress
H.R. 45 (Bachmann)
A bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Passed the House by a vote of 229-195 on May 16, 2013. H.R. 45
would repeal the ACA in its entirety and restore the provisions of law amended or repealed by the ACA as if it had not been enacted.
H.R. 2009 (Price)
Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013. Passed the House by a vote of 232-185 on August 2, 2013. H.R. 2009 would prohibit the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from implementing or enforcing any provisions of the ACA.
H.R. 2667 (Griffin)
Authority for Mandate Delay Act. Passed the House by a vote of 264-161 on July 17, 2013. H.R. 2667 would delay for one year certain
ACA reporting requirements for insurers and employers as well as the penalties for employers who do not offer affordable coverage. [Note:
This bill would essentially codify the Administration’s announcement on July 2, 2013, that it was delaying the ACA employer mandate and related
reporting requirements. See Table D-1.]
H.R. 2668 (Young)
Fairness for American Families Act. Passed the House by a vote of 251-174 on July 17, 2013. H.R. 2668 would delay the ACA individual
mandate by one year, and shift by one year the schedule of penalties for individuals who do not comply with the mandate. It also incorporated
the provisions in H.R. 2667 (see above) to delay the employer mandate and related reporting requirements.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the text of the bills listed in the table.
CRS-11
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Appendix C. ACA Provisions in Appropriations
Acts (FY2011-FY2014)
Numerous ACA-related provisions have been added to appropriations bills considered, and in
some instances reported, by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for FY2011-
FY2014. These provisions have been included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies (“Labor-HHS-ED”) Appropriations Act, which funds
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Financial Services and General
Government (“Financial Services”) Appropriations Act, which funds the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). They include language prohibiting the use of discretionary funds provided in the
bill to implement specific ACA provisions or the entire law, as well as broader legislative
language to repeal, restrict, or rescind mandatory spending for, specific ACA provisions. While
none of the discretionary funding prohibitions have survived, a few of the broader provisions
affecting direct spending were incorporated into the final versions of the appropriations bills that
were signed into law.
Table C-1 summarizes the ACA-related provisions in enacted annual appropriations acts for
FY2011-FY2013, and in the FY2014 continuing appropriations act. For each fiscal year, the table
also gives a brief overview of the ACA-related provisions that were added to the Labor-HHS-ED
and Financial Services appropriations act introduced and, in most cases, reported by the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Congressional Research Service
12
Table C-1. ACA-Related Provisions in Appropriations Acts, FY2011-FY2014
Public Law and
Date of Enactment
Summary of Provisions
FY2011
P.L. 112-10
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. Division B, Title VIII of P.L. 112-10 provided full-year
Apr. 15, 2011
continuing appropriations for Labor-HHS-ED for FY2011 general y at FY2010 levels, but with numerous spending reductions for specified agencies
and programs. It included the following ACA-related provisions:
•
Permanently canceled $2.2 billion of the $6 billion appropriation for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program, which was
established and funded by ACA Section 1322.
•
Repealed the free choice voucher program, established by ACA Section 10108, which would have required certain employers to provide
vouchers to qualified employees for purchasing coverage through a health insurance exchange.
•
Prohibited transfers from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to support the U.S. Public Health Sciences Track, pursuant to
ACA Section 5315.
•
Removed the maintenance of effort requirement for use of monies in the Community Health Center Fund (CHCF), which was established and
funded by ACA Section 10503 (as amended by HCERA Section 2303).
•
Mandated a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of the costs and processes of ACA implementation, and a Medicare actuarial
analysis of the impact of the ACA’s private insurance reforms on employer-sponsored health insurance premiums.
Legislative activity prior to enactment of P.L. 112-10. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2011 Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bill (S.
3686) on August 2, 2010. The measure would have instructed the HHS Secretary to allocate the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) funds for FY2011 (i.e., $750
million) to the programs specified, and in the amounts specified, in a table included in the accompanying committee report (S.Rept. 111-243). The House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-ED also approved a draft FY2011 bill, but the full committee took no further action on it.
On February 19, 2011, the House by a vote of 235-189 passed its version of a full-year continuing resolution for FY2011 (H.R. 1). The bill included nine separate but
overlapping provisions that would have prohibited using any of the discretionary funds provided in the bill to implement specific ACA provisions or the entire law. The Senate
subsequently rejected H.R. 1 by a vote of 44-56 on March 9, 2011.
CRS-13
Public Law and
Date of Enactment
Summary of Provisions
FY2012
P.L. 112-74
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. Division F of P.L. 112-74 provided regular FY2012 appropriations for Labor-HHS-ED and included the
Dec. 23, 2011
following ACA-related provisions:
•
Rescinded $400 million of the remaining $3.8 billion for the CO-OP program; see P.L. 112-10, above.
•
Rescinded $10 million of the $15 million FY2012 appropriation for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which was authorized and
funded by ACA Section 3403.
•
Instructed the HHS Secretary to establish a website with detailed information on the allocation and use of monies in the PPHF, which was
established and funded by ACA Section 4002.
•
Prohibited the use of PPHF funds for lobbying, publicity, or propaganda purposes.
Legislative activity prior to enactment of P.L. 112-74. The chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education introduced a chairman’s bill
(H.R. 3070) on September 29, 2011, but the subcommittee did not mark up or report the measure to the full committee. The bill received no full committee action. H.R.
3070, as introduced, included the following ACA-related provisions that would have: (1) rescinded the entire FY2012 appropriations for CHCF, PPHF, IPAB, the pregnancy
assistance grants, the home visitation program, state Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs), and the health workforce demonstration grants; (2) rescinded all the
remaining CO-OP funds (i.e., $3.8 billion); (3) rescinded $1.862 billion of the $10 billion appropriation for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI) for the
period FY2011-FY2019; and (4) prohibited using any of the discretionary funds provided in the bill to implement and administer the ACA until 90 days after all ACA legal
challenges are complete.
The House Appropriations Committee reported the FY2012 Financial Services appropriations bill (H.R. 2434, H.Rept. 112-136) on July 7, 2011. The measure included the
following ACA-related provisions that would have: (1) prohibited the IRS from using any of the discretionary funds provided in the bil to implement the ACA individual
mandate; and (2) prohibited the transfer of any ACA funds to the IRS.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2012 Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bill (S. 1599) on September 22, 2011. Similar to the previous year’s
bill, S. 1599 would have instructed the HHS Secretary to al ocate the PPHF funds for FY2012 (i.e., $1 billion) to the programs specified, and in the amounts specified, in a table
included in the accompanying committee report (S.Rept. 112-84). In addition, S.Rept. 112-84 included language directing the HHS Secretary to submit a detailed report on all
the recipients of PPHF funding.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2012 Financial Services appropriations bill (S. 1573) on September 15, 2011. The measure did not include any ACA
provisions. However, the accompanying committee report (S.Rept. 112-79) directed the IRS to submit a detailed table itemizing each fund transfer from HHS to the IRS for
the purpose of ACA implementation.
CRS-14
Public Law and
Date of Enactment
Summary of Provisions
FY2013
P.L. 113-6
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. Division F, Title V of P.L. 113-6 provided full-year continuing
Mar. 26, 2013
appropriations for Labor-HHS-ED for FY2013 general y at FY2012 levels, but with some spending adjustments—reductions and increases—for
specified programs. It included the following ACA-related provisions:
•
Rescinded $200 million of the $500 million transfer from the Medicare Part A and Part B trust funds for the 5-year Community-Based Care
Transition Program, which was established and funded by ACA Section 3026.
•
Rescinded $10 million of IPAB’s FY2013 appropriation.
Note that the PPHF website and the prohibition on using PPHF funds for lobbying, publicity, or propaganda purposes, which were included in P.L.
112-74 (see above), remained in effect in FY2013 under P.L. 113-6.
Legislative activity prior to enactment of P.L. 113-6. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-ED approved a draft bill for FY2013 on July 18, 2012,
but no further action was taken. The measure did not include any of the new CMS funds requested in the President’s FY2013 budget for ACA implementation, and it would
have prohibited using any of the discretionary funding provided in the bill to support CMS’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO). The draft bill
also included the following ACA-related provisions that would have: (1) rescinded the entire FY2013 appropriations for PPHF and IPAB, and rescinded the FY2013 base
appropriation of $150 million for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF); (2) rescinded $3 billion of the remaining $3.4 billion for the CO-OP funds
(see P.L. 112-74, above); (3) rescinded $1.590 billion of the $10 billion appropriation for CMI for the period FY2011-FY2019; (4) rescinded $300 million of the $1.5 billion
CHCF appropriation in FY2013 for community health centers; (5) prohibited using any of the discretionary funds provided in the bill to implement and administer the ACA;
(6) instructed the HHS Secretary to establish a website with detailed information on the allocation and use of FY2013 PPHF funds; and (7) prohibited the use of PPHF funds
for lobbying, publicity, or propaganda purposes.
The House Appropriations Committee reported its FY2013 Financial Services appropriations bill (H.R. 6020, H.Rept. 112-550) on June 26, 2012. The measure did not include
any of the new IRS funds requested in the President’s FY2013 budget for ACA implementation. H.R. 6020 would have prohibited the IRS from using any of the discretionary
funds provided in the bill to carry out the transfer of ACA funds to the agency.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2013 Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bill (S. 3295) on June 14, 2012. As with the Senate’s Labor-HHS-ED
appropriations bills for the previous two fiscal years, S. 3295 would have instructed the HHS Secretary to allocate the PPHF funds for FY2013 (i.e., $1 billion, reflecting the
rescission in P.L. 112-96) to the programs specified, and in the amounts specified, in a table included in the accompanying committee report (S.Rept. 112-176). In addition, the
bill would have directed the HHS Secretary to establish a website with detailed information on the allocation and use of PPHF funds.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the FY2013 Financial Services appropriations bill (S. 3301) on June 14, 2012. The measure did not include any ACA-related
provisions. However, the accompanying committee report (S.Rept. 112-177) directed the IRS to submit a detailed table itemizing each fund transfer from the Health Insurance
Reform Implementation Fund (HIRIF) to the IRS for the purpose of ACA implementation.
CRS-15
Public Law and
Date of Enactment
Summary of Provisions
FY2014
P.L. 113-46
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. P.L. 113-46 provides continuing appropriations for the federal government through January 15, 2014,
Oct. 17, 2013
general y at FY2013 post-sequestration funding levels. It includes the fol owing ACA-related provisions:
•
Requires the HHS Secretary to certify in a report to Congress, due by January 1, 2014, that the health exchanges are verifying the eligibility of
individuals applying for premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies consistent with the requirements of the ACA.
•
Requires the HHS Inspector General to report to Congress not later than July 1, 2014, on the effectiveness of procedures and safeguards
provided under the ACA for preventing exchange applicants from submitting inaccurate or fraudulent information.
Legislative activity prior to enactment of P.L. 113-46. With the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, the federal government resumed full
operations on October 17, 2014, after a 16-day partial shutdown of its activities and programs. The shutdown began on October 1, the beginning of FY2014, after the House
and the Senate failed to agree on a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government. On September 20, 2013, the House approved an FY2014 CR (H.J.Res. 59) to provide
temporary funding for the federal government through December 15. H.J.Res. 59, as passed by the House, incorporated language that would have prohibited the use of any
federal funds to carry out the ACA. The Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 59 did not incorporate the House ACA defunding language. On September 29, the House amended
the Senate amendment with language that would have (1) repealed the ACA’s medical device tax, and (2) delayed the law’s implementation by one year, but the Senate tabled
both of these amendments. On September 30, the House further amended the Senate amendment by adding language to (1) delay the ACA’s individual insurance mandate by
one year, and (2) expand the ACA’s requirement that Members of Congress and their staff obtain health coverage through the exchanges to include the President, Vice
President, and political appointees, and prohibit any premium contribution by the government. Once again, the Senate tabled the House amendments.
Earlier in the summer, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees took the fol owing actions on FY2014 appropriations. The Senate Appropriations Committee
reported its FY2014 Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bill (S. 1284) on July 11, 2013. For the fourth year in a row, the Senate’s L-HHS-ED appropriations bill would instruct the
HHS Secretary to allocate the PPHF funds (i.e., $1 billion for FY2014, reflecting the rescission in P.L. 112-96) to the programs specified, and in the amounts specified, in a table
included in the accompanying committee report (S.Rept. 113-71). S. 1284 also would prohibit the Secretary from making any further transfers of PPHF funds. In addition, the
bill would direct the HHS Secretary to establish a website with detailed information on the allocation and use of PPHF funds. S. 1284 would provide CMS with its requested
increase in discretionary funds for ACA implementation in FY2014.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2014 Financial Services appropriations bill (S. 1371, S.Rept. 113-80) on July 25, 2013. S. 1371 would provide some but
not all of the requested increase in IRS funding for ACA implementation.
The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2014 Financial Services appropriations bill (H.R. 2786, H.Rept. 113-172) on July 23, 2013. The measure
would not provide any of the new IRS funds requested in the President’s FY2014 budget for ACA implementation. H.R. 2786, as reported, would prohibit the IRS from using
any of the discretionary funds provided in the bill to implement the individual mandate and would prohibit transfers from HHS to IRS to implement the ACA.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the text of the public laws listed in the table.
CRS-16
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Appendix D. Administrative Actions to Delay ACA
Implementation
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of the Treasury have
taken a number of administrative decisions in 2013 to delay by one year various ACA mandates
and other requirements. Those decisions are listed in Table D-1 in chronological order beginning
with the earliest one.
The following laws are referred to in the tables by their acronym:
• Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
• Public Health Service Act (PHSA)
Congressional Research Service
17
Table D-1. Administrative Delays in ACA Implementation
Source and Date
Summary of Delay
U.S. Department of Labor, “FAQs about Affordable
Limitations on Group Health Plan Cost-Sharing. PHSA Section 2707(b), as added by ACA Section 1201,
Care Act Implementation Part XII,” February 20,
requires group health plans to ensure that any annual cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles) imposed under the plan for a plan
2013, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca12.html.
year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, does not exceed the limitations established under ACA Section 1302(c)(1)
and (c)(2). The Administration has provided a one-year grace period to insurers that use more than one benefits
administrator that will al ow them to apply the separate out-of-pocket limits to each set of benefits under the various
administrators. Under this policy, for example, many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket
limits for hospital and doctors’ services and for prescription drug coverage.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Small Business Exchanges (i.e., SHOPs). The Administration has proposed to delay until 2015 a requirement
“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
that SHOPs offer employers a choice of QHPs. For plan years beginning during 2014, SHOPs may offer a single QHP
Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health
option.
Plans; Small Business Health Options Program,”
Proposed Rule, 78 Federal Register 15553-15558,
March 11, 2013, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2013-03-11/pdf/2013-04952.pdf.
Letter from Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health
Basic Health Plan Option. The Administration is planning to delay implementing the Basic Health Program until
and Human Services, to Senator Maria Cantwell,
2015. [ACA Section 1331, as amended, permits states to establish a Basic Health Program in which states would
March 22, 2013, http://www.cantwell.senate.gov/
contract with private-sector and cooperative health plans to provide health insurance coverage for certain low-income
public/_cache/files/43cebb4b-424a-4960-b88b-
individuals not eligible for the state’s Medicaid program with incomes between 133% and 200% of the federal poverty
d0d9e0bf3692/
level. States that decide to offer the Basic Health Option receive federal funding equal to 95% of the value of the
Senator%20Cantwel %20final%20response%20on%2
premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies that eligible individuals would have received had they purchased
0the%20Basic%20Health%20Plan.pdf.
coverage through the exchange.]
U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Continuing to
Employer Mandate and Insurer Reporting. The Administration has delayed until 2015 the requirement that
Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful
employers with at least 50 ful -time equivalent employees provide health coverage for their ful -time workers (and
Manner,” July 2, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/
children under age 26) or risk paying a penalty. It has also delayed until 2015 the requirement for insurers to report
connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-
certain information to the IRS. [IRC Section 6055 (as added by ACA Section 1502(a)) requires reporting by insurers,
ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx.
self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. IRC Section 6056 (as added by ACA Section
1514(a)) requires certain employers to report on the health coverage they offer to their ful -time employees.]
CRS-18
Source and Date
Summary of Delay
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Exchange Applicant Eligibility and Verification; Electronic Notices. The July 15, 2013 final rule on health
“Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance
insurance exchange eligibility and enrollment included the following one-year delays:
Programs: Essential Health Benefits for Alternative
Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and
•
State-based exchanges will not be required until 2015 to verify applicants’ information regarding possible
Appeal Processes, and Premiums and Cost Sharing:
employer coverage in order to determine eligibility for premium tax credits. During 2014 the exchanges may
Exchanges: Eligibility and Enrollment,” Final Rule, 78
accept an applicant’s attestation without further verification. [Under IRC Section 36B(c)(2)(C), as added by ACA
Federal Register 42160-42322, July 15, 2013,
Section 1401(a), individuals whose employer offers a health plan that is affordable (i.e., the employee’s share of
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-15/pdf/
the premium does not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s household income) and provides minimum value (i.e., the
2013-16271.pdf.
plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is at least 60%) are not eligible for a
premium tax credit through the exchange.]
•
While the government initially proposed an audit of each exchange applicant who reported an income that was at
least 10% below the amount indicated by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA)
records, the final rule permits state-based exchanges during 2014 to audit less than 100% of al such individuals
provided the sample size used is statistically significant. [Under IRC Section 36B(b), as added by ACA Section
1401(a), individuals and families who enroll in qualified health plans (QHPs) offered through an exchange are
eligible for refundable premium tax credits if their income is between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty
level.]
•
The federal government has delayed until 2015 a requirement that state Medicaid agencies provide notices
electronical y to beneficiaries. Between October 1, 2013, and January 1, 2015, state Medicaid agencies must give
individuals the choice to receive notices in electronic format or by regular mail. Agencies must ensure that an
individual’s choice to receive electronic notices is confirmed by regular mail, and must inform the individual of his
or her right to switch to receiving notice through regular mail. [42 C.F.R. 435.918] Note that exchanges must
also provide required notices by regular mail or, if an individual elects, electronically, provided that the
specifications for electronic notices in 42 C.F.R. 435.918 are met. However, exchanges may choose to delay until
2015 the requirement in 42 C.F.R. 435.918(b)(1) that individuals who choose to receive electronic notices receive
confirmation by mail. [45 C.F.R. 155.230(d)]
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on a review of the documents cited in the table.
CRS-19
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act
Author Contact Information
C. Stephen Redhead
Janet Kinzer
Specialist in Health Policy
Information Research Specialist
credhead@crs.loc.gov, 7-2261
jkinzer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7561
Congressional Research Service
20