The Supreme Court has ruled on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) case on June 25, 2015 King vs Burwell

The lawsuit contended that a four-word phrase buried deep within the law, “established by the state,” meant that the federal government couldn’t provide health insurance tax credits in those states that had not established an exchange, which works out to be two-thirds of the states.

The proponents of the law stated that Congress intended for those tax credits to be available everywhere, the law’s defenders said. 232,000 people in Illinois and 6.4 million Americans in 34 states across the country would have been effected.

By this ruling, the Affordable Care Act will continue to be implemented without any changes at this time. Had the ruling been for the Plaintiffs, the residents in those states, including Illinois, who had not established their own Exchanges would have lost the taxpayer funded subsidies.

In Illinois, one of the states that would have been affected by an adverse ruling, 78 percent of those who have enrolled in GetCovered Illinois receive premium tax credits worth, on average, $210 per month. Today’s Supreme Court decision means that they can continue to receive assistance. The Supreme Court rejected the argument before it and, instead, looked at the entire law and stated their reliance on congressional intent.

Below are some facts of this historic decisions:

• In the case of King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Burwell, that is the law as currently implemented.
• Because of this decision, nothing changes.
• Subsidies, also called premium tax credits, will continue to be available to individuals living in the 34 states with public health insurance exchanges run by the federal government as well as those living in the 16 states with state-run exchanges and the District of Columbia.
• Generally, subsidies are available to exchange enrollees who are not offered health coverage through an employer or government plan and whose household income falls between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.