Law & Courts

Educators’ Views Vary in Dispute Over Health Care Law

By Mark Walsh — February 24, 2015 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The Affordable Care Act returns to the U.S. Supreme Court next week, and educators are watching from several perspectives.

The justices on March 4 will weigh whether President Barack Obama’s administration overstepped its authority when it extended subsidies to those who live in states that did not create their own insurance marketplaces under the landmark health-care law.

Critics of the president’s signature law, who have been relentless in trying to overturn it or slow it down, view the case of King v. Burwell (No. 14-114) as one of their best hopes for doing just that. A decision by the high court ending subsidies for participants in 34 states would seriously hobble the overall law, analysts say.

Substitute Teacher a Challenger

One of the four challengers in the King case is Brenda Levy, a 64-year-old substitute teacher from Richmond, Va. She averred in a 2013 court document that she expected to earn $43,000 in 2014, but with no workplace-based health insurance.

That income would exempt her from the ACA’s requirement to purchase health insurance—except for the fact that, under the contested Internal Revenue Service rule, the federal health-insurance exchange offers subsidies to residents of Virginia and the other states that have declined to establish their own exchanges.

“Absent any eligibility for federal subsidies, I would be exempt in 2014 from the individual mandate penalty,” Ms. Levy said in the 2013 legal declaration. “Thus, if I am eligible for a federal subsidy in 2014, I will be forced either to pay a tax penalty or to buy Affordable Care Act-compliant health coverage for 2014. … I do not want to purchase ACA-compliant health coverage in 2014.”

Ms. Levy and three other individuals are challenging the IRS rule in the King case. They argue that language in the healthcare law limits subsidies to those purchasing insurance through, as the law puts it, “exchanges established by the state.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, upheld the Obama administration’s interpretation that the ACA permits subsidies for those buying insurance through the federal HealthCare.gov exchange.

The case has attracted hundreds of pages of briefs from interested groups. But in recent weeks, some news outlets have raised questions about the legal standing of the four Virginia challengers, including Ms. Levy. Two of the other challengers are apparently Vietnam War veterans and potentially eligible for coverage and care from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. A third challenger has faced questions about her residency in Virginia.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal visited Ms. Levy at her Richmond home, where she told its reporters that she had little knowledge of the case and had been told by the lawsuit’s organizers not to discuss it. The paper quoted a spokesman for the Chesterfield County, Va., public schools as stating that Ms. Levy earned about $10,000 annually from her substitute teaching position there. If that were her total income, she would not be subject to a penalty for not purchasing insurance under the ACA.

It was unclear whether Ms. Levy’s projection of $43,000 in income for 2014 included additional sources of pay. She couldn’t be reached for comment.

Standing on the sidelines of the King case is a group of 39 Indiana school districts, which are pressing a separate lawsuit that challenges the IRS subsidy rule over its impact on employers.

The districts say that distribution of subsidies under the federal exchange in a state such as Indiana, which does not have its own exchange, triggers a provision of the ACA that requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide minimum coverage to those who work 30 or more hours a week, or else pay a penalty. The Indiana suit is on hold in the federal district court in Indianapolis because its outcome could be affected by how the Supreme Court rules in King, said W. James Hamilton, an Indianapolis lawyer representing the school districts. Along with the state of Indiana, the districts have filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of those challenging the law in the Supreme Court case.

Many of the Indiana districts have reduced the working hours of instructional aides, substitute teachers, cafeteria staff members, bus drivers, coaches, and others to fewer than 30 hours per week to avoid the penalties under the ACA’s so-called employer mandate.

Asked why Indiana school districts have been at the forefront of challenging the law’s application and not those in other states, Mr. Hamilton said, “Public schools in Indiana are a very well-connected, mobilized group. We want the problem fixed with this law, and we don’t care how it gets done.”

NEA Weighs In

On the other side, the National Education Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the King case in support of the ACA and the Obama administration’s subsidy rules.

“NEA’s members include many low-income education support professionals—such as school bus drivers who safely transport our children to and from school, janitors who clean our schools, and cafeteria workers who nourish our children,” the union’s brief says. “Many of these individuals have benefitted immensely from the ACA’s integrated scheme for expanding affordable coverage.”

In addition, the NEA says, the law is helping improve health care for children, and the challenger’s interpretation of the ACA’s language is mistaken.

Jason Walta, the NEA’s senior counsel, said the union is concerned that a few districts have reduced hours for some school personnel to avoid penalties, “but any concern we have about that doesn’t mean we want to see the ACA scuttled.”

A version of this article appeared in the February 25, 2015 edition of Education Week as Educators’ Views Vary in Health-Care Law Dispute

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Budget & Finance Webinar
Innovative Funding Models: A Deep Dive into Public-Private Partnerships
Discover how innovative funding models drive educational projects forward. Join us for insights into effective PPP implementation.
Content provided by Follett Learning
Budget & Finance Webinar Staffing Schools After ESSER: What School and District Leaders Need to Know
Join our newsroom for insights on investing in critical student support positions as pandemic funds expire.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Achievement Webinar
How can districts build sustainable tutoring models before the money runs out?
District leaders, low on funds, must decide: broad support for all or deep interventions for few? Let's discuss maximizing tutoring resources.
Content provided by Varsity Tutors for Schools

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Turns Down Case Challenging School District's Transgender Policies
The case involves a policy allowing information to be withheld from parents considered not supportive of a gender-transitioning child.
3 min read
This Oct. 4, 2018, photo shows the U.S. Supreme Court at sunset in Washington. The Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal from parents in Oregon who want to prevent transgender students from using locker rooms and bathrooms of the gender with which they identify, rather than their sex assigned at birth.
This Oct. 4, 2018, photo shows the U.S. Supreme Court at sunset in Washington. The court has declined to take up an appeal from parents in Maryland challenging a school district's policy on gender-support plans for students.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Law & Courts District Can Deny Opt-Outs on LGBTQ+ Books, Court Rules
Religious parents objected to a Maryland district's policy ending opt-outs for elementary school 'storybooks' with LGBTQ+ themes.
5 min read
A pedestrian passes by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Courthouse, June 16, 2021, on Main Street in Richmond, Va.
A person walks near the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's courthouse in Richmond, Va. A panel of the court denied an injunction seeking to restore religious parents' opportunity to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ "storybooks" in a Maryland district.
Steve Helber/AP
Law & Courts Brown v. Board of Education: 70 Years of Progress and Challenges
The milestone for the historic 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down racial segregation in schools is marked by a range of tributes
12 min read
People mill around the third floor of the Kansas Statehouse in front of a Brown v. Board of Education mural before hearing from speakers recognizing the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case on April 29, 2024 in Topeka, Kan.
People mill around the third floor of the Kansas Statehouse in front of a Brown v. Board of Education mural before hearing from speakers recognizing the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case on April 29, 2024 in Topeka, Kan.
Evert Nelson/The Topeka Capital-Journal via AP
Law & Courts Republican-Led States Sue to Block New Title IX Rule
A pair of lawsuits focus on the rule's protections for students' gender identity.
5 min read
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus. Four Republican-led states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Biden administration's new Title IX regulation, which among other things would codify protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus. Four Republican-led states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Biden administration's new Title IX regulation, which among other things would codify protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Patrick Orsagos/AP