Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 DECEMBER 2011

Battle Of The Comments Under Code § 36B

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Comments submitted in response to proposed rules implementing the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance premium tax credits for low-income individuals have exposed a rift between consumer and industry groups concerning the "affordability" of, and the "minimum value" provided by, employer-sponsored group health insurance.

United StatesEmployment and HR

A handful of comments submitted in response to proposed rules implementing the Affordable Care Act's health insurance premium tax credits for low-income individuals have exposed a rift between consumer and industry groups concerning the "affordability" of, and the "minimum value" provided by, employer-sponsored group health insurance. Both affect the circumstances under which access to employer-sponsored group health plan coverage will bar individuals and their families from qualifying for premium tax credits. This advisory examines this rift and its consequences.

Background

Beginning in 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act") provides premium tax credits to assist low-income individuals and families who cannot obtain affordable health insurance through their employers to purchase coverage through state-based insurance exchanges. (The rules governing premium assistance tax credits are set out in new Internal Revenue Code § 36B.)

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from