With the federal law's fate uncertain, action taken so far by the states -- either to implement the national overhaul or to advance reforms of their own -- have claimed more significance and headlines.
The Washington Post: New Spotlight On State Responses To Health-Care Law
Variations in the way states have moved to implement the 2010 federal health-care law have taken on greater significance after last week's Supreme Court hearings, whose tone heightened speculation that the statute would be overturned (Aizenman, 3/31).
The Wall Street Journal: Health Exchanges Have Fans In Some States
A handful of states say they are planning to press ahead and voluntarily implement a key part of the 2010 federal health-care law even if it is wiped out by the Supreme Court (Radnofsky, 3/31).
Los Angeles Times: If Justices Kill Health Law, California May Just Revive It
Even if the whole law is scrapped nationally, many of its consumer protections, such as guaranteed coverage for children, are expected to survive in the state (Terhune, 4/2).
Bloomberg: State Laws Boosting Insurer Cost Without Adding Customers Failed
The worst-case scenario for insurers in the Supreme Court review of the U.S. health-care law -- eliminating the mandate that everyone have insurance while other changes remain intact -- has been tested in states such as New York, Maine and Vermont. It failed, insurers say. The three states were among nine in the 1990s that tried to force insurers to sell policies to anyone who asked, regardless of health, without also mandating that other residents maintain coverage. As a result, as many as 90 percent of those under age 30 dropped their plans, knowing they could always pick them back up if they got sick (Wayne and Nussbaum, 3/30).