"On the surface, the case appears to impact only consumers, particularly those who may lose eligibility for current or future subsidies. However, should the plaintiffs prevail, the decision would have a major impact on both consumers and employers in the 34 states that opted not to establish their own exchanges. Employers in those states would then have a good case to challenge the ability of the federal government to impose penalties under the ACA's employer play-or-pay mandate. That, in turn, could nullify play-or-pay for the majority of the country allowing employers in those states much more leeway in determining eligibility provisions and contribution strategies as was the case pre-ACA."

MORE >>