In an important decision that could impact the health care of millions of people, the Supreme Court decided this week that it will consider the latest Affordable Care Act (ACA) case in its next term. This decision to hear the case follows a January decision not to take a fast-track approach to the lawsuit. Though the timeline for the hearings has not been set, the court is likely to hear oral arguments this fall, possibly as early as October. A decision on the case would not be likely before 2021.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society released new research this week verifying concerns that people who buy short-term insurance, also called short-term limited duration insurance or STLDI, a type of substandard health plan that has been promoted by the Trump administration, are at significant financial risk should they need to use that coverage.

While coverage and access to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual marketplaces are rooted in federal law, both programs are also shaped by policy choices at the state level. These decisions can be influenced by state demographics, budgets, and ideologies or politics. The resulting laws and guidance can greatly affect whether older adults or people with disabilities have access to the care they need to live healthy, independent lives.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that oversees the Medicare program, recently proposed a rule to help deter Medicare Advantage (MA) plans from deceptively targeting people who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. If the proposals go into effect, dual eligibles could face less confusion in plan selection and may be less likely to enroll in a plan that does not meet their needs.

Last week, the Medicare Rights Center submitted comments in opposition to a proposed rule from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that would harm people with disabilities, especially people who are approaching age 65. The proposal would make the current problems in the SSA determination and review system even worse and put up additional barriers to people who already spend years trying to access the benefits they need because of their physical or mental conditions.

Today, the Trump administration released guidance to help states convert some of their federal Medicaid funding into a block grant. In exchange for accepting this capped funding, states will receive more power to cut care and restrict coverage.

This new structure, billed as a voluntary demonstration for states, can apply to funding for optional Medicaid populations: low-income adults under the age of 65 who wouldn’t otherwise be eligible for the program. This includes adults in the Medicaid expansion population, though non-expansion states that voluntarily cover other adults—such as low-income parents with incomes above the traditional Medicaid threshold and adults with dependent children—may also participate.

Last month, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released a series of charts that explain and compare various legislative proposals to lower prescription drug costs. Such proposals are in the limelight because many Americans identify drug pricing as a significant problem and support government action to address it. According to one KFF poll, high drug costs have kept 30% of Americans from taking their medicine as prescribed.

This week, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a national nonprofit, released a new issue brief on an often-misunderstood aspect of coverage for people with chronic illness who need longer term care.

Just before the New Year, the Medicare Rights Center responded to a proposal that would damage the Medicaid program by allowing Tennessee to convert its Medicaid funding into a block grant. Our comments note that doing so would cause harm to older adults and people with disabilities, as well as the Medicaid program as a whole.

One year ago, in a deeply flawed ruling, a Texas judge found the portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)