Working groups in the Senate and the House are devising plans to extend Patient Protection Affordable Care Act subsidies in case the Supreme Court rules subsidies are unconstitutional.
Here are 18 facts to know:
1. If the Supreme Court rules that subsidies are unconstitutional in the King v. Burwell case, House conservatives have hinted that they will support a temporary extension of PPACA subsidies.
2. The ruling on the King v. Burwell case is expected later this month.
3. Republicans have yet to unite around a plan about how to help people if they lose their coverage.
4. The Hill was told by members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus about their plan of setting up a group of four to five lawmakers to devise a plan. The group of lawmakers will be led by Rep. John Fleming.
6. The lawmakers will work to devise a plan to influence the main House working group, led by Rep. Paul Ryan, and two other panel chairmen.
7. Members of Freedom Caucus are open to discussing ideas such as Sen. Ron Johnson's proposal to extend temporary subsidies.
8. Sen. Johnson's bill plans to extend PPACA's subsidies until August 2017 while repealing the law's individual and employer mandates.
9. Sen. Johnson's bill at present has 31 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate although it has not received nearly as much support in the House.
10. Freedom Caucus debated Sen. Johnson's bill for 30 minutes.
11. Sen. Fleming stated that the Freedom Caucus would be more willing to reach an agreement if the bill had a definite end date for issuing subsidies in 2016.
12. While many members of the Caucus were skeptical of Sen. Johnson's bill, many were reassured when they learned that the bill will give people more freedom by repealing individual and employer mandates.
13. The American Academy of Actuaries counters Sen. Johnson's bill by claiming the repeal of mandates will greatly increase premiums.
14. Opponents of Johnson's bill argue continuing subsidies, especially for the length of time that Johnson suggests, is not a smart plan.
15. Rep. Justin Amash, opponent of the bill, claims although a transition period is necessary, it should be within a year rather than the proposed three years.
16. Many of the states at risk for losing their subsidies are located in the Midwest and South, areas many of the conservative members represent.
17. All of these bills and plans could be irrelevant if the Supreme Court rules subsidies are constitutional.
18. Full plans will not be released until House and Senate working groups have access to details of the ruling.
For more articles on the King v. Burrell case:
3 hospital CEOs forecast the King v. Burwell decision, healthcare in 2017 The PPACA goes to court
10 things to know about the Supreme Court case today
4 things to know about the wording that plays a significant role in King v. Burwell