Julie Rovner

Is it legal for a state-sponsored health exchange to provide subsidies that help people pay insurance premiums? That's the point in question, and one that's still being considered by an appeals court.

For years Catholic health plans have been arranging for independent insurance firms to provide contraceptive coverage to their enrollees.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals' decision overrides a July ruling by a three-judge panel that imperiled subsidies for people buying insurance in states that rely on the federal exchange.

State legislatures have passed laws that require doctors to have hospital admitting privileges to perform abortions. Some courts are now saying these laws are unconstitutional.

The Institute of Medicine this week urged Congress to allocate to community clinics more of the $15 billion it spends annually on training new doctors. But hospitals say that's the wrong prescription.

We spend $15 billion a year training doctors but end up with a medical workforce that doesn't meet the nation's health care needs, according to an Institute of Medicine Report.

Medicare's trust fund is projected to have money until 2030, four years longer than predicted last year. But the fund that pays for disability benefits could run dry just two years from now.

If the decision stands, at least 5 million Americans would face an insurance premium increases of at least 76 percent, according to one estimate. The case could wind up in the Supreme Court.

The court's opinion that some for-profit firms don't have to provide women contraceptive coverage in the face of religious objections addressed only part of the legal battle over the mandate.

The court is expected to render a decision that will determine the implementation of the Affordable Care Act's guarantee that no-cost prescription contraception be part of most health insurance plans.