Sarah Kliff isn't sure:
Whether insurance companies ultimately protest the rule remains to be seen. So far, they’ve laid low. They may well continue to do so: Even if they do see the new mandate as burdensome or costly, it’s unclear whether it’s worth wading into an incredibly heated political battle. What health plans seem most worried about is the precedent that this could set, with the federal government becoming increasingly involved in dictating what they cover and how much they charge consumers for it.
Neither is Jonathan Adler, though for different reasons:
The real difficulty in assessing the Administration’s compromise…comes from the fact that it has yet to be formally proposed, let alone adopted by HHS, as noted by Cary Coglianese on RegBlog. (See also here.) To the contrary, on the same day the compromise was announced, HHS finalized the rule as it had been originally proposed “without change.” HHS had previously announced that religious employers would be given an extra year before they have to comply with the rule, and this “safe harbor” remains (with some conditions detailed in anaccompanying guidance). But the new compromise is nothing more than a promise of a new rule at some point in the future.
The Dish 