Topeka ? Two federal appeals courts handed down opposite rulings Tuesday on an issue that could determine whether key portions of the federal Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, can be implemented in Kansas.

The decisions, which are likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, could affect nearly 45,000 Kansans who bought health insurance through a federal health insurance exchange. They could also affect an estimated 16,000 private-sector employers in Kansas who are required to provide health coverage to their employees or face tax penalties.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who filed briefs in both cases in support of plaintiffs seeking to block the law from being implemented, said the decisions put the issue one step closer to a final resolution with the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Our interest is to ensure the IRS follows the law and Kansas obtains the benefit it anticipated when state policy makers chose not to establish a state-run health insurance exchange,” Schmidt said in a statement released Tuesday. “Congress might not have expected so many states to decline to establish an exchange under the Affordable Care Act, but that misjudgment cannot justify allowing the IRS to effectively rewrite the statute to satisfy policy and political objectives.”

The cases centered on two provisions of the law: the individual mandate, which requires most individuals to have health insurance, and provides for subsidized policies to be sold through government-run exchanges; and the employer mandate, which requires large employers to provide health coverage to their full-time workers or face tax penalties.

But the law also provides that in states that choose not to set up their own exchange markets, consumers can still buy insurance through a federal exchange. And since the program went into effect this year, the IRS has allowed those people to claim the same tax credits as people who buy on state-based exchanges.

According to the Kansas Insurance Department, 57,013 individuals in Kansas had enrolled in coverage on the federal exchange by March 31, the deadline for people to sign up this calendar year. Of those, 44,869 – or 79 percent of them – received some level of financial assistance.

In one opinion, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the IRS had overstepped its bounds because the law, as written, only allows subsidies through state-based exchanges, not through the federal exchange.

The D.C. Circuit also said the IRS could not impose penalties on businesses in those states that don’t offer coverage because the penalties are triggered when one of their employees buys insurance on a state exchange.

But in a separate case, a panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit ruled just the opposite. In a 3-0 decision, it said the IRS had acted properly because the law, when read in its entirety, clearly establishes the federal exchange as an alternative to state exchanges, and therefore the same rules should apply.

Kansas at one point had been awarded a $31.5 million federal grant to set up a state-based exchange. But early in his administration, Gov. Sam Brownback rejected the grant, saying there were too many strings attached to the grant.

Earlier this year, Brownback signed a bill passed by the Legislature that allows the state to disengage entirely from the law by setting up a multi-state compact to receive federal health care dollars while exempting the member states from provisions of the Affordable Care Act. That law, however, depends on Congress approving the program, which it has not done.