Three more people have been convicted in a nearly $3 million health care fraud case involving Houston and Dallas-area companies.

Prosecutors say unlicensed doctors were recruited to treat patients at their homes and then wrongly bill Medicare.

A federal judge in Dallas on Wednesday convicted Godwin Umotong and Comfort Gates of Houston of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and health care fraud. A third person - Vagharshak Smbatyan of Grenada Hills, Calif., - was convicted of making a false statement to an agency.

All will be sentenced in July and face penalties ranging from five to 10 years per count.

Prosecutors say Umotong worked for Euless Healthcare Corp. in Hurst and Medic Healthcare Inc. of Houston. Gates worked for Medic.

Pennsylvania state officials are trying to figure out the implications of a judge's ruling that a portion of the state's unspent tobacco settlement money go to the defunct adultBasic health insurance program for lower-income adults or a similar plan.

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini on Tuesday ruled unconstitutional two state laws that siphoned the money from adultBasic and Medicaid for disabled workers.

Pellegrini is throwing out laws passed in 2010 and 2011 that diverted tobacco settlement funds.

Pellegrini is denying a request by those who sued that adultBasic be reinstated and that $200 million be reimbursed to the funds from the two prior years.

The judge notes that Gov. Tom Corbett's administration says the required portion of the tobacco money is all going to Medicaid. The decision says it must also go to adultBasic or a similar program.

The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college's challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms.

The court's action at this point means only that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.

A federal district judge rejected Liberty's claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school's arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.

The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.

The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty's request.

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

An arts and craft supply company owned by a Christian family asked a judge Thursday to block a portion of the new federal health care law, claiming that mandated coverage for certain birth control violates its religious freedom rights.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s owners believe the use of morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. At a federal court hearing Thursday, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

The company, which is self-insured, says it will face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if it ignores the law. U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton did not rule on the company's request for an injunction but noted Hobby Lobby's deadline for compliance.

"This does raise a lot of new and different issues," he said. "There's not a lot of guidance out there."

Hobby Lobby is the largest business to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandate that forces all companies, regardless of religious conviction, to provide coverage of drugs that the lawsuit alleges are abortion-inducing. The Green family also objects to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices that the lawsuit alleges can destroy an embryo by preventing it from implanting in a woman's uterus.

Marking a pivotal point in the presidential campaign, the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's sweeping federal health care law handed the Democratic incumbent crucial election-year vindication for his signature legislative accomplishment.

Republican rival Mitt Romney, an ardent opponent of the law, prepared to use the decision for his own political gain and planned to cast himself as the next best hope for the millions of Americans who favor the law's repeal.

The decision put an end to what had been one of the biggest unknowns in the presidential race. Four months from Election Day, both Obama and Romney will seek to use the high court ruling to bolster their vision for the country, as well as raise money for their campaigns.

The Romney campaign said it had collected more than $100,000 in online donations in the hour after the decision was announced.

Both men were expected to comment around midday Thursday from Washington. Romney was scheduled to speak first, followed by Obama.

The high court announced Thursday, in a 5-4 decision, that it was upholding the requirement at the heart of the health care law: that most individuals must buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc. sees some parts of the health care overhaul as sound medicine and plans to keep them regardless of whether the law survives an upcoming Supreme Court ruling.

The nation's largest health insurer said Monday that it will still cover preventive care like immunizations without charging a co-payment, which is the fee usually paid at the doctor's office, and it will continue other popular, initial provisions of the law.

The overhaul, which aims to provide coverage for millions of uninsured people, started unfolding in 2010 after health insurers fought bitterly to block its passage. Challenges to the law from states and other groups opposed to it wound their way through the court system to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the law's constitutionality in March.

The court is expected to issue a ruling later this month that could strike down the entire law or parts of it or uphold it.

Despite deep divisions about President Barack Obama's law, UnitedHealth's announcement underscores the staying power of some of its reforms.

If the Supreme Court strikes down President Barack Obama's health care law, it wouldn't just be politicians dealing with the fallout.

Nearly 62,000 patients with serious medical conditions would be out of luck.

They're the "uninsurables," people turned away by insurance companies because of medical problems but covered through a little-known program in the law called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. The plan would have to shut down if the entire law is invalidated.

Cancer patient Kathy Thomas is worried she'll be uninsured again without the program. The Florida small businesswoman credits the coverage for saving her life this year when she had to be hospitalized with a serious respiratory infection.