USSC has already ruled (incorrectly, but ruled nonetheless) on the individual mandate. Unless this doctor’s group had some particularly novel approach to challenging it, I can totally understand why the USSC would deny cert.
As to the funding of subsidies for states without exchanges, I still have hope for that one. In terms of pure law, it’s cut and dry - the language of the bill is specific and unambiguous, and contemporaneous statements made by legislators and those helping draft the bill support that interpretation.
The headline is deceptive. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. In other words, it declined to take up the case. It did not make any kind of ruling on the merits.