Here are six key ways Biden is promising to fight the coronavirus pandemic

By the time President-elect Joe Biden takes the oath of office on Wednesday, more than 400,000 Americans will have died of covid-19 — a dismal milestone in the deadly pandemic.

Yet the crucial task he faces  rapidly distributing coronavirus vaccines to the American public  is one that most experts one year ago didn’t think would even be an option by this point. Few expected multiple vaccines to be approved within a year — a record for vaccine development, by any measure. And although the rollout has been criticized, Israel and Great Britain are the only major nations the United States lags in vaccinations per capita and its daily rate of immunizations has more than doubled in the past two weeks.

“You have my word: We will manage the hell out of this operation,” Biden said in a speech on Friday, announcing his own vaccination plan. 

Regardless of whether one views the vaccine effort up to this point as a failure or success, this much is true: Biden and his new administration will face an enormous task, not only in getting the vaccines distributed but also in ramping up testing, convincing Americans to follow public health recommendations and responding to the economic fallout from the pandemic. 

Here are six key promises Biden is making about his pandemic response:

1. Administer 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine during the first 100 days of his administration.

Biden previously cited this as a goal. He reiterated it Friday while rolling out a broader plan for coronavirus vaccinations

The plan would require a rate of 1 million immunizations per day — and the United States isn’t too far away from that goal right now. Nearly 800,000 Americans are getting shots every day on average. That’s a considerable improvement from two weeks ago, when the daily rate was closer to 350,000.

The 100-shot goal is “absolutely a doable thing,” Anthony S. Fauci, direct of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, told NBC’s Chuck Todd yesterday.

“The feasibility of his goal is absolutely clear; there’s no doubt about it,” Fauci said. “That can be done.”

But top Biden advisers are also cautioning ramping up immunizations will be gradual and will require lots of coordination.

“The first days of that 100 days may be substantially slower than it will be towards the end,” Michael Osterholm, a member of Biden’s covid-19 task force, told Stat News. “It’s not going to occur quickly … you’re going to see the ramp-up occurring only when the resources really begin to flow.”

2. Set up mass vaccination clinics.

By the end of his first month in office, Biden has promised to open 100 federally managed clinics to administer shots. According to his vaccination plan, these sites would be set up by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The federal government would reimburse states for sending National Guard members to help run them.

Biden says he also wants to deploy mobile units to rural and underserved areas, along with boosting the role already being played by pharmacies in distributing shots. 

This approach would diverge significantly from how things are being done now, with the Trump administration leaving it up to hospitals, doctors, pharmacies and state public health departments to administer the shots. Some cities and states have set up large vaccination sites, but many haven’t.

“Overall, the president-elect’s plan lays out a more muscular federal role than the Trump administration’s approach, which has relied heavily on each state to administer vaccines once the federal government ships them out,” Anne Gearan, Amy Goldstein and Laurie McGinley report.

“Many of the elements — such as seeking to expand the number of vaccination sites and setting up mobile vaccination clinics — were foreshadowed in a radio interview Biden gave last week and in an economic and health ‘relief plan’ he issued Thursday, which contains a $20 billion request of Congress to pay for a stepped-up campaign of mass vaccination,” our colleagues add.

3. Allow federally qualified health centers to directly access vaccines.

These community health centers — which receive higher government reimbursements but are required to accept all patients regardless of their ability to pay — are a core part of the nation’s safety net for low-income Americans.

Biden’s plan proposes a new program “to ensure [federally qualified health centers] can directly access vaccine supply where needed,” although here, too, it’s unclear exactly how that might work.

Under the Trump administration’s plan, these centers have been asked to enroll with state health departments as vaccine providers. States were then supposed to communicate to the federal government how many doses were needed and where they should go.

How well this is actually working is “all over the map,” said Amy Simmons Farber of the National Association of Community Health Centers. She said supplies vary from county to county and many health centers have received their supplies with little notice, making it challenging to prioritize and plan.

Farber declined to comment on the Biden plan, saying she doesn’t have a lot of details about it. But she’s “very encouraged by the recognition of the important role health centers have played in fighting the pandemic and the need to adequately resource them.”

4. Use the Defense Production Act to ensure plenty of vaccine supplies.

Several times over the course of the pandemic, President Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act, which allows the president to require companies to prioritize contracts deemed essential for national security.

Ventilator tubes are attached to a covid-19 patient at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Los Angeles. 

He has used the DPA to speed the production of coronavirus tests and ventilators, and to keep meatpacking plants open. But he hasn’t invoked the authority to compel faster production of the supplies needed for packaging and administering the vaccine.

Biden says he will invoke DPA to ensure a steady stream of these supplies, which include glass vials, stoppers, syringes, needles and the capacity for companies to rapidly fill vaccine vials and finish packaging them.

5. Sign executive actions to combat the virus.

Biden has promised a raft of executive actions in his first ten days as president, laid out over the weekend in a memo from incoming White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain. They’ll include a number of pandemic-related orders.

On Inauguration Day, Biden intends to issue a mask mandate on federal property and for interstate travel, while encouraging all Americans to wear masks for what he’s calling a “100 Day Masking Challenge.”

The following day, Thursday, he’ll sign executive orders aimed at helping schools and businesses reopen safely, expanding testing, protecting workers and establishing clearer public health standards. And on Friday, Biden will direct his Cabinet secretaries to take immediate action to deliver economic relief to families.

“President-elect Biden will take action — not just to reverse the gravest damages of the Trump administration — but also to start moving our country forward,” Klain wrote.

6. Launch a vaccine education campaign.

The memo says Biden will run a “federally-run, locally-focused public education campaign.”

“The campaign will work to elevate trusted local voices and outline the historic efforts to deliver a safe and effective vaccine as part of a national strategy for beating covid-19,” it says.

But the transition team hasn’t detailed how the education campaign might differ from one launched by the Trump administration last month. 

The Department of Health and Human Services said it plans to spend $250 million on efforts to promote vaccine awareness. It kicked off the effort with a $150,000 buy on YouTube for ads that feature Fauci and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn. 

The norms around science and politics are cracking

https://www.axios.com/science-politics-norms-cracking-f67bcff2-b399-44f4-8827-085573f5ae52.html

Illustration of a hand holding a cracked microscope slide containing the U.S. flag.

Crafting successful public health measures depends on the ability of top scientists to gather data and report their findings unrestricted to policymakers.

State of play: But concern has spiked among health experts and physicians over what they see as an assault on key science protections, particularly during a raging pandemic. And a move last week by President Trump, via an executive order, is triggering even more worries.

What’s happening: If implemented, the order creates a “Schedule F” class of federal employees who are policymakers from certain agencies who would no longer have protection against being easily fired— and would likely include some veteran civil service scientists who offer key guidance to Congress and the White House.

  • Those agencies might handle the order differently, and it is unclear how many positions could fall under Schedule F — but some say possibly thousands.
  • “This much-needed reform will increase accountability in essential policymaking positions within the government,” OMB director Russ Vought tells Axios in a statement.

What they’re saying: Several medical associations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, strongly condemned the action, and Democrats on the House oversight panel demanded the administration “immediately cease” implementation.

  • “If you take how it’s written at face value, it has the potential to turn every government employee into a political appointee, who can be hired and fired at the whim of a political appointee or even the president,” says University of Colorado Boulder’s Roger Pielke Jr.
  • Protections for members of civil service allow them to argue for evidence-based decision-making and enable them to provide the best advice, says CRDF Global’s Julie Fischer, adding that “federal decision-makers really need access to that expertise — quickly and ideally in house.”

Between the lines: Politics plays some role in science, via funding, policymaking and national security issues.

  • The public health system is a mix of agency leaders who are political appointees, like HHS Secretary Alex Azar, and career civil servants not dependent on the president’s approval, like NIAID director Anthony Fauci.
  • “Public health is inherently political because it has to do with controlling the way human beings move around,” says University of Pennsylvania’s Jonathan Moreno.

Yes, but: The norm is to have a robust discussion — and what has been happening under the Trump administration is not the norm, some say.

  • “Schedule F is just remarkable,” Pielke says. “It’s not like political appointees editing a report, [who are] working within the system to kind of subvert the system. This is an effort to completely redefine the system.”
  • The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Stephen Morrison says that the administration has been defying normative practices, including statements denigrating scientists, the CDC and FDA.

The big picture: Public trust in scientists,which tends to be high, is taking a hit, not only due to messaging from the administration but also from public confusion over changes in guidance, which vacillated over masks and other suggestions.

  • Public health institutions “need to have the trust of the American people. In order to have the trust of the American people, they can’t have their autonomy and their credibility compromised, and they have to have a voice,” Morrison says.
  • “If you deny CDC the ability to have briefings for the public, and you take away control over authoring their guidance, and you attack them and discredit them so public perceptions of them are negative, you are taking them out of the game and leaving the stage completely open for falsehoods,” he adds.
  • “All scientists don’t agree on all the evidence, every time. But what we do agree on is that there’s a process. We look at what we know, we decide what we can clearly recommend based on what we know, sometimes when we learn more, we change our recommendations, and that’s the scientific process,” Fischer says.

What’s next: The scientific community is going to need to be proactive on rebuilding public trust in how the scientific process works and being clear when guidance changes and why it has changed, Fischer says.

Election 2020: Trump and Biden’s starkly diverging views on healthcare

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/presidential-election-2020-trump-biden-different-healthcare-policies-ACA-coronavirus/585184/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-10-01%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29992%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Spoiler: the 2 nominees differ on almost everything.

President Donald Trump and Democrat nominee Joe Biden’s starkly contrasting views on healthcare were laid bare during this week’s chaotic debate. But some major industry executives noted at a recent conference they’ve done relatively well under Trump and could likely weather a Biden presidency, given his moderate stance and rejection of liberal dreams of “Medicare for All.”

The former vice president stresses incremental measures to shore up President Barack Obama’s landmark Affordable Care Act. Trump’s campaign website has no list of healthcare priorities, making his record even more relevant to attempts to forecast his future policies.

“I think a lot of the president’s second term agenda will be extensions of things he’s done in his first term,” Lanhee Chen, domestic policy director at Stanford University’s Public Policy program, said at AHIP in September.

Either way, the impact of whoever lands in the White House next year still matters for the industry’s future.

And 33 seats in the Senate are also up for grabs in November, complicating the outlook. Two scenarios would likely lead to health policy gridlock, according to analysts and DC experts: Trump wins regardless of Senate outcome, or Biden wins and Republicans maintain control of the Senate. A third scenario, where Biden wins and Democrats retake the Senate, would be the most negative for healthcare stocks, Jefferies analysts say, while the other two outcomes would be a net positive or mostly neutral.

Here’s a look at where the candidates stand on the biggest healthcare issues: the coronavirus pandemic, the Affordable Care Act, changes to Medicare and Medicaid and lowering skyrocketing healthcare costs.

COVID-19 response

Trump

Of all wealthy nations, the U.S. has been particularly unsuccessful in mitigating the pandemic. The U.S. makes up 4% of the global population, but accounted for 23% of all COVID-19 cases and 21% of all deaths as of early September.

Public health experts assign the majority of the blame to an uncoordinated federal response, with the president electing to take a largely hands-off approach to the virus that’s killed nearly 207,000 people in the U.S. to date. That backseat stance is unlikely to change if Trump is elected to a second term.

In March, Trump said a final COVID-19 death toll in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 Americans would mean he’s “done a very good job.”

Critics blame shortages of supplies like test materials, personal protective equipment and ventilators, especially in the crucial early days of the pandemic, on Trump’s approach. States and healthcare companies have also reported challenges with shifting federal guidelines on topics from risk of infection to hospital requirements for reporting COVID-19 caseloads.

Trump has also pushed unproven treatments for COVID-19, giving rise to concerns about political influence on traditionally nonpartisan agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These concerns have colored Operation Warp Speed, the administration’s public-private partnership to fast-track viable vaccines. The operation received $10 billion in funds from Congress, but administration officials have also pulled $700 million from the CDC, even as top health officials face accusations of trying to manipulate CDC scientific research publications.

Fears that political motivations, not clinical rigor, are driving the historically speedy timeline could lower public trust in a vaccine once it’s eventually approved.

Trump has also repeatedly refused to endorse basic protections like widespread mask wearing, often eschewing the face covering himself in public appearances. He’s consistently downplayed the severity of the pandemic, saying it’ll go away on its own while suggesting falsely that rising COVID-19 cases were solely due to increased testing.

While Trump’s list of priorities for his second term include “eradicating COVID-19,” the plan is short on details. His most aggressive promise has been approval of a vaccine by the end of this year and creating all “critical medicines and supplies for healthcare workers” for a planned return to normal in 2021, along with refilling stockpiles to prepare for future pandemics.

Biden

Biden, for his part, would likely work to enact COVID-19 legislation and dramatically change the role of the federal government in pandemic response first thing if elected.

The Democratic candidate says he would re-assume primary responsibility for the pandemic. He plans to “dramatically scale up testing” and “giving states and local governments the resources they need to open schools and businesses safely,” per an August speech in Wilmington, Delaware.

Biden says he’d take a backseat to scientists and allow FDA to unilaterally make decisions on emergency authorizations and approvals.

The candidate supports reopening an ACA enrollment period for the uninsured, eliminating out-of-pocket costs for COVID-19 treatment, enacting additional pay and protective equipment for essential workers, increasing the federal match rate for Medicaid by at least 10%, covering COBRA with 100% premium subsidies during the emergency, expanding unemployment insurance and sick leave, reimbursing employers for sick leave and giving them tax credits for COVID-19 healthcare costs.

Trump opposes most of these measures, though he did sign COVID-19 relief legislation that upped the Medicaid match rate by 6.2% and extended the COBRA election period, though without subsidies.

Biden has said he’d be willing to use executive power for a national mask mandate, though ensuring compliance would be difficult. He’d also rejoin the World Health Organization, which Trump pulled the U.S. out of in May.

Affordable Care Act

Trump

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order saying: “It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” But after the Republican repeal-and-replace effort floundered in 2017, the administration began steadily chipping away at key tenets of the decade-old law through regulatory avenues.

Trump has maintained he’ll protect the 150 million people with preexisting conditions in the U.S. But despite publicly promising a comprehensive replacement plan on the 2015 campaign trail (and at least five times this year alone), Trump has yet to make one public. The president did in September sign a largely symbolic executive order that it’s the stance of his administration to protect patients with preexisting conditions.

The president doesn’t mention the ACA in his list of second term priorities. The omission could have been intentional, as Trump is backing a Republican state-led lawsuit seeking to overturn the sweeping law, now pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and scheduled for oral arguments one week after the election.

The death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg puts the law in an even more precarious position.

And Trump’s health agencies have enacted myriad policies keeping the law from functioning as designed.

The president signed legislation zeroing out the individual mandate penalty requiring people to be insured in 2017. The same year, he ended cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, suggesting that would cause the ACA to become “dead.” But the marketplace generally stabilized.

The administration has also increased access to skimpier but cheaper coverage that doesn’t have to comply with the 10 essential health benefits under the ACA. The short-term insurance plans widely discriminate against people with pre-existing health conditions, even as a growing number of Americans, facing rising healthcare costs, enrolled, according to a probe conducted by House Democrats this year.

Trump has also encouraged state waivers that promote non-ACA plans, cut funding for consumer enrollment assistance and outreach, shortened the open enrollment period and limited mid-year special enrollments.

​Despite his efforts, the ACA has grown in popularity among voters on both sides of the aisle, mostly due to provisions like shoring up pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26.

Biden

If elected, Biden would likely roll back Trump-era policies that allowed short-term insurance to proliferate, and restore funding for consumer outreach and assistance, political consultants say.

Building on the law is the linchpin of Biden’s healthcare plan. The nominee has pledged to increase marketplace subsidies to help more people afford ACA plans through a number of policy tweaks, including lowering the share of income subsidized households pay for their coverage; determining subsidies by setting the benchmark plan at the pricier “gold” level; and removing the current cap limiting subsidies to people making 400% of the federal poverty level or below.

Biden maintains as a result of these changes, no Americans would have to pay more than 8.5% of their annual income toward premiums. They could save millions of people hundreds of dollars a month, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Commercial payers mostly support these efforts, hoping they’ll stabilize the exchanges.

But a second prong of Biden’s health strategy is deeply unpopular with private insurers: the public option. Biden’s called for a Medicare-like alternative to commercial coverage, available to anyone, including people who can’t afford private coverage or those living in a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid.

The rationale of the public plan is that it can directly negotiate prices with hospitals and other providers, lowering costs across the board. However, market clout will depend on enrollment, which is still to-be-determined.

Critics see the plan, which by Biden’s estimate would cost $750 billion over 10 years, as a down payment on Medicare for All. And the private sector worries it could threaten the very profitable healthcare industry, which makes up about a fifth of the U.S. economy.

Medicare

Trump

Neither Trump nor Biden supports Medicare for All, dashing the hopes of supporters of the sweeping insurance scheme for at least another four years.

“It has a pulse — it’s not dead — I just don’t see it happening in any near term,” John Cipriani, vice president at public affairs firm Global Strategy Group, said at AHIP.

Trump has promised to protect Medicare if elected to a second term, and it’s unlikely he’d make any major changes to the program’s structure or eligibility requirements, experts say.

But Medicare is quickly running out of money, and neither Trump nor Biden has issued a complete plan to ensure it survives beyond 2024. Political consultants think it’ll teeter right up to the edge of insolvency before lawmakers feel compelled to act.

The president’s administration has allowed Medicare to pay for telehealth and expanding supplemental benefits in privately run Medicare Advantage programs, efforts that would likely bleed into his second term — or Biden’s first, given general bipartisan support on both, experts say.

Under Trump, HHS did pass a site-neutral payment policy, cutting Medicare payments for hospital outpatient visits in a bid to save money. But Democratic lawmakers have argued Trump’s calls to get rid of the federal payroll tax, which partially funds Medicare, could throw the future of the cash-strapped program in jeopardy.

The president has also signed legislation experts say accelerated insolvency, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, which repealed the ACA’s Cadillac tax — a tax on job-based insurance premiums above a certain level.

Nixing that tax lowered payroll tax revenue, also dinging Medicare’s shrinking trust fund.

Trump’s proposed budget for the 2021 fiscal year floated culling about $450 billion in Medicare spending over a decade. And repealing the ACA would also nix provisions that closed the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole,” that added free coverage of preventive services and reduced spending to strengthen Medicare’s winnowing Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

Biden

Biden has proposed lowering the Medicare age of eligibility to 60 years, with the option for people aged 60-64 to keep their coverage if they like it. The idea is popular politically, though providers oppose it, fearful of losing more lucrative commercial revenue.

It would make about 20 million more people eligible for the insurance, but could also add even more stress onto the program, experts say. Biden’s campaign says it would be financed separately from the current Medicare program, with dollars from regular tax revenues, and will reduce hospital costs.

Biden also says he’d add hearing, vision and dental benefits to Medicare.

Medicaid

Trump

Trump’s tenure has also been defined by repeated efforts to prune Medicaid. The president has consistently backed major cuts to the safety net insurance program, along with stricter rules for who can receive coverage. That’s likely to continue.

Republican lawmakers maintain the program costs too much and discourages low-income Americans from getting job-based coverage, and have enacted policies trying to privatize Medicaid. The Trump administration took a step toward a long-held conservative dream earlier this year, when CMS invited state waivers that would allow states to deviate from federal standards in program design and oversight, in exchange for capped funding.

So far, no states have enacted the block grants.

The administration also aggressively encouraged states to adopt work requirements, programs tying Medicaid coverage to work or volunteering hours. A handful of states followed suit, but all halted implementation or rolled back the idea following fierce public backlash and legal ramifications.

And repealing the ACA would ax Medicaid expansion, which saved some 20,000 lives between 2014 and 2017, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Biden

Biden, however, wants to preserve expansion, and would take a number of other steps to bolster the program, including increasing federal Medicaid funding for home- and community-based services. The roughly 4.8 million adults in states that elected not to expand Medicaid would be automatically enrolled into his public option, with no premium and full Medicaid benefits.

Additionally, states that have expanded Medicaid could elect to move their enrollees into the public option, with a maintenance-of-effort payment.

Lowering costs of drugs and services

Trump

Efforts to lower prescription drug costs have defined Trump’s healthcare agenda in his first term, and been a major talking point for the president. That’s more than likely to continue into a second term, experts say, despite a lack of results.

Trump did cap insulin costs for some Medicare enrollees, effective 2021. He also signed legislation in 2018 banning gag clauses preventing pharmacists from telling customers about cheaper options.

But despite fiery rhetoric and a litany of executive orders, Trump has made little if any concrete progress on actually lowering prices. One week into 2020, drugmakers had announced price hikes for almost 450 drugs, despite small price drops earlier in Trump’s tenure.

Trump has proposed several ideas either dropped later or challenged successfully by drugmakers in court, including allowing patients to import drugs from countries like Canada, banning rebates paid to pharmacy benefit manufacturers in Medicare and forcing drugmakers to disclose the list prices of drugs in TV ads.

The president has signed recent executive orders to lower costs largely viewed as pre-election gambits, including one tying drug prices in Medicare to other developed nations and another directing his agencies to end surprise billing. Implementation on both is months away. Trump has also promised to send Medicare beneficiaries $200 in drug discount cards before the election, an effort slammed as vote-buying that would cost Medicare at least $6.6 billion.

Both Trump and Biden support eliminating surprise bills but haven’t provided any details how. That “how” is important, as hospitals and payers support wildly different solutions.

Biden

Biden also has a long list​ of proposals to curb drug costs, including allowing the federal government to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare and some other public and private purchasers, with prices capped at the level paid by other wealthy countries. Trump actually supported this proposal in his 2016 campaign, but quickly dropped it amid fierce opposition from drugmakers and free market Republican allies.

Biden would also cap out-of-pocket drug costs in Medicare Part D — but wouldn’t ban rebates, as of his current plan, allow consumers to import drugs (subject to safeguards) and eliminate tax breaks for drug advertising expenses.

He would also prohibit prices for all brand-name and some generic drugs from rising faster than inflation under Medicare and his novel public option. Biden would create a board to assess the value of new drugs and recommend a market-based price, in a model that’s shown some efficacy in other wealthy countries like Germany.

Both Biden and Trump say they support developing alternative payment models to lower costs. But they diverge on the role of competition versus transparency in making healthcare more affordable. In a rule currently being challenged in court, Trump’s HHS required hospitals to disclose private negotiated prices between hospitals and insurers, with the hope price transparency will allow consumers to shop between different care sites and shame companies into lowering their prices.

Biden, by comparison, says he would enforce antitrust laws to prevent anti-competitive healthcare consolidations, and other business practices that jack up spending. Trump has been mum on the role of M&A in driving healthcare costs, and inherited a complacent Federal Trade Commission that’s done little to reduce provider consolidation. Until a contentious hospital merger in February this year, the FTC hadn’t opposed a hospital merger since 2016.

 

 

 

 

The first presidential debate: 7 healthcare takeaways

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/the-first-presidential-debate-7-healthcare-takeaways.html?origin=CFOE&utm_source=CFOE&utm_medium=email&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

5 key takeaways from Joe Biden and Donald Trump's 1st presidential debate -  ABC News

President Donald Trump and former Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden sparred over the future of the ACA, the COVID-19 pandemic and health insurance during a 90-minute debate in Cleveland Sept. 29.

Seven takeaways for healthcare leaders:

The ACA

1. Moderator and Fox News host Chris Wallace opened the debate with the topic of President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the first few minutes of the debate, the discussion turned to the future of the ACA should Ms. Coney Barrett join the Supreme Court. A week after the November presidential election, the Supreme Court is set to hear a lawsuit, supported by the Trump administration, that seeks to overturn the ACA. 

2. If the Supreme Court overturns the ACA, Mr. Biden said 22 million Americans would lose insurance and 100 million would lose protections for preexisting conditions. HHS said in 2017 as many as 133 million Americans have preexisting conditions, and a KFF analysis estimates 54 million Americans have conditions serious enough to lead to coverage denials if the ACA is overturned.

3. Mr. Wallace questioned the president about his promise to repeal and replace the ACA, adding that President Trump hadn’t released a comprehensive plan to replace the health law despite pledges to do so. The president disagreed with that, saying he had gotten rid of the individual mandate. Mr. Wallace said eliminating the mandate was not a comprehensive plan. Mr. Wallace called President Trump’s recent executive orders on preexisting conditions and surprise billing “largely symbolic.” President Trump disagreed, but did not tell how the executive orders would be implemented.

Drug prices 

4. The president said drug prices would be coming down “80 or 90 percent.” The president highlighted insulin, which he said he’s getting so inexpensively, “it’s like water.” Insulin continues to retail for about $300 per vial, according to STAT, but cheaper insulin prices could be coming for some seniors. CMS recently said it is expanding the number of Medicare Advantage plans that provide insulin for a $35 or less monthly copay.

Public option

5. In an exchange with Mr. Biden, President Trump accused the Democratic Party of wanting “socialist medicine,” and claimed Mr. Biden wants to end private insurance. Mr. Biden denied those claims and said his health plan, which includes expanded ACA subsidies and a public option, would allow employees to keep their private health insurance. He has not supported Medicare-for-All proposals.

COVID-19

6. On the topic of the pandemic, Mr. Wallace asked President Trump about differing timelines for a vaccine that have been presented by him versus federal scientists like CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD. The president said he has spoken with Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, who’ve said “they can go faster” on a vaccine, but “it’s a very political thing.” He added that the military is already set up to distribute vaccines. Mr. Biden questioned Americans’ trust in the process. A Sept. 29 poll from the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index found 8 in 10 Americans wouldn’t likely get a first generation COVID-19 vaccine if the president said it was safe.

7. President Trump and Mr. Biden took different stances on masks. Mr. Biden cited Dr. Redfield’s renewed call to wear masks, and said masking up and social distancing would save 100,000 lives between now and January. President Trump responded by saying, “They’ve said the opposite.” He alluded to early in the pandemic when public health experts, including Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, were slow to recommend widespread mask-wearing before scientists better understood how the virus spreads. The CDC currently recommends that every American wear a mask.

 

 

 

Administration Sketches Healthcare Plan, Signs Executive Order

https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/88810?xid=fb_o&trw=no&fbclid=IwAR1OTD2FHXYsDzbKZ_H3MdTUNnvlxhe7kqEMtaZMXjRBpkHFksvvY-lHVGc

New Executive Order Applies to Foreign Third-Party Code | The Media Trust

Critics question value of provision addressing preexisting condition coverage.

President Trump presented his “America First Healthcare Plan” during a speech to healthcare professionals in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Thursday — a plan that mentioned preexisting condition coverage protections and surprise billing but did not seem to include comprehensive changes to the healthcare system.

“Under the America First Healthcare Plan, we will ensure the highest standard of care anywhere in the world, cutting-edge treatments, state-of-the-art medicine, groundbreaking cures, and true health security for you and your loved ones,” Trump said. “And we will do it rapidly, and it’s in very good order, and some of it has already been implemented.”

Executive Order Provisions

The president signed an executive order outlining the plan, but the order contained initiatives in only a few areas, including:

  • Preexisting condition coverage. The order says simply: “It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.” The order does not direct any government agency to enact a regulation nor request Congress to pass legislation. In August 2018, the Trump administration allowed the sale of “short-term, limited duration” insurance plans that could last for up to 3 years; these often exclude coverage for preexisting conditions but also typically cost less than comprehensive coverage.
  • Surprise billing. “Recognizing that both chambers of the Congress have made substantial progress towards a solution to end surprise billing, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall work with the Congress to reach a legislative solution by December 31, 2020,” the order says. “In the event a legislative solution is not reached by December 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take administrative action to prevent a patient from receiving a bill for out-of-pocket expenses that the patient could not have reasonably foreseen.”
  • Price transparency. “Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the Medicare.gov Hospital Compare website to inform beneficiaries of hospital billing quality, including whether the hospital is in compliance with the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule whether, upon discharge, the hospital provides patients with a receipt that includes a list of itemized services received during a hospital stay; and how often the hospital pursues legal action against patients, including to garnish wages, to place a lien on a patient’s home, or to withdraw money from a patient’s income tax refund,” the order reads.

Trump also announced another initiative, this one aimed at seniors. “Under my plan, 33 million Medicare beneficiaries will soon receive a card in the mail containing $200 that they can use to help pay for prescription drugs … The cards will be mailed out in coming weeks,” Trump said. The $6.6 billion cost of the cards will be paid for under the auspices of a Medicare demonstration program. These funds are ostensibly available via savings generated through Trump’s “most favored nation” executive order allowing Medicare to pay no more for certain prescription drugs than the price paid by other developed countries, a White House official said. That executive order has not yet been implemented, however, and court challenges are expected.

Final Rule Issued on Drug Importation

Trump also noted that the FDA issued a final rule on Thursday implementing the president’s July executive order earlier this month to allow for importation of certain less expensive prescription drugs from Canada. “This means a state or whatever — can go to Canada and buy drugs for a fraction of the price that they’re charging right now,” he said.

He also highlighted individual actions his administration had taken that mostly affected particular groups, including lowering insulin prices for certain Medicare beneficiaries, investing in childhood cancer research, and expanding health reimbursement accounts that employers can use to reimburse employees for medical expenses. The COVID-19 pandemic received scant mention other than a reference to slashing red tape to accelerate development of treatments for the disease, and a sentence about how the pandemic had greatly increased the use of telehealth.

During a telephone briefing with reporters Thursday afternoon, HHS Secretary Alex Azar highlighted the surprise billing provision. “The President is saying that all the relevant players — hospitals, doctors, insurance companies — had better get their act together and get legislation passed through Congress that protects patients against surprise medical bills from anybody — hospitals or doctors, doesn’t matter,” he said.

“Those special interest groups need to sort it out and figure out how that would work,” he continued. “There have been legislative packages that have come quite close on the Hill that are bipartisan, but…. the president is saying the time is now. And if they do not get legislation passed by January 1st, he is instructing me to use the full regulatory power of the U.S. government to protect patients against surprise medical bills.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), outgoing chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) Committee, praised the surprise billing announcement. “The president is right to call on Congress to pass legislation this year to end surprise medical billing,” Alexander said in a statement, adding that a bill currently going through the House and Senate addresses the issue effectively. “Ending surprise medical bills is a problem that requires a permanent solution passed by Congress this year. The American people can’t afford to wait any longer.”

Preexisting Condition Provision Panned

The preexisting condition provision drew scorn from Democratic legislators. The provision “offers no protection not already available through the existing Affordable Care Act (ACA) and no protection for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions if Trump is successful in packing the Supreme Court to destroy the ACA,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), chairman of the House Ways & Means Health Subcommittee, said in a statement.

But Azar said during the briefing that the ACA’s clause requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions does no good if people aren’t able to afford insurance in the first place. “If you’re a couple, aged 55, living in Missouri, making $70,000 a year, Obamacare is going to cost you $30,000 in premiums and a $12,000 deductible,” he said.

Azar promised that the administration “will work with Congress or otherwise to ensure” that people with pre-existing conditions are protected, but he did not indicate how that would be made affordable to individuals without government subsidies of the sort Republicans have long opposed.

Bob Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Alexandria, Virginia, questioned how much good the executive order’s preexisting condition provision would do. “Trump and the Republicans couldn’t pass an alternative to Obamacare in 2017 when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress,” he wrote in a blog post. “But, now he can just sign an executive order and everything is fixed? He has signed a number of healthcare-related executive orders and just about all of them are tied up in the byzantine federal regulatory process, or have faded away. This is just an election-year gimmick in an attempt to persuade voters that Trump has healthcare policy under control. There are a lot of governments in the world that operate by executive fiat. Ours is not one of them.”

 

 

 

 

Drug pricing politics aren’t dead

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-319d5198-f7a8-401f-9b00-26118ca0b966.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Ending The Cycle Of Drug Price Hikes, Death And Outrage | Cognoscenti

President Trump released an executive order yesterday ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to begin the process of limiting what Medicare pays for prescription drugs relative to other countries.

Why it matters: It’s September of an election year. That means that this executive order is, at best, a statement of Trump’s intention to keep trying to achieve something big on drug prices should he get a second term.

  • But given that he’s had four years already to act on what was also a big issue in 2016, there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical of this ever translating into official policy.
  • “President Trump’s executive order on drug pricing does not by itself do anything. It has to be followed up by regulations, which will take time. Trump has a history of bold talk on drug prices, only to pull back when it comes to putting actual regulations in place,” the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt tweeted.

Details: The order calls for Medicare to receive the “most-favored-nation” price for certain drugs.

  • This price is defined as “the lowest price, after adjusting for volume and differences in national gross domestic product, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug manufacturer sells in a member country of the [OECD] that has a comparable per-capita gross domestic product.”

The bottom line: Trump and Joe Biden have both pitched aggressive drug pricing policies — a good reminder that once we get the pandemic under control, the issue is bound to become front-and-center again.

 

 

 

 

Unemployed struggle to cover basic expenses following CARES expiration: poll

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/514612-unemployed-struggle-to-cover-basic-expenses-following-cares-expiration-poll

The number of jobless people saying that unemployment insurance does not cover basic expenses including food, clothing, housing and transportation nearly doubled after key benefits expired in July.

new survey from Morning Consult found that 50 percent of unemployed people said their benefits fell short of covering basic expenses, up from 27 percent in July.

The $600 in extra weekly benefits that Congress passed in March expired at the end of July, leaving many with significantly lower payments.

Republicans argued the $600 increase was too high and discouraged people from returning to work. Democrats countered that at a time of record high unemployment and limited job openings, the extra pay was unlikely to prevent jobs from getting filled.

A month later, negotiations between the White House and congressional Democrats remain stalled. Senate Republicans are setting a goal of voting on a more limited package of COVID-19 relief measures next week, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has dismissed the idea of approving a limited bill.

An executive order by President Trump to provide $300 in additional benefits to a more limited pool of recipients has lagged in implementation, with only a handful of states able to start making new payments.

In the meantime, the pandemic continues to stifle the economy.

CNBC poll found that 14 percent of those surveyed had completely wiped out their emergency savings during the pandemic, and 39 percent were forced to take some sort of emergency measures to shore up their finances.

Among those who took emergency measures, 17 percent tapped into savings, 11 percent borrowed money, 6 percent stopped retirement contributions and 4 percent moved in with a family member.

 

 

 

 

 

Employers face liability under payroll tax deferral guidance

https://www.cfodive.com/news/employers-liability-payroll-tax-deferral-guidance-IRS/584434/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-09-01%20CFO%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29408%5D&utm_term=CFO%20Dive

The onus to collect and pay back deferred payroll taxes, under guidance the IRS has released on President Trump’s executive order, falls on employers.

Trump signed the order last month after Congress failed to agree on extending COVD-19-related stimulus benefits. It directs participating employers not to withhold the 6.2% payroll tax that employees owe each pay period to cover their portion of Social Security taxes.

The absence of withholding gives employees a bigger paycheck, although they still must repay the deferred withholdings next year, unless Congress waives the liability. 

The benefit applies to employees earning less than $4,000 every two weeks, or about $104,000 a year. It’s in effect for paychecks issued between September 1 and the end of the year.

Effectiveness in doubt

Under the IRS guidance, liability for paying back the uncollected taxes could ultimately fall on employers; there’s no language explaining how deferred taxes will be returned to the Treasury if an employee quits between now and the end of the year or otherwise can’t pay the deferred taxes.

“You could give [the tax deferral] to the employee, but then a year from now you might be on the hook for the money,” University of Chicago law professor Daniel Hemel told CNBC.

“Liability is going to stick to the employer like flies to flypaper,” Marianna Dyson, a lawyer at Washington firm Covington & Burling, told The Wall Street Journal.

Low participation

Many employers may choose not to participate, which would dampen the stimulus impact.

“Many [employers could] decline putting the extra money in workers’ paychecks — blunting any potential economic or political boost Trump had hoped to reap,” an Accounting Today/Bloomberg News analysis said.

The last-minute revamping of systems to administer the change could also deter participation.

“The programming changes are substantial in scope,” the National Payroll Reporting Consortium said in an August 20 statement

The deferral is also not a clear win for employees, who could face double withholdings when taxes must be repaid early next year.

“It’s not clear employees will want to take it, even if they qualify.” Pete Isberg, vice president of payroll processing company ADP, told the Washington Post.

 

 

 

 

Executive Orders won’t cut it. Congress needs to make a deal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-executive-orders-wont-cut-it-congress-needs-to-make-a-deal/2020/08/08/3ad733d4-d98e-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03988_story.html

One $1,200 stimulus check won't cut it. Give Americans $2,000 a ...

AN INK-BLOT test of sorts on the U.S. economic situation, the July unemployment numbers can be seen optimistically or pessimistically. The jobless rate of 10.2 percent and the net total of new jobs created of 1.76 million were both slightly better than forecast. At the same time, the rate of recovery was slower than in June, when 4.8 million jobs came back.

The rational response for both Democrats and the White House is to stay focused on the big picture: however you look at last month, total employment is 13 million below what it was in February, the last full month before pandemic-related business shutdowns began. The economy remains too weak to recover its lost ground without another substantial injection of federal money.

Yet an impasse continues between congressional Democrats, who previously passed a $3.4 trillion package, and the White House, whose position is in flux but was at least partly defined in a $1.1 trillion bill unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last month. In hindsight, everyone would have been better off if Mr. McConnell had engaged earlier this year. Sensing the national political tide flowing their way, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) are driving a hard bargain, refusing, for now, to compromise on a key issue: how to renew the $600-per-week unemployment insurance (UI) supplement.

President Trump, desperate for negotiating leverage, and a political comeback, announced Saturday that he was resorting to executive action to impose a scaled-back version of UI, renewing the supplement at a reduced rate. The president also said he intends to suspend the payroll tax, beginning next month, which even Republicans in Congress regard as an ineffective trickle of relief. Even if Mr. Trump can be do these things lawfully — a doubtful proposition — they are likely to create more uncertainty at a time when the economy, and the country, need the opposite. Congress should continue working toward a permanent fix on UI and other pressing needs.

Those needs are clear and far from fully addressed by Mr. Trump’s unilateral action: a renewal of unemployment benefits at an elevated rate without disincentives to work; help to state and local governments ; support for small businesses; money for safe school reopenings where possible; funding for safe and fair elections in this unique public health environment; and an enhancement to housing and nutrition programs, targeted at the poorest Americans.

Though a faction of congressional Republicans oppose such spending, based on selective concern about the federal debt, others recognize the need — if only to aid the party’s dwindling chances of holding the White House and Senate. Democratic leaders on Friday indicated a willingness to reduce their bill’s cost by $1 trillion over 10 years, if Republicans would raise theirs by the same amount. That would mean a roughly $2 trillion deal. It’s a place to start when talks get serious, which they should have long ago.

 

 

 

 

Administration keeps promising an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system that never arrives

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-obamacare-promise/2020/08/01/856ce250-d348-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html

Conversations About Health Reform - Dr. Susan Mazer Blog

It was a bold claim when President Trump said that he was about to produce an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system, at last doing away with the Affordable Care Act, which he has long promised to abolish.

“We’re signing a health-care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health-care plan,” Trump pledged in a July 19 interview with “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace.

Now, with the two weeks expiring Sunday, there is no evidence that the administration has designed a replacement for the 2010 health-care law. Instead, there is a sense of familiarity.

Repeatedly and starting before he took office, Trump has vowed that he is on the cusp of delivering a full-fledged plan to reshape the health-care system along conservative lines and replace the central domestic achievement of Barack Obama’s presidency.

No total revamp has ever emerged.

Trump’s latest promise comes amid the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, which has infected millions, caused more than 150,000 deaths and cost Americans their work and the health benefits that often come with jobs. His vow comes three months before the presidential election and at a time when Trump’s Republican allies in Congress may least want to revisit an issue that was a political loser for the party in the 2018 midterm elections.

Yet Trump has returned to the theme in recent days.

“We’re going to be doing a health-care plan. We’re going to be doing a very inclusive health-care plan. I’ll be signing it sometime very soon,” Trump said during an exchange with reporters at an event in Belleair, Fla., on Friday. When a reporter noted that he told Fox’s Wallace that he would sign it in two weeks, Trump added: “Might be Sunday. But it’s going to be very soon.”

Trump’s decision to revive a health-care promise that he has failed to deliver on — this time with less than 100 days before Election Day — carries political risks. Although it may appeal to voters who don’t like the ACA, it also highlights his party’s inability to come up with an alternative, despite spending almost a decade promising one.

It also raises questions about what exactly his plan would look like and whether it would cover fewer Americans than the current system as the pandemic ravages the country.

Nonetheless, some of Trump’s allies said floating health-care ideas is a smart move by the president.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who regularly meets and golfs with the president, said the health-care plan that Trump has referred to would come in the form of an executive order that Graham called “fairly comprehensive.” However broad, an executive order would fall short of a full legislative overhaul.

Graham said what Trump has in mind now would ensure that consumers do not risk losing their health plans if they get sick, but he did not give details.

“He’s pretty excited about it,” Graham said of the president. The ACA’s consumer protections for people with preexisting medical conditions is one its most popular facets with the public, and it is the one part of the law Trump consistently says he would preserve if he could get rid of the rest. How he could do that while containing costs after he and congressional Republicans remove the law’s requirement that everyone has to purchase health insurance remains the question.

Graham said it is politically astute for the White House to present an alternative to Democratic proposals close to the election, including the idea of Joe Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, to build on the ACA so that more people could get coverage.

Still, senior Republican aides on Capitol Hill who are steeped in health care said they had little knowledge of any White House planning for a comprehensive replacement of the ACA.

The White House did not offer details or parse the president’s terminology, which has included saying that the forthcoming plan would be a bill. That implied legislation rather than an executive order.

“President Trump continues to act in delivering better and cheaper health care, protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, lowering prescription drug costs, and defending the right of Americans to keep their doctors and plans of their choice,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement to The Washington Post.

McEnany pointed out that Trump issued four executive orders in late July intended to lower prescription drug prices. “There will be more action to come in the coming weeks,” she said without identifying any.

On Capitol Hill, the president’s promises of health plans and legal efforts by the administration to scrap the ACA have created dilemmas for some Republicans. Of the GOP senators facing competitive races this fall, only Susan Collins (Maine) has said that she opposes the Justice Department’s decision to back an effort to gut the law in the courts. Other Republicans have struggled to answer directly, walking a tightrope between embracing a position that would go against popular provisions in the health-care law and risking the wrath of conservatives who want Obamacare repealed.

And the pandemic has also only sharpened the relevance of health care in the eyes of voters — increasing Republican anxiety about doing anything that could limit coverage ahead of the election. Republican Sens. John Cornyn (Tex.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Steve Daines (Mont.) and Martha McSally (Ariz.) — all on the ballot this November — this past week drafted legislation that would provide assistance through COBRA for people who lose their employer-sponsored health care as jobs continue to vanish during the pandemic.

“I think there’s definitely things we need to do,” Cornyn said. “But I think our focus ought to be on giving people more choices.”

The ACA — politically polarizing throughout the decade it has existed — is favored by a slim majority of Americans. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in July found that 51 percent support the law while 36 percent oppose it. A Fox News survey in June showed 56 percent support and 38 percent opposition.

For Trump, saying that he is about to produce a health-care plan to replace the ACA has become a recurrent mantra of his presidency.

During his 2016 campaign, condemning the law was central to Trump’s candidacy. During that campaign’s final days, Trump said he was so eager to repeal and replace the 2010 law that he might ask Congress to convene a special session to do it.

“It will be such an honor for me, for you and for everybody in this country,” the then-Republican nominee said, “because Obamacare has to be replaced. And we will do it, and we will do it very, very quickly.”

The ACA was a significant theme of the president’s joint address to Congress just over a month into his tenure. “Tonight I am calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare,” he said, calling for measures that would “expand choice, increase access, lower costs and, at the same time, provide better health care.”

With GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate, Congress devoted much of 2017 to trying to get rid of substantial parts of the law. But a succession of repeal bills ultimately faltered in the Senate. When the last one did, Trump said nothing.

Near the end of the year, Congress took one big whack at the health law. As part of a major change in tax law, it eliminated the penalty the ACA levied on most Americans if they failed to carry health insurance. The penalty’s end neutralized the law’s insurance mandate.

With little appetite after that among Senate Republicans to continue trying to gut the law, and a Democratic House majority a year later, the momentum for replacing the ACA fell back to the Trump administration. Cabinet departments have, by turns, undercut specific parts of the law and tried to have it invalidated in the courts, while emphasizing that their concern for the nation’s health-care system and America’s patients reaches beyond the ACA.

And the president? He has continued to periodically vow that he would come up with a better health plan.

In the fall of 2017, Trump took a major swipe at the law by ending payments to insurance companies that had helped them afford to offer lower-income customers discounts on their deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, as the ACA requires.

During 2018, health officials sought to shrink the law in several other ways. They wrote rules that gave states greater latitude in defining a set of 10 “essential health benefits” that the ACA requires many health plans to cover. They widened the availability of short-term health plans — originally intended as bridge coverage when someone was, say, between jobs — that do not meet consumer protections or benefits that the law otherwise requires.

The administration has joined with a group of Republican attorneys general who are pursuing a lawsuit, now before the Supreme Court, that contends the entire ACA is unconstitutional. At first, the Justice Department argued that only part of the law is invalid, but the administration hardened its position to argue that the entire law should be thrown out.

As these and other administration health-care actions have played out, the drumbeat has continued that the president was about to reveal an ACA replacement plan.

In June 2019, Trump said in an interview with ABC News that he would announce a “phenomenal” new health-care plan “in about two months, maybe less.”

Two months later, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told reporters that the president was preparing to introduce an elaborate plan to redesign the nation’s health-care system in a speech the following month. “We’re working every single day here,” Conway said last August. “I’ve already been in meetings this morning on the president’s health-care plan. It’s pretty impressive.”

No speech or plan came.

In June, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar suggested that the administration would develop a health-care plan only if the nation’s highest court, which has upheld the law in two earlier cases over the past eight years, overturns it this time. “We’ll work with Congress on a plan if the ACA is struck down,” Azar said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We’ll see what the Supreme Court rules.”

That was three weeks before the president told Fox that he was about to issue a plan.

The administration’s antipathy toward the law has not produced much real-world change for the approximately 20 million people who have coverage through the insurance marketplaces the ACA created for those who cannot get affordable health benefits through a job and those insured through Medicaid expansions.

Early on, HHS slashed federal funding for advertising and other outreach efforts to encourage people to buy ACA health plans during the annual enrollment period. Critics of the administration predicted that sign-ups would ebb. They have not.

The most recent enrollment figures document the number of people choosing an ACA health plan who had followed up by paying insurance premiums last winter so their coverage was in place as of February. The figures, released last week, show that 10.7 million consumers have such plans, slightly more than the 10.6 million a year earlier.

Despite the administration’s steps to undercut parts of the law, and the elimination of the penalty for not having insurance, some of the ACA’s main features remain in place. They include federal subsidies for more than 8 in 10 people who buy health plans in the marketplaces created under the law, the expansion of Medicaid in most states, many consumer insurance protections, and a rule that young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26.

Against existing evidence, Trump says that will soon change.

“We’re getting rid of it because we’re going to replace it with something much better,” Trump told Wallace two weeks ago.