5 biggest health care provisions inside the House reconciliation bill

House to consider modified reconciliation bill with health care provisions  | AHA News

After months of negotiations, House Democrats on Friday passed their version of the Build Back Better bill—an expansive $1.7 trillion package that contains some of the largest health reforms since the Affordable Care Act’s passage in 2010.

While the overall scope of the bill is roughly half the size of President Biden’s original $3 trillion proposal, many of Democrats’ key health care provisions made it in, albeit with some modifications. What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office projected that while the overall bill would add $367 billion to the deficit over the 10 year period, the health care provisions would all be largely paid for by provisions aimed at lowering drug prices.

Below, I round up the five biggest health care changes included in the House bill.

Find out where the states stand on Medicaid expansion

1. Health care coverage expansions

The House bill leverages the ACA’s exchanges and federal tax credits to expand access to coverage in two ways. First, the bill would extend the American Rescue Plan’s enhanced ACA tax credits through 2025. The enhanced tax credits, which are currently slated to expire in 2023, fully subsidize coverage for people with annual incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and have enabled people above 400% FPL to qualify for subsidies and capped their premium costs at 8.5% of their incomes.

While Democrats had originally proposed to permanently expand those subsidies, they ultimately had to scale back this—and other proposals—to ensure they could cover the costs. But as we’ve seen in the past, it is much harder to take away an existing benefit or subsidy than it is to create a new one—so while the current bill was able to cover the cost of the health care provisions by making them temporary, lawmakers will have to revisit the tax credits before 2025 and find new money to either further extend them or permanently authorize them. This is one of several health care provisions we could see the Senate take a closer week at in the coming weeks.

Second, the House bill takes aim at the so-called Medicaid coverage gap. The bill would enable residents below 138% FPL who live in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs to qualify for fully subsidized exchange plans through 2025. While an earlier version of the House bill included language for a new federal Medicaid program covering those below 138% FPL who live in non-expansion states to begin in 2025, the final House bill contains no such program.

Instead, the bill aims to encourage non-expansion states to expand their Medicaid programs by reducing their Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments by 12.5% beginning in 2023—a significant cut that the American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates would reduce DSH payments in those states by $2.2 billion over five years and $4.7 billion over 10 years. At the same time, expansion states would see their federal match for spending on the Medicaid expansion population rise from 90% to 93% from 2023 through 2025.

While the AHA and others are pushing back against the proposed DSH payment cuts—the move addresses the moral hazard component that critics raised about earlier versions. It no longer rewards holdout states for not expanding their programs—effectively punishing those who did and are now on the hook for 10% of their expansion population’s costs. It’s a clever move, and one we’ll be watching to see if it survives the Senate.

2. New Medicare benefits.

The House bill adds a hearing benefit to Medicare beginning in 2023. The hearing benefits would cover hearing aids and aural rehabilitation, among other services. While this is certainly a win for many Medicare beneficiaries who do not have or cannot afford private Medicare Advantage plans, this is significantly scaled back from the original proposal to add hearing, as well as dental and vision benefits.

However, given that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has named Medicare benefit expansions as one of his top priorities, it’s possible we could see this topic revisited in the Senate. But any meaningful change would mean Democrats need to find more money to cover the costs—and so far, that has proved challenging.

3. Medicaid home and community care.

The House bill allocates $150 billion for home- and community-based care. The funding would be used to help increase home care provider reimbursement rates and help states bolster home- and community-based care infrastructure.

While the funding is down from an original proposal of $400 billion, the Biden administration—and the Covid-19 pandemic—have made it clear that home-based health care will continue to grow and be a key player in the U.S. health care delivery system. Providers looking at their offerings should keep an eye on how states are investing these funds and building out home-based health care delivery in their areas.

4. Lowering the costs of prescription drugs.

Democrats scored a huge win in the House bill, and that is securing Medicare authority—albeit narrower authority than they sought—to negotiate prices for some of the highest-priced Part B or Part D drugs. Under the bill, HHS would be able to select 10 drugs to negotiation in 2025, up to 15 drugs in 2026 and 2027, and then up to 20 drugs per year in 2028. To be eligible for negotiation, a drug could no longer be subject to market exclusivity.

Drug manufacturers that do not negotiate eligible drug prices could be subject to an excise tax. This was perhaps one of the most contentious provisions debated in the health care portions of this bill. Democrats for years have been seeking to give Medicare drug pricing authority, but intense lobbying and Republican—and some Democrat—objections have kept this proposal on the shelf. While it’s not the first time the House has passed a bill with drug price negotiation—it is the first time we are in a place where the Senate could reasonably pass either this or a modified version of the proposal.

The bill also would redesign the Medicare Part D benefit to create an annual cap of $2,000 on seniors’ out-of-pocket drug costs, and impose an inflation rebate on drug manufacturers’ whose drug prices rise faster than inflation (based on 2021) in a given year.

5. Other notable provisions.

The House bill also includes provisions to permanently fund CHIP, bolster the country’s pandemic preparedness and response, and bolster the health care workforce through new training and workforce programs, the nation’s first permanent federal paid family and medical leave program, investments in childcare, and more.

What’s next?

While the health care provisions in the House bill are notable, it’s important to remember that this is not the end of the road. The House bill now goes to the Senate, where the Senate parliamentarian will check provisions against the Byrd rule—a Senate rule requiring reconciliation bills to meet certain budgetary requirements.

Democrats also will enter a new round of negotiations, and industry groups—including PhRMA and AHA—are expected to launch a new round of lobbying. PhRMA objects to the bill’s drug price negotiation provision and AHA is fighting the provision to reduce DSH payments in non-Medicaid expansion states by 12.5%. Any Senate-passed reconciliation bill will need to go back to the House for final approval before it can go to Biden’s desk.

But this is not the only thing on lawmakers’ plates in December. Members of Congress also face several other deadlines, including addressing looming physician payment cuts and passing end of the year spending bills. The short-version is, while there’s a lot to learn from the House-passed bill, it’s possible the Senate version could look very different—and it may take several weeks before we see that bill take shape.

“All policy is health policy”


PPT - Health in All Policies PowerPoint Presentation, free ...

The effects of racism are often inseparable from black Americans’ health and well-being, as “black communities bear the physical burdens of centuries of injustice, toxic exposures, racism, and white supremacist violence,” Rachel Hardeman, Eduardo Medina and Rhea Boyd write in the New England Journal of Medicine:

Any solution to racial health inequities must be rooted in the material conditions in which those inequities thrive. Therefore, we must insist that for the health of the black community and, in turn, the health of the nation, we address the social, economic, political, legal, educational, and health care systems that maintain structural racism. Because as the Covid-19 pandemic so expeditiously illustrated, all policy is health policy…

The response to the pandemic has made at least one thing clear: systemic change can in fact happen overnight.


After criticism, HHS directs $25B in CARES funding to Medicaid providers, safety net hospitals


Dive Brief:

  • HHS announced Tuesday it will deliver $25 billion to providers and hospitals that serve the nation’s most vulnerable patients, or those with Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage. Of that, $15 billion will go to providers that primarily serve Medicaid and CHIP patients while the other $10 billion is reserved for safety net hospitals that usually operate on razor-thin margins. A total of 758 safety net hospitals will receive direct deposits, and the administration noted that many of these facilities are operating in the red with an average profit margin of -7%.
  • Not all Medicaid providers received Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security funding from the initial general distribution. This targeted allocation is designed to make up for that by distributing money to the remaining 38% of Medicaid and CHIP providers who were left out of the first tranche.
  • These Medicaid providers will receive at least 2% of reported gross patient revenue, but could receive more depending on how many patients they serve. HHS will make a final determination once providers start submitting data to the relief portal.

Dive Insight:

The industry has been clamoring for HHS to target funding to Medicaid providers amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the downturn in business, noting these organizations are already on fragile ground.

Last week the American Hospital Association pleaded for the administration to release $50 billion more for all hospitals, with $10 billion reserved for providers with a heavy caseload of Medicaid patients.

HHS answered the hospital lobby’s call — in part. HHS will distribute funds to safety net providers — more than AHA asked for — but disclosed no plans Tuesday to broaden that funding to all hospitals. America’s Essential Hospitals, which represents safety net providers, had also called for the quick release of targeted funding.

“Our goal for all these distributions has been to get the money to the providers who need it most as soon as possible,” Eric Hargan, HHS deputy secretary, said Tuesday during a call with reporters.

However, some have been critical of how the administration decided to allocate the first few waves of funding.

Congress has earmarked a total of $175 billion in funding for providers through two pieces of legislation, including the CARES Act.

To get the money out the door quickly, the first tranche was sent to providers based on the Medicare fee-for-service business, and later on the net patient service revenue.

These formulas put certain providers at an advantage, which tend to be for-profit hospitals with higher-margins, or those who were already well off heading into the pandemic, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation analysis.

This targeted funding was not swift, one reason for the delay was the challenge in getting a list of Medicaid providers from the states to validate and authenticate those who came to the portal to apply for funds, according to a senior HHS official.​

Still, providers that have already received funds have noted that it comes with its own set of headaches. Some have decided to return the funds as navigating the legal and compliance issues may not be worth the hassle.

Though, that’s likely not the case for these safety net hospitals and providers.





Medicaid Providers At The End Of The Line For Federal COVID Funding

Medicaid Providers At The End Of The Line For Federal COVID Funding

Medicaid Providers At The End Of The Line For Federal COVID ...

Casa de Salud, a nonprofit clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides primary medical care, opioid addiction services and non-Western therapies, including acupuncture and reiki, to a largely low-income population.

And, like so many other health care providers that serve as a safety net, its revenue — and its future — are threatened by the COVID-19 epidemic.

“I’ve been working for the past six weeks to figure out how to keep the doors open,” said the clinic’s executive director, Dr. Anjali Taneja. “We’ve seen probably an 80% drop in patient care, which has completely impacted our bottom line.”

In March, Congress authorized $100 billion for health care providers, both to compensate them for the extra costs associated with caring for patients with COVID-19 and for the revenue that’s not coming in from regular care. They have been required to stop providing most nonemergency services, and many patients are afraid to visit health care facilities.

But more than half that money has been allocated by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the majority of it so far has gone to hospitals, doctors and other facilities that serve Medicare patients. Officials said at the time that was an efficient way to get the money beginning to move to many providers. That, however, leaves out a large swath of the health system infrastructure that serves the low-income Medicaid population and childrenCasa de Salud, for example, accepts Medicaid but not Medicare.

State Medicaid directors say that without immediate funding, many of the health facilities that serve Medicaid patients could close permanently. More than a month ago, bipartisan Medicaid chiefs wrote the federal government asking for immediate authority to make “retainer” payments — not related to specific care for patients — to keep their health providers in business.

“If we wait, core components of the Medicaid delivery system could fail during, or soon after, this pandemic,” wrote the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

So far, the Trump administration has not responded, although in early April it said it was “working rapidly on additional targeted distributions” for other providers, including those who predominately serve Medicaid patients.

In an email, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said officials there will “continue to work with states as they seek to ensure continued access to care for Medicaid beneficiaries through and beyond the public health emergency.”

CMS noted that states have several ways of boosting payments for Medicaid providers, but did not directly answer the question about the retainer payments that states are seeking the authority to make. Nor did it say when the funds would start to flow to Medicaid providers who do not also get funding from Medicare.

The delay is frustrating Medicaid advocates.

“This needs to be addressed urgently,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families in Washington, D.C. “We are concerned about the infrastructure and how quickly it could evaporate.”

In the administration’s explanation of how it is distributing the relief funds, Medicaid providers are included in a catchall category at the very bottom of the list, under the heading “additional allocations.”

“To not see anything substantive coming from the federal level just adds insult to injury,” said Todd Goodwin.

He runs the John F. Murphy Homes in Auburn, Maine, which provides residential and day services to hundreds of children and adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities. He said his organization — which has already furloughed almost 300 workers and spent more than $200,000 on COVID-related expenses including purchases of essential equipment such as masks and protective equipment that will not be reimbursable — has not been eligible for any of the various aid programs passed by Congress. It gets most of its funding from Medicaid and public school systems.

The organization has tapped a line of credit to stay afloat. “But if we’re not here providing these services, there’s no Plan B,” he said.

Even providers who largely serve privately insured patients are facing financial distress. Dr. Sandy Chung is CEO of Trusted Doctors, which has about 50 physicians in 13 offices in the Northern Virginia suburbs around Washington, D.C. She said about 15% of its funding comes from Medicaid, but the drop off in private and Medicaid patients has left the group “really struggling.”

“We’ve had to furlough staff, had to curtail hours, and we may have to close some locations,” she said.

Of special concern are children because Medicaid covers nearly 40% of them across the county. Chung, who also heads the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that vaccination rates are off 30% for infants and 75% for adolescents, putting them and others at risk for preventable illnesses.

The biggest rub, she added, is that with the economy in free fall, more people will qualify for Medicaid coverage in the coming weeks and months.

“But if you don’t have providers around anymore, then you will have a significant mismatch,” she said.

Back in Albuquerque, Taneja is working to find whatever sources of funding she can to keep the clinic open. She secured a federal loan to help cover her payroll for a couple of months, but worries what will happen after that. “It would kill me if we’ve survived 15 years in this health care system, just to not make it through COVID,” she said.





States brace for ‘nearly certain’ Medicaid budget shortfalls amid COVID-19


Coronavirus updates: Virus reaches all 50 states, stock futures fall

Dive Brief:

  • Most states with budget projections expect Medicaid shortfalls due to rising spending as more people lose jobs and enroll into the safety net insurance for low-income Americans due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation survey.
  • Almost all states with enrollment projections and more than half with spending projections expect program growth to surpass pre-pandemic estimates. Nearly all states anticipate growth will accelerate even more in the 2021 fiscal year, KFF found. As a result of that growth, 17 of 19 states with budget projections report a shortfall is “nearly certain” or “likely” for the upcoming fiscal year.
  • The survey comes as Congress once again considers raising the federal match rate for Medicaid in the $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, passed by the House of Representatives on Friday.​

Dive Insight:

Medicaid is often the top line spending item in state budgets, sending states scrambling for ways to reduce spend in the safety net health insurance program, including controversial block grants for funding.

At the start of the 2020 fiscal year, states anticipated modest Medicaid spending growth, and flat enrollment growth due to the strong economy. That forecast quickly shifted as the coronavirus spread in the U.S., which lost some 21 million jobs in April as businesses shutter their doors in compliance with stay-at-home orders, sending the unemployment rate to 15%.  

Because the U.S. generally couples coverage to employment, skyrocketing job loss could make an estimated 17 million people newly eligible for Medicaid and 6 million eligible for subsidies in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces by January 2021.

Medicaid officials from 38 states shared their budget projections with KFF for the survey. States that did not respond were still gathering data about the coronavirus or didn’t have updated enrollment or spending projections for the 2020 or 2021 fiscal years, KFF researchers Robin Rudowitz and Elizabeth Hinton said.

Thirty-two of 34 states with enrollment projections think enrollment will exceed initial projections in 2020, and 30 of 31 states anticipate that growth in 2021 will outpace the current fiscal year.

States are more mixed on spending projections. Over half of states with projections, 18 of 32, expect 2020 Medicaid spending to exceed pre-pandemic estimates. Eight states anticipate no change, and the remaining six project slightly lowered spending due to lower healthcare utilization as non-essential services have largely ground to a halt.

State Medicaid officials are more in lockstep when it comes to 2021 spending projections. Nearly all states with projections — 29 of 30 — think Medicaid spending rates in 2021 will increase over 2020.

Without greater support from the federal government, the survey hints states will face significant spending cuts for Medicaid for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1 for most states. Multiple groups, including the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, have called for a higher federal match rate.

One of the first legislative packages designed to mitigate the fallout of COVID-19, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act passed March 18, authorized a 6.2 percentage point increase in the rate for Medicaid if states meet certain requirements. States can’t increase premiums or restrict eligibility standards and must cover COVID-19 testing and treatment without cost-sharing.

The HEROES Act passed by Democrats in the House on Friday would increase the match rate by 14 percentage points from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, along with benchmarking an additional $100 billion for providers.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and President Donald Trump have said they’re in no rush to pass another round of legislation adding to the more than $3 trillion Congress has approved so far.





Coronavirus likely forced 27 million off their insurance


The coronavirus pandemic is hitting Main Street and triggering ...

Roughly 27 million people have likely have lost job-based health coverage since the coronavirus shocked the economy, according to new estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Why it matters: Most of these people will be able sign up for other sources of coverage, but millions are still doomed to be uninsured in the midst of a pandemic, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

By the numbers: For the 27 million people who are losing their job-based coverage, about 80% have other options, said Rachel Garfield, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation and lead author of the report.

  • Roughly half are eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
  • Another third are eligible for subsidized health plans on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces.
  • The remaining 20% are pretty much out of luck because they live in a state that didn’t expand Medicaid or are ineligible for other kinds of subsidized coverage.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s latest coronavirus relief bill would fully subsidize the cost of maintaining an employer plan through COBRA — an option that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive for many people. But that’s a long way from becoming law.

The bottom line: The coronavirus is blowing up health insurance at a time when people need it most.





COVID-19 cases are rising in rural America, and its hospitals may be unprepared


CMS announces Rural Health Strategy | SDAHO

Dive Brief:

  • Though metro and rural areas have had different infection rates since the outbreak began, the mortality rate from the virus is mostly the same in the U.S. But in recent weeks, the infection rate in rural counties has been outpacing urban counties, according to a new analysis of COVID-19 data by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
  • According to KFF, counties with large metro areas have had nearly three times as many coronavirus cases and deaths as rural counties (327.5 cases per 100,000 versus 114.9 per 100,000, even adjusting for population size). Metro counties have also experienced nearly four times as many deaths as of last Monday (17 per 100,000 versus 4.4 per 100,000).
  • Nevertheless, the COVID-19 mortality rate is 4.2% for metro populations, versus 3.8% for rural populations. And the county with the most deaths per capita is in a non-metro area. 

Dive Insight:

The divide between rural and urban America was highlighted during the first several weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., as major metropolitan areas were hit much harder than their rural counterparts, suggesting lower population density could spare rural America the brunt of the outbreak.

However, this week’s KFF analysis suggests COVID-19 is now spreading in rural America, whose older population and smaller, often sparsely equipped hospitals may be ill-prepared to bear up against the coronavirus. That rural hospitals have been in dire financial straits for years suggests that they may not be able to marshal the resources to properly respond if they become inundated with coronavirus patients.

A recent letter from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also suggests that hospitals with a high proportion of Medicaid and low-income patients are not getting enough emergency federal funding in response to COVID-19, a trend that could also hurt some rural hospitals.

According to the KFF analysis, there was a 45% uptick in COVID-19 cases in non-metro counties over the past week, versus 26% in metro counties. Over two weeks, cases increased 125% in non-metro counties versus 68% among their urban counterparts. And deaths are up 169% over the past two weeks in non-metro counties, versus a 113% increase in metro counties.

Meanwhile, the easing of lockdowns in states with large rural areas foretells more problems in the near-term. “Georgia has started to reopen certain businesses and allow limited dine-in at restaurants, despite some of its counties rising toward the top of this list of U.S. metro and non-metro counties with the highest numbers of COVID-19 deaths per capita,” the KFF analysis observed.

The county with the most deaths per capita in the U.S. is Randolph County, with 278 deaths per 100,000 people. Randolph is a rural county in Georgia.




Number of Uninsured Children Increases by 400,000


A new report from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute says the number of uninsured children in the U.S. increased by more than 400,000 between 2016 and 2018.

Some key findings from the report:

  • The number of uninsured children rose above 4 million by the end of 2018.
  • Insurance coverage losses are concentrated in 15 states — Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
  • Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia.
  • States that have not expanded Medicaid, as allowed by the Affordable Care Act, have seen much larger increases in uninsured rates.
  • Children in non-expansion states are nearly twice as likely to be uninsured compared to states that have expanded Medicaid.
  • White and Latino children saw the largest increases in the uninsured rate.
  • Households with low to moderate income – $29,000 to $53,000 per year for a family of three – were the hardest hit.

The report’s authors said it’s no coincidence that the increases in the number of uninsured children have occurred since President Trump took office in 2017.

“This serious erosion of child health coverage is likely due in large part to the Trump Administration’s actions that have made health coverage harder to access and have deterred families from enrolling their eligible children in Medicaid and CHIP,” they wrote in their conclusion. “These actions include attempting to repeal the ACA and deeply cut Medicaid, cutting outreach and advertising funds, encouraging states to put up more red tape barriers that make it harder for families to enroll or renew their eligible children in Medicaid or CHIP (or ignoring it when they do), eliminating the ACA’s individual mandate penalty, and creating a pervasive climate of fear and confusion for immigrant families.”





Why Are at So Many Children Losing Medicaid/CHIP Coverage?

Why Are at So Many Children Losing Medicaid/CHIP Coverage?

Along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, First Focus and Children’s Defense Fund, Georgetown University CCF held a press tele-conference and released a report examining an alarming trend in children’s health coverage. The report shows that more 800,000 fewer children had Medicaid/CHIP coverage at the end of 2018 compared to 2017. This trend comes amid broader efforts to restrict access to health coverage and discourage participation by legal immigrants.

The report found little evidence to support claims that the improving economy was responsible for the 2.2 percent decline in enrollment. Instead data suggest this 2018 could be the second year in a row that the rate of uninsured children increases. The U.S. Census Bureau will release the 2018 child uninsured rate data later in the fall.

Enrollment declines are concentrated in seven states – California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas – which account for nearly 70 percent of the losses. Nine states – Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming – had decreases of more than double the national average.

Please listen to the recording of the press call or read the report for more details. Here a few excerpts from Thursday’s press conference:

Joan Alker of CCF moderated the call and explained why this drop in child enrollment is so alarming.

“We are extremely concerned about what we are seeing and what it portends for the uninsured numbers these fall,” she said. “For many years there’s been a national bipartisan commitment to reduce the number of uninsured children and the effort have borne fruit. Unfortunately, today we do not feel confident that this national commitment still exists.”

Tricia Brooks, lead author of the report, explained the many factors have likely led to the decline in child enrollment.

“Knowing that the economy had a minimal impact at best, we must call on state and national policymakers to address the factors contributing to the enrollment decline,” said Brooks. “From systems and renewal issues to enrollment barriers to threats like public charge, we must take a hard look at what these administrative actions and barriers to coverage mean for our kids’ health.”

Dr. Laura Guerra-Cardus, Deputy Director for the Children’s Defense Fund of Texas  said overly cumbersome eligibility checks are causing thousands of eligible children to lose coverage in her state. Nine out of every 10 Texas children being dropped are losing coverage due to red-tape. She said this is causing significant confusion for families and throughout the Texas health care system as many families don’t learn their children are uninsured until they show up for an appointment with their health care provider.

“These income checks are erroneously flagging families – at the very least 30% of the time. Families are not being given enough time to respond,” she said. “They are given only ten days to respond and the timeline starts once flagged by the system which could be before the parents even receive notification.”

Bruce Lesley, President of First Focus, pointed out that bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Congress would address the issues raised by Dr. Guerra by requiring 12 months continuous health coverage for children. He also cited polls that show strong support for children’s health coverage in general.

“The American public is with us on this. Kids are a priority but we’re seeing a failure of policymakers to adhere to what voters want and make children a priority,” Lesley said.

Dr. Lanre Falusi, a pediatrician at the Children’s National Health System and national spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics said pediatricians are very concerned about the decline in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. In addition to cumbersome enrollment process and administrative burdens discouraging families from enrolling eligible children, she pointed out that immigrant families also encounter the chilling effect the proposed public charge rule.

“The public charge proposal presents immigrant families with an impossible choice: keep your family healthy but risk being separated or forgo vital services like Medicaid so your family can remain together in this country. Although the final rule has yet to be issued, the proposal has already caused immigrant families to avoid or even disenroll from programs they are eligible for out of fear, like Medicaid. I have seen this myself,” Dr. Falusi said.

“We need all children in the United States to reach their full potential if we are to reach ours as a nation. Ensuring children are enrolled in health coverage designed to meet their needs is necessary to making that possible. Our lawmakers must pass policies that keep programs like Medicaid and CHIP strong, not those that jeopardize the critical gains we’ve made in children’s coverage.”