Warren Buffett calls ObamaCare repeal bill ‘Relief for the Rich Act’

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339799-warren-buffett-obamacare-repeal-bill-should-be-called-relief-for-the-rich?utm_content=buffer25d18&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Warren Buffett calls ObamaCare repeal bill ‘Relief for the Rich Act’

Warren Buffett is attacking the Republican Party’s plans to repeal and replace ObamaCare, claiming bills in the House and Senate would provide tax cuts for the rich.

Legislation passed by the House, he said, should be called “Relief for the Rich Act.”

Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the country, claimed his tax bill would have been reduced by $679,999, or 17 percent, from the House bill.

“There’s nothing ambiguous about that. I will be given a 17 percent tax cut. And the people it’s directed at are couples with $250,000 or more of income. You could entitle this, you know, Relief for the Rich Act or something,” he said in an interviewwith PBS.

Buffett made the comments are a question about the GOP plan to do away with an ObamaCare surcharge on people earning a higher income.

Buffett also suggested that the bill would give many lawmakers a tax cut.

The annual salaries for lawmakers are much lower, he noted, at around $174,000 a year.

“But most of them have — if you look at the disclosures, they have substantial other income,” he said.

“If they get to higher than $250,000, as a married couple, or $200,000 as a single person, they have given themselves a big, big tax cut, if they — if they voted for this.”

The Senate on Tuesday decided to delay action on their draft healthcare bill until after the July 4 recess following criticism from conservatives and centrists in the conference.

What we know about Senate health care bill 2.0

https://www.axios.com/what-we-know-about-the-senate-health-care-bill-2-0-2450356848.html

Image result for aca repeal

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to wrangle members from opposite ends of the Republican caucus together to support some revised version of the Senate health care bill, offering both moderates and conservatives new policies to shore up support for the bill.

On the table: More funding to fight the opioid epidemic, revised health savings account policies, potentially getting rid of the repeal of the net investment tax on the wealthy.

Off the table: Undermining pre-existing conditions protections, which could happen indirectly under a plan Sen. Ted Cruz is pushing,

What we’re hearing:

  • There’s a push to include as much as $45 billion in funding for the opioid crisis, up from $2 billion under last week’s bill. This would be a win for moderates like Sens. Rob Portman and Shelley Moore Capito.
  • There’s also an effort to add more funding to the state stabilization fund, and to make the funding available sooner to states.
  • There will likely be a provision allowing health savings accounts to be used for premiums. This is a win for conservatives, and could help middle-class people afford their premiums. One aide said the price tag could be around $60 billion, as it would result in lost tax revenue. (HSA contributions aren’t taxed.)
  • There’s chatter about removing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent investment tax, which benefits wealthy people. This would free up some extra funding to help coverage levels, and would also help combat the narrative that the bill cuts coverage for the poor to give money to the wealthy.

What’s becoming a big problem: Cruz is pushing to allow insurers offering ACA-compliant plans to also offer non-compliant plans, which wouldn’t be required to meet the ACA’s pre-existing conditions protections or other insurance regulations. Cruz wants to include that in the revised bill to cut the cost of individual insurance, and says sick people could still get subsidies that would protect them from premium hikes.

But that’s off the table, senior GOP aides say, because most Republican senators have already decided they don’t want to undermine the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections in any way.

Hospitals Attack GOP Health Bill in $1 Million Ad Campaign

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/hospitals-attack-gop-health-bill-in-1-million-new-ad-campaign

Image result for american hospital association

Powerful hospital and medical school lobbying groups are spending at least $1 million on television ads opposing Senate Republicans’ plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The ads ask viewers to consider whether they’ll be among the millions of Americans projected to lose their health coverage under the Senate proposal, Rick Pollack, chief executive officer of the American Hospital Association, said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters.

The bill, which Republicans have put on hold until after the July 4 recess amid growing opposition within their own party, would leave an additional 22 million people in the U.S. without insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated. Hospitals have a lot to lose under the current version of the bill, and the AHA, which represents about 5,000 institutions, last week told GOP senators to “go back to the drawing board.”

It’s the second time that the coalition will run ads opposing Republicans’ attempts to replace the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. The group also ran ads opposing the House’s health bill, which passed in May. The House proposal would also increase the number of uninsured by more than 20 million, according to the CBO.

Samantha Dean, a spokeswoman for the AHA, said the campaign’s ads have already begun running and will cost seven figures. She wouldn’t give a precise amount.

The advertisements will continue to run “for as long as needed,” Dean said.

Mediocre Evidence Behind Many Primary Care Decisions

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/quality/mediocre-evidence-behind-many-primary-care-decisions?spMailingID=11361778&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1182449350&spReportId=MTE4MjQ0OTM1MAS2

Image result for evidence based medicine

Only 18% of clinical recommendations were based on high-quality, patient-oriented evidence, a primary care research study shows.

Research-based evidence to help primary care physicians make decisions seems to be hard to come by, according to research from the University of Georgia.

Researchers, led by Mark Ebell, epidemiology professor at UGA’s College of Public Health, analyzed 721 topics from an online medical reference for generalists and found that only 18% of the clinical recommendations were based on high-quality, patient-oriented evidence. Their work appears in the journal BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

“The research done in the primary care setting, which is where most outpatients are seen, is woefully underfunded, and that’s part of the reason why there’s such a large number of recommendations that are not based on the highest level of evidence,” Ebell said in a statement.

The researchers used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists to identify areas of care that are supported by high-quality studies and others that are not. Each of Essential Evidence’s topics are graded A, B, or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT), the study said.

They found that topics related to pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular health, and psychiatry had the highest percentage of recommendations backed by research-based evidence. Hematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity topics had the lowest percentage.

In addition, just 51% of the recommendations overall were based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or symptom reduction, instead of laboratory markers like blood sugar or cholesterol levels.

“Practice should wherever possible be guided by studies reporting patient-oriented health outcomes,” Ebell said. “You would want your care to be guided by studies that have demonstrated that what the physician recommends will help you live better or longer. We should all want that kind of information to guide care.”

The study authors also note that the lack of funding for primary care research stands in stark contrast to patients’ primary care usage: Primary care visits account for 53.2% of all physician office visits, according to the CDC.

Analysis: Mitch McConnell Plans To Hide Trumpcare’s Pain Until After Midterms

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/technology/analysis-mitch-mcconnell-plans-hide-trumpcare%E2%80%99s-pain-until-after-midterms?spMailingID=11361778&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1182449350&spReportId=MTE4MjQ0OTM1MAS2

Image result for medicaid cuts

The Better Care Reconciliation Act bill may make the health insurance markets look better almost immediately by giving insurers a more predictable, more lucrative market.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is well aware of the political peril of taking health benefits away from millions of voters. He also knows the danger of reneging on the pledge that helped make him the majority leader: to repeal Obamacare.

Caught between those competing realities, McConnell’s bill offers a solution: go ahead and repeal Obamacare, but hide the pain for as long as possible. Some of the messaging on the bill seems nonsensical (see: the contention that $772 billion squeezed out of Medicaid isn’t a cut). But McConnell’s timetable makes perfect sense — if you are looking at the electoral calendar.

Here are a few key dates in McConnell’s “Better Care Reconciliation Act” (BCRA) that seem aimed more at providing cover for lawmakers than coverage for Americans:

2019: First major changes and cuts to the Affordable Care Act exchanges happen after the 2018 midterm cycle, allowing congressional Republicans to campaign on a “fixed” health system, even though Obamacare is still largely in place next year.

2019: States share $2 billion in grants to apply for waivers under a much looser process through this fiscal year. These waivers could allow insurers to sell skimpy plans that have low price tags but don’t take adequate care of people with preexisting conditions. None of those waivers has to go into effect, however, until after 26 Republican governors face re-election in 2018.

2020: Stabilization cash that makes the markets more predictable and fair for insurers flows through the congressional midterm cycle and the 2020 presidential cycle. Then it disappears. Medicaid expansion funds hold steady through this crucial political window, too.

2024: States enjoy their last few sips of Medicaid expansion cash at the end of 2023 — just as, perhaps, a second Republican presidential term is ending.

2025: The bill changes the formula for the entire Medicaid budget (not just the Obamacare expansion), dramatically reducing federal funding over time. That starts eight years and two presidential election cycles from now.

McConnell insists everything about the bill has been aboveboard and transparent.

“Nobody’s hiding the ball here. You’re free to ask anybody anything,” McConnell said on June 13.

But he and his working group did literally hide the bill from Democrats and most Republicans, crafting it behind closed doors until there was just a week left before his goal to secure a vote on it. (That timing was thrown off Tuesday with the announcement the vote was delayed, but the dealmaking is just beginning.)

Meanwhile, at least two policy details in the bill may obscure the effects for several years and make the health insurance markets look better almost immediately by giving insurers a more predictable, more lucrative market.

One is a stipulation that compels the federal government, for two years, to pay the cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies that President Donald Trump has threatened to end. The payments are part of the Affordable Care Act, and they flow to insurers on behalf of low-income marketplace customers to cover their out-of-pocket health expenses. Republicans had sued to stop the payments, adding considerable instability to ACA marketplaces next year. McConnell ends that uncertainty for two years.

On top of that cash infusion, the BCRA proposes a “Short-Term Stabilization Fund” that would also aim to help lower premium costs and could attract a few more insurers into counties that are sparsely covered now. It would dish out $50 billion to insurers — $15 billion per year in 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion per year in 2020 and 2021.

 

 

 

 

Medicaid, a “broken program that harms its beneficiaries”

Medicaid, a “broken program that harms its beneficiaries”

Image result for medicaid broken

I asked on Twitter for policymakers’ expressions of harm caused by Medicaid.

Seen a *policymaker* justify BCRA Medicaid changes because “Medicaid causes harm”? Send me the link. cc @aaronecarroll

By email, Andrew Goodman-Bacon came through in a huge way. The bullets below are a lightly edited version of what he sent me, shared with his permission. (For the record, Medicaid does not cause harm. More about that soon.)

  • The Sommers/Epstein paper surveyed governors and found that five of those who opposed expansion felt that Medicaid was a “broken program that harms its beneficiaries.”
  • Senator Ted Cruz has said that Medicaid hurts health care access
  • In one of Tom Price’s recent testimonies he said ,“Medicaid is a program that has, by and large, decreased people’s ability to access care.”
  • Speaker Paul Ryan comes close on pg 24 of “A Better Way
  • A Healthy Indiana report (notably produced by the Pence administration) cites Roy and LaPar, but doesn’t go all in on the “harms” claim
  • Here is the American Action Forum saying “harm”
  • See also, this brief from a policy shop in MI, this brief from a policy shop in NC, and this brief from a policy shop in PA
  • Here is ALEC citing that study, although not going so far as to say patients will be “harmed”

To these, I will add this quote of Representative Bill Cassidy (via Aaron) and this op-ed by Seema Verma (via Adrianna). Note: I have not looked through everything in the above list. If you find errors or have more contributions, let me know.

“BEYOND COMPETENCY – WHY CHARACTER, COURAGE, AND COMMITMENT SETS YOU APART”

Watch this clip – “Beyond competency – why character, courage, and commitment sets you apart”

Rather than having fear and trepidation about the concept of accountability, Lee briefly explains the positive aspects of courageous accountability as a means to achieving your goals.

The key is to establish an authentic foundation of character, courage, and commitment so you can build consistency and trust with yourself and others. Please watch and share your comments – thank you