A Squeaker In The House Becomes Headache For The Senate: 5 Things To Watch

A Squeaker In The House Becomes Headache For The Senate: 5 Things To Watch

Image result for aca repeal

After weeks of will-they-or-won’t-they tensions, the House managed to pass its GOP replacement for the Affordable Care Act on Thursday by a razor-thin margin. The vote was 217-213.

Democrats who lost the battle are still convinced they may win the political war. As the Republicans reached a majority for the bill, Democrats on the House floor began chanting, “Na, na, na, na … Hey, hey, hey … Goodbye.” They claim Republicans could lose their seats for supporting a bill that could cause so much disruption in voters’ health care.

Now the bill — and the multitude of questions surrounding it — moves across the Capitol to the Senate. And the job doesn’t get any easier. With only a two-vote Republican majority and no likely Democratic support, it would take only three GOP “no” votes to sink the bill.

Democrats have made clear they will unanimously oppose the bill. “Trumpcare” is just a breathtakingly irresponsible piece of legislation that would endanger the health of tens of millions of Americans and break the bank for millions more,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

And Republicans in the Senate have their own internal disagreements, too.

Here are five of the biggest flashpoints that could make trouble for the bill in the upper chamber.

On the AHCA in the Senate

https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/on-the-ahca-in-the-senate/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51599934

Image result for Molly Reynolds, fellow in Governance Studies, considers what’s next for the AHCA in the Senate following the House narrowly passing the bill.

Molly Reynolds, fellow in Governance Studies, considers what’s next for the AHCA in the Senate following the House narrowly passing the bill.

 

I have a pre-existing condition. I do things “the right way”.

I have a pre-existing condition. I do things “the right way”.

Image result for I have a pre-existing condition. I do things “the right way”.

When I was a medical student, I started to notice blood in the toilet. I was a medical student, so I panicked. I called my father, who at the time was still a practicing surgeon, and he told me it was likely hemorrhoids. Given the alternatives, I breathed a sigh of relief.

The blood didn’t go away, though. Soon, I started to have diarrhea, cramps, and the urge to go to the bathroom all the time. That summer, I worked at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia on a research project, and I had to go to the bathroom so many times, I thought they were going to fire me. It got so bad, my Dad (who is a minimalist), finally sent me to the gastroenterologist. The short version of the story is they determined I had ulcerative colitis.

I’ve written about this before, so I’m not going to get into the details of the disease. The only reason I bring any of this up is so you understand that I was diagnosed when I was 22 years old and a full-time student.

None of it was my fault.

Today, I eat a well-balanced diet. My weight is good. I exercise 5 times or so a week. I don’t smoke or do drugs. I don’t drink more than socially. I do everything I’m supposed to do. I still have ulcerative colitis, and I will until I die, likely. I’m doing the things I need to do to keep my body healthy. I lead a good life.

__________________________________________

I try very hard to see the good in others. When I write, when I debate others, I do my best to assume that the intentions of those with whom I disagree are righteous. Even when we see the world differently, I make every effort not to think that others are “bad” or want to see people suffer. I’m not one who writes that people who want to reform the insurance system want “to kill people”. I don’t think that people who want to reform welfare “hate the poor”. I’m not perfect, so sometimes I screw up. When I do, I apologize.

Yesterday, a Congressman went on TV and said (emphasis mine):

“My understanding is that it will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool. That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now those are the people—who’ve done things the right way—that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

I cannot adequately describe how much this enraged me. This is one of those things that you hear people say “the other side believes”, but discount. I don’t want to believe that people think this. I don’t want to believe that people think that some others deserve to be sick. I don’t want to believe that people equate being ill with a moral failing.

I didn’t do anything to get ulcerative colitis. I did nothing wrong. I lead a good life. I didn’t fail.

___________________________________________

My brother, amazingly enough, has Crohn’s disease; the Carroll GI protoplasm ain’t the best. When I was a resident, and he was a law student, we would talk often about how we would both have to work for very large companies or organizations in order to get health care. It was a fact of life. We both knew that on the individual market, no insurance company would touch us. Ever. Because of our pre-existing conditions, we’d be screwed for the rest of our lives.

He didn’t do anything wrong either, by the way. He was diagnosed in high school, and he was a really good boy, too.

I could start quoting statistics here, but what’s the point? A huge number of Americans have pre-existing conditions. They couldn’t get insurance on the individual market before the ACA because it was in insurance companies’ best interest not to issue them policies. It made good business sense. That didn’t mean it was right.

There is certainly a case to be made that people have some responsibility for their health. But the lines aren’t clear at all. It’s easy to point at smokers and say they’re doing something harmful and are raising costs for all of us. That’s why we can charge smokers more under the ACA. After that… it gets dicey.

Do you start regulating what people eat? What they drink? If you eat dessert, and I don’t, why should I have to pay for your healthcare? Should we charge people more if they drive cars (number one killer of children!)? I like to ski. That has risks. So does rock climbing. Or playing contact sports. Should we make them stop, or charge them more? What about people who scuba dive?

Should we start penalizing people who have different organs in their body than we do?

____________________________________________

I expect that this Congressman will soon be issuing a statement saying he was “taken out of context”. Something along the lines of “he misspoke”. But maybe not. Maybe he does believe what he said, that people who did things the right way are the ones who are healthy. If that’s the case, then I have just one question for him.

What did the baby born prematurely, the one with congenital heart disease, or the toddler with sickle cell disease, or the child with autism, or the little girl with leukemia, or the boy with asthma, or the adolescent with juvenile arthritis, or the young woman with lupus, or the young man with testicular cancer, or the new mother with breast cancer, or the new father with inflammatory bowel disease, or the woman with familial heart disease, or the man with early onset Parkinson’s disease, or the retiring woman with Alzheimer’s disease, or the elderly man with lymphoma – what did they do wrong?

Did they lead bad lives?

I guess I had two questions. Take your time answering. I’ll wait.

 

The AHCA and the ACA in two charts

The AHCA and the ACA in two charts

Image result for The AHCA and the ACA in two charts

Image result for The AHCA and the ACA in two charts

The House passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) this afternoon. It’s still a considerable way from becoming law, but if it does it will repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Here are two charts that explain why this happened.

The first chart is from Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution (previously discussed here). For each decile of the US income distribution, it projects the income gains and losses from the ACA, where the cash value of the health insurance benefit is treated as income. The positive bars on the left are income gains by the people in the lowest 20% of the US distribution. They are balanced by losses in the upper 80% of the income distribution.

The horizontal axis on the Urban Institute graph represents income ranges, not income deciles. The four bars that are positive on the right represent people making $50,000 or more (the upper 37% of the US income distribution). The bar on the far right, with the huge positive income transfer, represents people earning $200,000 or more (the top 0.33% of the income distribution). Notice also that the vertical axis of the Brookings chart represents percentage changes in income, whereas the axis in the Urban Institute chart represents changes in dollars. If you converted the Urban Institute chart to percents, the magnitude of the bars on the left (low) side would grow and those on right (high) side would shrink. The Institute projects that the average person earning $200,000 or more will get a 1% increase in income. They project that the average person earning less than $10,000 will experience a 33% net loss of income. Think about that for a moment.

Here is why the AHCA is moving forward. The ACA used tax funds to pay for the healthcare of people in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. High earning people pay most of the taxes, so the ACA transferred money from them down to people in the bottom deciles of the US economic hierarchy. The AHCA cuts taxes in the ACA and reduces the amount that the government will spend on the health care of the poor. The net effect of the AHCA is a massive loss for the poor and a benefit for the very top of the economic scale.

I would love to be able to say that these bills represent clashing views about the best way to deliver health care. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a conservative health policy expert who thinks the AHCA is optimal. There may not be one who thinks it’s even good. The AHCA did not pass based on its merits as a health policy solution. The AHCA passed because Republicans wanted these transfer effects.

 

 

Healthcare Triage News: Narrow Insurance Networks Limit Access, Especially for Kids

Healthcare Triage News: Narrow Insurance Networks Limit Access, Especially for Kids

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: Narrow Insurance Networks Limit Access, Especially for Kids

Narrow health insurance networks cover fewer doctors, and can be especially narrow when it comes to specialists. And, it turns out, this limited access to specialists disproportionately affects children. This is Healthcare Triage News: