Senator McCain Delivers a Key Health Care Vote, Scolding Message

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/26/us/politics/ap-us-mccain.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54638652&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–yCfUQ97UcjjbwPzRm6wrGo6e7rVbl20dli0Sqh-ZaiPPjMpOXJjM9kAkSpedzNtG7DL6oAyP0qfB05akd0OMSf02x3g&_hsmi=54638652

Image result for McCain Delivers a Key Health Care Vote, Scolding Message

The maverick stood with his party on Tuesday, casting a crucial vote in the Republican drive to repeal “Obamacare.” But then, like an angry prophet, Sen. John McCain condemned the tribal politics besetting the nation.

Confronting an aggressive brain cancer, the 80-year-old Arizonan served notice he would not vote for the GOP legislation as it stands now. McCain’s impassioned speech held the rapt attention of his colleagues in the Senate chamber.

“Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio, television and the internet,” he intoned. “To hell with them! They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.”

A few minutes earlier, McCain dramatically entered the chamber for the pivotal vote, his first since surgery and his cancer diagnosis in Arizona. Unified for once, Republicans and Democrats applauded and whooped for the six-term lawmaker. “Aye,” he said, thumbs up with both hands, for the GOP vote to move ahead on debate.

After he voted, McCain stood at his seat and accepted hugs and handshakes from senators in both parties, drawing laughter from the spectators’ gallery when he and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders exchanged an awkward embrace.

McCain then spoke his mind. His face was pale, cheek bruised, a red scar and stitches above his left eye where doctors had removed a blood clot. But his voice was strong. He offered a bit of self-deprecation, saying he was “looking a little worse for wear.”

He bemoaned the lack of legislative accomplishments in the current Congress and the GOP’s secretive process in working on repealing Obamacare. He issued a plea for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

Obama and the Democrats shouldn’t have pushed the Affordable Care Act through on party-line votes when they controlled Washington back in 2010, McCain said, “and we shouldn’t do the same with ours. Why don’t we try the old way of legislating in the Senate?”

That would involve committee hearings and testimony from experts and interested parties, an incremental process that could take months.

He blasted the path taken by Republican leaders “coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them that it was better than nothing.

“I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and it probably shouldn’t,” he said.

Debates in the Senate have become “more partisan, more tribal, more of the time than at any time I can remember,” he lamented.

With President Donald Trump threatening electoral retribution for Republicans who don’t toe the line, McCain urged senators to stand up for their own constitutional status.

“Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the president’s subordinates,” he said. “We are his equal!”

People with health care problems had speculated on social media how McCain would vote, and his decision disappointed many. Addressing concerns that tens of millions will lose coverage if the Republican bill becomes law, McCain said the process is far from over.

“I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue,” he said. “I will not vote for this bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now.”

Arizona is one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s health care law, and Republican Gov. Doug Ducey is worried about tens of thousands losing their health insurance. That has to be addressed, said McCain.

The Arizona senator has emerged as one of Trump’s most outspoken GOP critics. During the presidential campaign Trump had mocked McCain for his capture by the Vietnamese.

The speech Tuesday received a standing ovation.

“He’s tough as a boot,” said Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana. “Many people understandably would be curled up in bed in the fetal position.”

McCain’s return was reminiscent of a similar scenario involving McCain’s good friend, the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who returned to the Senate in July 2008 while battling brain cancer to vote on Medicare legislation, his dramatic entry in the chamber eliciting cheers and applause. Kennedy died in August 2009. (The current Sen. Kennedy is no relation.)

McCain himself campaigned heavily on the “Obamacare” repeal issue last year as he won re-election to a sixth and almost certainly final Senate term. But he has not been a booster of the GOP health bill.

His best friend in the Senate, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said he’s been impatient to get back to work.

“Is it surprising that he would get out of a hospital bed and go to work? No,” Graham said. “It’s surprising he’s been in the hospital this long.”

Obamacare’s History Littered With Near-Death Experiences

http://khn.org/news/obamacares-history-littered-with-near-death-experiences/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54638652&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9NJVSn3U-OxI06sPsR44BdwtSpJDd0xvkbbK2WPPkGRzpQS2rG64ODbRjJ2YpcMuy9t-JLP2DL-uY4ZSciMiYntteMWg&_hsmi=54638652

Image result for Obamacare’s History Littered With Near-Death Experiences

Few laws have defied as many existential threats as the Affordable Care Act. In seven years, it has been to the brink of elimination nearly a dozen times, only to rally back from seemingly impossible odds. Efforts to kill it have come from Congress (including one in 2015 that made it all the way to President Barack Obama’s desk before being vetoed), the White House and the courts. So far, the law continues.

As the Senate continues its latest effort to remake the law, here is a timeline of the ACA’s “near-death” experiences, which occurred before the bill passed, during its implementation and after benefits began to flow.

Tough road ahead for McConnell on ObamaCare

Tough road ahead for McConnell on ObamaCare

Image result for the skinny

Republicans on Tuesday cleared a crucial hurdle to begin the Senate healthcare debate, but now face the danger of a circular firing squad if they are unable to unify around a single proposal.

The successful procedural vote sets up 20 hours of floor debate and votes on a virtually unlimited number of amendments, known as a vote-a-rama.

Many of these amendments will fail, and some will pit centrists in the GOP conference against conservatives, a division that has made it exceedingly difficult for Republicans to move forward on ObamaCare repeal.

At press time, votes were expected Tuesday night on an amendment to repeal ObamaCare in two years, and one to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a substitute that Senate Republicans have been working on behind closed doors for months.

Both of those amendments are widely expected to fail, but GOP leaders think it will help them to determine how much support exists for both measures.

That information could be used to craft another compromise before the underlying healthcare bill comes up for a final vote.

Another possibility that seemed to have growing momentum on Tuesday is a so-called “skinny” ObamaCare repeal bill that would only eliminate the healthcare law’s insurance mandates on individuals and businesses and an unpopular tax on medical devices.

If that legislation can pass the Senate, it could be brought to a conference negotiation with the House, when lawmakers from both chambers would try to reconcile their differing products.

Yet it is far from clear that even the “skinny” measure could win support.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), long a holdout from her party in the healthcare debate, expressed skepticism about the approach on Tuesday. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted in a dramatic floor speech after his return to the Senate following a brain cancer diagnosis that the entire effort was likely to fail, and that Republicans should start over with an open process and committee hearings.

Democrats plan to make the process as painful as possible for Republicans by dragging out proceedings. No Democrats backed the measure to begin debate, and they withheld their “no” votes until the end to highlight the contrast to the GOP.

On Tuesday evening, Democrats forced the Senate clerk to read the entire first proposed amendment to the bill, which was expected to take a couple of hours.

“The aim of our amendment strategy is to defeat the various versions of repeal they proposed and to make it as hard as possible to get to 50,” said a senior Democratic aide.

Republicans control 52 seats, meaning they can survive only two defections with Democrats unified and Vice President Pence breaking a tie.

Several moderates, including Collins and Sens. Shelley Moore Capito(W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), say they will not support a repeal measure that leaves the question of replacement unanswered.

Republicans are likely to face a rollicking debate over as many as 100 different healthcare proposals.

GOP leaders describe the “skinny” option as a fallback proposal.

“Who knows what the final bill will look like. I’d be happy to have a comprehensive bill that 50-plus senators agree to, but if we can’t, then the idea would be to come up with a core of pieces that 50 of us agree on,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters.

Even Republican leaders admitted they don’t fully know what to expect.

“There will be a lot of different amendments offered by different members trying to craft the bill. It’s really entirely impossible to predict, in a reconciliation debate, exactly what amendments will be offered or what amendments will succeed. It’s wide open,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters.

Cornyn predicted that as many as 100 different healthcare proposals could receive votes.

“Under the budget process, everybody is entitled to get a vote on an amendment if they want one. So it’s impossible to predict the sequence,” he said. “We’re going to be doing a lot of voting this week. I hope you all have eaten your Cheerios.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) told reporters that he alone has prepared more than 100 amendments for floor consideration.

The Budget Committee will vet the various amendments to make sure they comply with Senate rules.

The advantage of passing healthcare legislation under special budgetary rules is that GOP leaders can pass it with a simple majority, instead of 60 votes as is usually required for controversial legislation in the Senate.

But legislative provisions must pass a six-part test known as the Byrd Rule. The most stringent requirement is that the budgetary impact of the proposals must be more than incidental compared to the policy impact.

In other words, policymaking that does not have a significant impact on spending, revenues or the deficit is not allowed.

‘Skinny Repeal’ of ACA Likely to Leave Everyone Wanting More

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/07/25/Skinny-Repeal-ACA-Likely-Make-Everyone-Wanting-More

The Senate’s Republican leadership has added yet another option to the complicated menu of Affordable Care Act repeal and replacement measures that may be considered as alternatives to the House-passed American Health Care Act.

Faced with the very real possibility that they will be unable to pass any of the current versions of their own health care legislation, which ranges from a standalone repeal of the ACA to a complicated restructuring of the law, Senate leadership is now considering the possibility of a measure being referred to as a “skinny repeal” of the ACA.

This represents a sort of fall-back position if the GOP is unable to muster the votes for any of the larger repeal and replace bills. The skinny repeal bill would eliminate the employer and individual mandates, which impose penalties on some businesses that don’t offer their employees insurance and on individuals not otherwise covered who do not buy themselves insurance. It would also repeal the controversial tax on medical devices.

The skinny repeal would fall far short of the goal of complete elimination of the ACA, but it would give Republicans the ability to claim at least a small victory. However, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it would also result in at least 15 million fewer Americans with insurance within a year, and 20 percent increases in health insurance premiums, while saving the federal government a relatively modest $225 billion over 10 years.

The skinny repeal would likely set up Senate Republicans for brutal criticism from both sides of the aisle.

It would also be viewed by large segments of the Republican voter base as a placeholder at best, or a betrayal at worst. By leaving in place many of the ACA’s mandates on health insurance providers and its taxes, the skinny repeal would leave many GOP voters clamoring for further action against Obamacare.

On the left, critics would point out that the elimination of the coverage mandates will inject huge and perhaps fatal uncertainty into the individual insurance market, potentially causing many more people to lose insurance, either because of insurers withdrawing from the system, or premiums becoming unaffordable.

First GOP health care bill fails, with many more votes to come

https://www.axios.com/first-gop-health-care-bill-fails-with-many-more-votes-to-come-2465490343.html

Image result for aca repeal

The Senate GOP’s Affordable Care Act replacement plan did a face plant on Tuesday night, with nine Republicans and all Democrats voting against it. But it was only the first vote of what’s sure to be a long process, and its failure wasn’t a surprise.

Why this matters: This was the Senate’s best attempt at an ACA replacement, after about two and a half months of closed-door meetings attempting to find something that could bridge the caucus’ deep divides. Its failure suggests Senate Republicans won’t be able to come together on a replacement plan without Democrats in the future, no matter what happens next.

What’s next: A vote on a bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies, taxes and Medicaid expansion but leaves in place its regulations. It’s expected to be tomorrow at noon.

The version of the bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, that the Senate voted down tonight included an agreement by Sens. Ted Cruz and Rob Portman that added $100 billion to help low-income people transitioning off of Medicaid, as well as Cruz’s proposal to let insurers sell health plans that don’t meet ACA requirements as long as they also sell plans that do.

Since neither of these were scored by the Congressional Budget Office, the BCRA amendment needed 60 votes to pass, meaning it was doomed from the start as Democrats were never going to support it.

Republicans who voted against the bill: Mike Lee, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Dean Heller, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Tom Cotton.

 

Senate rejects ObamaCare repeal, replacement amendment

Senate rejects ObamaCare repeal, replacement amendment

Image result for aca repeal

The Senate rejected a key proposal repealing and replacing ObamaCare on Tuesday night, as senators start a days-long debate on healthcare.

Senators voted 43-57 on a procedural hurdle for the measure that included the GOP repeal and a replace bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, as well as proposals from GOP Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rob Portman (Ohio).
GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Tom Cotton(Ark.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Lisa Murkowski(Alaska) and Rand Paul (Ky.) voted against the repeal-replace proposal on the procedural hurdle. No Democrats voted for it.
The proposal was the first amendment to get a vote after senators took up the House-passed healthcare bill, which is being used as a vehicle for any Senate action, earlier Tuesday.
But it was widely expected to fail because it needed 60 votes because the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) didn’t analyze either the Cruz or Portman proposal that was packaged in with BCRA.
Tuesday night’s vote doesn’t prevent GOP leadership from offering another repeal and replace amendment, or another version of BCRA.
It could also help GOP leadership get rank-and-file senators on the record, as they try to figure out a path forward.
A vote on an amendment that would repeal much of ObamaCare is expected on Wednesday.
Cruz acknowledged ahead of the late night vote that the amendment wasn’t likely to be approved, but appeared optimistic that Republicans would be able to get to an agreement before a final vote this week.
“I will say the bill before the Senate … is not likely to pass tonight but I believe at the end of the process the contours within it are likely to be what we enact, at least the general outlines,” Cruz said from the Senate floor ahead of the vote.
Cruz said he expects his amendment to end up in the final version of the healthcare bill.
“I believe we will see the consumer freedom amendment in the legislation that is ultimately enacted,” he said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) was greeted by protestors outside the Capitol who chanted “stay strong Lisa.”
Asked whether she would support a “skinny repeal” bill, she said it’s not clear what it would entail.
“I don’t know that any of us have defined what that might be.”
The Texas Republican’s provision would give insurance companies more flexibility on what kind of health insurance plans they provided, as long as they sold some plans that met the ObamaCare requirements.
Portman’s, meanwhile, would aim to lower insurance costs for individuals in Medicaid expansion states, like the Ohio Republicans, but could also apply to other low-income Americans.

The provision would add $100 billion to the bill’s state stability fund to help people who might lose the coverage they got under ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion. These funds could help cover out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and copays.

Portman said he “worked with the president, vice president and administrative officials” to “improve this bill further to help out low-income Ohioans.”

Would your plan cover John McCain’s treatment?

https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2017/07/25/would-your-plan-cover-john-mccains-treatment/

Image result for adequate health insurance coverage

The Arizona Senator’s health plan will ensure top-notch glioblastoma treatment, but how would Americans with other health coverage fare?

Last week, we heard the sad news that Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with glioblastoma. McCain had surgery at Phoenix’s Mayo Clinic in mid-July, and it’s expected that he’ll also receive chemotherapy and radiation, along with other potential treatments. Senator McCain has proven time and again that he’s tough as nails, and appears to be facing this latest battle head-on. One thing that he likely has on his side is top-notch health insurance.

McCain is 80, which means he’s presumably been on Medicare for 15 years. Currently serving federal lawmakers are able to obtain employer-subsidized coverage in the Washington DC small-business exchange, and they can have this coverage in addition to Medicare.

How good is McCain’s coverage?

McCain hasn’t said publicly exactly what insurance he has, and his office has not responded to my inquiry. But the most likely scenario is that he has Medicare plus employer-sponsored coverage through the DC exchange – a very comprehensive benefits package.

There are certainly lots of other people who have similar coverage arrangements – either because they’re still working after turning 65, like McCain, or because they receive generous retiree health benefits that supplement their Medicare coverage. For those who don’t, there are private Medicare supplements available that cover virtually all of the out-of-pocket costs associated with Medicare.

But health coverage in the United States is a bit of a mixed bag, with some people having much better coverage than others. A serious illness tends to shine a spotlight on the flaws that exist in some health plans, so let’s take a look at how the average American facing a glioblastoma diagnosis would fare under various health plans.

Employer-sponsored health insurance

Most employer-sponsored health insurance plans provide pretty solid health coverage. According to a 2016 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, the average deductible for covered workers was about $1,500, and that doesn’t count the 17 percent of covered workers whose plans had no deductible at all.

In addition, the average employer paid more than two-thirds of the total premiums. And the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored insurance premiums amounts to a subsidy that cost the federal government $250 billion in fiscal year 2016.

However, employer-sponsored health insurance is, by definition, linked to employment. A person going through a serious illness like glioblastoma might not be able to continue working, depending on the specifics of the treatment.

As long as the employer has at least 20 employees, the employee will be able to continue the coverage under COBRA for 18 months, even if he or she is unable to work. But COBRA is expensive, as the employer contribution to the premiums and the tax exclusion of the premiums are eliminated. (COBRA premiums are counted as a medical expense for the purpose of itemized medical deductions, but only expenses that exceed 10 percent of your income can be deducted this way.)

Although most employer-sponsored plans provide good coverage, that’s due in part to the ACA. It was not uncommon – particularly in low-wage, high turnover industries – for employers to offer “mini-meds” before the ACA, with exceedingly low benefit caps. (The ACA’s ban on lifetime and annual benefit limits means that these plans are no longer offered to employees.)

A mini-med with a $2,000 or $5,000 annual benefit maximum would not have done much in the face of glioblastoma. Vox reported that just the initial craniotomy to remove a blood clot above Senator McCain’s eye would likely have been billed at more than $76,000. And that was before the cancer diagnosis.

ACA-compliant individual market coverage

The pre-ACA individual market included plenty of solid plans. But dubious coverage also abounded, and regulations varied considerably from one state to another.

The ACA imposed a bevy of regulations on the individual health insurance market, bringing all new (as of 2014) plans up at least a basic minimum standard. Individual major medical coverage can no longer be sold without the ACA’s essential health benefits.

And for those benefits, insurers cannot limit how much they’ll pay during a year or over the course of an insured’s lifetime. (Sadly, another Arizona resident with cancer, Arijit Guha, died in 2013 at age 32. Guha’s health insurance plan had a $300,000 lifetime cap – which is no longer allowed, thanks to the ACA – and his treatment, including chemotherapy that cost $11,000 per session, quickly exceeded that limit.)

Individual-market plans also cannot discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, either by charging them higher prices or declining their applications (both of those were standard practice in nearly every state prior to 2014). Notably, Senator McCain has a history of melanoma, which would have virtually guaranteed a declined application in the individual market pre-ACA if he had been in need of non-group coverage for some reason.

A person with ACA-compliant individual market coverage would have solid coverage for glioblastoma. The maximum out-of-pocket costs during 2017 would be $7,150, although most plans have out-of-pocket maximums below that threshold. And 57 percent of people who enrolled through the exchanges in 2017 have cost-sharing subsidies, which further reduce the out-of-pocket costs.

The American Cancer Society explains in more detail how the ACA improves access to care for people with cancer. But the short story is that a person facing glioblastoma with a 2017 individual health insurance policy has a much more secure financial safety net than someone with the same diagnosis a decade ago.

Medicaid

Medicaid provides comprehensive coverage. Although the benefits available under traditional Medicaid vary from one state to another, Medicaid expansion coverage is required to include the ACA’s essential health benefits. (The Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act – BCRA – would eliminate this requirement after 2019.)

Medicaid has minimal cost-sharing, limited to no more than 5 percent of a family’s annual income.

It’s true that compared with private health insurance and Medicare, fewer medical providers accept Medicaid. But the majority do work with Medicaid. (According to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, about 69 percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicaid patients, while about 85 percent accept new privately-insured patients.)

Short-term health insurance

The ACA implemented regulations that apply to virtually all types of health insurance. But some plans are not regulated by the law, including short-term health insurance.

As evidenced by the name, short-term plans are limited in their duration. As of 2017, a short-term plan can last no more than three months, although people who remain healthy can purchase a second short-term plan after the first one ends.

Short-term plans do not cover pre-existing conditions. So if you were to be diagnosed with glioblastoma while covered under a short-term plan, the first thing the insurer would do is go back through your medical records to make sure that you didn’t have any symptoms prior to enrolling in the plan.

Assuming you were healthy before you enrolled, your short-term plan would start to cover your treatments. But you would be facing a looming and inflexible coverage termination date, along with annual and lifetime benefit maximums. Short-term plans vary considerably in quality – some have lifetime benefit maximums of $250,000 or less, while others provide benefits well in excess of a million dollars. In the case of a glioblastoma diagnosis, coverage would end when the policy reached its predetermined end date, or when you hit your benefit maximum – whichever happened first.

Either way, you’d want to hope that you had other coverage already lined up and ready to go at that point. The cancer diagnosis would make it impossible to obtain another short-term policy.

And since a short-term plan is not considered minimum essential coverage, the termination of the short-term policy would not trigger a special enrollment period for individual or employer-sponsored insurance. You would still be able to enroll in a regular individual-market plan, or an employer plan if you’re eligible for one, during regular annual open enrollment. But you might experience a significant gap in coverage, which can be disastrous in the middle of cancer treatment.

A limited-benefit plan

Limited-benefit plans are another category of coverage that’s not regulated by the ACA (despite attempts by the Obama Administration to place some regulations on certain types of fixed indemnity coverage).

Fixed indemnity means that the plan pays a specific dollar amount if the insured has a covered claim. For example, the plan might pay $1,000 per day for hospitalization, or $50 for a doctor visit. There’s no cap on how much the patient has to pay, and these plans often have very low annual and lifetime benefit limits.

So imagine a plan that will pay $2,000 per day for hospitalization, for up to 25 days. It will also pay $2,500 for an outpatient surgical procedure and $2,500 for an inpatient surgical procedure. And it will pay $625 for anesthesia, but it does not cover prescriptions (these numbers are from a real plan currently available in the limited benefit market).

Remember that McCain’s craniotomy – before the glioblastoma was even diagnosed – likely cost $70,000. He was home very soon after the surgery, so if he was hospitalized at all, it wasn’t more than a day or two. A limited benefit plan like the one described above would have paid $2,000 for each day in the hospital (which amounts to zero dollars if the procedure didn’t result in an inpatient stay), $2,500 for the surgery, and $625 for the anesthesia. That would leave a sizeable chunk of the $70,000 bill as the patient’s responsibility.

And all of that is before the treatment for the glioblastoma even begins.

A Cruz Amendment plan

In mid-July, Senator Ted Cruz introduced an amendment to the BCRA aimed at reducing regulations on health insurance plans. The Cruz Amendment, if included in the BCRA, would allow insurers to offer non-ACA-compliant plans as long as they also offered at least one Silver plan, one Gold plan, and one plan that complies with the BCRA’s benchmark standards (58 percent actuarial value).

The non-compliant plans would likely range from decent to terrible, since they would have wide latitude in terms of the consumer protections they’d be able to waive. Essentially, it would be a return to the pre-ACA days when there was more of an “anything goes” approach to health insurance. Plans would be available without essential health benefits, would not have to cover pre-existing conditions, and could be offered with higher out-of-pocket limits than ACA compliant plans.

These plans would likely appeal to healthy people, as they would be less expensive than ACA compliant plans. But a person who seems perfectly healthy can be diagnosed with glioblastoma, at which point the holes in the coverage become glaringly apparent.

What about those who lack McCain’s coverage

In glioblastoma, Senator McCain is facing a fierce battle, and our hearts go out to him and his family. But thanks to McCain’s health coverage, he won’t have to worry about how to pay for his treatment. I’m glad he has that health coverage.

Senator McCain is not alone in his battle. There are more than 12,000 Americans who will be diagnosed with glioblastoma this year. Unfortunately, many of them do not have the level of health coverage that McCain has. Even with the best health insurance, the diagnosis plunges each family into an immensely challenging situation. With lesser – or no – coverage, the challenge becomes even more insurmountable.

Nobody deserves cancer. And nobody deserves to have to fight cancer with less-than-adequate health insurance. With our current medical know-how, we can’t keep everyone from getting cancer. But we can make sure that as many people as possible are covered by high-quality health insurance. We owe it to all the lesser-known John McCains out there to work towards that goal.

That means pushing back against any sort of “reform” that would result in fewer people with insurance. It also means rejecting proposals that would allow junk insurance plans to flood the market, lulling consumers into a false sense of security – until they’re diagnosed with brain cancer.

 

Senate GOP floats scaled-down healthcare bill

Senate GOP floats scaled-down healthcare bill

Image result for skinny bill

Senate Republicans are considering passing a dramatically scaled-down version of their ObamaCare repeal bill as a way to pass something and set up negotiations with the House, according to GOP aides.

The measure, known as a “skinny bill,” is intended to be something all Republicans can agree on, allowing something to pass and setting up a conference committee with the House.

Aides say the scaled-down bill would likely just repeal ObamaCare’s individual and employer mandates and the medical device tax.

That would be a far narrower measure than the most recent Senate replacement bill, which also scaled down ObamaCare’s subsidies and cut Medicaid.

The consideration of the scaled-down measure is a sign of how much trouble Senate Republicans are having coming to agreement on any more significant bill.

A Senate GOP aide said leadership pitched their office on the scaled-down bill on Monday.

The scaled-down bill is expected to come after votes, which are expected to fail, on both a repeal-only measure and the latest replacement bill.

Republicans would also need to gather enough votes to start debate, and it is still unclear if they have those votes.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, floated a conference committee with the House on Monday evening.

“I think if you want to get a result that may be a selling point,” Cornyn said.

The Medicaid Fund: Beware of Gifts

http://thenews.pl/1/11/Artykul/317380,Poland-to-open-new-museum-at-German-Nazi-Treblinka-death-camp

Image result for medicaid

Press reports have suggested that to get the Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace effort back on track, Senate leaders are now offering, as part of their Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), a $200 billion fund to help states partially offset the nearly $800 billion dollars in lost federal Medicaid funding they would face over the next decade if BCRA became law. This fund, to be administered by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), would apparently be used to help low-income people transition from Medicaid to private insurance.

The offer, if accurate, still amounts to a 75 percent reduction in funding. So the fund does little to address the human and financial consequences of BCRA’s original Medicaid cuts. It’s also unclear how it would work or affect the private insurance market. Furthermore, it’s uncertain whether the Senate parliamentarian would allow a new program. Even if permitted under the strict rules governing the Senate reconciliation process, the program would encounter major legal and operational hurdles in implementation, as well as questions about the lack of public accountability for drawing on the money. It is also worth noting that this type of strategy, in which the HHS secretary is given vast powers over how to allocate funds under the loose rubric of “transition,” may itself raise questions about whether Congress simply has thrown a handful of dollars at the problem, and coupled these dollars with an extraordinary delegation of its constitutional legislative powers to the executive branch.

Today, if a state chooses to insure a Medicaid-eligible population, the federal government will pay a percentage of actual costs. Like insurance generally, these costs can vary by the type of population insured (healthy people versus those who are sick), the amount and intensity of services furnished, and the prices paid. In any year, and in any state, costs vary enormously, a fact driven home by the economic fallout from the opioid epidemic or the Zika virus. The federal Medicaid contribution to state programs ranges from 50 percent to about 75 percent, with higher contributions for low-income adults covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Equally importantly, there is real accountability in federal Medicaid payments spent to insure people — we know how many people are covered and what services are paid for.

Over the past several weeks, a blizzard of analyses and reports has made clear just how essential Medicaid is to states, their populations, their economies, and their ability to maintain operational health care systems for everyone. Receiving 25 cents on the dollar in lieu of guaranteed Medicaid financing would be little consolation; this is particularly true since presumably, like other special payments to states under the bill, the fund can be expected to be time-limited, after which more action from Congress would be needed to extend its life.

Let’s imagine that this fund becomes law, with details to be hashed out later. A host of questions would arise, all of which would need to be translated into complex and contentious regulations, issued following a lengthy rulemaking process. For example, will normal federal matching rules apply when states draw on this fund, or will states have to put up more funding or perhaps none at all? What types of costs will be recognized as eligible for fund payments? Will all states be able to participate or just those losing expansion funding? Will states be permitted to help only selected Medicaid expansion beneficiaries losing coverage? Although the fund is billed as transitional assistance for beneficiaries, would this include direct payments to providers to allow for continuity of care? Under laws that govern agency policymaking and spending decisions such as when, where, and how to spend $200 billion, these questions and many more would need to move a formal policy development process. The HHS secretary cannot simply dole out unstructured funding that could be used for purposes only tangentially related to transitions.

No vague promises or pennies-on-the-dollar slush fund can take the place of what Medicaid does for people and for states. Nor can it compensate for the consequences of ending the compact on which Medicaid has rested for over 50 years.

Parliamentarian deals setback to GOP repeal bill

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343234-parliamentarian-deals-setback-to-gop-healthcare-bill?utm_content=buffer1343d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Image result for senate parliamentarian

Major portions of the Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare will require 60 votes, according to the Senate parliamentarian, meaning they are unlikely to survive on the floor.

The parliamentarian has advised senators that several parts of the bill could be stripped out, according to a document released Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. (Read the guidance here.)

The provisions that would likely be removed include policies important to conservatives, such as restrictions on tax credits being used for insurance plans that cover abortion.

Language in the bill defunding Planned Parenthood for a year also violates budget rules, according to the parliamentarian. That guidance is sure to anger anti-abortion groups who backed the bill specifically because of those provisions.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood said it was “obvious” that the defunding provision would be a violation of the reconciliation rules.

“No amount of legislative sleight of hand will change the fact that the primary motivation here is to pursue a social agenda by targeting Planned Parenthood,” the group said.

The parliamentarian has also not yet ruled on a controversial amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would allow insurers to sell plans that do not meet ObamaCare regulations. If that provision were struck, conservative support for the bill would be in doubt.

Republicans are trying to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their healthcare bill with only a simple majority. The provisions deemed impermissible under that process can be stripped if a senator on the floor raises an objection.

Democrats would be virtually certain to deny Republicans the 60 votes they would need to keep portions of the bill intact.

The result is that the arcane rules of the Senate could end up making the bill harder for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass.

A spokesman for McConnell was quick to point out that the parliamentarian only provides guidance on the legislation to help inform subsequent drafts. The bill will have to change before it gets to the floor if Republicans want to salvage any of provisions in question.

GOP leaders have said they want to vote on a procedural motion to begin debate on ObamaCare repeal legislation early next week. However, it’s still not clear if they have the votes or which legislation they will be voting on: the replacement bill or repeal-only legislation.

Some conservatives were already questioning Friday why the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, would rule against Planned Parenthood defunding, when that provision was allowed under reconciliation in 2015.

A spokesman for Sanders said the guidance has changed because it is now clear that Planned Parenthood would be the only organization affected by the defunding language.

“It passed last time because there was at least a question that other entities could be affected by the language,” the spokesman said. “In the interim, Republicans have not been able to show that any entity other than Planned Parenthood is affected, and the new [Congressional Budget Office] score confirms that.”

In a blow to the insurance industry, the parliamentarian has advised that two key market stabilization provisions in the bill would be against the rules. First, the legislation can’t appropriate the cost-sharing reduction subsidies insurers rely on to keep premiums and deductibles low; it can only repeal them.

Additionally, a “lockout” provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance also violates the rules, according to the guidance.

The provision was added to the bill to address concerns that people would only sign up for health insurance when they’re sick, if insurers are still prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The parliamentarian also advised that a specific provision dealing with New York state’s Medicaid program would be a violation of the rules. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) seized on that decision.

“The parliamentarian made clear that state-specific provisions” violate the rules, Schumer said. “This will greatly tie the majority leader’s hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans with state-specific provisions. We will challenge every one of them.”