The G.O.P. Health Care Plan’s Fatal Flaw

Senator Robert Byrd helped save the Affordable Care Act once already. In December 2009, the wizened West Virginia Democrat overcame fragile health to cast a crucial vote for the act’s passage. It was one of the last votes in the career of the Senate’s longest-serving member: Just weeks after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, Byrd died at age 92.

Now, nearly seven years after his death, Senator Byrd may ensure that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, lives another day. One of Byrd’s many legislative accomplishments over a half-century in the Senate was the eponymous “Byrd rule,” which governs the process of budget reconciliation. Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to use the reconciliation process to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The Byrd rule stands in their way.

Reconciliation is a fast-track process that allows budget-related legislation to pass the Senate without the prospect of a filibuster. The Byrd rule prevents reconciliation from being used to pass any measure for which the budgetary effects — “changes in outlays or revenues” — are “merely incidental to the non-budgetary components.” Republicans know they lack the 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate, so they designed their repeal-and-replace bill to satisfy the Byrd rule’s requirements. Yet there is a surprising flaw in their design — one that has so far drawn little notice, but that Senate Democrats will surely seize on.

The flaw is found in a provision of the bill with the innocuous title “Encouraging Continuous Health Insurance Coverage.” Under that provision, individuals who go without coverage for more than two months must pay a penalty the next time they buy health insurance. The penalty is equal to 30 percent of their new plan’s premium. Significantly, individuals must pay this 30 percent penalty to their new insurer, not to the federal government.

And therein lies the problem. If the penalty were paid to the federal government, as with the individual mandate penalty under the Affordable Care Act, the provision would comply with the Byrd rule because it would have an obvious positive budgetary effect: Penalty payments would increase federal revenues. But the drafters of the repeal-and-replace bill chose not to adopt that approach, lest the penalty look too much like the Obamacare mandate. Instead, they are hoping that the threat of a future penalty averts an insurance market “death spiral,” in which healthy individuals run for the exits and the sick are left behind.

 

 

GOP’s 3-Bucket Strategy To Repeal And Replace Health Law Is Springing Leaks

GOP’s 3-Bucket Strategy To Repeal And Replace Health Law Is Springing Leaks

Republicans in Washington working to overhaul the Affordable Care Act say their strategy consists of “three buckets.” But it appears that all three may be leaking.

The plan to dismantle and replace Obamacare emerged after the Republican congressional retreat in late January. The first bucket is a fast-track budget bill that needs only a simple majority to pass the Senate. Because of congressional rules, however, it can only address parts of the health law that have immediate impact on federal spending.

The second consists of changes to regulations and other policies put in place by the Obama administration that could theoretically be undone by new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. And the third is separate legislation that would do things Republicans have been advocating for many years, such as imposing caps on medical malpractice damages and selling health insurance across state lines.

All three are proving problematic at this point — among Republicans.

 

The Hill’s Whip List: Where Republicans stand on ObamaCare repeal plan

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/322903-the-hills-whip-list-where-republicans-stand-on-obamacare-repeal-plan

Image result for The Hill's Whip List: Where Republicans stand on ObamaCare repeal plan

Republican leaders are aiming to move quickly on legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, with a vote by the full House slated for Thursday.

But the plan faces a difficult path. Conservatives were quick to criticize the legislation, saying it falls short of full repeal and would create new entitlements. Centrist Republicans and many from districts won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 have also balked at measures rolling back the Medicaid expansion or defunding Planned Parenthood.

A number of conservative lawmakers in the Republican Study Committee, though, backed the bill after a Friday meeting with President Trump. Trump and GOP leaders are working on changes to the legislation that would change how it handles tax credits and create a work requirement for Medicaid.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, however, say those changes may not be enough.

With a vote in days, the margin for error is slim. Assuming all Democrats vote against the legislation, GOP leaders cannot afford more than 21 defections in the House and two in the Senate.

Here’s a list of how Republican lawmakers stand on the ObamaCare repeal and replace legislation.

 

Do You Speak Repeal And Replace? Click Thought Bubbles For Translations

http://khn.org/news/do-you-speak-repeal-and-replace/

Image result for aca repeal and replace

President Donald Trump and many congressional Republicans campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with their own plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system. As the GOP develops its offering, its representatives are tossing around wonky health policy terms to describe their core strategies.

Below you’ll find some brief definitions. Click on the word bubbles in the photo above for KHN’s fuller translation of what each phrase means — for U.S. health care and for ongoing efforts to replace the ACA.

MEDICAID BLOCK GRANTS AND PER-CAPITA CAPS: The federal government gives states a set amount of money to pay for coverage for Medicaid recipients. This would be a shift from the current Medicaid program, where the federal government matches state Medicaid spending on a percentage basis. Learn more.

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS: Also known as HSAs, these allow consumers to put money away on a tax-free basis as long as they use it for medical expenses. Learn more.

BUDGET RECONCILIATION: Legislative process that allows measures to pass with a simple majority in Congress. Budget reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered but must focus on provisions that have a budgetary impact. Learn more.

ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS: ACA-mandated categories of benefits that health plans must cover. They include emergency services, hospitalization and maternity care. Learn more.

INDIVIDUAL MARKET: Where people who do not have health coverage through the government or their employer purchase a plan directly from an insurer. It is sometimes called the non-group market. Learn more.

TAX CREDITS/SUBSIDIES: Financial assistance to help consumers purchase health insurance. Learn more.

HIGH-RISK POOLS: Insurance groups that cover individuals with high health insurance costs, such as people who have a past serious illness or a chronic condition. Learn more.

Visit Repeal & Replace Watch for more KHN coverage of the health law debate.

 

In This Next Phase Of Health Reform, We Cannot Overlook Long Term Care

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/16/in-this-next-phase-of-health-reform-we-cannot-overlook-long-term-care/

It is becoming apparent that President Trump and the 115th Congress cannot start over with health care reform. Whether you love, begrudgingly support, or fervently hate the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a clean slate is not possible. First, ACA implementation is well underway and has benefited many patients and providers alike. Second, it is unlikely that Republicans in Congress can fully repeal the ACA without a 60 vote, filibuster proof super majority in the Senate. Starting over entirely with health reform is just not feasible.

Trying to address every problem facing the health care system at once is a tall—if not impossible—order. History has taught us that U.S. health reform is an incremental process. With the focus of Congress once again turning to health reform, we have an opportunity to fix the problems with the ACA, and find solutions to health care challenges that the ACA failed to address.

A Growing Need

Long-term care for America’s growing elderly population is a critically important issue for Congress to address in health reform proposals currently taking shape. While the ACA’s insurance expansion focused on providing coverage for the uninsured, the law’s progress on long-term care has been minimal. The ACA tried to address long-term care (LTC) by creating a voluntary system of LTC insurance, but the ill-fated CLASS Act was ultimately determined to be financially unviable and abandoned.

Although policy solutions have been elusive, the need for long-term care is constantly growing. According to current estimates, over two-thirds of elderly Americans will need LTC assistance at some point in their lives. Between 2014 and 2040, the portion of Americans over age 65 is expected to increase from 14.5 to 21.7 percent. At upwards of $60,000 annually, long-term care costs can quickly exhaust personal savings.

As policymakers throughout our history have debated health reform, these efforts have almost entirely centered on questions of medical coverage. They ask which benefits to cover, how much the coverage should cost, and how we can ensure people are not locked out of coverage because of their health status. We must take the same approach to LTC, examining the availability and affordability of services. LTC services include nursing home care and in-home care, as well as what is often referred to as “long-term services and supports” (LTSS). LTSS include assistance with daily activities, such as eating, bathing, dressing, doing laundry, paying bills, and taking medications.

Current Republican health reform proposals appear to do little to push the ball forward on long-term care. As Congress considers proposals to reduce federal spending on Medicaid, they should carefully consider the role of Medicaid in financing LTC.

 

How will the House GOP health care bill affect individual market premiums?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/03/16/how-will-the-house-gop-health-care-bill-affect-individual-market-premiums/?utm_campaign=Economic%20Studies&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=46659383

ES_20170316_FiedlerFigure1

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a comprehensive analysis of the American Health Care Act, which is currently being considered by the House of Representatives. While many reactions to the CBO analysis focused on how the AHCA would affect insurance coverage, the bill’s effects on individual market insurance premiums have also received considerable attention.

In its report, CBO estimated that average individual market premiums under the AHCA would be 10 percent lower in 2026 than they would be under current law (before considering subsidies). However, as some observers have noted, this estimated change incorporates changes in the generosity of the plans being offered on the individual market, as well as a shift in the composition of individual market enrollment toward younger individuals, who pay lower premiums. The CBO estimate does not, therefore, answer the question of greatest interest, which is how CBO expects the AHCA to affect average premiums for a given generosity of coverage and a fixed population of individual market enrollees.

However, other information provided in CBO’s analysis can be used to answer this question. Using that information, we estimate that premiums would be around 13 percent higher under the AHCA than they are under current law, holding plan generosity and the individual market age distribution fixed at their current law levels. As illustrated in Figure 1, around three-fifths of the difference between this estimate and the CBO estimate of a 10 percent premium decline reflects the adjustment to hold the individual market age distribution constant. The remainder reflects the adjustment to hold plan generosity constant.

It is important to note that all of the premium changes reported in this analysis reflect premiums before accounting for subsidies available to people purchasing individual market coverage. They therefore do not reflect the effects of the AHCA’s changes to those subsidies. The AHCA would cut spending on such subsidies by around half on average, with lower-income people, older people, and people in high-cost areas seeing particularly large reductions. Thus, the increase in average premiums under the AHCA would be much larger if subsidies were incorporated into the analysis.

The remainder of this analysis presents these results in greater detail and briefly discusses the reasons that the AHCA increases individual market premiums when measured on an apples-to-apples basis.

What Does The House Health Care Bill Mean For California?

http://californiahealthline.org/news/what-does-the-house-health-care-bill-mean-for-california/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=45683230&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8hQ_w4Pw5zHW51oLQoG_Xu0Ms93jCK5wrfNop7LshVTnlXB2FBzI2QEr6vrjLhLuv48jwJS8sMDL_9vbf-OT9Z2EdBlg&_hsmi=45683230

Image result for What Does The House Health Care Bill Mean For California?

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to download.

As the most populous state with the largest economy in the country, California stands to be dramatically affected by changes to the nation’s health law.

About 1.5 million people buy health insurance through the state’s exchange, Covered California, and most get federal subsidies. About 4 million receive Medicaid (called Medi-Cal here) through the program’s expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Altogether, Medi-Cal covers 14 million people in the state, roughly a third of its population.

The current House bill proposes to significantly change how — and how much — the federal government pays for these programs.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis released Monday found that, if passed, the bill could leave 24 million people uninsured by 2026, while saving the federal government $337 billion. Some Republican leaders contested those estimates, although House Speaker Paul Ryan said he was encouraged by the potential drop in costs.

That likely would translate into millions of people in California losing coverage or seeing their costs rise. Medi-Cal might have to cut programs and eligibility.

On Tuesday, California health care reporter Stephanie O’Neill discussed the potential effects of the bill on California residents with NPR “Morning Edition” host Rachel Martin.

Eliminating Essential Health Benefits Will Shift Financial Risk Back to Consumers

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/mar/eliminating-essential-health-benefits-financial-risk-consumers

Exhibit 1. The Affordable Care Act’s 10 Essential Health Benefits Categories

  1. Ambulatory patient services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

Source: The Affordable Care Act, Section 1302(b)(1).

Weeks after Congress started the process to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), questions remain as to whether Republican plans for replacing the law will include protections requiring insurers to cover a minimum package of health benefits. Most replacement proposals have not included such standards. While the recently released House replacement bill retains the ACA’s benefit rules for private health insurance, Secretary Price said the administration and Congress will take additional steps to change the health law. These actions could remove benefit requirements, giving insurers more flexibility to exclude benefits and leave enrollees without coverage for the health care services they need.

Essential Health Benefits Are a Signature Component of the ACA

Prior to the ACA, health insurance in the individual market was often significantly less comprehensive than the coverage available to employees of large companies. The ACA sought to make individual market insurance more robust, and more like typical employer-sponsored coverage, by requiring plans to cover 10 categories of “essential health benefits” (EHBs) (Exhibit 1). Implementing regulations gave states flexibility to choose from among existing health plans in their states in identifying the benefit benchmark. In most states, the EHB benchmark is a small-group plan.

 

Americans Not Sold On Cost And Coverage Claims In GOP’s Health Bill

http://khn.org/news/americans-not-sold-on-cost-and-coverage-claims-in-gops-health-bill/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=45675040&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9_Q1KCdQHt-zQNqv48Mzr3r6MeZ9BFTStOZfC60tlVOVfayLTGpHxt7-0dYsx3c_OE2xIZHj2p4RvHcr5qETIsWtJHlw&_hsmi=45675040

A majority of the public is skeptical the Republican health plan would be an improvement over the Affordable Care Act, with widespread concerns that insurance costs would increase while people lost coverage, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The dour public assessment, from interviews with 1,206 adults conducted March 6-12, came before the Congressional Budget Office released its projections on Monday. The nonpartisan budget analysts predicted that the GOP’s American Health Care Act would leave 24 million people without insurance as it retracted Medicaid coverage for the poor and made premiums too high for many older people to afford.

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of the public thought the GOP plan would decrease the number of people who have health insurance. Another 30 percent expected the insured rate would stay the same, and 18 percent thought the number of covered people would increase. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The public doubted pledges from President Donald Trump and Republicans that the proposal would lower the costs of coverage for people who buy their own insurance. Forty-eight percent thought policies would become more expensive, while 23 percent thought they would drop. The rest thought insurance costs would stay the same.

People were also dubious that deductibles would get smaller: Only a quarter of people thought so. Respondents also were doubtful the GOP plan would be a boon even for the wealthy. About the same number of people expected the plan would increase costs for high-income people as those expecting a decrease.

For all the suspicion about the GOP approach, the public remained ambivalent about the ACA, with 49 supportive and 44 percent opposed. The public was also split about whether the ACA should be repealed.

Republicans, not surprisingly, were more optimistic than Democrats that the GOP plan would have positive effects. But it was not unanimous: 1 in 5 thought their party’s plan would lead to fewer people with insurance. A fifth of Republicans also said they expected insurance costs to rise under the plan.

Provisions of the GOP plan that would change women’s health care have strong opposition, including its ban on federal funds for Planned Parenthood to help it provide birth control and other non-abortion care to lower-income people. Three-quarters of the public thought Medicaid should continue to fund Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services. The law already prohibits Medicaid spending for abortion, but the pollsters found that only a third of the public is aware of that.

The poll reported that 4 of 5 Americans strongly support provisions in the ACA that prohibit private insurers from denying coverage to pregnant women and from charging women more than men for policies, as well as those that require mammograms and cervical cancer screenings be provided with no out-of-pocket costs. Nine of 10 Americans support the ACA’s requirement that insurers pay for maternity care.

The poll’s margin of error was +/- 3 percent.

 

Americans divided over GOP health care bill, Kaiser poll finds

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/health/kaiser-poll-gop-health-care-bill/index.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=45675040&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_0cTjkau-NUcu2d_hfJVjIqxoefeluIt0pq_GSPzAUxDJXcCT3cxoL6Oy_5XyhcLmYmjcsCCZImWBmz09xIYJb0wXaaA&_hsmi=45675040

Image result for Americans divided over GOP health care bill, Kaiser poll finds

A new poll finds that many Americans are not optimistic about what the GOP health care bill will do to their coverage.

Although President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress promise that their plan will cover more people and cost less, nearly half of Americans don’t believe it, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Wednesday.
And while many Republicans are confident that defunding Planned Parenthood is the right move, the greater majority oppose that idea, it says.
This is the latest poll on the legislation from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
The organization polled Americans from March 6-12, before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an estimate Monday predicting that — unlike Obamacare, which brought the uninsured rate to an all-time low — the GOP bill will send the country’s uninsured rate higher than before the Affordable Care Act.
That change could be immediate for 14 million Americans who could become uninsured next year, according to the report.
Of the more than 1,200 nationally representative random Americans polled, Kaiser found that 48% think the GOP plan will cover fewer people, compared with the one in five who said the bill would increase coverage.