Trump, GOP Lawmakers Back Off From Immediate Obamacare Repeal

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/02/06/513718166/trump-congressional-gop-back-off-from-immediate-obamacare-repeal

There’s a moment in the Broadway musical Hamilton where George Washington says to an exasperated Alexander Hamilton: “Winning is easy, young man. Governing’s harder.”

When it comes to health care, it seems that President Trump is learning that same lesson. Trump and Republicans in Congress are struggling with how to keep their double-edged campaign promise — to repeal Obamacare without leaving millions of people without health insurance.

But on Sunday, he dialed back those expectations in an interview with Fox News.

“It’s in the process and maybe it will take till sometime into next year, but we are certainly going to be in the process. It’s very complicated,” Trump said.

He repeated his claim that Obamacare has been “a disaster” and said his replacement would be a “wonderful plan” that would take time “statutorily” to put in place. And then he hedged the timing again.

“I would like to say by the end of the year, at least the rudiments,” he said.

Trump’s recent hesitation comes as Republicans in Congress tame their rhetoric surrounding the health care law.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate health committee, said he’d like to see lawmakers make fixes to the current individual market before repealing parts of the law.

“We can repair the individual market, which is a good place to start,” Alexander said on Feb. 1.

A Guide to Budget Reconciliation: The Byzantine Rules for Disassembling the Health Law

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/02/06/a_guide_to_budget_reconciliation_the_byzantine_rules_for_disassembling_the_health_law_110426.html?utm_source=RealClearHealth+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=aaa496d476-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-aaa496d476-84752421

Image result for A Guide to Budget Reconciliation: The Byzantine Rules for Disassembling the Health Law

After capturing the White House, Republicans put repealing the health law at the top of their to-do list. But since they can’t get around a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, they are forced to use an arcane legislative tool called budget reconciliation to disassemble parts of the law. KHN’s Julie Rovner and Francis Ying explain the process.

Employers Fret Job-Based Coverage Vulnerable To Fallout From GOP Health Overhaul

Employers Fret Job-Based Coverage Vulnerable To Fallout From GOP Health Overhaul

Image result for Health Insurance Coverage

Through years of acrimony over Obamacare coverage for the poor and other individuals lacking health policies, one kind of insurance has remained steady, widespread and relatively affordable.

Employer-sponsored medical plans still cover more Americans than any other type, typically with greater benefits and lower out-of-pocket expense. Recent cost increases for job-based coverage have been a tiny fraction of those for Obamacare plans for individuals.

Now, as President Donald Trump promises a replacement for the Affordable Care Act that will provide “insurance for everybody,” employers worry Republican attempts to redo other parts of the insurance market could harm their much larger one.

“We’re deeply embedded” in the health law, said Neil Trautwein, vice president of health care policy for the National Retail Federation, a trade group. “Pick your analogy — it’s like being tied to the railroad tracks or having a bomb strapped across your chest. It’s tough to disarm these things.”

Business dislikes many parts of the ACA, including its substantial paperwork, the mandate to offer coverage and the “Cadillac tax” on high-benefit plans that takes effect in 2020. But large companies in particular — those that have always offered job-based insurance — say a poorly thought-out replacement might turn out to be worse for them and their workers.

10 Essential Facts About Medicare’s Financial Outlook

10 Essential Facts About Medicare’s Financial Outlook

Figure 2: The aging of the population and rising health care costs are contributing to the growth in Medicare spending over time

Medicare, the nation’s federal health insurance program for 57 million people age 65 and over and younger people with disabilities, often plays a major role in federal health policy and budget discussions. This was the case in discussions leading up to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which, in addition to expanding health insurance coverage, included changes to Medicare that reduced program spending. Medicare is likely to be back on the federal policy agenda as Congress debates repealing and replacing the ACA, and also if policymakers turn their attention to reducing entitlement spending as part of efforts to reduce the growing federal budget deficit and debt.

By many measures, Medicare’s financial status has improved since the ACA passed in 2010, and repealing the ACA’s provisions related to Medicare would increase program spending and worsen the financial outlook for the program. But even if the Medicare savings and revenue provisions in the ACA are retained, Medicare faces long-term financial pressures associated with higher health care costs and an aging population. To sustain Medicare for the long run, policymakers may need to consider additional program changes to modify program revenues, benefits, spending, and financing.

This brief presents 10 facts and figures about Medicare’s financial status today and the outlook for the future.

Covering the Coming Battle Over the ACA: What You Need to Know

Click to access PDF%20WebinarBattleOverACA12192016Adams.pdf

Image result for Battle for Obamacare

Click to access PDF%20WebinarBattleOverACAResources.pdf

 

Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Image result for Pre-existing Conditions and Medical Underwriting in the Individual Insurance Market Prior to the ACA

Brief

Before private insurance market rules in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took effect in 2014, health insurance sold in the individual market in most states was medically underwritten.1  That means insurers evaluated the health status, health history, and other risk factors of applicants to determine whether and under what terms to issue coverage. To what extent people with pre-existing health conditions are protected is likely to be a central issue in the debate over repealing and replacing the ACA.

This brief reviews medical underwriting practices by private insurers in the individual health insurance market prior to 2014, and estimates how many American adults could face difficulty obtaining private individual market insurance if the ACA were repealed or amended and such practices resumed.  We examine data from two large government surveys: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), both of which can be used to estimate rates of various health conditions (NHIS at the national level and BRFSS at the state level). We consulted field underwriting manuals used in the individual market prior to passage of the ACA as a reference for commonly declinable conditions.

Discussion

The Affordable Care Act guarantees access to health insurance in the individual market and ends other underwriting practices that left many people with pre-existing conditions uninsured or with limited coverage before the law. As discussions get underway to repeal and replace the ACA, this analysis quantifies the number of adults who would be at risk of being denied if they were to seek coverage in the individual market under pre-ACA rules. What types of protections are preserved for people with pre-existing conditions will be a key element in the debate over repealing and replacing the ACA.

We estimate that at least 52 million non-elderly adult Americans (27% of those under the age of 65) have a health condition that would leave them uninsurable under medical underwriting practices used in the vast majority of state individual markets prior to the ACA. Results vary from state-to-state, with rates ranging around 22 – 23% in some Northern and Western states to 33% or more in some southern states. Our estimates are conservative and do not account for a number of conditions that were often declinable (but for which data are not available), nor do our estimates account for declinable medications, declinable occupations, and conditions that could lead to other adverse underwriting practices (such as higher premiums or exclusions).

While most people with pre-existing conditions have employer or public coverage at any given time, many people seek individual market coverage at some point in their lives, such as when they are between jobs, retired, or self-employed.

There is bipartisan desire to protect people with pre-existing conditions, but the details of replacement plans have yet to be ironed out, and those details will shape how accessible insurance is for people when they have health conditions.

California’s Projected Economic Losses under ACA Repeal

Click to access Californias-Projected-Economic-Losses-under-ACA-Repeal.pdf

Image result for California’s Projected Economic Losses under ACA Repeal

 

If Congress follows through on President-elect Trump’s campaign promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 3.7 million Californians enrolled in the Medi-Cal expansion would lose that coverage,1 and another 1.2 million individuals enrolled through California’s health benefit exchange, Covered California, would lose federal subsidies to make private health insurance more affordable.2 These two ACA provisions are the largest drivers of the historic reduction in the state’s uninsured rate from 17.2% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2015.

Not only would repeal of the ACA reverse much of these coverage gains, but California would lose approximately $20.5 billion in annual federal funding for the Medi-Cal expansion and Covered California subsidies. The economic losses associated with these lost federal dollars would be partially offset by limited economic gains from other provisions that may be included as part of the repeal of the ACA, which could yield $6.3 billion in tax cuts to California insurers and high-income households and nearly $1.3 billion in eliminated penalties for uninsured individuals and employers not offering affordable coverage.

In this brief, we estimate the effects on employment, gross domestic product (GDP), and state and local tax revenue in California with the elimination of the major health insurance expansions, reduction in taxes, and removal of penalties under a partial repeal of the ACA. A summary of these estimates is shown in Exhibit 1. We also estimate losses for select medium and large counties that would be especially harmed economically by ACA repeal because of their high share of population (more than 10%) enrolled in the Medi-Cal expansion: Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties.

CONCLUSION

The ACA not only significantly expanded access to health insurance in California, but it also provided economic stimulus at a time when the state was still recovering from the Great Recession. As California is one of the states that made the greatest gains in health coverage under the ACA,16 it is also one of the states with the most to lose economically if key components of the ACA are repealed. The partial repeal of the ACA would not only lead to a substantial decline in health coverage in California, but it would also lead to significant economic losses, including more than 209,000 lost jobs, $20 billion in lost GDP, and $1.5 billion in lost state and local tax revenue. Some medium and large California counties’ economies – Fresno, Kern, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare – would be especially harmed due to their residents’ high level of reliance on the Medi-Cal expansion and above-average unemployment rates.

 

ACA Repeal in California: Who Stands to Lose?

Click to access ACA-Repeal-in-California.pdf

Image result for ACA Repeal in California: Who Stands to Lose?

California has a lot to lose if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is repealed. The state made significant investments in implementing the law successfully, and under the ACA cut the number of uninsured residents in half, from 6.5 million in 2013 to 3.3 million in 2015—the largest decline in the uninsured rate of any state.1 The two major reasons for this drop in uninsurance were the expansion of Medicaid and the provision of financial assistance for purchasing coverage through the state health insurance marketplace, Covered California. As a result of these policies, California experienced a significant reduction in health coverage disparities: the biggest drops in the uninsurance rate were among those least likely to have coverage before the ACA, namely those with the lowest income, young adults, part-time workers, and Latinos.2 Repealing the ACA threatens not only to leave millions without health insurance, but also to undo the progress California has made in reducing inequality of health insurance access. This brief focuses on Californians enrolled in expanded Medi-Cal (the state’s Medicaid program) and those who receive subsidized coverage through Covered California, the two groups most immediately affected if the ACA is repealed. However, many more Californians could see diminished health coverage under various Congressional Republicans’ proposals to repeal and replace the ACA.

How Accessible and Affordable were Individual Market Health Plans before the Affordable Care Act? Depends Where You Lived

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2017/rwjf434339

Image result for How Accessible and Affordable were Individual Market Health Plans before the Affordable Care Act? Depends Where You Lived

Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the landscape of the individual market looked much different than it does today, particularly for those in less than perfect health. For the most part, what state you lived in determined how easily you could purchase a health plan, the price you would pay, and what the plan would cover. Rules for insurers in the individual market varied from state to state, but in most states, if you had a pre-existing condition, you could be denied coverage, pay more, or have coverage for your pre-existing condition excluded from your health plan. As Congress debates repeal of the ACA and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions, many policymakers have called for greater state flexibility in insurance regulation than currently exists under the ACA. It therefore is helpful to understand the range of consumer protections in the states before the ACA, and why the ACA included the insurance reforms it did. This issue brief summarizes state rules for the individual market on the eve of the Affordable Care Act.

HSAs: ‘Tax-Break Trifecta’ Or Insurance Gimmick Benefiting The Wealthy?

HSAs: ‘Tax-Break Trifecta’ Or Insurance Gimmick Benefiting The Wealthy?

Doctor holding piggy bank

They are just three little words — “health savings accounts” — but they are generating a lot of buzz as Republicans contemplate plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Expanding the use of such accounts, based on a long-held conservative view that consumers should be more responsible for their health care spending, is part of almost every GOP replacement plan under consideration on Capitol Hill.

Here’s the theory behind HSAs: Making consumers bear a bigger up-front share of medical care — while making it easier to save money tax-free for those costs — will result in more judicious use of the health system that could ultimately slow rising costs.

While the details of the current proposals differ, they all generally seek to allow larger tax-free contributions to the accounts and greater flexibility on the types of medical services for which those funds can be used. Some include tax credit subsidies to help fund the accounts.

Supporters say premiums for the insurance linked to an HSA are lower, and they like HSAs’ trifecta of tax savings — no taxes on contributions, the growth of the funds in the account or on their withdrawal if spent on medical care. But skeptics note the tax break benefits wealthy people more than those with lower incomes.

Still, expect to hear a lot more about HSAs in the coming months. Here’s what you need to know: