Two more GOP senators oppose health care overhaul, dooming bill for now

Two more GOP senators oppose health care overhaul, dooming bill for now

The latest GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare was fatally wounded in the Senate Monday night when two more Republican senators announced their opposition to legislation strongly backed by President Trump.

The announcements from Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas left the Republican Party’s long-promised efforts to get rid of President Obama’s health care legislation reeling. Next steps, if any, were not immediately clear.

Lee and Moran both said they could not support Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s legislation in its current form. They joined GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, both of whom announced their opposition right after McConnell released the bill last Thursday.

McConnell is now at least two votes short in the closely divided Senate and may have to go back to the drawing board or even begin to negotiate with Democrats, a prospect he’s threatened but resisted so far.

McConnell’s bill “fails to repeal the Affordable Care Act or address health care’s rising costs. For the same reasons I could not support the previous version of this bill, I cannot support this one,” said Moran.

It was the second straight failure for McConnell, who had to cancel a vote on an earlier version of the bill last month when defeat became inevitable.

Trump had kept his distance from the Senate process, but Monday night’s development was a major blow for him, too, as the president failed to rally support for what has been the GOP’s trademark issue for seven years — ever since Obama and the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in the first place.

The Senate bill eliminated mandates and taxes under Obamacare, and unraveled a Medicaid expansion. But for conservatives like Lee and Paul it didn’t go far enough in delivering on Republican Party promises to undo Obama’s law, while moderates like Collins viewed the bill as too extreme in yanking insurance coverage from millions.

 

New GOP health bill lacks the votes to pass

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/342447-two-more-gop-senators-defect-on-healthcare-bill?rnd=1500338340

Image result for New GOP health bill lacks the votes to pass

GOP Sens. Jerry Moran (Kan.) and Mike Lee (Utah) announced on Monday night they will not support taking up a bill repealing and replacing ObamaCare, effectively blocking the legislation. 

Their decision means Republicans in the Senate are well short of having the support to pass their legislation, and raises serious questions about whether President Trump will reach his goal of ending ObamaCare.

In light of Monday’s challenges, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-Ky.) said the Senate will try to separate ObamaCare repeal and replacement, closing the door on the chamber’s current healthcare legislation.  “In the coming days, the Senate will vote to take up the House bill with the first amendment in order being what a majority of the Senate has already supported in 2015 and that was vetoed by then-President Obama: a repeal of Obamacare with a two-year delay to provide for a stable transition period,” McConnell said in a statement.

The move means Senate Republicans will try to repeal and replace ObamaCare separately, reverting to a plan Senate GOP leadership initially proposed earlier this year, but had to abandon due to lack of support.

In announcing their opposition to the Senate draft, Moran and Lee both said the bill failed to do enough to lower premiums.

“This closed-door process has yielded the [bill], which fails to repeal the Affordable Care Act or address healthcare’s rising costs. For the same reasons I could not support the previous version of this bill, I cannot support this one,” Moran said in a statement.

He added that the Senate “must now start fresh with an open legislative process,” an indication that relatively minor changes to the current bill would not be enough to win his support. It may also indicate he wants hearings on a bill, which were absent from the process on the current measure.

Highlighting the challenges faced by McConnell, Lee argued the measure is not conservative enough, tugging in the opposite direction from moderates.

“In addition to not repealing all of the Obamacare taxes, it doesn’t go far enough in lowering premiums for middle class families; nor does it create enough free space from the most costly Obamacare regulations,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.
Lee added on Twitter that he and Moran would not support proceeding to “this version” of the Senate GOP legislation, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act, leaving the door open to additional changes.
Lee warned that a controversial amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) included in the bill does not go far enough. That amendment allows insurers to sell plans that don’t fulfill ObamaCare’s coverage mandates if they also sell plans that do.
Lee’s announcement came after he distanced himself late last week from the Cruz-negotiated provision, which was a spin-off of an amendment he initially worked out with the Texas senator. But the Utah Republican quickly said that he had not “seen it or agreed to it.”
Lee objects that the amendment still does not repeal ObamaCare’s requirement that healthy and sick people be grouped in a “single risk pool,” which he says would undermine the effectiveness of the amendment.
Moderates, many health experts and major health insurance companies are warning that premiums would spike for the people remaining in the ObamaCare plans. Any move by McConnell to address Lee’s concerns and move the bill further to the right would risk losing the support of key moderate senators, many of whom are already wary of the legislation.
The Monday evening announcement put four GOP senators officially on record against the bill and left McConnell without enough support to bring up it to the floor, forcing him to seek a plan b.
With a slim 52-seat majority, he could only afford to lose two GOP senators and Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Rand Paul (Ky.) were already expected to vote no.

Two GOP senators break ranks on health care, sinking bill for now

https://www.axios.com/two-gop-senators-break-ranks-on-health-care-sinking-bill-for-now-2461132645.html

Image result for Two GOP senators break ranks on health care, sinking bill for now

Republican senators Mike Lee and Jerry Moran announced Monday night that they would vote “no” on a motion to proceed with the revised GOP health care bill, meaning as it stands the bill does not have the votes to move forward.

The next move is unclear but some conservatives, including House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, are already calling for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, like the one Republicans passed under Barack Obama.

The previous “no” votes: Rand Paul and Susan Collins, with others on the fence. Mitch McConnell could only afford to lose two Republicans.

Lee’s rationale: “In addition to not repealing all of the Obamacare taxes, it doesn’t go far enough in lowering premiums for middle class families; nor does it create enough free space from the most costly Obamacare regulations.”

From Moran’s statement: The bill “fails to repeal the Affordable Care Act or address healthcare’s rising costs.”

 

How hospitals got richer off Obamacare

http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obamacare-non-profit-hospital-taxes/

After fending off challenges to their tax-exempt status, the biggest hospitals boosted revenue while cutting charity care.

decade after the nation’s top hospitals used all their advertising and lobbying clout to keep their tax-exempt status, pointing to their vast givebacks to their communities, they have seen their revenue soar while cutting back on the very givebacks they were touting, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Hospitals’ behavior in the years since the Affordable Care Act provided them with more than 20 million more paying customers offers a window into the debate over winners and losers surrounding this year’s efforts to replace the ACA. It also puts a sharper focus on the role played by the nation’s teaching hospitals – storied international institutions that have grown and flowered under the ACA, while sometimes neglecting the needy neighborhoods that surround them.

And it reveals, for the first time, the extent of the hospitals’ behind-the-scenes efforts to maintain tax breaks that provide them with billions of dollars in extra income, while costing their communities hundreds of millions of dollars in local taxes.

One example of the hospitals’ efforts to remain tax-free: the soaring, minutelong TV commercial that popped up on stations across Western Pennsylvania in 2009 by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the area’s flagship hospital and one of the largest teaching hospitals in the country.

“UPMC is proud to be part of our city’s past, present and, more importantly, its future,” the narrator enthuses, as the camera pans around Pittsburgh scenes of priests, grocery-store workers, even a ballet dancer before coming to rest on the sprawling medical campus — one of the five largest in the world.

At the time, Congress was considering not only whether to remove tax-exempt status for teaching hospitals, a cause of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), but also whether to add requirements forcing hospitals to do more for the low-income, urban communities in which so many of the top hospitals are located. And local leaders in many states were attempting to claw back billions of dollars in forgone tax revenue — a battle that would soon break out between UPMC and the mayor of Pittsburgh, too.

But the hospitals, aided by their good-neighbor initiative, prevailed. The ACA did nothing more to force the hospitals to share their revenue with their neighbors or taxpayers generally.

The result, POLITICO’s investigation shows, is that the nation’s top seven hospitals as ranked by U.S. News & World Report collected more than $33.9 billion in total operating revenue in 2015, the last year for which data was available, up from $29.4 billion in 2013, before the ACA took full effect, according to their own financial statements and state reports. But their spending on direct charity care — the free treatment for low-income patients — dwindled from $414 million in 2013 to $272 million in 2015.

To put that another way: The top seven hospitals’ combined revenue went up by $4.5 billion per year after the ACA’s coverage expansions kicked in, a 15 percent jump in two years. Meanwhile, their charity care — already less than 2 percent of revenue — fell by almost $150 million per year, a 35 percent plunge over the same period.

Revenue up, charity care down

While operating revenue increased under Obamacare for not-for-profit hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic and UCLA Medical Center, the amount of charity health care they provided fell. For example, while UCLA saw operating revenue grow by more than $300 million between 2013 and 2015, charity care fell from almost $20 million to about $5 million.

Here are the hidden items in the Senate GOP’s new Obamacare repeal bill

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-bcra-20170714-story.html?utm_content=buffer5f577&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Senate GOP hid the meanest things very deeply in its Obamacare repeal bill. We found them

 

Senate Republicans unveiled a new, “improved” version of their Affordable Care Act repeal bill Thursday, so the treasure hunt is on: the search for provisions so horrifically inhumane that they’ve had to be concealed deep in the measure’s legislative language and procedural maze.

We’ve found quite a few, with the help of professional spelunkers Andy Slavitt, David Anderson, Larry Levitt and others. Here are some of the provisions in the so-called Better Care Reconciliation Act, or BCRA, that the Senate GOP really doesn’t want you to know about.

—The measure kills the birth control and women’s health screening requirements. The Affordable Care Act advanced women’s healthcare rights immensely by mandating that health plans cover contraceptives, as well as a range of preventive screenings, without deductibles or co-pays. Conservatives have been trying to roll back those guarantees since the ACA’s enactment. The new Senate bill eliminates them.

That action is part of the Cruz Amendment, on which more below. It allows states to authorize the sale of health plans that don’t include the women’s health provisions. Observes Dawn Laguens of Planned Parenthood, “Insurance companies would once again be allowed to refuse to cover basic preventive healthcare, as well as charge women co-pays for birth control, immunizations and cancer screenings.” She calls this “a major step backward for women.”

—HHS Secretary Tom Price gets enormous new power over healthcare standards and even state budgets. The essence of the amended bill’s bait-and-switch structure is the creation of several slush funds to moderate the costs to states of various repeal provisions, especially the drastic cutback in Medicaidfunding.

Those slush funds, however, would come under the control of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. A known enemy of Medicaid and of expanding healthcare services for women and the needy, Price would have the authority to apportion those funds as he wishes, favoring some states over others because of their politics and policies, for example.

As former Medicare/Medicaid chief Andy Slavitt observes, there are no rules or standards guiding Price’s hand — he could dole out all the money to red states or pull funding from others at will. The money doesn’t have to go to services for low-income people or to replace lost Medicaid funding. He could shortchange states that require health plans to cover abortion — such as California and New York.

“The bill is a giant ‘Trust Tom Price’ bill,” Slavitt tweeted. And even if the money is apportioned responsibly, it’s not enough: The total in the slush funds, Slavitt calculates, would restore barely 10% of the cuts in Medicaid.

—The bill still cuts taxes for the wealthy. One widely noticed change from the original Senate bill is the retention of two taxes the ACA imposes on high-income taxpayers — those earning more than $200,000, or $250,000 for couples. These are a 3.8% surcharge on capital gains and dividends and a 0.9% increase in the Medicare tax for those taxpayers. The original Senate bill would have repealed those taxes, handing over an estimated $346-billion windfall to the rich over 10 years.

But don’t cry for the wealthy just yet. The amendment expands another windfall — health savings accounts, which are tax-preferred accounts that can be used to pay for out-of-pocket medical expanses. Under the amended bill, HSAs also can be used to pay premiums, which effectively renders premiums in the individual market tax-deductible for the first time.

HSAs sound good in principle, but in practice they’re geared to higher-income taxpayers. Although some employers help their workers fund HSAs, for the most part the accounts have to be funded out of disposable income, which many middle- and working-class families may find hard to come by. A study released this month by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that, although the maximum annual contribution is $6,750 for families and $3,450 for individuals, the average total account contribution was $2,922 in 2016.

The Tax Policy Center says that more than 16% of all households with $200,000 in income or more have HSAs — but fewer than 2% of households earning less than $30,000 do.

The Republican repeal bills would raise the maximum contributions to $6,550 for individuals and $13,100 for families — but since most families can’t even max out their HSAs now, they plainly wouldn’t be helped by this change. Rich families would be helped, however.

—The senators exempt themselves from the loss of consumer protections. A convoluted provision in the amended measure exempts Congress and its staff members from the loss of guarantees for those with preexisting conditions and other consumer protections.

You won’t find the words “Congress” and “exemption” next to each other anywhere in the bill. You have to know that “1312(d)(3)(D)” is the provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring members of Congress and their staffs to obtain coverage through the Obamacare exchanges, and then notice, on Page 167 of the Senate bill, that the elimination of consumer protections is “non-applicable” to that section.

Senate leaders say the exemption is necessary for procedural purposes, and imply that they’ll remove it in subsequent legislation. We’ll see.

—The opioid money is a Band-Aid. Opioid addiction has emerged as perhaps the worst public health crisis in the nation. As much as 40% of the cost of treatment of addicts has been covered by Medicaid. The harsh cuts in that program imposed by the Senate and House repeal bills would force more of that expense onto states that simply can’t afford it. Meanwhile, the projected loss of medical coverage by as many as 23 million Americans under repeal will keep many victims of the epidemic from finding treatment.

The cost of fighting the epidemic and treating the secondary health problems of its victims, such as HIV and hepatitis C, has been estimated at as much as $183 billion over 10 years. The original Senate measure included only a one-year, $2-billion appropriation for the purpose. The revised bill provides $45 billion over 10 years. Interestingly, that’s exactly what was requested by GOP Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. So the appropriation won’t be adequate as a solution to the opioid crisis, but it might be enough to bring those two potential holdouts on board.

—The “Murkowski Mollification.” The Senate bill has a craftily-worded handout for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). She’s been a holdout on the Senate bill because of its massive cuts to Medicaid, an important healthcare program in her state.

The amended measure guarantees at least $1.3 billion, or 1% of a $132-billion, 10-year bailout fund, to any state where premiums are 75% higher than the national average. Only one state qualifies: Alaska.

It’s not unusual for such provisions to be buried in legislation that appears to have broader application. Indeed, the Affordable Care Act included a so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” to benefit Nebraska and secure the vote of then-Sen. Ben Nelson. In this case, the provision means Alaska, a state with 0.2% of the nation’s Medicaid enrollment, would get a disproportionate windfall. As of this writing, Murkowski hasn’t said if she’ll take the bait. But as Slavitt observes, the payoff sets the stage for demands by senators from other states.

“If I’m WV, TN, AZ, WY, I want to know where mine is,” Slavitt tweeted. In any event, the money wouldn’t be enough to cover Alaska’s losses from the Medicaid rollback, and it would still be subject to cancellation at any time by Price.

—The Cruz Amendment is a disaster for health insurance buyers. We’ve written before about the amendment crafted by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). It would effectively destroy the healthcare market nationwide.

The amendment would allow states to authorize any insurer to offer bare-bones policies as long as they also offered at least one ACA-compliant policy in that state. This opens the door to bifurcating the insurance market. Younger, healthier buyers, especially males, might sign up for cheap policies without coverage for hospitalization, substance abuse, prescriptions, maternity or preexisting conditions. That would force everyone else to buy a fully compliant plan; since such a plan would be filled with customers with potentially risky and costly conditions, its premium would soar. As it became progressively less affordable, all but the sickest buyers would leave, making it even more costly.

This is the definition of a “death spiral” that Republicans claim they want to avoid. It makes a mockery of their promise to protect people with preexisting conditions, since the cost of insurance for them would soon be stratospheric.

—Buyers of cheap Cruz plans would be locked out of the insurance market if they get sick. A little-noticed aspect of the Cruz proposal is that the cheap plans it allows would not qualify as legitimate insurance coverage under the GOP’s “continuous coverage” rules.

Those rules, embodied in both the House and Senate GOP repeal bills, guarantee coverage for preexisting conditions as long as the buyer maintains insurance coverage without a break of longer than two months. Under the Senate bill, anyone with such a lapse would face a six-month waiting period for new insurance before the preexisting condition guarantee would be effective.

That means that individuals who get sick and discover that their Cruz plan won’t cover their illness wouldn’t be able to buy full coverage for at least six months. It’s a classic bait-and-switch, but you won’t hear it being bragged about by Senate Republicans. They don’t really want you to know.

The Congressional Budget Office, which determined last month that the original Senate bill would cost 22 million Americans their insurance by 2026 compared with the current law, hasn’t weighed in on the amended version. It’s unlikely that the CBO will think much more highly of the amendments.

For that reason, Senate GOP leaders have been hinting that they’ll skip, or ignore, any CBO analysis and rely instead on one prepared by Price’s HHS. What are the chances the HHS will deliver a credible analysis? Probably nil

Health Savings Accounts Are No Substitute for the ACA’s Financial Assistance

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/07/14/435850/health-savings-accounts-no-substitute-acas-financial-assistance/

Like the House Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill, the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) would loosen a number of restrictions on health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs are intended to allow individuals to put aside pretax dollars to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses, though in practice they are often used as tax-sheltering devices for the wealthy. A new proposal supported by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) that has been added to the updated version of the BCRA would also allow enrollees to use HSA funds to pay for premiums, in addition to out-of-pocket costs.

Although conservatives generally frame HSAs as a pro-consumer measure to improve affordability, in reality these accounts primarily benefit the wealthy rather than families who have difficulty affording health care costs. In addition, since HSAs currently must be paired with high-deductible health plans, they come at the cost of greater financial risk. The BCRA would push individual market enrollees toward less generous plans with high deductibles; this tradeoff would be particularly extreme for enrollees who currently benefit from the ACA’s cost-sharing reduction subsidies (CSRs), which significantly lower cost-sharing for low-income enrollees and would be eliminated after 2019 under the BCRA.

Allowing HSA funds to go toward premium payments would fail to make up the gap between the financial assistance that lower- and middle-income people would receive under the BCRA versus the ACA. As a result, millions of Americans would still find health insurance much harder to afford under the BCRA.

Current policy on HSAs

Consumers can use money saved in an HSA to meet deductibles and other forms of cost-sharing, such as copays and coinsurance. These funds cannot be used to pay insurance premiums. Currently, people can contribute to an HSA only if their health plan has an annual deductible of at least $1,700 for individual coverage or $2,600 for family coverage. Contributions to HSAs are tax-deductible; earnings within the account and withdrawals made for qualified expenses are tax-free.

As of 2017, the maximum contribution limit for an HSA was $3,400 for individual coverage or $6,750 for family coverage.

HSAs are mostly a tax break for the wealthy

Research and tax data demonstrate that HSAs primarily benefit upper-income households, since they are more likely to use the accounts, have more money available to invest in them , and receive a greater tax benefit by using them.

U.S. Department of Treasury data show that at the end of 2014, just 5 percent of tax filers with adjusted gross income less than $100,000 held money in an HSA, while 20 percent of filers with incomes of more than $500,000 did. HSA users with incomes less than $100,000 had account balances averaging about $1,700, while HSA users with incomes greater than $500,000 had account balances averaging nearly $10,000. The low- to middle-income group contributed an average of $1,800 into their accounts that year; this average includes both direct contributions by a policy holder and those made by payroll deduction from a policy holder’s employer. The high-income group, on the other hand, contributed an average of $5,500.

Upper-income households not only use HSAs more frequently and put more money in them, but they also get a bigger tax break for using them. Since higher-income earners are in higher tax brackets than middle- and lower-income earners, they save more money for each pre-tax dollar they shelter in an HSA. For example, a couple in the highest 39.6 percent tax bracket (with taxable income of more than $470,700) saves 39.6 cents in federal income tax for each dollar they contribute to an HSA. Meanwhile, the vast majority of low- and middle-class families are in the 0 percent, 10 percent, or 15 percent income tax bracket, which means they save either nothing, 10 cents, or 15 cents, respectively, on each dollar they contribute to an HSA.

According to Treasury data, families with incomes less than $100,000 making tax-deductible HSA contributions saved an average of about $400 off their taxes. Families with incomes greater than $500,000 saved an average of more than $2,000 when they made HSA contributions—five times as much.*

Wealthy people also get a proportionately bigger tax break on the investment returns that compound within HSAs. In fact, they are able to avoid not only income or capital gains taxes on investments by sheltering their wealth in HSAs, but also the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT)—a 3.8 percent tax on investment income paid by people with incomes greater than $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples) that was enacted in the ACA to help pay for coverage expansions. Although the House ACA repeal bill and prior versions of the Senate bill repealed the NIIT, the most recent Senate bill leaves the NIIT in place. Many Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), have suggested that they will seek to repeal the NIIT as part of tax legislation later this year.

The Senate bill expands HSAs, in part by raising the annual contribution limits. The benefits of higher contribution limits are likely extremely skewed to the wealthy. Naturally, high-income families are much more likely to max out their contributions into an HSA because they have more money to put into them. For a family making $50,000, the current contribution limit of $6,750 is 14 percent of their income.

Consider how raising the HSA contribution limits would affect two families: First, a middle-class family earning $50,000 and contributing $1,700 into an HSA, which is about the average contribution for HSA users of that income range. And second, a millionaire household maxing out its HSA.

Assuming the middle-class family is in the 15 percent tax bracket, it would save about $250 by deducting a $1,700 contribution into its HSA. Raising the contribution limits wouldn’t change these savings, although the Senate bill expands the potential uses of HSA. Meanwhile, the millionaire family that maxes out its HSA now contributes the full $6,750, getting a tax break of $2,673. Under the Senate bill, it can contribute $13,100 to an HSA, nearly doubling its tax break to $5,188. Of course, lower- and middle-income families may contribute more to HSAs under the Senate bill—but they are less likely to be able to afford to do so, and even if they do, they would get a smaller tax break.

The bottom line is that HSAs are a tax break that is skewed to wealthy families—one that the Senate bill makes larger.

HSAs in the Senate repeal bill cannot offset less generous tax credits

Like the House bill, the Senate’s BCRA would expand the use of HSAs. It would significantly increase the contribution limits to the maximum out-of-pocket limit amounts for high-deductible health plans, which are $6,550 for individuals and $13,100 for families in 2017. The bill would also permit spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same account, along with other changes.

In addition, it would reduce the tax penalty for withdrawing HSA funds for nonmedical expenses from 20 percent to 10 percent for people younger than age 65. In other words, this would make it easier for people to use HSAs as a tax shelter and later use the funds for nonmedical expenses.

Finally, the updated BCRA would enable enrollees to use HSA funds to pay their premiums. Unlike the House bill, the BCRA would retain the ACA’s premium tax credit structure, but would cut off eligibility at 350 percent of the federal poverty level instead of 400 percent, and would make the credits less generous.

Allowing HSA funds to pay for premiums does not come close to compensating for this reduction in financial assistance for low-income Americans. As described above, the tax benefits of HSAs are upside-down: They give a much bigger tax break to upper-income households in higher tax brackets while doing little or nothing for low- and moderate-income families. Refundable premium tax credits, on the other hand, work by directly reducing consumers’ premium costs. The ACA’s premium tax credits are designed to be most generous for people with lower incomes, who may have the most difficulty affording insurance otherwise.

Not a replacement for cost-sharing reduction subsidies

One often-overlooked but essential component of the ACA is the cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which go to enrollees earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level—which, in 2017, is $12,060 to $30,150 for an individual in most states—who select certain plans on the marketplace. CSRs are a crucial support to help low-income enrollees afford their cost-sharing, such as deductibles and co-pays. CSRs work by directly upgrading the insurance plan’s actuarial value, or the percent of costs that the insurance company will cover rather than the enrollee. In contrast, HSAs are currently tied to high-deductible health plans. Thus, rather than serving as a replacement for the CSRs, low-income enrollees would be required to take on increased cost-sharing in order to even qualify for an HSA, with the HSAs providing little or no tax benefit.

The BCRA would reduce the actuarial value of the individual market benchmark plan; instead of the benchmark plan covering 70 percent of enrollees’ costs, it would only cover 58 percent. CSR recipients would see an even greater drop in plan value because the BCRA would repeal the CSRs with no replacement. CSRs increase the actuarial value of plans to 94 percent, 87 percent, or 73 percent, depending on a CSR enrollee’s income.

These changes would leave low-income enrollees facing significant higher deductibles and other cost-sharing. As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explains, “the deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income. … As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan.”

Illustrating this, CBO estimates that benchmark plans under the BCRA will have deductibles around $6,000. Currently, among benchmark plans under the ACA that have combined medical and prescription drug deductibles, those deductibles average $3,609. For low-income enrollees who receive the highest level of cost-sharing assistance, the CSRs reduce their deductibles to an average of $255. This means that these CSR enrollees would see their deductibles increase by more than $5,700 on average under the BCRA, a more than 2,200 percent increase. An individual who qualifies for the highest level of CSRs earns less than $18,090 per year; thus, a $6,000 deductible would represent at least one-third of their income.

Enrollees who currently benefit from CSRs aren’t the only ones who would be hit hard by this increase in deductibles. Medicaid beneficiaries who would lose eligibility due to the BCRA’s rollback of Medicaid expansion funding or per capita caps on funding would also find coverage with these types of deductibles very difficult to afford. Medicaid beneficiaries pay little to no premium costs and have very low cost-sharing; they would face sharply higher costs on private coverage under the BCRA. For example, for someone currently covered by Medicaid expansion and earning 101 percent of the federal poverty level—or $12,180—a $6,000 deductible would be about one-half of their income.

As this calculation makes clear, low-income enrollees would face significantly higher cost-sharing under the Senate bill. Moreover, as the CBO concluded, few low-income enrollees would be able to afford any health care plan at all.

Conclusion

HSAs are primarily a tax shelter for the wealthy, not a solution to help low- and middle-income people afford coverage. Combined with the elimination of cost-sharing assistance and the downgrading of the generosity of the benchmark plan, the BCRA’s HSA provisions represent a shift toward significantly higher cost-sharing. Far from providing better care, the new HSA provisions will not change the CBO’s projection that the Senate plan would price most low-income enrollees out of the insurance market entirely.

*Authors’ note: When also taking into account HSA contributions made from payroll deductions, the average total income and payroll tax savings on HSA contributions for families with incomes under $100,000 is nearly $600, compared to about $2,300 for families with incomes over $500,000.

Opposition To GOP Repeal Bill Inches Up And Intensifies

Opposition To GOP Repeal Bill Inches Up And Intensifies

 

Public opposition to the Republican effort to replace the Affordable Care Act grew stronger this month, but a core group of Republicans remained in support, according to a poll released Friday.

Sixty-one percent of the public said this month they did not like the GOP health care effort, now undergoing a revised push in the Senate. That was a 6 percentage point increase from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s monthly tracking results in June, when 55 percent expressed unfavorable opinions. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The poll also found opposition was becoming more passionate, with more of the public viewing the plan “very” unfavorably. The Affordable Care Act maintained the support of half the populace, nearly double the 28 percent of people who backed the GOP efforts. Two of three people opposed major reductions in Medicaid that are included in the GOP plan…

Nonetheless, a majority of Republicans and supporters of President Trump continued to favor the GOP plan, which would increase the number of uninsured as it alters Medicaid and the private insurance markets that have been running since 2014. In fact, in this month’s poll more Republicans said health care is headed in the right direction than believed that in April, before the House passed its version of the health care replacement bill.

Still, most Americans said they would prefer Republicans and Democrats to work together on health care — 71 percent said they would like to see a bipartisan effort to fix the ACA.

The poll of 1,187 adults was conducted July 5 – 10, about a week after the Congressional Budget Office issued its report on the GOP draft legislation. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 points.

 

CEOs of Ascension, Dignity, Trinity, Providence, CHI to Trump, Congress: Work with us on healthcare legislation

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/ceos-of-ascension-dignity-trinity-providence-chi-to-trump-congress-work-with-us-on-healthcare-legislation.html

Image result for health systems reform

 

The leaders of five major nonprofit health systems are calling on Congress to work with them and draft healthcare legislation that encourages improved quality of care and ensures Americans maintain their insurance coverage, according to an op-ed penned in The Hill.

Anthony Tersigni, EdD, president and CEO of St. Louis-based Ascension, Kevin Lofton, CEO of Englewood, Co.-based Catholic Health Initiatives, Lloyd Dean, CEO of San Francisco-based Dignity Health, Richard Gilfillan, MD, CEO of Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health, and Rodney Hochman, MD, CEO and president of Renton, Wash.-based Providence St. Joseph Health all emphasized the need for Congress not to pass the Better Care Reconciliation Act as it is written and risk millions of Americans losing their health insurance.

“Together, we can fix this,” the CEOs wrote. “There is still plenty of room for improvement in our healthcare system. Healthcare is too expensive, coverage must be more affordable, Medicaid programs must become more innovative and efficient, the individual market must be stabilized and more payments for healthcare services must be made through value-based contracts.”

“…we invite the Trump administration and members of Congress to work together with us to create a health system that always puts people first and never forgets that each of us is only one disease or one accident away from vulnerability, ” wrote the group.

The CEOs’ organizations combined have a presence across 40 states and Washington, D.C.

Five key senators who will make or break healthcare reform

Five key senators who will make or break healthcare reform

Image result for Five key senators who will make or break healthcare reform

The fate of Republican legislation to repeal and replace major parts of ObamaCare rests on a handful of senators who have strong reservations about the bill and a variety of political reasons to either support or oppose it.

Two Republicans have already said they will vote against a motion to proceed to the bill next week, giving Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) no margin for error.

If one more GOP senator defects, the bill will fail and party leaders will have to go back to the drawing board or altogether shelve the healthcare reform effort

The Congressional Budget Office score of the bill, expected on Monday, could tip the balance one way or the other — as could pressure from President Trump, their home-state governors, doctors and hospitals.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

Heller has the most on the line as the most vulnerable Republican senator up for re-election in 2018.

A survey last month of 500 registered voters in Nevada by a GOP polling firm found that a majority of Nevadans opposed the House-passed healthcare bill, which the Senate legislation is largely based on. The poll found that only a third of Nevada Republicans supported the House legislation.

Meanwhile, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, the most popular politician in the state with a 64 percent approval rating has come out strongly against the Senate measure.

Heller appeared with Sandoval at a press conference last month to announce his opposition to the bill McConnell unveiled on June 22, telling reporters “it’s going to be very difficult to get me to a ‘yes.’”

Sandoval said Thursday that he is “greatly concerned for the 204,000” Nevadans who received health coverage under ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.

He also said the revised bill unveiled earlier that day “isn’t that much different from its previous iteration.”

Voting for the bill could be a major liability for Heller.

On the other hand, if he sinks it, he could still pay a price at the polls as Trump has warned Wednesday he will be “very angry” if the Senate does not pass the healthcare bill.

Running against Trump did not work for GOP candidates in Nevada last year, even though Hillary Clinton carried the state. Former Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) and former Rep. Crescent Hardy (R-Nev.), who both disavowed Trump, lost races for Senate and House seats, respectively.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

An underrated element in Murkowski’s decision making is her past relationship with McConnell and the broader Republican Party.

McConnell kicked Murkowski off his leadership team in 2010 after she lost Alaska’s Republican primary to conservative candidate Joe Miller.

McConnell at the time urged Murkowski to accept the result of the primary and “move on.” He also made a $5,000 donation to Miller’s campaign.

Murkowski nevertheless won the general election as a write-in candidate by relying on independent and cross-over Democratic votes.

The Senate healthcare bill is particularly unpopular with independents and Democrats and its reductions in healthcare subsidies and Medicaid would hit Alaska’s rural population and expensive insurance markets especially hard.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank, concluded this month that the first version of the Senate healthcare bill would reduce tax credits more deeply for Alaskans than people in any other state.

The revised version unveiled Thursday includes a new provision that could allocate more than $1 billion over the next decade to Alaska to reduce the cost of insurance premiums.

Murkowski applauded the inclusion of the language Thursday but declined to say whether she would vote to advance the bill next week.

She has criticized the legislation for setting a lower formula for indexing Medicaid for inflation starting in 2025, arguing it has gone beyond the stated mission of repealing and replacing parts of ObamaCare.

“Let’s leave Medicaid off the table for right now. Let’s bifurcate this,” she told reporters Wednesday.  “This is not something that in my view is best done in a reconciliation process.”

Moderate Rep. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has pledged to oppose the motion to proceed to the bill, made a similar argument against changing funding for traditional Medicaid beneficiaries, noting that ObamaCare “did not rewrite the entitlement program.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Lee partnered with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in pushing an amendment to allow insurance companies to sell any health plans of their choosing as long as they offer at least one that meets ObamaCare’s regulatory requirements.

Cruz announced Thursday he would support the Senate bill after negotiating a side deal with the leadership to amend the Cruz-Lee Consumer Freedom option — but he left Lee out of the talks.

Lee tweeted Thursday morning that the language added to the bill was “based” on the Cruz-Lee amendment but is not the same thing and is so far undecided on how to vote.

It will be tougher for Lee to vote to block the legislation now that two of his fellow conservatives, Cruz and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), have flipped from opposing the legislation to now supporting a motion to begin debate.

Cruz agreed to modify the amendment by fusing the risk pools of people who buy cheaper plans subject to less federal regulation and those who purchase costlier federally qualified plans.

Lee has held firmly to the position that the costs of plans for people with pre-existing conditions should not be kept low, something that requires healthy people to bear more financial burden. In private meetings he explicitly objected to ObamaCare’s so-called community rating requirement, which keeps plans affordable to people with pre-existing conditions.

Whether he buys into the compromise Cruz struck with leaders could depend on what the CBO says of its impact on premiums.

Some lawmakers raised questions on Thursday about whether the CBO would provide an analysis for the Cruz amendment before the vote on the motion to proceed. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), however, who has been active in the internal talks, said he was assured that senators would get a CBO score on the Cruz provision before the vote.

Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Capito’s home state has a lot riding on the proposed Medicaid reforms.

Twenty-nine percent of West Virginia’s population is on Medicaid, making it the state with the highest share of its population relying on the program, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

More than a third of the state’s total enrollees, 180,500 adults out of 564,000 people, signed up under ObamaCare’s expanded enrollment.

A poll conducted for the American Medical Association last month found that only 19 percent of 400 West Virginia voters surveyed approved of the House-passed healthcare bill while 42 percent disapproved.

The Senate bill adopts a less generous formula for indexing Medicaid to inflation starting in 2025 by pegging it to inflation for urban consumers instead of medical inflation, which grows at a faster rate.

Capito told reporters Thursday that the CBO score will factor heavily in her decision.

Capito has a closer relationship with McConnell than some of the other GOP holdouts. She serves on his leadership team as counsel.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Portman has historically had a close relationship with McConnell but things are getting tense between the two men because of the healthcare debate.

McConnell and Portman clashed at a leadership meeting last month when McConnell pointedly reminded his colleague that he supported entitlement reform when serving as budget director for former President George W. Bush.

Portman easily won re-election last year in a swing state that was expected to be closely contested but that Trump carried by 8 points.

But Portman is feeling pressure from Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who came out against the Senate bill Friday, calling it “unacceptable” and its Medicaid cuts “too deep.”

Portman, however, is not as closely aligned with Kasich as Heller is with Sandoval in Nevada.

From early on in the negotiations, Senate Republicans suspected Kasich was trying to blow up the negotiations because of his own political aims.

Nearly 700,000 people gained healthcare coverage in Ohio under Obama’s Medicaid expansion.

Portman has long argued for a longer glide path for phasing out generous federal funding for expanded enrollment and expressed concerns about the less generous inflation rate.

He was given a big concession in the revised bill when McConnell included an $45 billion in the revised bill to cover people addicted to opioids, an epidemic in Ohio.

Insurers shred Senate health care bill: “Premiums will skyrocket for preexisting conditions”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/15/15976244/senate-health-care-bill-health-insurance-companies-letter

Health insurance companies have largely bit their tongues about the Senate health care plan, but they are turning against it now, warning that a recent revision would send premiums skyrocketing for people with high medical costs.

The insurance industry has been one of the few health care sectors to even tentatively embrace the Senate’s plan, as Vox has documented, but that has changed in the last few days. Their most influential representatives in Washington — America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association — sent a letter to Senate leaders Friday urging them to remove Sen. Ted Cruz’s amendment from the legislation.

The Cruz amendment, added in the revised Senate plan, would allow health plans to sell insurance on the individual marketplaces that does not comply with Obamacare’s insurance regulations as long as they also sold plans that did comply. Outside experts have warned this would segment the market, with healthy people buying skimpier non-Obamacare coverage and sicker people buying more robust Obamacare plans.

That would then send costs, and in turn premiums, spiraling upward in the Obamacare market, the insurance trade associations warned in their letter. They noted particularly that middle-class families who do not qualify for financial assistance would not be shielded at all from those increasing premiums.

“As healthy people move to the less-regulated plans, those with significant medical needs will have no choice but to stay in the comprehensive plans, and premiums will skyrocket for people with preexisting conditions,” the groups said.

The Senate does include $70 billion to offset increased costs under the Cruz amendment. But that money does not appear to be enough to assuage the insurance industry’s concerns.

“Finally, this provision will lead to far fewer, if any, coverage options for consumers who purchase their plan in the individual market,” the groups said. “As a result, millions of more individuals will become uninsured.”

It is unclear whether the Cruz amendment will be evaluated as part of the Congressional Budget Office score of the Senate bill to be released this coming week. A source familiar with the situation told me that the US Department of Health and Human Services office of planning and evaluation has been asked to review the proposal and its cost and coverage implications.

The insurance groups urged Senate Republicans leaders to remove the Cruz provision from the legislation.

Dave Dillion, an expert with the Society of Actuaries, told me Friday that part of the insurance industry’s objections is likely the uncertainty that the Cruz plan would introduce to the insurance market.

“I think while obviously a lot of carriers have not been enthralled with [Obamacare], you get comfortably number, you know the rules, and you go on about your business,” he said, adding of the Cruz proposal: “There’s so much uncertainty about what it really means. It’s not black and white.”