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.

The CBO report raises five serious questions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/14/the-cbo-report-raises-five-serious-questions/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8z9Sylks_wibB_-6SdY9AQGBM3g03O-yrykjFdnlayePaRf6KdLp5erCdoZM5RZvXTKhGTRTUJKrOfKMio5kAnhglcYQ&_hsmi=45675040&utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_content=45675040&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email&utm_term=.86ffca0b81b7

The Congressional Budget Office report on the American Health Care Act — showing that as many as 24 million people could lose health insurance, Medicaid would be drastically cut and older, poorer Americans would suffer the most — leaves us with a number of questions:

Why did House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) force votes in two committees and then spring the disturbing CBO score, revealing that members voted rashly (not knowing the effects) or don’t care about loss of coverage and regressive consequences? Perhaps he is so convinced that his members will vote for anything that he made no effort to spare them from votes they one day (Election Day 2018, for example, and especially in districts Hillary Clinton carried) will regret. It is far from clear what he thought he was going to “get away with.” Unlike President Trump, he cannot merely dismiss inconvenient facts and plunge forward. Well, he can, but he puts his members’ seats and his own speakership at risk.

What’s the point of passing something so obviously unacceptable to the Senate? Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) blasted the effort: “The CBO estimate that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance coverage if the House bill were to become law is cause for alarm. It should prompt the House to slow down and reconsider certain provisions of the bill.” Her colleague and Trump supporter Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) echoed Sen. Tom Cotton’s advice on Sunday to “get this right.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued, “[L]et’s say the CBO is half-right. That should be cause for concern. So, rather than attacking the CBO as the exclusive way of moving forward, I would think the prudent thing for the party to do is to look at the CBO report and see if we can address some of the concerns raised.” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) scoffedat the notion the bill would really save money. “Society is going to pay for health care whether it’s through insurance or not,” he remarked.

 

Medicaid Is About Grandma

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/medicaid-is-about-grandma_us_58c823d8e4b022817b29178d?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=45675040&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8LGIyTmn6nhDk89cZo6cUrufFATTTJ0UEOLkEAL40dVGaTTKG-_3pnWLxOkvp2OhsqJnaKQT0UF6ciBSrrzUF_dRYROg&_hsmi=45675040

Image result for medicaid grandma in nursing home

Why don’t Democrats more often make the point Sen. Chuck Schumer made this week about the consequences of GOP efforts to scuttle Medicaid:

Medicaid is for poor people, but also 60 percent goes to people in nursing homes. And that affects not only them, but their kids. You’re a kid 45 or 50, your Mom or Dad is in a nursing home. They could be kicked out after this bill passes. What would you do? You have to take them at home, stop working to take care of them. Or you have to shell out thousands of dollars out of your pocket. — Schumer press conference (3/13)

Bill Clinton routinely made this point when Medicaid was debated during his presidency. Inexplicably he is among a surprisingly few Democrats who stress the program’s service to elder Americans in dire need of long term care. But the GOP continues to get away with feeding the illusion that it mostly serves malingerers who’d rather take a federal handout than get a job.

Baby boomers everywhere are facing the painful needs of parents who need nursing home care. Many are finding that Medicaid is their only choice. That’s the political pitch that can save Medicaid.

Tax Credits under the Affordable Care Act vs. the American Health Care Act: An Interactive Map

Premiums and Tax Credits Under the Affordable Care Act vs. the American Health Care Act: Interactive Maps

Image result for Tax Credits under the Affordable Care Act vs. the American Health Care Act: An Interactive Map

These maps compare county-level estimates of premium tax credits consumers would receive under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2020 with what they’d receive under the American Health Care Act as unveiled March 6 by Republican leaders in Congress.

The maps include premium tax credit estimates by county for current ACA marketplace enrollees at age 27, 40, or 60 with an annual income of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $75,000, or $100,000. A downloadable spreadsheet of this data is available, as is a spreadsheet with family scenarios, including a family of four with two 40-year old adults and two children, as well as a 60-year-old couple with no dependent children. (Note: the map and spreadsheets do not include cost-sharing assistance under the ACA that lowers deductibles and copayments for low-income marketplace enrollees. For example, in 2016, people making between 100 – 150% of poverty enrolled in a silver plan on healthcare.gov received cost-sharing assistance worth $1,440; those with incomes between 150 – 200% of poverty received $1,068 on average; and those with incomes between 200 – 250% of poverty received $144 on average).

Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under the ACA than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement.

Conversely, some people who are younger, higher-income, or live in low-premium areas (like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington) may receive larger assistance under the replacement plan.

Most current Healthcare.gov enrollees have lower incomes:

  • About 66% of have incomes at or below 250% of poverty (approximately $31,250 for a single individual in 2020), with the bulk (44% of all enrollees) having incomes at or below 150% of poverty (approximately $18,750 in 2020).
  • About 36% of enrollees are under age 35, 37% are age 35 to 54, and 27% are 55 or older.

Both the ACA and the American Health Care Act include tax credits in their approach. However, the law and the proposal calculate credit amounts differently: the ACA takes family income, local cost of insurance, and age into account, while the replacement proposal bases tax credits only on age, with a phase out for individuals with incomes above $75,000.

 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/03/08/repealing-the-affordable-care-act/?utm_campaign=Economic%20Studies&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=45259936

Image result for brookings institute

THE ISSUE: If Congress rejects the new House Republican-backed replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the full repeal long advocated for by many Republicans could be their next option.

A straight ACA repeal would leave an estimated 20+ million people without health coverage.

THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW

  • Republicans have long advocated for repealing the ACA and if their new replacement isn’t approved, that plan could soon be put into motion.
  • The ACA provides coverage, and subsidies towards coverage, to people who previously couldn’t get health insurance through the individual market.
  • A straight ACA repeal would leave an estimated 20+ million people without health coverage.
  • If the ACA is repealed, many lower-income Americans (earning a maximum family income of about $33,000) participating in Medicaid, which was expanded under the ACA, would lose health coverage.
  • Many individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, previously unable to get health insurance, would also lose coverage.
  • The ACA also benefits health insurance industry by stabilizing coverage, and provides assurance to state hospitals that patients have coverage of some kind.
  • It is incumbent upon Republicans to provide a clear plan and implement it quickly in order to stabilize the markets and assure Americans that whatever replaces the ACA will be at least as good and at least as affordable as their current plans.
  • Polling on repeal shows that people are unhappy with the ACA, but not with their coverage. They most frequently criticizes the cost and the availability of coverage.
  • Republicans are faced with a challenge: Americans don’t just want repeal, they want a replacement that is comprehensive and affordable.

Five key findings from the CBO’s healthcare score

Five key findings from the CBO’s healthcare score

Image result for congressional budget office bill scoring

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the Republican plan to replace ObamaCare is sending shockwaves through Washington.

Democrats have seized on the report, while Republicans have been split over whether to attack the CBO’s conclusions or focus on the more positive aspects of the analysis.

Here are five key findings from the CBO report that is shaking up the ObamaCare debate.

Ten Inconvenient Truths About The Current Healthcare Debate

https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.it%2FS33hcr-ten-inconvenient-truths-about-the-curre/f-2c2e4d8c41%2Fforbes.com

The Bottom Line

Overstatement and the quest for political revenge may mobilize political allies. It may generate lots of likes in the echo chambers of Twitter or Facebook. But does it persuade? Does it contribute to good policy? I doubt it. We should listen to the parting words of the brilliant George Washington:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.