Tag Archives: CBO Bill Scoring

Senate Budget Won’t Let GOP Pursue Full Obamacare Repeal

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/senate-budget-allows-1-5-trillion-tax-cut-not-full-aca-repeal

Image result for Obamacare Repeal

Senate Republicans unveiled a fiscal 2018 budget resolution Friday that they intend to use to push through as much as $1.5 trillion of tax cuts in the coming months, but it won’t allow the GOP to pursue a full repeal of Obamacare.

The budget proposal would still allow Republicans to pursue a much narrower attack on the Affordable Care Act, including repealing the individual mandate to purchase coverage. The resolution also would let the GOP use the fast-track process to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The budget, authored by Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, forecasts a balance in nine years through $5 trillion in largely unspecified spending cuts. Unlike the House budget proposed in July, Enzi’s blueprint doesn’t call for cuts to Medicaid or a partial privatization of Medicare.

“A pro-growth tax plan will move the U.S. economy forward and help to produce better jobs and bigger paychecks for every American,” Enzi, of Wyoming, said in an emailed statement.

The Senate draft is to be voted on by the Budget Committee next week, with floor votes planned later in October and a conference to resolve differences with the House after that. The House plans a floor vote on its budget plan next week.

Tax Cut

Once in place, the budget resolution would allow Republicans to bring up a tax-cut bill that would increase deficits by as much as $1.5 trillion, compared with a Congressional Budget Office baseline. Under the fast-track process, the GOP-controlled Senate could pass the proposal with no Democratic votes.

The budget sets a target for the Senate Finance to report back with its draft tax bill by Nov. 13.

“The Senate budget resolution drafted by Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi is a critical step to advance President Trump’s agenda to provide tax relief for the middle-class and unleash economic prosperity for all Americans,” said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney in a statement. “I urge the Senate to pass this resolution and come to a swift agreement with the House so President Trump can sign America-first tax relief into law this year.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the GOP plan would “blow a huge hole in the deficit and stack up debt, leading to cuts in programs that middle-class Americans rely on.”

Individual Tax Rate

President Donald Trump and Republican leaders announced a tax-cut plan Wednesday that would cut the top individual rate to 35 percent from the current 39.6 percent. It would let Congress decide whether to create a higher bracket for those at the top of the income scale. The rate on corporations would be set at 20 percent, down from the current 35 percent. Under Senate rules, any tax cuts that increase the deficit would have to expire in 10 years because the budget process can’t be used for long-term deficit increases.

The provision making it easier for Congress to allow oil and gas drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was sought by Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan. Under the proposal, royalties from oil and gas production in the wildlife refuge would be raise revenue that could help offset at least $1 billion in tax cuts over a decade.

The proposal’s instructions to the Finance Committee could allow a partial repeal of Obamacare, although panel Chairman Orrin Hatch has said he will keep that separate from a tax overhaul. Republican leaders have said they won’t try again on the health-care law until fiscal 2019.

Balanced Budget

When Republicans attempted to use the 2017 budget process to repeal Obamacare earlier this year, they didn’t provide a 10-year plan for reducing the deficit.

The new Senate plan proposes a balanced budget within nine years, while leaving it to other committees to figure out how to achieve that. The proposal calls for $4.8 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and $1.635 trillion in revenue losses, including the tax cuts. Balance by 2026 is achieved by assuming $1.2 trillion in economic growth, in part due to the tax cuts. Enzi claims to achieve a $197 billion surplus in 2027.

The Republican assumptions of robust economic benefits from the budget were called into question by a separate CBO analysis. CBO predicted that the budget would reduce economic growth in the first two years and slightly increase it in later years.

CBO estimated that annual real GDP growth in the first two years would average 1.3 percent, down from an average of 1.6 percent in CBO’s baseline. In later years, real GDP growth would be 2.0 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the CBO baseline.

The budget, unlike the one proposed by Trump in May, would hold defense spending at the current budget cap instead of the president’s proposed $489 billion defense increase over 10 years. Non-defense discretionary appropriations — which fund domestic agencies like the Agriculture Department and National Institutes of Health — would be cut by $632 billion over 10 years compared with $1.6 trillion in Trump’s budget request.

While the Trump and House budget proposals contain a number of nonbinding policy suggestions to carry out their spending cuts, Senate Republicans — weary of policy infighting — are keeping things vague.

Medicare, Medicaid

The House budget seeks to make $203 billion in cuts in entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, and it could be used to fast-track changes to the Dodd-Frank financial law. The Senate plan avoids those options.

The Senate proposal does allow adjustments to increase the defense spending caps. It also urges senators to revise the Children’s Health Insurance Program, improve management of wildfire-prevention funding, prevent private-pension bailouts and improve services to veterans.

The budget resolution doesn’t address Social Security, which will run a trillion-dollar-plus deficit in the coming 10 years. In the past, Republicans have sought to balance a “unified budget” that includes the program. This time, they are keeping it “off-budget.”

CBO says that without the Social Security accounting move, Enzi’s budget would never balance and would show a $424 billion deficit in 2027.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a statement it prefers the House budget. “We encourage the Senate to look to the House Budget Committee, which passed a budget calling for revenue-neutral tax reform and at least $200 billion of mandatory spending cuts on top of that,” it said.

Dynamic Scoring

The Senate plan renews authority for the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation to use so-called dynamic scoring when evaluating bills — a move allowing lawmakers to assume that tax cuts will cause economic growth that would offset some of the revenue loss.

And it changes several rules to allow senators to rush a tax bill through, including abolishing the need for a CBO analysis at least 28 hours before a vote.

The Senate plan avoids other tricks, though. Enzi included provisions to keep appropriators from using phantom cuts known as “changes to mandatory programs” to offset discretionary spending increases.

The chairman also rejected pressure from some lawmakers to use a baseline number for tax revenue that would allow $450 billion in additional tax cuts. Instead, he stayed with the baseline used by the CBO.

What’s Past Is Prologue: CBO’s Score for the House-Passed AHCA Reminds Us Why Insurance Markets Need Regulation

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jun/why-insurance-markets-need-regulation

Related image

 

The Trump administration has been arguing for months that the insurance market reforms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are not working and are even harming consumers. But four years of accumulated data on Americans’ experiences in a reformed individual market provides considerable evidence to the contrary. Americans’ ability to buy comprehensive health plans on their own has improved significantly since the reforms went into effect in 2014. Most people with marketplace plans are satisfied with them and have used their plans to get health care they couldn’t have obtained in the past. A majority of those eligible for subsidies have premiums and deductibles similar to those in employer plans. And while policy fixes are needed to improve affordability, as well competition in some areas of the country, the marketplaces were looking increasingly stable for both consumers and insurers at the beginning of this year.

It is actually the lack of certainty about the administration’s actions regarding the enforcement of the market reforms, rather than the reforms themselves, that are the primary source of the marketplace’s current problems. The importance of the ACA’s insurance market reforms were underscored last week in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican’s ACA repeal-and-replace bill. The report included an assessment of an amendment that would allow states to undo some of the reforms. That assessment is a powerful illustration of why these reforms were needed in the first place.

The MacArthur Amendment Relaxes ACA Individual Market Reforms

In the week before the House vote in May, Representative Tom MacArthur sponsored an amendment to the AHCA that provided waivers for states that wanted to relax two major sets of ACA reforms:

  • The requirement that insurance companies sell policies that cover a standard set of health benefits similar to those in employer-based coverage
  • The ban that prevents insurance companies from charging people more based on their health.

Under the first waiver, states could let insurers eliminate coverage for many services, significantly driving up out-of-pocket costs for people who need these services. Under the second waiver, states could allow insurers to price, or underwrite, people’s insurance based on their health if they applied for a plan and had a gap in their insurance of 63 days or more. States with the waivers would be required to establish high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to make coverage affordable for people who had higher premiums as a result. They could draw funds from the AHCA’s Patient and State Stability Fund, a pool of $10–$15 billion a year over 2018–2026 that was supplemented for various purposes through amendments.1

CBO Estimated About Half the U.S. Population Lives in States That Would Request Waivers

If there were doubts about whether any states would apply for the waivers, the CBO had some news: half the U.S. population could live in states that would use these waivers to begin deregulating their individual insurance markets. The basis for their estimate? In part, they considered state approaches to their individual markets prior to the ACA. States that had previously allowed insurers the freest rein in consumer coverage denials, rating on health, and flexibility in what services they would cover were expected to loosen the reins again.

CBO also expected that states that sought the waivers would implement them in different ways. Some states might modestly deregulate their markets while others might make more dramatic changes. For example, some states might require insurers to cover a core set of benefits but allow them to exclude maternity or mental health services. Using 2014 data, RAND researchers have estimated that this could increase the costs to families of having a baby by $6,900 to $9,300 and the annual costs of mental health care by $1,300 to over $12,000. Other states might go a step further and let insurers determine the entire content of their benefit packages as they did in many states prior to the ACA, leaving many people with preexisting conditions stuck with the full cost of their care.

Likewise, CBO assumed that some states would take different approaches to reintroducing individual underwriting in their markets. Because healthy people would face lower premiums if they were rated on the basis of their health, they would have little incentive to maintain continuous coverage, since they would prefer the lower rate they would receive if carriers rated them on health. In order to keep healthy people in the community-rated risk pool (the one with both healthy and unhealthy enrollees), a state might only allow underwriting of people with health problems.

Other states might go whole hog and allow underwriting on health for everyone who had a coverage gap, regardless of their health status. These markets over time would begin to look like those of the pre-ACA past: markets segmented into pools where people in good health could find affordable plans and those with health problems were priced out of the market. The CBO concluded that the funds set aside for state high-risk pools for people with health problems were inadequate to make coverage affordable for people with preexisting conditions in these states.

What’s Past Is Prologue

Decades of experience with the individual market in the United States has shown that without considerable regulation the market simply cannot function for all those who rely on it. Allowing insurers in the past to price each individual’s policy according to their health penalized those who were the sickest and rewarded those who were the healthiest. The 35 states that tried to patch high-risk pools onto their individually rated markets and the ACA’s own transitional Preexisting Conditions Insurance Plan program left robust evidence that high-risk pools were expensive for states and the people who enrolled in them, left millions uninsured, and were ultimately unsustainable. States that had attempted to ban pricing based on health status (like New York and New Jersey) also experienced instabilitybecause the lack of premium subsidies and an individual mandate left their markets lopsided: too many people in poorer health without the balance provided by those in better health.  As a result, premiums soared.

In contrast, four years of experience with the ACA’s insurance market reforms demonstrates that it is possible for this market to offer affordable, comprehensive insurance to people with diverse health needs. In 2010, 60 percent of adults who tried to buy a plan in the individual market said that they found it very difficult or impossible to find one they could afford. By 2016, that number had fallen by nearly half, to 34 percent. While this rate leaves plenty of room for improvement, the substantial decline suggests that the U.S. has been headed in the right direction if private markets are the nation’s preferred path to universal coverage. But any future movement along this path will require the full commitment of the Trump administration and Congress to enforcing and improving the ACA’s reforms of our complex private health insurance markets.

Last-Ditch Effort By Republicans To Replace ACA: What You Need To Know

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://khn.org/news/last-ditch-gop-effort-to-replace-aca-5-things-you-need-to-know/

Related image

Republican efforts in Congress to “repeal and replace” the federal Affordable Care Act are back from the dead. Again.

While the chances for this last-ditch measure appear iffy, many GOP senators are rallying around a proposal by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), along with Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

They are racing the clock to round up the needed 50 votes — and there are 52 Senate Republicans.

An earlier attempt to replace the ACA this summer fell just one vote short when Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted against it. The latest push is setting off a massive guessing game on Capitol Hill about where the GOP can pick up the needed vote.

After Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year, Republicans would need 60 votes ­— which means eight Democrats — to pass any such legislation because special budget rules allowing approval with a simple majority will expire.

Unlike previous GOP repeal-and-replace packages that passed the House and nearly passed the Senate, the Graham-Cassidy proposal would leave in place most of the ACA taxes that generated funding to expand coverage for millions of Americans. The plan would simply give those funds as lump sums to each state. States could do almost whatever they please with them. And the Congressional Budget Office has yet to weigh in on the potential impact of the bill, although earlier estimates of similar provisions suggest premiums would go up and coverage down.

“If you believe repealing and replacing Obamacare is a good idea, this is your best and only chance to make it happen, because everything else has failed,” said Graham in unveiling the bill last week.

Here are five things to know about the latest GOP bill: 

1. It would repeal most of the structure of the ACA.

The Graham-Cassidy proposal would eliminate the federal insurance exchange, healthcare.gov, along with the subsidies and tax credits that help people with low and moderate incomes — and small businesses — pay for health insurance and associated health costs. It would eliminate penalties for individuals who fail to obtain health insurance and employers who fail to provide it.

It would eliminate the tax on medical devices. 

2. It would eliminate many of the popular insurance protections, including those for people with preexisting conditions, in the health law.

Under the proposal, states could “waive” rules in the law requiring insurers to provide a list of specific “essential health benefits” and mandating that premiums be the same for people regardless of their health status. That would once again expose people with preexisting health conditions to unaffordable or unavailable coverage. Republicans have consistently said they wanted to maintain these protections, which polls have shown to be popular among voters.

3. It would fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program.

Medicaid, the joint-federal health program for low-income people, currently covers more than 70 million Americans. The Graham-Cassidy proposal would end the program’s expansion under the ACA and cap funding overall, and it would redistribute the funds that had provided coverage for millions of new Medicaid enrollees. It seeks to equalize payments among states. States that did not expand Medicaid and were getting fewer federal dollars for the program would receive more money and states that did expand would see large cuts, according to the bill’s own sponsors. For example, Oklahoma would see an 88 percent increase from 2020 to 2026, while Massachusetts would see a 10 percent cut.

The proposal would also bar Planned Parenthood from getting any Medicaid funding for family planning and other reproductive health services for one year, the maximum allowed under budget rules governing this bill. 

4. It’s getting mixed reviews from the states.

Sponsors of the proposal hoped for significant support from the nation’s governors as a way to help push the bill through. But, so far, the governors who are publicly supporting the measure, including Scott Walker (R-Wis.) and Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.), are being offset by opponents including Chris Sununu (R-N.H.), John Kasich (R-Ohio) and Bill Walker (I-Alaska).

On Tuesday 10 governors — five Democrats, four Republicans and Walker — sent a letterto Senate leaders urging them to pursue a more bipartisan approach. “Only open, bipartisan approaches can achieve true, lasting reforms,” said the letter.

Bill sponsor Cassidy was even taken to task publicly by his own state’s health secretary. Dr. Rebekah Gee, who was appointed by Louisiana’s Democratic governor, wrote that the bill “uniquely and disproportionately hurts Louisiana due to our recent [Medicaid] expansion and high burden of extreme poverty.”

5. The measure would come to the Senate floor with the most truncated process imaginable.

The Senate is working on its Republican-only plans under a process called “budget reconciliation,” which limits floor debate to 20 hours and prohibits a filibuster. In fact, all the time for floor debate was used up in July, when Republicans failed to advance any of several proposed overhaul plans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could bring the bill back up anytime, but senators would immediately proceed to votes. Specifically, the next order of business would be a process called “vote-a-rama,” where votes on the bill and amendments can continue, in theory, as long as senators can stay awake to call for them.

Several senators, most notably John McCain, who cast the deciding vote to stop the process in July, have called for “regular order,” in which the bill would first be considered in the relevant committee before coming to the floor. The Senate Finance Committee, which Democrats used to write most of the ACA, has scheduled a hearing for next week. But there is not enough time for full committee consideration and a vote before the end of next week.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office said in a statement Tuesday that it could come up with an analysis by next week that would determine whether the proposal meets the requirements to be considered under the reconciliation process. But it said that more complicated questions like how many people would lose insurance under the proposal or what would happen to insurance premiums could not be answered “for at least several weeks.”

That has outraged Democrats, who are united in opposition to the measure.

“I don’t know how any senator could go home to their constituents and explain why they voted for a major bill with major consequences to so many of their people without having specific answers about how it would impact their state,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Senate floor Tuesday.

How Many People Across America Are at Risk of Losing Their Health Insurance?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Image result for How Many People Across America Are at Risk of Losing Their Health Insurance?

Between 2010 and 2015, more than 19 million people in the United States gained health insurance, mostly through key provisions under the Affordable Care Act, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute.

Many of the newly insured were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but too poor to buy their own coverage. Others were shut out because of pre-existing conditions.

These groups and others make up the millions that the Congressional Budget Office says could lose their coverage under the Republican plans to repeal and possibly replace the Affordable Care Act.

“All of the elements that enabled more people to get insurance under Obamacare — protections for pre-existing conditions, the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to make insurance more affordable — are potentially at risk under the various options the Senate is debating,” said Larry Levitt, a policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Under six Republican proposals that the Congressional Budget Office had analyzed, the number of uninsured in America would increase by 22 million to 32 million people in 10 years — essentially erasing much of the gains made under the Affordable Care Act. A C.B.O. analysis released Wednesday night showed that a “skinny” repeal measurebeing floated by lawmakers would increase the number by 16 million in 10 years.

“It’s a dramatic understatement to say there’s uncertainty about where this debate will end up,” Mr. Levitt said.

Healthcare groups blast skinny repeal, warn premiums will spike

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Healthcare groups blast skinny repeal, warn premiums will spike

Image result for higher premiums

Healthcare groups are coming out against the Senate GOP’s plan to pass a scaled-down ObamaCare repeal bill, saying it would spike insurance premiums.

The American Medical Association, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network are among the range of healthcare groups blasting the bill.

The scaled-down, “skinny” repeal bill would repeal ObamaCare’s mandate for people to have insurance, which insurers and other groups warn would lead to a sicker group of enrollees and spiking premiums.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warned of “steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible.”

“Eliminating the mandate to obtain coverage only exacerbates the affordability problem that critics say they want to address,” said Dr. David Barbe, president of the American Medical Association.

“We again urge the Senate to engage in a bipartisan process — through regular order — to address the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act and achieve the goal of providing access to quality, affordable health care coverage to more Americans,” Barbe said.

The Congressional Budget Office previously found that repealing the individual mandate would lead to 15 million more uninsured people and cause premiums to increase by about 20 percent.

Republican senators argue the scaled-down repeal bill will never actually become law, and is just a way to set up negotiations with the House on a larger plan. But the House is making no guarantees that it won’t simply vote on the bill and send it to the president.

“The continuing effort by Senate leaders to figure out by trial and error some bill that might gain the needed 50 votes to pass is a threat to millions of Americans including cancer patients and survivors who must have comprehensive coverage in order to access prevention and medical treatment,” the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said in a statement.

“The legislation could cause the individual insurance market to collapse putting millions of American families at financial risk,” the cancer group said.

In addition to repealing the individual mandate, the skinny bill would also defund Planned Parenthood, cut the ObamaCare prevention and public health fund, and repeal the employer mandate.

Many healthcare groups have been strongly opposed to the GOP effort to repeal ObamaCare throughout the process, instead urging a bipartisan approach.

Medicaid cuts had been a major focus, though those are not be included in the current bill.

Regardless, America’s Essential Hospitals, which is strongly opposed to Medicaid cuts, said it is still opposed to the “skinny bill.”

“While it doesn’t directly affect Medicaid, it still would badly undermine coverage and access by destabilizing the private marketplace,” Bruce Siegel, the group’s president, said in a statement.

The AARP, a powerful senior group, also warned against it.

“The bill will leave millions uninsured, destabilize the health insurance market and lead to spikes in the cost of premiums,” it wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

“AARP will inform our members and the public how their Senators voted,” the letter added.

CBO Score on Senate Bill: 50 Million Americans Uninsured by 2026 and Sharp Increases in Premiums and Deductibles

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jul/cbo-score-on-senate-bill?omnicid=EALERT1245625&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

This week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report on the impact of the revised Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), the Senate bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The revised bill made changes aimed at winning over Republicans who oppose the bill.

The CBO score indicates that those changes made no difference in the number of people who would lose insurance under the bill if it were to become law. The CBO projects that 22 million people would lose their coverage by 2026 — and millions more would see increased out-of-pocket costs. But the CBO score does not include an analysis of the most controversial change in the revised bill, an amendment modeled on one offered by Senator Cruz that would allow insurers to charge people more on the basis of their health. The insurance industry has already pointed out that this amendment would create conditions that could lead to a premium death spiral in the individual market and widespread losses of insurance. So it is likely that the CBO report underestimates the coverage losses under the revised BCRA.

Coverage Losses

The CBO projects that if the BCRA were to become law, the number of people without health insurance would nearly double to 50 million people by 2026, or more than the number of uninsured in the year the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed.

H.R. 1628, Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

Click to access 52849-hr1628senate.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed an estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1628. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting this legislation would reduce the cumulative federal deficit over the 2017-2026 period by $321 billion. That amount is $202 billion more than the estimated net savings for the version of H.R. 1628 that was passed by the House of Representatives.

The Senate bill would increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to the number under current law, slightly fewer than the increase in the number of uninsured estimated for the House-passed legislation. By 2026, an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

Following the overview, this document provides details about the major provisions of this legislation, the estimated costs to the federal government, the basis for the estimate, and other related information, including a comparison with CBO’s estimate for the House-passed act.

Effects on the Federal Budget

CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017-2026 period, enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $1,022 billion and reduce revenues by $701 billion, for a net reduction of $321 billion in the deficit over that period (see Table 1, at the end of this document):

  • The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid—spending on the program would decline in 2026 by 26 percent in comparison with what CBO projects under current law—and from changes to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) subsidies for nongroup health insurance (see Figure 1). Those savings would be partially offset by the effects of other changes to the ACA’s provisions dealing with insurance coverage: additional spending designed to reduce premiums and a reduction in revenues from repealing penalties on employers who do not offer insurance and on people who do not purchase insurance.
  • The largest increases in deficits would come from repealing or modifying tax provisions in the ACA that are not directly related to health insurance coverage, including repealing a surtax on net investment income and repealing annual fees imposed on health insurers.

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting this legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. CBO and JCT estimate that enactment would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. The agencies expect that savings, particularly from Medicaid, would continue to grow, while the costs would be smaller because a rescinded tax on employees’ health insurance premiums and health plan benefits would be reinstated in 2026. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of this legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.

Effects on Health Insurance Coverage

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance. By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent and an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

Stability of the Health Insurance Market

Decisions about offering and purchasing health insurance depend on the stability of the health insurance market—that is, on the proportion of people living in areas with participating insurers and on the likelihood of premiums’ not rising in an unsustainable spiral. The market for insurance purchased individually with premiums not based on one’s health status would be unstable if, for example, the people who wanted to buy coverage at any offered price would have average health care expenditures so high that offering the insurance would be unprofitable.

Under Current Law. Although premiums have been rising under current law, most subsidized enrollees purchasing health insurance coverage in the nongroup market are largely insulated from increases in premiums because their out-of-pocket payments for premiums are based on a percentage of their income; the government pays the difference between that percentage and the premiums for a reference plan (which is the second-lowest-cost plan in their area providing specified benefits). The subsidies to purchase coverage, combined with the effects of the individual mandate, which requires most individuals to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, are anticipated to cause sufficient demand for insurance by enough people, including people with low health care expenditures, for the market to be stable in most areas.

Nevertheless, a small number of people live in areas of the country that have limited participation by insurers in the nongroup market under current law. Several factors may lead insurers to withdraw from the market—including lack of profitability and substantial uncertainty about enforcement of the individual mandate and about future payments of the cost-sharing subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket payments for people who enroll in nongroup coverage through the marketplaces established by the ACA.

Under This Legislation. CBO and JCT anticipate that, under this legislation, nongroup insurance markets would continue to be stable in most parts of the country. Although substantial uncertainty about the effects of the new law could lead some insurers to withdraw from or not enter the nongroup market in some states, several factors would bring about market stability in most states before 2020. In the agencies’ view, those key factors include the following: subsidies to purchase insurance, which would maintain sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures; the appropriation of funds for cost-sharing subsidies, which would provide certainty about the availability of those funds; and additional federal funding provided to states and insurers, which would lower premiums by reducing the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures.

The agencies expect that the nongroup market in most areas of the country would continue to be stable in 2020 and later years as well, including in some states that obtain waivers that would not have otherwise done so. (Under current law and this legislation, states can apply for Section 1332 waivers to change the structure of subsidies for nongroup coverage; the specifications for essential health benefits [EHBs], which set the minimum standards for the benefits that insurance in the nongroup and small-group markets must cover; and other related provisions of law.) Substantial federal funding to directly reduce premiums would be available through 2021. Premium tax credits would continue to provide insulation from changes in premiums through 2021 and in later years. Those factors would help attract enough relatively healthy people for the market in most areas of the country to be stable, CBO and JCT anticipate. That stability in most areas would occur even though the premium tax credits would be smaller in most cases than under current law and subsidies to reduce cost sharing—the amount that consumers are required to pay out of pocket when they use health care services—would be eliminated starting in 2020.

In the agencies’ assessment, a small fraction of the population resides in areas in which—because of this legislation, at least for some of the years after 2019—no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be offered only with very high premiums. Some sparsely populated areas might have no nongroup insurance offered because the reductions in subsidies would lead fewer people to decide to purchase insurance—and markets with few purchasers are less profitable for insurers. Insurance covering certain services would become more expensive—in some cases, extremely expensive—in some areas because the scope of the EHBs would be narrowed through waivers affecting close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect. In addition, the agencies anticipate that all insurance in the nongroup market would become very expensive for at least a short period of time for a small fraction of the population residing in areas in which states’ implementation of waivers with major changes caused market disruption.

Effects on Premiums and Out-of-Pocket Payments

The legislation would increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter, relative to projections under current law, CBO and JCT estimate. To arrive at those estimates, the agencies examined how the legislation would affect the premiums charged if people purchased a benchmark plan in the nongroup market.

In 2018 and 2019, under current law and under the legislation, the benchmark plan has an actuarial value of 70 percent—that is, the insurance pays about 70 percent of the total cost of covered benefits, on average. In the marketplaces, such coverage is known as a silver plan.

Under the Senate bill, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 20 percent higher in 2018 than under current law, mainly because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up. Those premiums would be about 10 percent higher than under current law in 2019—less than in 2018 in part because funding provided by the bill to reduce premiums would affect pricing and because changes in the limits on how premiums can vary by age would result in a larger number of younger people paying lower premiums to purchase policies.

In 2020, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 30 percent lower than under current law. A combination of factors would lead to that decrease—most important, the smaller share of benefits paid for by the benchmark plans and federal funds provided to directly reduce premiums.

That share of services covered by insurance would be smaller because the benchmark plan under this legislation would have an actuarial value of 58 percent beginning in 2020. That value is slightly below the actuarial value of 60 percent for “bronze” plans currently offered in the marketplaces. Because of the ACA’s limits on out-of-pocket spending and prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits on payments for services within the EHBs, all plans must pay for most of the cost of high-cost services. To design a plan with an actuarial value of 60 percent or less and pay for those high-cost services, insurers must set high deductibles—that is, the amounts that people pay out of pocket for most types of health care services before insurance makes any contribution. Under current law for a single policyholder in 2017, the average deductible (for medical and drug expenses combined) is about $6,000 for a bronze plan and $3,600 for a silver plan. CBO and JCT expect that the benchmark plans under this legislation would have high deductibles similar to those for the bronze plans offered under current law. Premiums for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent are lower than they are for a plan with an actuarial value of 70 percent (the value for the reference plan under current law) largely because the insurance pays for a smaller average share of health care costs.

Although the average benchmark premium directly affects the amount of premium tax credits and is a key element in CBO’s analysis of the budgetary effects of the bill, it does not represent the effect of this legislation on the average premiums for all plans purchased. The differences in the actuarial value of plans purchased under this legislation and under current law would be greater starting in 2020—when, for example, under this bill, some people would pay more than the benchmark premium to purchase a silver plan, whereas, under current law, others would pay less than the benchmark premium to purchase a bronze plan.

Under this legislation, starting in 2020, the premium for a silver plan would typically be a relatively high percentage of income for low-income people. The deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income—also making such a plan unattractive, but for a different reason. As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan, CBO and JCT estimate.

By 2026, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals in most of the country under this legislation would be about 20 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate—a smaller decrease than in 2020 largely because federal funding to reduce premiums would have lessened. The estimates for both of those years encompass effects in different areas of the country that would be substantially higher and substantially lower than the average effect nationally, in part because of the effects of state waivers. Some small fraction of the population is not included in those estimates. CBO and JCT expect that those people would be in states using waivers in such a way that no benchmark plan would be defined. Hence, a comparison of benchmark premiums is not possible in such areas.

Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on health care even though benchmark premiums would decline, on average, in 2020 and later years. Because nongroup insurance would pay for a smaller average share of benefits under this legislation, most people purchasing it would have higher out-of-pocket spending on health care than under current law. Out-of-pocket spending would also be affected for the people—close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs using waivers. People who used services or benefits no longer included in the EHBs would experience substantial increases in supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending on health care, or would choose to forgo the services. Moreover, the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state. As a result, for some benefits that might be removed from a state’s definition of EHBs but that might not be excluded from insurance coverage altogether, some enrollees could see large increases in out-of-pocket spending because annual or lifetime limits would be allowed.

Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates

CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop budgetary estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes. Such estimates are inherently inexact because the ways in which federal agencies, states, insurers, employers, individuals, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by this legislation are all difficult to predict. In particular, predicting the overall effects of the myriad ways that states could implement waivers is especially difficult.

CBO and JCT’s projections under current law itself are also uncertain. For example, enrollment in the marketplaces under current law will probably be lower than was projected under the March 2016 baseline used in this analysis, which would tend to decrease the budgetary savings from this legislation. However, the average subsidy per enrollee under current law will probably be higher than was projected in March 2016, which would tend to increase the budgetary savings from this legislation. (For a related discussion, see the section on “Use of the March 2016 Baseline” on page 15.)

Despite the uncertainty, the direction of certain effects of this legislation is clear. For example, the amount of federal revenues collected and the amount of spending on Medicaid would almost surely both be lower than under current law. And the number of uninsured people under this legislation would almost surely be greater than under current law.

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Mandates

CBO has reviewed the nontax provisions of the legislation and determined that they would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting state laws. Although the preemptions would limit the application of state laws, they would impose no duty on states that would result in additional spending or a loss of revenues. JCT has determined that the tax provisions of the legislation contain no intergovernmental mandates.

JCT and CBO have determined that the legislation would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. On the basis of information from JCT, CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation).

Numbers of uninsured changes little from House version of healthcare bill, CBO score estimates

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/numbers-uninsured-changes-little-house-version-healthcare-bill-cbo-score-estimates?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTldabVl6TmhaV1kyWm1RNSIsInQiOiJKTFFBemgxZnhNOXhNUHVWMnY1Wmt6U2JLaTlURnZ6SDM0ZVRcL2M0Mjd1NW1LTW16SmkxekpiSk1adnJodDI1T0hjdnRvUmRKTnJ2XC82ZWNXVGRHWkVlMEtZRnhEdFwvM1pBQ1wvSFVHQ0ZZZ3RQcWljeUthK0UrVU9FY3Arc05ST28ifQ%3D%3D

The number of uninsured by 2026 would increase by 22 million, 1 million less than what was estimated under the House bill.

Under the new Senate bill, the number of people who would be uninsured by 2026 would increase by 22 million as compared to the number under the current Affordable Care Act and 1 million less than what was estimated under the House bill’s American Health Care Act, according to a score of the bill released Monday afternoon by the Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

By 2026, an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under the current Affordable Care Act, the CBO said.

In 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law–primarily because the penalty for individuals and employers for not having insurance would be eliminated.

In later years, other changes in the legislation–lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market–would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance, the CBO said.

By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly wants a vote prior to the July 4 recess but it’s unknown whether he’ll have the votes necessary among his own party members.

Democrats were quick to denounce the bill because of the CBO findings.

“Today’s CBO score has pulled back the curtain of Senate Republicans’ healthcare bill: it’s about giving huge tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and dismantling important middle class programs like Medicaid and Medicare, all in the name of ‘health care reform,’ said Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

Providers also find little to like in a bill that takes away coverage in both the individual market and through Medicaid.

“The Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act would be as damaging to the country as its deeply unpopular House counterpart, the American Health Care Act,” said Bruce Siegel, MD, president and CEO America’s Essential Hospitals.

The score reflects a last-minute amendment by McConnell to stabilize the insurance market through a continuous coverage provision giving a penalty for a lapse in insurance.

The Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 is the Senate’s answer to H.R. 1628 put forward by House Majority Leader Paul Ryan in May.

The CBO forecasts stability for the nongroup market in most areas of the country under the new bill, including in states that obtain waivers for coverage of essential benefits.

This is because there would be substantial federal funding to directly reduce premiums available through 2021. Premium tax credits would continue to provide insulation from changes in premiums through 2021 and in later years, the CBO said.

Lower premiums will help attract enough relatively healthy people for the market in most areas of the country.

That stability would continue even when cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers are eliminated starting in 2020, a move payers have said would drive up the price of premiums.

A small fraction of the population resides in areas in which — because of this legislation — no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be offered only with very high premiums.

Insurance covering certain services would become more expensive–in some cases, extremely expensive–in some areas because the scope of coverage for essential health benefits would be narrowed through waivers affecting close to half the population, CBO and JCT said.

The CBO and JCT estimate that enacting this legislation would reduce the federal deficit over the 2017-2026 period by $321 billion. This is $202 billion more than the estimated net savings for the version of H.R. 1628 that was passed by the House.

The largest savings would come from reductions in Medicaid. Spending on the program would decline by 26 percent in 2026 compared with what CBO projects under current law.

Spending would be reduced because of the elimination of federal spending for Medicaid expansion under the ACA’s subsidies for nongroup health insurance.

Those savings would be partially offset by the effects of other changes to the ACA’s provisions dealing with insurance coverage including additional spending designed to reduce premiums and a reduction in revenues from repealing penalties on employers who do not offer insurance and on people who do not purchase insurance.

The largest increases in deficits would come from repealing or modifying tax provisions in the ACA that are not directly related to health insurance coverage, including repealing a surtax on net investment income and repealing annual fees imposed on health insurers, the CBO said.

CBO scores House-approved AHCA: 5 things to know

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/cbo-scores-house-approved-ahca-5-things-to-know.html

Image result for CBO scores

The Congressional Budget Office released its score on the American Health Care Act Wednesday, finding it would reduce the federal deficit significantly but increase the projected number of uninsured Americans by about 82 percent over the next 10 years.

The CBO previously scored the AHCA in March, but that was before changes were made to the bill that ultimately passed the House. The latest projections include the following modifications to the bill:

  • A delay in repealing the increase to the payroll tax
  • State waivers for essential health benefits and community rating rules
  • $8 billion in funding to offset increased premiums for people with preexisting conditions in waiver states
  • $15 billion in funding for the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program
  • $15 billion in state funding for maternity care and mental health services

Here are five things to know about the CBO’s findings.

GOP health bill would raise deductibles, lessen coverage and leave 23 million more uninsured, analysis finds

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-healthcare-cbo-20170524-story.html

A side-by-side comparison of Obamacare and the GOP’s replacement plan

The Republican healthcare bill that passed the House earlier this month would nearly double the number of people in the U.S. without health insurance over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The much-anticipated report cast a new shadow over the controversial legislation and is expected to complicate Republican efforts to get the bill through the Senate, where it already faces difficult prospects.

According to the budget office, which both parties in Congress look to for estimates on the impact of complex legislation, the bill would cause 23 million fewer people to have health insurance by 2026. Many additional consumers would see skimpier health coverage and higher deductibles, the budget office projected.

The report further undermines claims by President Trump and House Republicans that their campaign to repeal and replace the current healthcare law — often called Obamacare — will protect all Americans’ access to healthcare.

The House bill would be particularly harmful to older, sicker residents of states that waive key consumer protections in the current law, including the ban on insurers charging sick consumers more. The budget office estimates that about one-sixth of the U.S. population live in states that would seek such waivers, which would be allowed under the House bill.