AHIP: Cruz proposal would destabilize the ACA exchanges

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/ahip-cruz-proposal-would-destabilize-individual-marketplaces?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RFeFl6QTBOalV4WlRsayIsInQiOiJ2ZkV5eXJiTVp5ZGZQYk5NRlozSzYwdEdoVTduQW1SMDkyVVdqR0lPbXVGMDNJUjJEN0U3b2dDcmp1NlNncSthUStTeFordHNGcVwvMFRtNnFGXC9mczBpa3NDU0NkZHBSa003NkQ4bjVcL3krTkZ1R2ZNb3R4MGtWYWo3UVwvcjkwZVIifQ%3D%3D

Image result for aca repeal

The health insurance industry’s largest trade group is warning that a proposed amendment to the Senate’s healthcare bill could not only destabilize the individual marketplaces, but also harm patients with pre-existing conditions.

The amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would allow insurers to sell health plans that aren’t compliant with the Affordable Care Act’s rules in any given state as long as they sell at least one ACA-compliant plan on that state’s exchange.

Cruz and the amendment’s other supporters in the Senate said the concept would allow insurers to offer a wider variety of coverage options and help lower premiums. Senate Majority Leader even reportedly went so far as to ask the Congressional Budget Office to score the proposal.

But the idea also has plenty of critics, including America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

In a document (PDF) posted on its website, the trade group said that allowing health insurance products to be governed by different rules would effectively “fracture and segment insurance markets into separate risk pools and create an un-level playing field that would lead to widespread adverse selection and unstable health insurance markets.”

The trade group pointed out that part of the exchanges’ current woes stemmed from the Obama administration’s transitional policy, which allowed individuals to renew their non-ACA-compliant plans. In states that opted to adopt this policy, actuaries estimated that exchange market premiums were an average of 10% higher.

Cruz’s amendment, which would essentially make that transitional policy permanent, “would create even greater instability,” AHIP said.

The fact that the proposal would require insurers to also offer an ACA-compliant plan, the group said, is not enough to protect consumers with pre-existing conditions or higher-than-average healthcare costs. The ACA’s consumer protection provisions, such as guaranteed issue and community rating, AHIP notes, “only work if there is broad participation to assure stable markets and affordable premiums,” which wouldn’t be the case under Cruz’s proposal.

In fact, a newly released analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the amendment could result in 1.5 million people with pre-existing conditions facing higher premiums.

Finally, it’s simply not practical to maintain a single risk pool if all health plans don’t have to provide coverage for the same benefits, AHIP stated, adding that the Cruz amendment also would make programs like risk adjustment “unworkable.”

Sounding The Alarms On Children’s Health Coverage

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/06/26/sounding-the-alarms-on-childrens-health-coverage/

Amari Carter, 5, protests the U.S. House passage of the plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act at the south gate of the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Friday May 5, 2017. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP)

Buried beneath a very intense discussion on the future of adult coverage in this country has been a far more serious issue in children’s coverage many years in the making.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the president’s recent budget proposal certainly have those who care for children concerned about the future of children’s insurance. The AHCA’s proposed changes to Medicaid would undo a half century of health care standards that were designed to maximize child development and well-being outcomes, such as guaranteed comprehensive health care coverage that includes access to mental health services, dental care, and school-based assistance for children with special health care needs. For special needs children, they have also insured that children with autism have aides to assist them in school, or that a child with cerebral palsy has access to appropriate transportation for themselves and their durable medical equipment to and from school, as well as the assisted nursing to support them while they are there.

But it’s not just the direct impact to children that is concerning. To the extent the AHCA rolls back the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion, it would strip health insurance coverage from many low-income parents, whose own health is critical to that of their children.

There have also been proposed cuts to Medicaid that are at a magnitude never seen before: the president’s budget recommends reducing Medicaid funding by more than $600 billion dollars over 10 years, above and beyond the more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts written into the AHCA.

These changes to Medicaid would not be trivial: more than 36 million children and adolescents in this country are insured through Medicaid, a number that grows every day. These are not simply children living in poverty; most hail from working families. Many of these children have complex medical or behavioral health concerns, intellectual disabilities, or are in foster care. Medicaid’s reach among children is huge.

The Risk To Families Is A Perfect Storm That’s Been Brewing For Some Time

Although the dramatic changes proposed by the AHCA and the president’s budget are more immediate, the truth is that their impact would negate the gains made in reducing the uninsured rate in children and leave families with fewer options for their children’s health care. When the ACA became law in 2010, children’s uninsurance rates in this country were much lower among children than adults (and continued to decline to only 5 percent by 2015). Lawmakers, therefore, designed the ACA principally to address uninsurance among adults, but nonetheless, added regulations that guaranteed a set of essential benefits to families who purchased coverage through the exchanges, including maternity, pediatric, mental health, and substance abuse benefits.

Optimism abounded and many hoped that the exchanges’ success might one day eliminate the need for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP is a federally subsidized state program, which, at its peak, has insured an additional 8 million children in low- and moderate-income families who were not offered affordable coverage through their employers and could not qualify for Medicaid because their families were just above the federal poverty line.

From that high point, there has been a steady erosion of children’s coverage under their parents’ employer-sponsored plans that has gone largely unseen. Even as we’ve climbed out of recession and more low-income individuals are gaining employment, they’re not being provided affordable family coverage by their employers. Facing soaring benefits costs, many employers are dropping dependent coverage for their employees, or offering ever-more-expensive coverage. Escalating family deductibles and premiums have far outpaced those for single-adult enrollees, making such coverage unaffordable for many families.

Lacking affordable options to cover their children, it’s not surprising that many low- and moderate-income families have responded by flocking to public insurance. We reported on this trend in a recent Health Affairs article, in which we found that in 2013, nearly one-third of children in low-income working families above the poverty line got their health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, up 8 percent from just six years earlier.

Today, more than 40 percent of children and adolescents in this country are now covered by Medicaid and CHIP, second only to employer-sponsored insurance. As a result, children are disproportionately vulnerable to health care reforms that cut public programs. In making any changes, caution is needed, as is an awareness of the many factors leading to families’ heavy reliance on public programs, if we are to improve, or at least maintain, children’s health.

Potential Solutions To Weather The Storm

Children largely remain on the outside of the ongoing health care debate, yet they have the most to lose. Beyond protecting Medicaid as an entitlement with certain guaranteed benefits there are other potential solutions that could help mitigate this risk.

CHIP Reauthorization

While the AHCA works its way through Congress, some may not have noticed that CHIP funding expires this fall. Without re-appropriation, more than 8 million children may lose coverage immediately. States are already sounding alarms; they have been unable to project their CHIP budgets for next year. The immediacy of the CHIP re-appropriation debate in Congress offers a “NOW” opportunity to stake a new way forward and present pragmatic solutions to strengthen children’s insurance, embracing the realities that have reshaped the family insurance market.

Guarantee Of Essential Health Benefits

The most critical issue arising from any children’s insurance plan today, whether in the employer-sponsored or public insurance market, is the promise of a set of health standards to all children regardless of their insurance. The House-passed AHCA proposes removing the requirement of federally guaranteed essential health benefits from all plans. Should this become law, states will have the choice of whether or not to provide these benefits. So, one solution for protecting children is to require these states to provide families access to a CHIP plan that meets a comprehensive and standard set of federally legislated and guaranteed essential benefits, such as vision, developmental, and behavioral health screenings.

Private Market Reforms

Beyond essential benefits, it may be time to address the affordability and quality of dependent coverage on the employer-sponsored and exchange markets. We may need stronger caps on deductibles as a proportion of income, and limits to exorbitant cost-sharing for child dependents. Furthermore, prohibitions of narrow networks—or the increase of cost-sharing for enrollees who seek out-of-network services—in the pediatric market would go a long way to ensuring that families have critical access to pediatric subspecialty care should their children develop cancer, diabetes, or other debilitating illnesses. While narrow networks may work in the adult health care arena, they are not nimble for families whose children have special health care needs and require specialists based solely in children’s hospital networks that may be tiered out in such plans. All told, the private market is not working for families, and if Congress wishes to halt the migration of families onto public insurance, they may need to hold employers and commercial insurers responsible for their own contributions to crowding families out of that market.

We are at an inflection point in the historic success we’ve had at providing near- universal children’s coverage in this country. While our leaders get mired in discussions around the future of adult coverage, they need to be mindful of immediate vulnerability within the children’s market that could threaten their coverage. It’s time we uncover this threat and make it a bigger part of the mainstream conversation.

Healthcare Triage News: The Senate’s BCRA Bill – High Premiums, Huge Deductibles, AND Massive Medicaid Cuts

Healthcare Triage News: The Senate’s BCRA Bill – High Premiums, Huge Deductibles, AND Massive Medicaid Cuts

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: The Senate’s BCRA Bill – High Premiums, Huge Deductibles, AND Massive Medicaid Cuts

 

Podcast: What The Health? Why Is This Stuff So Complicated?

http://khn.org/news/podcast-what-the-health-why-is-this-stuff-so-complicated/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53992096&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9RVk6LAwQmr5-jA8mfluajQXfLARSbMy-cQ-M_J_-lMgbPPRpVB4WsULvrM_pItwrsk17rWr6mzfTqzH0oB_DXLx1awg

Image result for Podcast: What The Health? Why Is This Stuff So Complicated?

Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times and Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post discuss the latest on the Senate’s effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, and why it is so difficult to make popular changes, such as requiring insurers to cover people with preexisting health conditions.

GOP promises lower health premiums but ignores all that’s driving them

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/06/health-care-premiums-republicans-obamacare-240242

Image result for underinsured

Republicans promise to bring down the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans by repealing Obamacare.

But in the race to make insurance premiums cheaper, they ignore a more ominous number — the $3.2 trillion-plus the U.S. spends annually on health care overall.

Republicans are betting it’s smart politics to zoom in on the pocketbook issues affecting individual consumers and families. But by ignoring the mounting expenses of prescription drugs, doctor visits and hospital stays, they allow the health care system to continue on its dangerous upward trajectory.

That means that even if they fulfill their seven-year vow to repeal Obamacare and rein in premiums for some people,the nation’s mounting costs are almost sure to pop out in other places — includingfresh efforts by insurers and employers to push more expenses onto consumers through bigger out-of-pocket costs and narrower benefits.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump didn’t talk much about health care in 2016 — not compared to the border wall, jobs, or Hillary Clinton’s emails. But the final days of the campaign coincided with the start of the Obamacare sign-up season — and Trump leapt to attack what he called “60, 70, 80, 90 percent” premium increases. Big spikes did occur in some places, but they weren’t the rule, and most Obamacare customers got subsidies to defray the cost.

But the skyrocketing premium made a good closing message for Trump — and Republicans have stuck with it.

“The Republicans decoded: What is the single, 10-second thing that says why you are running against the Affordable Care Act?” said Bob Blendon, an expert on health politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Premiums became the face of what’s wrong.”

The GOP approach differs from the tack Democrats took when they pushed for the Affordable Care Act back in 2009-10. That debate was about covering more Americans — and about “bending the curve” of national health care spending, which eats up an unhealthy portion of the economy.

Conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argue that Obamacare failed to achieve its promise to bring down costs.

“The biggest reason that millions of people are unhappy with Obamacare is it’s made premiums skyrocket,” said Cruz, who is leading a small band of conservatives trying to pull the Senate repeal bill to the right as leaders seek to cobble together 50 votes. “We’ve got to fix that problem that was created by the failing policies of Obamacare.”

The answer, he says, is getting government out of the way. Conservatives want to free insurers from many of the coverage requirements and consumer protections in Obamacare. That means they could sell plans that wouldn’t cover as comprehensive a set of benefits — but they’d be cheaper.

Even some prominent critics of the Affordable Care Act think that’s not getting at the heart of the U.S. health care problem, even if it sounds good to voters.

“Too many in the GOP confuse adjustments in how insurance premiums are regulated with bringing competitive pressures to bear on the costs of medical services,” the American Enterprise Institute’s James Capretta wrote in a recent commentary for Real Clear Health. “They say they want lower premiums for consumers, but their supposed solution would simply shift premium payments from one set of consumers to another.”

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet evaluated how the House repeal bill, which narrowly passed, or the Senate companion legislation, which is still being negotiated, would affect overall health spending in coming years. It is already a sixth of the U.S. economy — more than 17 cents out of every dollar — and spending is still growing, partly because of an aging population.

The nonpartisan budget office projected the federal government would spend about $800 billion less on Medicaid over a decade, as the GOP legislation upends how Washington traditionally paid its share. But CBO hasn’t yet reported on how that would affect the health sector overall.

Many Republicans predict that limiting federal payments to states would force Medicaid to be more efficient. Democrats says the GOP bill would basically thrust those costs onto the states and onto Medicaid beneficiaries themselves, who are too poor, by definition, to get their care — often including nursing homes — without government assistance.

The CBO gave a mixed assessment of what would happen to premiums under the GOP proposals. They’d rise before they’d fall — and they wouldn’t fall for everyone. Older and sicker people could well end up paying more, and government subsidies would be smaller, meaning that even if the sticker price of insurance comes down, many people at the lower end of the income scale wouldn’t be able to afford it.

“Despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan,” the CBO said.

Shrinking insurance benefits may work out fine for someone who never gets injured or sick. But there are no guarantees of perpetual good health; that’s why insurance exists. If someone needs medical treatment not covered in their slimmed-down health plan, the costs could be astronomical and the treatment unobtainable.

Couple that with skimpier benefits, bigger deductibles, smaller subsidies and weaker patient protections, and “Trumpcare” — or whatever an Obamacare successor ends up being called — could spell voter backlash in the not-too-distant future, particularly as poll after poll shows the legislation is already deeply unpopular.

“Premiums are one of the important ways in which consumers experience cost. But it’s not the only way,” said David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a liberal-leaning think tank, and a former Obama administration official. But deductibles running into the thousands of dollars and steep out-of-pocket costs, he added, “are a source of discontent for Trump and non-Trump voters alike.”

Even the 2009 health debate early in the Obama presidency, which looked at staggering national health spending and what it meant for the U.S. economy, didn’t translate into a bottom line for many American families, said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has extensively polled public attitudes on health care.

And the bottom line — the cost of care — is what ordinary people focus on, Kaiser has found. Not just on premiums, but on what it costs to see a doctor, to fill a prescription, or to get treated for a serious disease.

“That’s what all of our polling shows,” Altman said. “The big concern is health care costs.”

Democrats have a long list of things they detest about the Republican repeal-and-replace legislation — and the lack of attention to overall health spending for the country and for individuals and families is right up there.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, would like a bill that tackles cost — starting with rising drug prices. But this bill, he said, does nothing about health care costs.

“This really isn’t a health bill. This is a tax-cut bill,” he said. The repeal bills would kill hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes — many on the health care industry or wealthy people — that were included in Obamacare to finance coverage expansion, though the Senate is now considering keeping some of them to provide more generous subsidies.

Conservative policy experts acknowledge that premiums aren’t the whole story.

The overall cost and spending trajectory “is something we have to get to,” said Stanford University’s Lanhee Chen, who has advised Mitt Romney and other top Republicans. But for now, he said, premiums are a good first step.

Cruz plan could be key to unlocking healthcare votes

Cruz plan could be key to unlocking healthcare votes

The fate of ObamaCare repeal-and-replace could hinge on an amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz.
The Texas senator is pushing for a provision that would allow insurers to sell plans that do not comply with ObamaCare insurance regulations, so long as they also sell plans that comply with those rules. Cruz says giving insurers a path around the regulations should allow them to offer some plans at a lower cost.
It’s unclear whether the amendment will be added to the Senate bill, or even whether it will pass muster under budgetary rules.
But the amendment could be the key to ensuring that the legislation passes both the House and the Senate.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) indicated he could support the Senate bill if the Cruz amendment is included. That’s different than a little over a week ago, when Meadows said the Senate’s legislation lacked enough conservative support to pass the House.
“If the Cruz Consumer Choice amendment gets there, yes I can support it without the MacArthur amendment in there because I think it gives everybody some options,” Meadows told reporters late last week.

Leaders have sent two version of a revised Senate healthcare bill to the Congressional Budget Office — one with the Cruz amendment and one without it, a GOP aide confirmed to The Hill.

The text of Cruz’s amendment hasn’t been publicly released, but the goal is for the plans that don’t adhere to ObamaCare’s insurance regulations to be cheaper than those that do.

For many conservatives, lowering insurance premiums is key.

It wasn’t easy to net conservatives’ support in the House for the healthcare bill, as it took weeks for the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus to come on board.
Leadership couldn’t pass the bill without Freedom Caucus votes, and eventually won their support after the addition of a controversial amendment from Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.). That amendment would let states apply for waivers to opt out of certain core ObamaCare insurance requirements, such as a ban from charging sick people more and the requirement that they cover a list of “essential” services, such as maternity and mental health care.

Meadows suggested the Cruz amendment would be an acceptable substitute for the House’s MacArthur amendment.
“Right now I’m looking at the Cruz consumer Choice amendment as the primary vehicle that makes the most sense to me,” Meadows said, “and I applaud him for stepping out.”

The Cruz amendment could also help get the vote of Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who quickly came out in opposition to the Senate bill in its current form, in part because it doesn’t lower the cost of consumers’ healthcare enough.

In an analysis of the Senate bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated premiums would be 20 percent higher in 2018 and 10 percent higher in 2019. Then, in 2020, premiums would drop 30 percent lower than under ObamaCare.

In a June 23 Medium post, Lee wrote that “for all my frustrations about the process and my disagreements with the substance of [the Better Care Reconciliation Act], I would still be willing to vote for it if it allowed states and/or individuals to opt-out of the Obamacare system free-and-clear to experiment with different forms of insurance, benefits packages, and care provision options.”

But the Cruz amendment risks alienating Senate moderates, who want to keep the protections for pre-existing conditions in place.

What we know about Senate health care bill 2.0

https://www.axios.com/what-we-know-about-the-senate-health-care-bill-2-0-2450356848.html

Image result for aca repeal

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to wrangle members from opposite ends of the Republican caucus together to support some revised version of the Senate health care bill, offering both moderates and conservatives new policies to shore up support for the bill.

On the table: More funding to fight the opioid epidemic, revised health savings account policies, potentially getting rid of the repeal of the net investment tax on the wealthy.

Off the table: Undermining pre-existing conditions protections, which could happen indirectly under a plan Sen. Ted Cruz is pushing,

What we’re hearing:

  • There’s a push to include as much as $45 billion in funding for the opioid crisis, up from $2 billion under last week’s bill. This would be a win for moderates like Sens. Rob Portman and Shelley Moore Capito.
  • There’s also an effort to add more funding to the state stabilization fund, and to make the funding available sooner to states.
  • There will likely be a provision allowing health savings accounts to be used for premiums. This is a win for conservatives, and could help middle-class people afford their premiums. One aide said the price tag could be around $60 billion, as it would result in lost tax revenue. (HSA contributions aren’t taxed.)
  • There’s chatter about removing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent investment tax, which benefits wealthy people. This would free up some extra funding to help coverage levels, and would also help combat the narrative that the bill cuts coverage for the poor to give money to the wealthy.

What’s becoming a big problem: Cruz is pushing to allow insurers offering ACA-compliant plans to also offer non-compliant plans, which wouldn’t be required to meet the ACA’s pre-existing conditions protections or other insurance regulations. Cruz wants to include that in the revised bill to cut the cost of individual insurance, and says sick people could still get subsidies that would protect them from premium hikes.

But that’s off the table, senior GOP aides say, because most Republican senators have already decided they don’t want to undermine the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections in any way.

Like the AHCA, the Senate’s health care bill could weaken ACA protections against catastrophic costs

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/06/23/like-the-ahca-the-senates-health-care-bill-could-weaken-aca-protections-against-catastrophic-costs/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53522663

Image result for catastrophic health

Editor’s Note:This analysis is part of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans unveiled the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), its Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill. One provision of that legislation would greatly expand states’ ability to waive a range of provisions of federal law that affect health insurance. As both my Brookings colleague Jason Levitis and Nicholas Bagley have explained in pieces published earlier today, states would need to meet only very weak standards in order to obtain a waiver under the Senate bill, and waivers could have wide-ranging implications for the extent and affordability of insurance coverage.

One potential effect of these state waivers is weakening a pair of protections against catastrophic costs included in the ACA. In particular, states can directly use this expanded waiver authority to eliminate the requirement that individual and small group plans cap annual out-of-pocket spending. States can also indirectly weaken or effectively eliminate both the ACA’s requirement that plans limit out-of-pocket spending and its ban on individual and lifetime limits by setting a definition of “essential health benefits” that is weaker than the definition under current law. Both of these protections against catastrophic costs apply only with respect to care that is considered essential health benefits, so as the definition of essential health benefits narrows, the scope of these protections narrows as well.

Allowing states to change the definition of essential health benefits unavoidably weakens these protections against catastrophic costs in waiver states’ individual and small group markets. But waivers’ effects could also cross state lines and weaken these protections for people covered by large employer plans in every state.[1]  Under current regulations, large employer plans are allowed to choose the definition of essential health benefits in effect in any state in the country for the purposes of determining the scope of these protections against catastrophic costs. If the Trump Administration maintains that approach as it implements the BCRA and even one state uses the waiver process under the BCRA to set a lax definition of essential health benefits, then these protections against catastrophic costs could be weakened or effectively eliminated for people working for large employers nationwide.

The potential effects of the the BCRA waiver provisions on the ACA’s protections against catastrophic costs are essentially identical to those of a waiver provision included in the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), which I have written about previously. The only substantive difference is that the Senate version would allow states to directly waive the out-of-pocket maximum requirement for some plans; under the House-passed bill, states could only affect this requirement indirectly by changing the definition of essential health benefits.

The remainder of this blog post examines these issues in greater detail.

Changes to state innovation waivers in the Senate health bill undermine coverage and open the door to misuse of federal funds

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/06/23/changes-to-state-innovation-waivers-in-the-senate-health-bill-undermine-coverage-and-open-the-door-to-misuse-of-federal-funds/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53522663

Image result for essential health benefits

Editor’s Note:This analysis is part of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.

On June 22, Senate Republicans released their much-awaited health reform bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA). Much attention has rightfully focused on the bill’s myriad changes to the Medicaid program and to subsidies for the purchase of private insurance. But the legislation also makes potentially highly impactful changes to state innovation waivers, which are included in section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Under current law, section 1332 provides broad flexibility for states to waive key ACA provisions so long as health coverage is not jeopardized and federal deficits not increased. Waivers can affect a wide range of provisions, including the premium tax credit, the definition of essential health benefits, the requirement that insurance plans cap annual out-of-pocket spending, and the requirement for states to operate a Marketplace, among others.

The changes in the Senate bill would upset this structure, removing the coverage-related guardrails and thereby opening the door for states to pursue waivers that would result in substantial losses in health coverage and affordability. The weakened guardrails would also allow states significant latitude to misuse federal health care dollars.