
Former House Speaker John Boehner threw cold water Thursday on the prospect of congressional Republicans following through on their pledge to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Former House Speaker John Boehner threw cold water Thursday on the prospect of congressional Republicans following through on their pledge to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

As of the November 2016 open enrollment period, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program have added a total of 16.4 million beneficiaries nationally since the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) coverage expansions went into effect. Moreover, billions of dollars in federal funding for health care have flowed into states.
Both a repeal of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and alternative approaches to funding, such as block grants, are now under discussion. These changes may result in less federal funds for states to spend on Medicaid, and lead to reduced access to care, reduced payments to health care providers, and job losses.
Click on a state in the map below to view a state Medicaid fact sheet, or browse by state alphabetically below the map.

The Trump Administration has promised to deliver to the American people a healthcare plan that is, in President Trump’s own words, “much less expensive and far better” than Obamacare. But While Obamacare is expected to spend over $900 billion from 2018 to 2027, focusing solely on the Obama administration’s signature achievement ignores bigger fiscal challenges; Namely, the Medicare program.
Our insurance program for the elderly and disabled – Medicare – is expected to cost $900 billion in 2024 alone. From 2018 to 2027, this comes to a whopping $8.5 trillion—an order of magnitude larger than the cost of the ACA. Beyond the topline price tag are a number of endangered programs.
Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, commonly known as Part A, is expected to run out of money in the next 10 years. This would mean an immediate reduction in benefits when the money runs out—2028, according to the program’s actuaries. Meanwhile, the funds that Medicare uses to pay for physician services (Part B) and prescription drug benefits (Part D) are consistently growing as a share of revenue.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/23/support-for-2010-health-care-law-reaches-new-high/

With congressional Republicans discussing proposals to replace the Affordable Care Act, public support for the 2010 health care law has reached its highest level on record.
Currently, 54% approve of the health care law passed seven years ago by Barack Obama and Congress, while 43% disapprove, according to a national Pew Research Center survey conducted Feb. 7-12 among 1,503 adults.
Throughout the law’s history, opinions about the Affordable Care Act have tended to be more negative than positive — or, less frequently, divided. As recently as December, about as many approved (48%) as disapproved (47%) of the law.
The new survey finds that when those who disapprove of the law are asked about what should happen to it now, more want GOP congressional leaders to focus their efforts on modifying the law than on getting rid of it. One-in-four adults want Republican leaders to modify the law, while 17% want them to get rid of it entirely.
As in the past, there are deep partisan divisions over the health care law. Democrats overwhelmingly support the law, with 85% expressing approval. Among independents, about half (53%) approve of the health care law, while 45% disapprove. By contrast, Republicans broadly disapprove of the law (89%); just 10% express approval.
Republicans who disapprove of the health care law are divided on whether GOP congressional leaders should modify the health care law or get rid of it entirely. Nearly equal shares say Republican leaders in Congress should focus their efforts on modifying the law (42%) and focus on getting rid of it entirely (44%).
Among independents, nearly twice as many say Republican leaders should focus on modifying the law rather than scrapping it (29% vs. 15%).
![]()
Governors are descending on Washington this weekend as Republicans wrestle with the future of ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid.
GOP lawmakers say they are looking to governors for advice on what to do about the program, which is one of the toughest issues Republicans face as they look to repeal and replace the healthcare law.
Many of the lawmakers representing states that accepted the Medicaid expansion are looking to keep it. But they are at odds with conservatives and Republicans from states that rejected the expansion; they are pushing full repeal.
It will be hard for any repeal and replace bill to pass Congress unless Republicans can bridge that divide, and they are looking to the governors, who help run Medicaid as a joint federal-state program, for help.
“We’re in extensive discussions with them and we’ll talk with them more when they get here and then move ahead on both Medicaid and the individual market,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told reporters earlier this month, speaking of the governors meeting.
Republican governors are almost evenly divided on the Medicaid issue, with 17 hailing from states that rejected the expansion, and 16 hailing from states that accepted it.
States that took the expansion broadened eligibility for Medicaid — the government healthcare program for the poor and disabled — up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line. About 11 million people have gained coverage because of the Medicaid expansion.
The healthcare plan that House Republicans outlined last week calls for eventually eliminating the extra federal funding for the Medicaid expansion. If states wanted to continue covering the additional people, they would have to spend more of their own money.
Some Republican governors from states that accepted the expansion have been vocal about wanting to protect it — and none more so than Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Over the weekend Kasich called the House GOP plan “a very, very bad idea, because we cannot turn our back on the most vulnerable.”

For seven years, few issues have animated conservative voters as much as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. But with President Barack Obama out of office, the debate over “Obamacare” is becoming less about “Obama” and more about “care” — greatly complicating the issue for Republican lawmakers.
Polling indicates that more Republicans want to make fixes to the law rather than do away with it. President Trump, who remains popular on the right, has mused about a replacement plan that is even more expansive than the original. The conservative news media are focused more on Mr. Trump’s near-daily skirmishes with Democrats and reporters, among others, than on policy issues like health care. And the congressional debate, as well as the paid advertisements on both sides, is centered on the substance of the law rather than its namesake, draining some of its toxicity on the right.
As liberals overwhelm congressional town hall-style meetings and deluge the Capitol phone system with pleas to protect the health law, there is no similar clamor for dismantling it, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment. From deeply conservative districts in the South and the West to the more moderate parts of the Northeast, Republicans in Congress say there is significantly less intensity among opponents of the law than when Mr. Obama was in office.
“I hear more concerns than before about ‘You’re going to repeal it, and we’re all going to lose insurance’ because they don’t think we’re going to replace it,” said Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican who represents a conservative district in Idaho.
But it was not until now, with the Republicans taking control of the federal government, that the debate fully shifted from the theoretical to the tangible. It was easy for conservatives to rally against a law identified with a president they despised when he was capable of vetoing any repeal. Now that he is gone and the law’s benefits appear to be on the chopping block, the people who stand to lose the most are the most vocal.
“I’ve heard from constituents who have been harmed by the Affordable Care Act over the course of its being in existence,” said Representative Leonard Lance, Republican of New Jersey, whose affluent district Mr. Trump narrowly lost last year. “More recently, because of our discussions on repairing it, I’ve heard from those who do not wish to have the act amended. More recently, that is the preponderance of those who have contacted me.”
It is a longstanding rule of politics that rallying opposition to a proposal is usually easier than galvanizing support. And never is this more the case than when a widely distributed benefit is at risk of being taken away.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170218/MAGAZINE/302189962
Divisions sharpened last week between hard-right and more pragmatic Republicans over both policy and strategy for repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
Those differences—along with the apparently slow progress in drafting actual legislation that could be scored by the Congressional Budget Office on cost and coverage impact—underscore the tough struggle Republicans face in dismantling Obamacare and establishing an alternative system.
One of their biggest disagreements is over the future of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to more than 10 million low-income adults. Conservatives want to eliminate it while a number of GOP senators and governors want to keep that coverage.
Congressional Republicans are feeling growing pressure to show progress on healthcare. Many are going back to their districts this week and holding town hall events, where they may face constituents who are upset about the potential loss of their ACA coverage. In addition, insurers are signaling they may pull out of the individual market in 2018, as Humana announced it would do last week.
House Speaker Paul Ryan promised Thursday to introduce repeal-and-replace legislation when the House returns from recess on Feb. 27, though he’s presented no legislative language so far. He said he’s waiting for the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation to score his proposed bill on costs and coverage levels before it’s unveiled.
Ryan has promised the House will repeal most of the ACA via an expedited budget reconciliation bill passed on a party-line vote by early April. He’s indicated it will include some replacement features, such as expanded health savings accounts and age-based premium tax credits.
GOP leaders want to erase most of the ACA taxes that fund the law’s coverage expansions and replace them with a cap on the tax exclusion employees receive for employer-provided health benefits.
Two people familiar with Ryan’s proposal told the Associated Press that employees would pay taxes on the value of coverage above $12,000 for individuals and $30,000 for families. Republicans would not confirm those amounts. But House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady told reporters that the “vast majority of Americans” would be unaffected. That suggests it wouldn’t raise much revenue.
That proposal is likely to trigger strong opposition from business and labor groups and from many conservative congressional Republicans, who may see it as a new tax.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/mcconnell-intends-replace-obamacare-without-democrats/

Republicans will repeal and replace the health care law and overhaul the tax code without Democratic help or votes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday.
“It’s clear that in the early months it’s going to be a Republicans-only exercise,” the Kentucky senator said at a news conference before lawmakers left for a weeklong President’s Day recess. “We don’t expect any Democratic cooperation on the replacement of Obamacare, we don’t expect any Democratic cooperation on tax reform.”
McConnell has condemned Democrats for passing Obamacare in the first place, in 2010, without any Republican votes, claiming the partisan exercise set the law up to fail. “The mess to come was inevitable,” McConnell wrote in his memoir last year.
But now he’s promising the same approach himself, in a sign that the partisanship and polarization dividing the country and Congress under President Donald Trump will not end anytime soon.
“Clearly this is not one of those bipartisan ‘Kumbaya’ moments, and so we, as Republicans, expect that both of those issues will be — which are very big issues — will have to be tackled Republican-only,” McConnell said.
A strictly partisan approach on major legislation is a departure in the Senate, where most significant bills require involvement by both parties. Republicans plan to use a parliamentary maneuver to get health care and tax legislation through the narrowly divided Senate as part of a budget bill that requires only a simple majority to pass and can’t be blocked by Democrats.
But McConnell said the polarization in Congress is Democrats’ fault because they haven’t come to terms with the fact that Trump won the election.
“I’m hopeful that, as I said earlier, when the fever breaks, that maybe we’ll be able to move on,” said McConnell, in a turn of phrase that former President Barack Obama sometimes used to express hope that opposition from the tea party right might recede, which it never did.

With a new administration in Washington, it’s widely accepted that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, isn’t likely to survive in its current form. But nobody seems to know whether it will be replaced or repealed, or what shape health care coverage will take in the future. The experts who met for a Kennedy Schoolpanel on the subject Monday evening didn’t presume to answer those questions, but they did pinpoint the crucial issues for the transition.
While they disagreed on possible replacements, they agreed that any solution will take time to create, agree upon, and roll out.
The panel on “Alternatives to the Affordable Care Act” began with a look at the benefits and drawbacks of Medicaid. According to Katherine Baicker, the C. Boyden Gray Professor of Health Economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare led to a decline in certain chronic diseases — but that also cost money, because the newly insured used more care. “This forced policymakers to think about how much they cared about the benefits to the insured, versus the costs of that care. That brought politics into it, and economists aren’t so good at politics.”
Two panelists represented opposite philosophies. Jonathan Gruber, the Ford Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former Obama administration consultant on the health act, and Avik Roy, co-founder and president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, argued respectively that government oversight of health care is the only sure way to leave fewer citizens behind, and that the free market, aided by block grants and tax credits, could do a better job.
Roy, speaking via Skype, said that Medicaid has failed the poor by directing too much funding to higher-income groups that don’t need it. Further, Roy said, doctors in many states avoid treating Medicaid patients because they can make more money on wealthier private patients. “Our argument is to say let’s take the money that we are sending to the Medicaid program and send it directly to the patients, so they can choose the program that serves their needs.” Tax credits and health savings accounts, he said, would give the poor more choices than Medicaid does.
“Poor people can’t do anything with health savings accounts,” Gruber replied. “If you have a $10,000 income, you can’t put $3,000 into a savings account.” He said that if you take away the individual mandate, one of the cornerstones of Obamacare, you lose the funding to insure the poor unless another mechanism is put in place. “We can’t escape the mathematics of insurance: 80 percent of the pool is paid by 20 percent of the people. Any alternative to Medicaid has to address affordability, it has to address adverse selection (i.e., people who opt out), and it has to address the architecture of the plan. But there is no alternative to the right of the ACA that does not increase un-insurance. It cannot be done.”
Gail R. Wilensky, senior fellow at Project HOPE and former director of Medicare and Medicaid, added that other countries have adopted strategies that probably would not be accepted here. Also speaking via Skype, she said, “There are alternative strategies to delivering health care, such as putting tight limits on technology. The light tech centers and digital imaging could be put under government control. You could theoretically lower costs that way. But if people were uncomfortable with the mandate, with government telling them what to buy, imagine what the reaction would be to that.”
Another question is whether patients would make the smartest decisions in an open health care market. Gruber said that under President George W. Bush, many elders simply chose the cheapest available plan, often with unfortunate results. Roy countered that low-income patients are often the shrewdest health care shoppers. “It is unreasonable to expect patients to be doctors,” Baicker said. Wilensky concurred, saying “I’ve talked to many patients with health savings accounts, and they found it incredibly difficult to know what they were buying.”
Everyone agreed, however, that the ACA is not near being definitively repealed or replaced. Chandra asked all four panelists when they expected a new plan to be in place. Estimates ranged from next winter to 2019. “One big difference is that Democrats were all united behind Obamacare, but there is no Republican consensus,” Roy said. “They’re against Obamacare, but they’re not sure what they’re for. There is literally nobody in Washington who knows what the new plans will look like, and I give it a 50-50 chance that they even come to agreement.”
One possible solution, Wilensky said, is to bring together all the affected parties — policymakers, physicians, and at-risk patients — in town-hall-type meetings that look into new solutions. “There are a lot of things that don’t make sense,” she said, “and in this country we’ve tried most of them.”