Tag Archives: Medicaid

From Birth To Death, Medicaid Affects The Lives Of Millions

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

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/27/534436521/from-birth-to-death-medicaid-affects-the-lives-of-millions

Medicaid pays the costs for about 62 percent of seniors who are living in nursing homes, some of the priciest health care available.

Medicaid is the government health care program for the poor.

That’s the shorthand explanation. But Medicaid is so much more than that — which is why it has become the focal point of the battle in Washington to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

President Barack Obama expanded Medicaid under his signature health care law to cover 11 million more people, bringing the total number of people covered up to 69 million.

Now Republicans want to reverse that expansion, and they want to go much further in cutting back on the number of people covered and federal dollars spent. The legislation they’re contemplating in both the House and Senate shrinks and fundamentally restructures the program.

The report issued by the Congressional Budget Office on Monday estimates that 15 million people would lose coverage through Medicaid by 2026 under the proposed Senate bill.

Here are five key things to know about Medicaid as the debate moves forward.

Medicaid Makes Up Almost 10 Percent Of The Federal Budget

Medicaid is a joint federal/state program under which both costs and regulations are divided. Currently, it’s an open-ended program, where the governments pay for any covered medical costs that beneficiaries need.

Federal spending on Medicaid in 2015 was about $350 billion, almost one-tenth of the $3.7 trillion federal budget. That money is supplemented by the states, so total spending on Medicaid services was $545 billion that year. Those numbers have been increasing as health costs rise and the number of people who are eligible for the program expands.

That’s what makes Medicaid a rich target for Republicans who want to put a lid on its growth. The Senate and House health plans would cap the amount Medicaid will spend per person, and then give states that amount of money to administer the program largely as they please.

Medicaid Pays For Half Of All Births In The United States

Medicaid was established in 1965 as a program to help poor single parents on welfare, along with their children. Two decades after that, the federal government required states to cover poor women who were pregnant for the first time. And in the early 1990s, Congress expanded coverage for pregnant women further to ensure that all pregnant women and mothers of children under age 6 with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty — or $21,599 for a family of two — are covered. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about half of all births are now paid for by Medicaid, ranging from 72 percent in New Mexico in 2015 to 27 percent in New Hampshire

Medicaid Pays For Most People In Nursing Homes

Medicaid pays the costs for about 62 percent of seniors who are living in nursing homes. The reason? Many seniors enter retirement with low incomes and few assets. And over time, many middle-income people who saved for retirement spend down their assets on health care.

Inpatient nursing care is some of the priciest health care out there, so even though seniors accounted for only 9 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries in 2014, they used 21 percent of Medicaid dollars, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

If You Or Your Loved One Is Disabled, You May Qualify

Medicaid spends almost $200 billion a year caring for people with physical and intellectual disabilities. That’s about one-third of its budget, even though, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, only about 13 percent of those enrolled in Medicaid are disabled. The services offered to people with disabilities vary by state and can include inpatient care, home-based services including personal care such as bathing and feeding, school-based services for children and job coaching for adults who opt to live independently.

People Who Need Treatment For Opioid Addiction

For people who are addicted to opioids, the expansion of Medicaid has proved to be one of the only paths to treatment. The expansion, in 31 states and the District of Columbia, opened up coverage to adults without children who have incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. In 2015, the program spent nearly half a billion dollars on Suboxone, a drug used to help those addicted to opioids control their cravings and stop using. Several studies have credited the expansion of Medicaid to better access to medication-assisted treatment, which is the most successful treatment for substance abuse.

Other Adults

About 11 million people got new health coverage through the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Almost two-thirds of those fall into the category of the working poor, and another 12 percent are looking for work, according to an article published by Health Affairs in March. Many low-wage jobs don’t come with health benefits, and insurance premiums are often too high for people living on the edge of poverty to buy coverage.

Under the House bill and proposed Senate bill, the people who gained coverage under Medicaid expansion would be among the first to lose insurance.

 

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.

What the Senate healthcare bill could mean for Californians

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

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-senate-healthcare-bill-calif-20170623-htmlstory.html?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53556425&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_hPx1HfAdYE1P-TUg2uSAZhzRObBW1gNiZE5LA54kKyb8YsTq2NfZcYDzf9ZbJqqw2CN0F7uk5g9kdOQXlj_KSKRTUow&_hsmi=53556425

Image result for What the Senate healthcare bill could mean for Californians

Senate leaders have released their Obamacare repeal bill, which would slash federal funding for healthcare and could leave millions of Americans uninsured.

Though the plan has not yet been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, it isn’t too different from the one passed by the House last month. The CBO projected the House bill would save the federal government $119 billion over the next decade, raise insurance deductibles and leave 23 million fewer Americans with health coverage.

Both bills would also undo several taxes on high-income Americans that are used to fund Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act has had a huge impact on California, where roughly 4 million people have gained insurance and the percentage of uninsured residents has dropped more than half.

Below is a breakdown of some of the ways the Senate bill could affect healthcare coverage in California if it becomes law.

How Medicaid Works, and Who It Covers

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

Image result for Medicaid

One of the biggest flash points in the debate over Republican legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act is the future of Medicaid. Here are some basic facts about the 52-year-old program.

What is Medicaid?

It’s a public health insurance program largely for low-income people, though some middle-class disabled and elderly people also qualify. States and the federal government share the cost.

Whom does Medicaid cover?

■ Nearly one in five Americans, 74 million people, are on Medicaid.

■ Federal law guarantees Medicaid coverage to pregnant women, children, elderly and disabled people under certain income levels.

■ It covers more than a third of the nation’s children and pays for half of all births.

■ It also covers almost two-thirds of nursing home residents, including many who are middle class and spent of all their savings on care before becoming eligible.

States also have the option of covering other groups, like children and pregnant women whose household incomes are higher than the federal thresholds, or young adults up to age 26 who were once in foster care.

■ The Affordable Care Act allowed a new optional group: any adults with income up to 138 percent of the poverty level, which would be $16,643 for an individual this year. Thirty-one states now offer Medicaid to this group.

When was it created?

■ In 1965, as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society.”

■ There was little political debate; the bigger fight was over creating Medicare, the program to cover the elderly, which Medicaid is often confused with.

Is Medicaid an entitlement
program?

Yes. Anyone who meets the eligibility rules has a right to Medicaid coverage, and for now, states are guaranteed open-ended financial support from the federal government.

How much does it cost?

■ Medicaid cost $553 billion in fiscal year 2016. Of that amount, $348.9 billion came from the federal government; the states paid $204.5 billion.

■ Medicaid accounts for 9 percent of federal domestic spending. For states, it is the biggest source of federal funding and the second-largest budget item, behind education.

The biggest costs in Medicaid are for the elderly and the disabled, often because of long-term care in nursing homes.

■ Washington pays 50 to 75 percent of Medicaid costs for most eligible groups, with poor states receiving more money.

■ Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government initially covered all of the costs for the roughly 11 million people insured under the law’s expansion of Medicaid, who are largely adults without disabilities.

■ Under the law, Washington picks up 95 percent of state costs for the expansion of Medicaid this year, whittling down to 90 percent in 2020.

What changes are in store?

■ Both the House and Senate health bills would fundamentally change the way the federal government pays its share of Medicaid costs, setting a per-person limit on spending that would adjust annually for inflation.

■ The bills would also effectively end the Medicaid expansion, by sharply reducing how much the federal government pays for that population starting in 2020.

■ The result of these changes, according to independent analyses, would be major reductions in federal Medicaid spending over time.

■ Enrollment would drop, too, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, with states making it harder to qualify for the program and getting rid of certain benefits to make up for tightened federal spending.

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

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

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

In 2020 and beyond, under the Senate’s BCRA, the working poor will have a very hard time finding primary care providers (PCP) who will schedule appointments with them. Providers, rightly, fear bad debt from high deductible plans. They will discriminate on the ability to pay upfront.

In the NEJM, Karin Rhodes, Genevieve Kenney, and Ari Friedman† looked at PCP appointment availability in the from the end of 2012 to Spring 2013. They found that appointments were usually quickly available if the person had insurance and unavailable if they were cash paying patients who could not afford the median price of services.**

The overall rate of new patient appointments for the uninsured was 78.8% with full cash payment at the time of the appointment (Figure 2). The median cost of a new patient primary care visit was $120, but costs varied across the states, as indicated in the figure legend. Only 15.4% of uninsured callers received an appointment that required payment of $75 or less at the time of the visit, because few offices had low-cost appointments and only one-fifth of practices allowed flexible payment arrangements for uninsured patients.

Why does this matter in the BCRA environment?

The baseline plan will be a plan with a $7,500 deductible for a single person. For people with means, paying $120 for a PCP visit is unpleasant but not onerous. If I had to do that this afternoon, I would grumble as I pull out a credit card. I would pay that credit card off tomorrow after I got the transaction points. Not everyone can do that.

Craig Garthwaite raises a good point this morning:

Primary care providers will seek to minimize their net bad debt.

Michael Chernew and Jonathan Bush looked at how bad debt accumulates as a function of out of pocket expenses at professional offices.

The median PCP cash visit price is a large payment in the Chernew/Bush schema. Most of it will be paid as people with means take out their credit card, their HRA debit card, or their HSA card and swipe it through the machine. But a simple PCP visit will produce significant chasing and write-downs. The study is limited as it only looked at people who were commercially insured. It excludes most low income people who are in the Medicaid gap on an income qualification basis by design. The average income in the study group is highly likely to be higher than the income of people who would move from Medicaid to benchmark plans. Even so, there is significant chasing and write downs. I would predict that applying 100% first dollar obligations on people with even less income than the study population will lead to more provider bad debt. This is because these programs are income qualified and if a person income qualifies for these programs, they probably don’t have a spare $120 floating around or easy access to cheap, revolving credit.

If we assume that some normal PCP visits will include some extra services that increase the contracted payment rate to $200 or more (very large obligations in Chernew/Bush) significant sums will be written down and off. For provider practice viability concerns, providers will very aggressively screen against people with very high deductible insurance who can’t pay the entire amount of the contracted rate price up front at the receptionist desk. This is a very patient unfriendly system.

Most payment reform models focus on delivering more primary care. The objective is to substitute cheap primary care for expensive specialist, inpatient hospital stays and post-acute rehabilitation. This is the concept behind value based insurance design. VBID is supposed to encourage the routine, low cost, regular maintenance of chronic conditions in outpatient or community settings instead of having people end up in the hospital for preventable admissions.

Yet, under the very understandable incentives of primary care physicians wanting to stay in business, access to primary care for the working poor who would have several thousand dollar deductibles that apply to all services, will be greatly restricted because of the cost barrier. If we want all members of our shared society to have decent health and decent lives, should want people to have easy and ready access to primary care. This bill creates strong business incentives to create barriers to primary care access.

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

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

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.

No Easy Choices: 5 Options to Respond to Per Capita Caps

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

No Easy Choices: 5 Options to Respond to Per Capita Caps

Congress is debating the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that would end the enhanced matching funds for the ACA Medicaid expansion and would also end the program-wide guarantee for federal Medicaid matching dollars by setting a limit on federal funding through a block grant or per capita cap.  Under a block grant, federal spending would be limited to a pre-set amount.  States could cap enrollment or impose waiting lists as mechanisms to control costs.  Under a per capita cap, per enrollee spending would be capped, but the total amount of federal dollars to states could vary with enrollment changes and states would not be able to impose enrollment caps.

Faced with restrictions in federal financing, states would have to make hard choices. Research shows that there is not strong evidence to support large savings through options aimed at achieving Medicaid efficiencies. Under a block grant, states could cap or limit enrollment; however, the incentives and options under a per capita cap could be different.  This brief outlines the key measures states could use to manage their budgets and the associated challenges under a per capita cap:

The Senate Puts Medicaid on the Chopping Block

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/ahca-senate-draft-medicaid-changes/531231/

Image result for chopping block

A draft version of the AHCA released Thursday shows even deeper cuts to the program than the House version.

The new AHCA is a lot like the old AHCA.

After weeks of secret gestation in back rooms, the Senate released a discussion draft of the chamber’s version of the American Health Care Act. Like the version passed through the House to cheers in May, it is likely to make health care less affordable for low-income, sick, and near-elderly people; it makes Obamacare tax credits for exchange coverage less generous; it restricts and slashes Medicaid funding deeply over the next decade; and it attempts to smooth euphemistically-named “market disruptions” from all those reforms by injecting billions into state funds and reinsurance.

There are some substantial changes in the specifics, though. For starters, the Senate bill would tweak the House bill’s tax subsidy for private insurance purchased on the exchanges. The final version of the House bill provided a tax credit to people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line that would be less generous than the existing ACA credits. It would also reduce the amount of expenses covered as recipients get older and have more expenses.

The Senate’s version would cut the eligibility for premium tax credits to those earning up to 350 percent of the poverty line. It would be slightly more generous for poor and near-poor people, although credit percentages would taper off more sharply as recipients grow older, and they would be severely restricted for people as their income approaches that 350 percent threshold. Unlike the House plan, however, the Senate plan would fund Obamacare exchange cost-sharing subsidies through 2019, which would soften some of the immediate impacts of a less generous tax credit.

The House’s bill would allow private insurers to charge people more as they grow older, and permit plans in certain states to cover fewer services. It also would have made exchange coverage more expensive and less comprehensive on average for low-income, sick, and older people. It would likely reduce coverage for pregnant women and people with mental-health issues as well. The last Congressional Budget Office score found that many of the 23 million fewer people who would be covered were drawn from those groups, as well as many of those who would keep coverage but suffer dramatic increases in premiums.

The Senate bill would alleviate some of these issues with slightly more generous credits for the poor, but would keep those central disruptions intact, and would leave more middle-class people without affordable coverage. It also allows even less generous plans to stand as benchmarks for exchange and employer coverage, which could likewise contribute to disruptions and deductible increases.

In recognition of the disruptions to the state-level exchanges through which individuals purchase coverage, the House bill set up a “Patient and State Stability Fund,” which would inject over $100 billion into state high-risk pools and reinsurance funds. The Senate largely replicates this approach with slightly less funding, although it does add an additional $2 billion fund for fighting the opioid crisis in 2018.

The much more drastic changes in the Senate bill as compared to the House bill come in the realm of Medicaid. The House bill immediately ended enhanced funding for the Medicaid expansion to able-bodied low-income adults under the ACA, while the Senate bill would slowly phase that funding out. This, in theory, would put millions fewer people immediately in the ranks of the uninsured and increase government spending over the House plan. But seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington) have “trigger laws” that would immediately void their Medicaid expansions with any change in federal support, and it’s likely more states would choose to shutter their expansions well before the end of the enhanced funding window in the face of rising costs.

Several independent analyses have concluded that this funding structure would lead to large-scale shortfalls in every state, which would need to be closed by reducing enrollment or benefits, and cutting capacity to respond to disasters and public-health crises. Those affected most would be poor children, people with mental-health issues, and disabled people.

After President Trump reportedly called the House draft “mean” earlier this month, many observers expected the Senate to produce a more moderate plan. Instead, the Senate plan actually deepens long-term Medicaid cuts. The bill keeps the same basic inflationary index of the House bill until 2025. But after that, instead of using the more generous medical inflationary index (since costs in the health-care sector increase faster than broader measures of inflation), the Senate plan uses the general Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), which will dramatically slow the rate at which funding for the program increases.

A recent report from the Urban Institute shows some of the long-term effects of this switch in inflationary indexes. While it assumes an existing Medicaid expansion and compares an immediate difference in indexing, instead of the 2025 phase-in, the paper illustrates how Medicaid funding will be flattened in the future under the CPI-U. States will have to plan for much less generous Medicaid funding down the road, and most signs point to even more cuts in benefits and eligibility for some of the most vulnerable populations than under the House plan.

That restriction on Medicaid might seem like bad politics, and it remains to be seen if moderate Republicans will warm to the bill, or if public pressure will change some minds. But among the Republican base especially, Medicaid remains deeply unpopular, and is frequently maligned. Even as strengthening the private-insurance subsidies became a key issue for Senate Republicans, Medicaid remained a target, and reducing its generosity has long been a rather uncontroversial piece of the party’s goals.

The full impact of all these changes in the Senate draft won’t be known until it receives a score from the CBO. But what appears clear is that along with broad cuts in Obamacare taxes that mostly benefit middle-class and upper-income people, the Senate plan—perhaps even more so than the House plan—is a massive constriction of the safety net. It will have a substantial impact on both wealth and health, shifting the benefits of public policy away from the poor and the sick, and toward the healthy and the affluent. For Republicans who have long despised the redistributive effects of Medicaid, that is precisely the point.

The Senate health bill is out. Here’s your speed read

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

https://www.axios.com/the-senate-bill-is-out-heres-your-speed-read-2446201141.html

Image result for aca repeal bill

You can read it here, and a summary here. The highlights:

  • Ends the Affordable Care Act’s mandates and most of its taxes.
  • Phases out its Medicaid expansion over three years, ending in 2024.
  • Limits Medicaid spending with per capita caps, or block grants for states that choose them. The spending growth rate would become stricter in 2025.
  • States could apply for waivers from many of the insurance regulations.
  • The ACA’s tax credits would be kept in place, unlike the House bill — but their value would be reduced.
  • Funds the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies through 2019, but then repeals them.

Want more? Keep reading.

  • There’s a stabilization fund to help states strengthen their individual health insurance markets.
    • $15 billion a year in 2018 and 2019, $10 billion a year in 2020 and 2021.
    • There’s also a long-term state innovation fund, $62 billion over eight years, to help high-cost and low-income people buy health insurance.
  • The ACA tax credits continue in 2018 and 2019.
  • After that, they’d only be available for people with incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty line.
  • The “actuarial value” — the amount of the medical costs that insurance would have to cover — would be lowered to 58 percent, down from 70 percent for the ACA’s benchmark plans. That’s likely to reduce the value of the tax credits.
  • All ACA taxes would be repealed except for the “Cadillac tax” for generous plans, which would be delayed.
  • Medicaid spending growth rate under per capita caps would be same as House bill until 2025. Then it switches to the general inflation rate, which is lower than House bill.
  • States would be able to impose work requirements for people on Medicaid, except for the elderly, pregnant women and people with disabilities.
  • Children with complex medical needs would be exempt from the per capita caps.

Five things to watch in Senate GOP’s ACA repeal bill

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

Five things to watch in Senate GOP’s ObamaCare repeal bill

Related image

A draft of the long-awaited Senate healthcare bill, crafted behind closed doors, will be publicly unveiled on Thursday.

Just a day before the bill’s scheduled release, some senators said they still didn’t know the details of some key provisions, creating uncertainty as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushes toward a vote next week.

Here’s what to watch for.