Why House Republicans Are Rewriting Their Obamacare ‘Replacement’

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/06/house-republicans-rewriting-obamacare-replacement/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202017-03-07%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:9345%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Image result for erosion

House staff are re-writing their legislation to correct a major flaw in its structure: giving people a new entitlement for health insurance will cause millions to drop employer insurance.

On Friday, Politico reported that Republicans were considering ways to amend their Obamacare “replacement” legislation, by placing income limits on the bill’s new refundable tax credit for health insurance. The Politico story implied the income cap sought to prevent wealthy individuals like Warren Buffett from obtaining federal subsidies for health insurance, but in reality House staff are re-writing their legislation to correct a major flaw in its structure.

Based on my conversations with multiple sources close to the effort, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had indicated to congressional staff that the prior House framework could see at least 10 million, and potentially up to 20 million, individuals losing employer-sponsored health insurance. Further, CBO stated that that House framework, even after including a refundable tax credit for health insurance, would not cover many more people than repealing Obamacare outright.

By comparison, Obamacare led to about 7 million plan cancellation notices in the fall of 2013. While those cancellations caused a major political firestorm, the framework the House released prior to the recess could cause a loss of employer coverage of several times that number. What’s more, that framework as described looks for all intents and purposes like a legislative orphan appealing to no one—neither moderates nor conservatives—within the Republican party:

  • A significant erosion of up to 10-20 million individuals with employer-provided health coverage;
  • A new entitlement—the refundable tax credits—that by and large wouldn’t expand coverage, but instead cause individuals currently in employer plans to switch to the credits;
  • More federal spending via the refundable tax credits;
  • A tax increase—a cap on the current exclusion for employer-provided health coverage—to pay for the new spending on the credits; and
  • An increase in the uninsured (compared to Obamacare) of at least 15 million—nearly as much as repealing the law outright.

Details of the bill are changing constantly, and no doubt House leadership will claim these figures pertain to prior drafts of the legislation. But even if those numbers reflect outdated drafts, the combination of major re-writes to the bill and the lack of a CBO score at any point in the process thus far should cause significant pause on Capitol Hill. Members are being asked to vote on legislation before knowing its full effects, or even how it will look in its final version.

Coverage Quicksand

According to CBO, the combination of a cap on the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, coupled with an age-rated tax credit for insurance, created a dynamic where expanding health insurance coverage was all but impossible.

An age-rated credit provides much greater incentive for firms to drop coverage, because all workers, not just low-income ones, can qualify for the credit. Moreover, because an age-rated credit provides the same subsidy to all individuals, regardless of income, low-income enrollees—the only individuals who have enrolled on exchanges in significant numbers—would have much less financial incentive to purchase insurance than they do under Obamacare, hence the lower coverage numbers overall.

On their bill, House Republicans put themselves in coverage quicksand. The more they thrashed to get out of the quicksand—by increasing the subsidies or adjusting the cap on the employer exclusion, or both—the deeper they sank, by increasing the erosion of employer-sponsored insurance.

3 Republican concepts for replacing the ACA — and what they mean

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/3-republican-concepts-for-replacing-the-aca-and-what-they-mean/437475/

The bottom line

These policy ideas popular among conservatives could certainly push health insurance costs down for some — like those with few healthcare needs and reliable income — but they also would undoubtedly offer fewer benefits to those with low incomes and high healthcare costs.

“The value of the policies that insurers are offering is going to go down under all these options,” Blumberg said. “They’re going to end up attracting the higher needs population and they can’t sustain that.”

Hospitals would see significant revenue losses if millions lose coverage under repeal of the ACA and are unable to afford new coverage under the replacement plans the GOP has put forward. Some executives have warned they would have to cut vital services, such as behavioral health.

A report prepared for the American Hospital Association found that hospital revenues would decrease nearly $400 billion between 2018 and 2026 with ACA repeal. The plans put forward by Republicans would barely dent that projection, experts say.


Hospital revenues are projected to decrease by $400 billion between 2018 and 2026 under ACA repeal, according to the AHA.


The leaders of the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals have written to President Donald Trump asking him not to repeal the ACA without an adequate replacement.

“Losses of this magnitude cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients’ access to care, decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals help sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses,” they wrote. “As you know, hospitals are often the largest employer in many communities, and more than half of a hospital’s budget is devoted to supporting the salaries and benefits of caregivers who provide 24/7 coverage, which cannot be replaced.”

Republicans continue to debate whether, how and when to replace the ACA. Just as the reform law had major impacts on the industry, the process of finding alternatives will have significant consequences as well.

 

GOP releases bills to repeal and replace ObamaCare

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322609-gop-releases-bill-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

Image result for gop healthcare plan

Click to access AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf

Click to access AmericanHealthCareAct_WM.pdf

House Republicans on Monday unveiled their long-awaited legislation to repeal and replace ­ObamaCare, with plans to quickly push the measure through committee votes this week.

The two measures dismantle the core aspects of ­ObamaCare, including its subsidies to help people buy coverage, expansion of Medicaid, taxes and mandates for people to have insurance. The bills also dramatically restructure the Medicaid program overall by capping federal payments.

In its place, Republicans would put a new system centered on a tax credit to help people buy insurance.

House Republicans plan to take up the legislation at a breakneck pace, with two committees — Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means — scheduled to hold votes on Wednesday. A vote in the full House is expected to soon follow, within weeks.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said Monday on Fox News that he’s confident the legislation will pass with solid Republican support despite recent party infighting over the details.

“We’ve been listening very carefully to our Republican members for months now to make sure we get it right,” he said. “I am confident we are going to pass this.”

Brady noted that many of the elements of the bills have passed the House “a number of times” over the years.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in a statement claimed that ­ObamaCare “is rapidly collapsing” and vowed the GOP’s plan — dubbed the American Health Care Act — will “give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance.”

Republicans acknowledge that their plan will cover fewer people, saying that unlike ­ObamaCare, they are not forcing people to buy coverage through a mandate. They say their system is less intrusive and provides people a tax credit without mandates or a range of tax increases.

But the measures face a rocky path, particularly in the Senate. Four Republican senators earlier Monday objected to an earlier version of the House plan, saying that it fails to protect ­ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.

Even in the House, there are objections. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus object that the new tax credit is a “new entitlement.” They have enough votes to kill the legislation, but it remains to be seen whether they will actually vote against a bill that dismantles the core of ­ObamaCare.

The GOP measure significantly restructures the Medicaid program, which provides coverage for around 70 million poor, disabled and elderly people, to cap federal payments.

The repeal of the Medicaid expansion and ­ObamaCare’s subsidies would not take effect until 2020, meaning current enrollees could keep their coverage this year.

Republicans would also grandfather in current Medicaid enrollees so that they can stay on the program. But once 2020 arrives, the federal government would no longer provide the extra federal funds that allow for expansion.

That plan has drawn objections from more centrist Republican senators, who want to protect the expansion and are worried about constituents losing coverage and their states losing federal funds.

The legislation would maintain ­ObamaCare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions, who could still not be denied coverage by insurers. Instead of ­ObamaCare’s mandate, the GOP plan would seek to encourage healthy people to sign up by allowing insurers to charge people 30 percent higher premiums if a new enrollee has had a gap in coverage.

The legislation also repeals nearly all of the taxes created by ­ObamaCare, including the medical device tax and health insurance tax, starting in 2018. The bills scrap a controversial Republican proposal in earlier drafts that would have started taxing some employer-sponsored health insurance.

To ensure that the legislation passes muster under special budgetary rules, it keeps ­ObamaCare’s “Cadillac tax” on generous plans after 2025. That provision, which could prove controversial, will help ensure that the measure does not add to the federal deficit in that decade.

Uncompensated Hospital Care Costs Sink to Record Low in California

http://www.chcf.org/aca-411/insights/uncompensated-hospital-care-costs?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=doc_patient&utm_medium=cpc

Uncompensated Care in California

As California’s uninsured rate plummeted during the first two years of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), uncompensated care costs for California’s hospitals followed suit, declining 52% from $3.1 billion in 2013 to $1.5 billion in 2015, according to data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) now available on ACA 411. This progress may be in peril, however, if efforts to repeal and replace the ACA are successful and the uninsured population increases.

The most common way to measure the cost of uncompensated care is to combine charity care and bad debt. Charity care refers to the costs for patients with a demonstrated inability to pay. Bad debt refers to the costs for patients who were considered to have the financial ability to pay — or for whom the ability to pay was never determined — but who have not done so.

While we expected to see dropping uncompensated care costs because of the increase in Californians with health insurance under the ACA, the magnitude of the decline is notable when placed into historical context. The data show that in 2015, California hospitals’ uncompensated care costs as a percentage of operating costs reached 1.7% according to the author’s analysis of OSHPD Hospital Annual Financial Data — the lowest rate in more than a decade. This mirrors national trends. For the same year, the American Hospital Association reported that US hospital uncompensated care costs (charity care and bad debt) as a percentage of total hospital expenses reached a 25-year low of 4.2% (PDF).

Estimating the cost of hospital uncompensated care is an imperfect science, and the available data have limitations. For example, the California OSHPD data above do not include uncompensated care provided by Kaiser Foundation hospitals, which provide about 10% of general acute hospital care in California.

In addition, some hospital reimbursement rates (such as Medi-Cal and Medicare) often do not cover the costs of providing care. These shortfalls are not reflected in measures of uncompensated care, as the measure is not designed to capture under-compensated care.

Still, uncompensated care, as measured by OSHPD in the chart above and in other national metrics, has been tracked for years. The steep decline between 2013 and 2015 is unparalleled and a sign of major progress.

The uncertain future of the ACA makes it difficult to predict what will happen with health care financing. However, it is clear that if changes to federal health legislation increase the uninsured population, the uncompensated care burden on hospitals will rise again as fewer people can afford care they receive at hospitals. That won’t be good for California’s people or its hospitals.

 

Drowning In A ‘High-Risk Insurance Pool’ — At $18,000 A Year

http://khn.org/news/drowning-in-a-high-risk-insurance-pool-at-18000-a-year/

Image result for high risk pools

Some Republicans looking to scrap the Affordable Care Act say monthly health insurance premiums need to be lower for the individuals who have to buy insurance on their own. One way to do that, GOP leaders say, would be to return to the use of what are called high-risk insurance pools, for people who have health problems.

But critics say even some of the most successful high-risk pools that operated before the advent of Obamacare were very expensive for patients enrolled in the plans, and for the people who subsidized them — which included state taxpayers and people with employer-based health insurance.

Craig Britton of Plymouth, Minn., once had a plan through Minnesota’s high-risk pool. It cost him $18,000 a year in premiums.

Britton was forced to buy the expensive coverage because of a pancreatitis diagnosis. He called the idea that high-risk pools are good for consumers “a lot of baloney.”

“That is catastrophic cost,” Britton said. “You have to have a good living just to pay for insurance.”

PD Editorial: 20 million reasons to retain and repair Obamacare

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/6701027-181/pd-editorial-20-million-reasons

For six years, and over the course of five dozen high-profile, low-probability votes, Republicans in Congress vowed to do away with Obamacare.

Republicans denounced the Affordable Care Act as “a crime against democracy” and labeled it “the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed.” Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn went so far as to warn seniors, “You’re gonna die sooner.”

The election of Donald Trump removed the specter of a presidential veto, yet the Affordable Care Act hasn’t been repealed.

Large and boisterous crowds supporting Obamacare at town hall meetings probably are making some lawmakers nervous about the fallout from killing a program that provides insurance for 20 million Americans. Here’s another possible explanation: Despite its shortcomings, Obamacare has delivered on its basic promise — expanding access to health care by reducing the cost of insurance, especially in states such as California that fully embraced the program.

California has reduced its uninsured rate to a record low of 7.1 percent, according to a report issued this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That’s a decline of 9.9 percentage points since the Affordable Care Act took full effect in 2013.

The CDC figures, based on data for the first three quarters of 2016, also showed a marked improvement on a national scale, with 8.8 percent of Americans lacking health insurance. In 2013, the uninsured rate was 14.4 percent.

Let those be benchmarks.

Trump and congressional Republicans still say they’re going to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. But any plan that results in fewer people having coverage isn’t a replacement. It’s retrenchment. And that isn’t acceptable.

Despite their harsh criticism of Obamacare, Republicans are far from agreeing on any replacement. They have promised to keep the most popular provisions of Obamacare, including protection for people with pre-existing conditions and coverage of dependents up to age 26. There also is GOP support for retaining requirements that insurers cover treatment of mental illness and substance abuse. Targeted for elimination are the financing mechanisms needed for the program to remain viable — individual and employer mandates and subsidies to help low- and middle-income families pay insurance premiums. A proposal to convert Medicaid to a block grant program almost certainly will result in some states raising the threshold for eligibility.

The numbers simply don’t add up.

Hospitals justifiably fear a return to the days of writing off millions of dollars from providing emergency care to uninsured patients, and insurers will have little choice but to drop out of the exchanges — 11 participate in California — if people can wait until they’re sick before buying coverage.

That’s the death spiral Republicans have been predicting since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. It could become a self-fulfilling prophesy if insurers conclude that the risk pool that undergirds the insurance market has been, or will soon be, undermined.

No big program is perfect. Republicans have pointed out Obamacare’s shortcomings for years while refusing to work with Democrats on improvements. If it collapses now, some Republicans will point fingers at Obama and claim the program was fatally flawed. But if millions of people who gained access to health insurance suddenly find themselves without coverage once again, many of them are going to blame the people who wrote the cancellation notice.

 

GOP governors confront Medicaid divide

GOP governors confront Medicaid divide

GOP governors confront Medicaid divide

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.”

A Deep Dive Into 4 GOP Talking Points On Health Care

http://khn.org/news/a-deep-dive-into-4-gop-talking-points-on-health-care/

Image result for Talking Points

Republican leaders have a lengthy list of talking points about the shortcomings of the health law. Shortly before his inauguration last month, President Donald Trump said that it “is a complete and total disaster. It’s imploding as we sit.” And they can point to a host of issues, including premium increases averaging more than 20 percent this year, a drop in the number of insurers competing on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and rising consumer discontent with high deductibles and limited doctor networks.

Yet a careful analysis of some of the GOP’s talking points show a much more nuanced situation and suggest that the political fights over the law may have contributed to some of its problems. Here is an annotated guide to four of the most common talking points Republicans have been using. 

 

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Image result for Pre-ACA Market Practices Provide Lessons for ACA Replacement Approaches

Significant changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are being considered by lawmakers who have been critical of its general approach to providing coverage and to some of its key provisions. An important area where changes will be considered has to do with how people with health problems would be able to gain and keep access to coverage and how much they may have to pay for it.  People’s health is dynamic. At any given time, an estimated 27% of non-elderly adults have health conditions that would make them ineligible for coverage under traditional non-group underwriting standards that existed prior to the ACA. Over their lifetimes, everyone is at risk of having these periods, some short and some that last for the rest of their lives.

One of the biggest changes that the ACA made to the non-group insurance market was to eliminate consideration by insurers of a person’s health or health history in enrollment and rating decisions.  This assured that people who had or who developed health problems would have the same plan choices and pay the same premiums as others, essentially pooling their expected costs together to determine the premiums that all would pay.

Proposals for replacing the ACA such as Rep. Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act and Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” policy paper would repeal these insurance market rules, moving back towards pre-ACA standards where insurers generally had more leeway to use individual health in enrollment and rating for non-group coverage.1  Under these proposals, people without pre-existing conditions would generally be able to purchase coverage anytime from private insurers.  For people with health problems, several approaches have been proposed: (1) requiring insurers to accept people transitioning from previous coverage without a gap (“continuously covered”); (2) allowing insurers to charge higher premiums (within limits) to people with pre-existing conditions who have had a gap in coverage; and (3) establishing high-risk pools, which are public programs that provide coverage to people declined by private insurers.

The idea of assuring access to coverage for people with health problems is a popular one, but doing so is a challenge within a market framework where insurers have considerable flexibility over enrollment, rating and benefits.  People with health conditions have much higher expected health costs than people without them (Table 1 illustrates average costs of individuals with and without “deniable” health conditions). Insurers naturally will decline applicants with health issues and will adjust rates for new and existing enrollees to reflect their health when they can.  Assuring access for people with pre-existing conditions with limits on their premiums means that someone has to pay the difference between their premiums and their costs.  For people enrolling in high-risk pools, some ACA replacement proposals provide for federal grants to states, though the amounts may not be sufficient.  For people gaining access through continuous coverage provisions, these costs would likely be paid by pooling their costs with (i.e., charging more to) other enrollees.  Maintaining this pooling is difficult, however, when insurers have significant flexibility over rates and benefits.  Experience from the pre-ACA market shows how insurers were able to use a variety of strategies to charge higher premiums to people with health problems, even when those problems began after the person enrolled in their plan.  These practices can make getting or keeping coverage unaffordable.

Discussion

There were many aspects of the pre-ACA non-group market that made it difficult for people with health problems to get and keep non-group coverage.  Any proposal for replacing the ACA will have to determine which, if any, of these previous insurance practices will once again be permitted.  Medical screening was the most obvious barrier, combined with high premium costs for people who were HIPAA-eligible.  Even people who purchased coverage when they were healthy sometimes were unable to keep it because certain rating approaches could cause their premiums to spiral.  Returning to a less structured, less regulated non-group market raises questions about how people with health problems will be treated in terms of access to and cost of coverage.  Health insurance underwriting and rating is complex, and reviewing how the pre-ACA market operated provides information about the types of issues that people with health problems may confront if the ACA market structure is replaced.

 

THE SHAMEFUL REPUBLICAN ASSAULT ON MEDICAID

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-shameful-republican-assault-on-medicaid?mbid=social_facebook

Image result for medicaid

In terms of political theatre, Donald Trump’s press conference on Thursday was the event of the week, or maybe the year. Strictly in policy terms, though, it was less important than the media briefing that Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, and other House Republican leaders held, also on Thursday, about their plans to abolish Obamacare and replace it with some version of what we might call Trumpcare, or maybe Trump/Ryancare.

There are still huge questions about what this new system will look like, and when it might be enacted. In a new seventeen-page paper, “Obamacare Repeal and Replace,” the G.O.P. lawmakers outlined proposals that are familiar from a plan that Ryan put out last year. They included expanded health savings accounts, financial aid for the establishment of high-risk pools at the state level, and the replacement of income-based subsidies to purchase individual insurance with universal tax credits.

But the paper also contained some huge gaps. It didn’t say how large the new tax credits would be, or how they and other elements of the reform would be paid for. To pay for its provisions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act levied more than a trillion dollars in tax increases over a decade. The Republican replacement will, in all likelihood, cover millions fewer people than Obamacare, but it will still have to be paid for. Ryan and his colleagues were largely silent on where the tax burden would fall.

For all this deliberate obfuscation, though, House Republicans are now being very clear about one thing: whatever legislation emerges after the Senate and the White House have weighed in, it will almost certainly roll back the Obama Administration’s expansion of Medicaid, the federal health-insurance program for poverty-stricken and low-income households. Under the outline released on Thursday, the current Medicaid system would be replaced by block grants to the states, and the extra federal money that went to Medicaid as part of the A.C.A. would gradually be removed. In effect, the Medicaid expansion would be slowly suffocated.