Seeking to Grow Market Share?

Get a FREE assessment of your CDH products —
a $3,000 value.
LEARN HOW >

Subscribe to Kaiser Health News:HealthReform feed Kaiser Health News:HealthReform
Updated: 23 hours 39 min ago

Senate Parliamentarian Upends GOP Hopes For Health Bill

July 21, 2017

The official rules keeper in the Senate Friday tossed a bucket of cold water on the Senate Republican health bill by advising that major parts of the bill cannot be passed with a simple majority, but rather would require 60 votes. Republicans hold only 52 seats in the Senate.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough said that a super-majority is needed for the temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood, abortion coverage restrictions to health plans purchased with tax credits and the requirement that people with breaks in coverage wait six months before they can purchase new plans.

The Senate is using a budget process called “reconciliation” that allows Republicans to pass a bill with only 50 votes (and the potential tie to be broken by Vice President Mike Pence). But there are strict rules about what can and cannot be included, and those rules are enforced by the parliamentarian. Those rules can be waived, but that requires 60 votes, and all the chamber’s Democrats have vowed to fight every version of the bill to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, which is set for a possible vote next week.

The list was released by Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and later confirmed by a spokesman for the committee Republicans. It is the result of what is called the “Byrd Bath,” a process in which the parliamentarian hears arguments from Democrats and Republicans and then advises on which provisions comply with the Byrd Rule. That rule requires that only matters directly pertaining to the federal budget are included. The rule is named for former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who first wrote it.

Use Our ContentThis KHN story can be republished for free (details).

Senate Republicans were quick to point out that the document is “guidance” that they can use to try to rewrite impermissible language. The guidance “will help inform action on the legislation going forward,” said a spokesman for Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.).

Among the other provisions that the parliamentarian has advised should require 60 votes are ones that would eliminate Medicaid requirements to provide 10 “essential health benefits.” Also on the list is a provision to repeal a requirement that insurers spend a minimum amount of each premium dollar on direct medical services, rather than administration or profits.

The determination also pertains to a part of the bill that would continue payments for “cost-sharing subsidies” to insurers for two more years. Those subsidies help lower-income people afford out-of-pocket costs like deductibles. The parliamentarian said that duplicated existing law.

MacDonough also said that a provision in the House version of the bill that pertains directly to New York violates the Byrd Rule. That measure would change the way the state collects money for Medicaid. That could suggest efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to offer state-specific changes to gain support for the bill might meet the same fate.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that decision could have “the greatest effect on Republicans’ ability to pass this bill.” He predicted it would “tie the majority leader’s hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans.”

Some of the provisions that didn’t pass muster with MacDonough were key to getting the bill through the House. And if they are dropped, it might make it difficult for the House to approve a final version of the bill.

Not all the decisions went the Democrats’ way. MacDonough found that only a simple majority is needed for language allowing states to impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients. She also said that a provision that will ban abortions if the services are paid through a new fund provided to states would be allowed. That’s because that fund will be governed by existing rules that already ban abortion in most cases.

A few provisions remain under review, according to the list. Those include allowing states to waive a long list of insurance protections, including the ACA’s essential health benefits and preexisting coverage guarantees. Also still under review is language allowing small businesses to pool together to purchase insurance as well as a provision changing requirements related to how much more insurers can charge older adults.

Podcast: What The Health? Senate Health Bill, Mostly Dead?

July 20, 2017

Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Stephanie Armour of the Wall Street Journal, Sarah Kliff of Vox.com, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times discuss the ever-changing status of the Senate’s effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, and the Trump Administration’s efforts to undermine the working of the law.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists recommend their favorite health stories of the week they think you should read, too.

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “How hospitals got richer off Obamacare,” by Dan Diamond

Stephanie Armour: This tweet from Sam Stein of The Daily Beast:

high risk pool pic.twitter.com/CvaS1T9mld

— Sam Stein (@samstein) May 4, 2017

Margot Sanger-Katz: The Daily Beast’s “Team Trump used Obamacare money to run PR effort against it,” by Sam Stein.

Sarah Kliff: Axios.com’s “The ripple effect of declining births,” by Bob Herman.

Subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Cruz Plan Gets Thumbs Up From HHS But Thumbs Down From Most Everyone Else

July 19, 2017

Contradicting the opinion of most policy experts, a draft report from the Trump administration forecasts better enrollment and lower premiums for everyone who buys their own health insurance if a controversial amendment proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas were to become law.

The draft surfaced just as Republican senators were lunching with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to talk about the next steps in the health care debate.

“The Republicans never discuss how good their healthcare bill is, & it will get even better at lunchtime,” tweeted Trump, before the group convened.

But findings from the draft report drew immediate criticism from health policy experts as opaque and misleading.

“The details get a bit dicey,” said Craig Garthwaite, director of the health care program at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “No one I’ve talked to thinks [the analysis] is well done.”

The forecasts in a draft analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services are exactly opposite from what many experts predict.

Use Our ContentThis KHN story can be republished for free (details).

Still, the HHS analysis did provide some insight into how HHS envisioned that the Cruz plan, part of the Senate bill that appeared to die this week, could have worked. Particularly notable: The analysis assumes annual deductibles of $12,000, which means consumers would have to pay that amount — which is far higher than allowed under the ACA — before most benefits are covered.

On Wednesday, health care developments continued to unfold at a breakneck pace, and with a zigzagging trajectory, when the Senate Budget Committee posted on its website yet another bill. This one is an updated version of the 2015 “repeal and delay” bill, which is likely the measure the Senate will consider next week if a vote to start debate succeeds.

It would repeal all of the taxes that paid for the Affordable Care Act’s benefits, roll back the expansion of Medicaid (but not cap the underlying program), nullify the requirement for most people to have insurance and rescind the financial aid for low- and moderate-income Americans.

Late in the afternoon, the Congressional Budget Office released an updated estimate of an earlier analysis concluding that the new “repeal and delay” measure could result in 32 million fewer Americans having coverage and premiums doubling by 2026. By 2020, according to CBO, “about half the nation’s population would live in areas having no insurer participating in the non-group market.” The new bill does not include the Cruz amendment, the subject of the HHS report.

Opposition to the Cruz amendment from powerful health care sectors, like the insurance industry, is cited as one reason why the Senate was unable to muster enough votes to move the whole Senate bill forward for debate this week.

Last Friday, the insurance industry trade lobby sent a harsh warning to Congress, saying the Cruz amendment “is simply unworkable in any form and would undermine protections for those with pre-existing medical conditions, increase premiums and lead to widespread terminations of coverage.”

Today, the HHS report took a very different view.

First reported in the right-leaning Washington Examiner, it forecasts far more people covered by insurance in 2024 if the Cruz plan were adopted, as compared with how many would be insured under the Affordable Care Act.

It also projects premiums would fall, both in plans that meet all the rules of the ACA, and in plans Cruz proposes, which would not have to follow the rules. The Cruz plans would have lower premiums, however, because they could come with far fewer benefits — and could reject people with medical problems or charge them more.

Insurers and actuaries said the Cruz proposal would result in a segmented market, with younger and healthier people drawn to the skimpier, less expensive plans. That, in turn, would leave older or sicker enrollees in the ACA-compliant plans, causing their premiums to spiral upward.

But the analysis by HHS shows premium costs for ACA-compliant plans would go down by more than $250 a month in 2024 when compared with what they would be under current law. The Cruz plans would be super cheap, at under $200 a month under the rosiest scenario outlined.

Experts today immediately pounced on the department’s methods — in as much as they could be determined, since the full report was not released.

(HHS did not respond to requests for comment or for the release of the full report.)

For starters, the draft report, they say, compares premiums for a 40-year-old with the “weighted average” of all people of all ages purchasing ACA plans now.

“It’s not apples to apples,” said Matt Fiedler, a fellow at the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy.

It cited its own “proprietary model” used to determine how many people would switch from ACA plans to the new Cruz plans, without spelling out its assumptions. Not including such details is highly unusual and makes the results difficult to analyze, said Garthwaite, adding: “There’s nothing in this that gives me any hope that the entire report will be any more accurate, complete or unbiased.”

Meanwhile, over lunch at the White House, President Trump asked senators to skip all or part of their August recess in order to work on another proposal to repeal and replace the ACA. He promised premiums that would be significantly lower, without citing details on how that would occur.

Pages