By Julie Rovner September
19, 2017
Republican
efforts in Congress to “repeal and replace” the federal Affordable Care Act are
back from the dead. Again.
While
the chances for this last-ditch measure appear iffy, many GOP senators are
rallying around a proposal by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy
(R-La.), along with Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
They
are racing the clock to round up the needed 50 votes — and there are 52 Senate
Republicans.
An
earlier attempt to replace the ACA this summer fell just one vote short when
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John McCain
(R-Ariz.) voted against it. The latest push is setting off a massive guessing
game on Capitol Hill about where the GOP can pick up the needed vote.
Use Our Content
This KHN story can be republished for free (details).
After
Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year, Republicans would need 60 votes —
which means eight Democrats — to pass any such legislation because special
budget rules allowing approval with a simple majority will expire.
Unlike
previous GOP repeal-and-replace packages that passed the House and nearly
passed the Senate, the Graham-Cassidy proposal would
leave in place most of the ACA taxes that generated funding to expand coverage
for millions of Americans. The plan would simply give those funds as lump sums
to each state. States could do almost whatever they please with them. And the
Congressional Budget Office has yet to weigh in on the potential impact of the
bill, although earlier estimates of similar provisions suggest premiums would
go up and coverage down.
“If
you believe repealing and replacing Obamacare is a good idea, this is your best
and only chance to make it happen, because everything else has failed,” said Graham
in unveiling the bill last
week.
Here
are five things to know about the latest GOP bill:
1.
It would repeal most of the structure of the ACA.
The
Graham-Cassidy proposal would eliminate the federal insurance exchange, healthcare.gov,
along with the subsidies and tax credits that help people with low and moderate
incomes — and small businesses — pay for health insurance and associated health
costs. It would eliminate penalties for individuals who fail to obtain health
insurance and employers who fail to provide it.
It
would eliminate the tax on medical devices.
2.
It would eliminate many of the popular insurance protections, including those
for people with preexisting conditions, in the health law.
Under
the proposal, states could “waive” rules in the law requiring insurers to
provide a list of specific “essential health benefits” and mandating that
premiums be the same for people regardless of their health status. That would
once again expose people with preexisting health conditions to unaffordable or
unavailable coverage. Republicans have consistently said they wanted to
maintain these protections, which polls have shown to be popular among voters.
3.
It would fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program.
Medicaid,
the joint-federal health program for low-income people, currently covers more
than 70 million Americans. The Graham-Cassidy proposal would end the program’s
expansion under the ACA and cap funding overall, and it would redistribute the
funds that had provided coverage for millions of new Medicaid enrollees. It
seeks to equalize payments among states. States that did not expand Medicaid
and were getting fewer federal dollars for the program would receive more money
and states that did expand would see large cuts, according to the bill’s own sponsors. For
example, Oklahoma would see an 88 percent increase from 2020 to 2026, while
Massachusetts would see a 10 percent cut.
The
proposal would also bar Planned Parenthood from
getting any Medicaid funding for family planning and other reproductive health
services for one year, the maximum allowed under budget rules governing this
bill.
4.
It’s getting mixed reviews from the states.
Sponsors
of the proposal hoped for significant support from the nation’s governors as a
way to help push the bill through. But, so far, the governors who are publicly
supporting the measure, including Scott Walker (R-Wis.)
and Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.),
are being offset by opponents including Chris Sununu (R-N.H.), John
Kasich (R-Ohio) and Bill Walker (I-Alaska).
On
Tuesday 10 governors — five Democrats, four Republicans and Walker
— sent a letter to Senate
leaders urging them to pursue a more bipartisan approach. “Only open,
bipartisan approaches can achieve true, lasting reforms,” said the letter.
Bill
sponsor Cassidy was even taken to task publicly by his own state’s health
secretary. Dr. Rebekah Gee, who was appointed by Louisiana’s Democratic
governor, wrote that the bill
“uniquely and disproportionately hurts Louisiana due to our recent [Medicaid]
expansion and high burden of extreme poverty.”
5.
The measure would come to the Senate floor with the most truncated process
imaginable.
The
Senate is working on its Republican-only plans under a process called “budget reconciliation,”
which limits floor debate to 20 hours and prohibits a filibuster. In fact, all
the time for floor debate was used up in July, when Republicans failed to advance any
of several proposed overhaul plans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) could bring the bill back up anytime, but senators would immediately
proceed to votes. Specifically, the next order of business would be a process
called “vote-a-rama,” where votes on the bill and amendments can continue, in
theory, as long as senators can stay awake to call for them.
Several
senators, most notably John McCain, who cast the deciding vote to stop the
process in July, have called for “regular order,” in which the bill would first
be considered in the relevant committee before coming to the floor. The Senate Finance Committee,
which Democrats used to write most of the ACA, has scheduled a hearing for next
week. But there is not enough time for full committee consideration and a vote
before the end of next week.
Meanwhile,
the Congressional Budget Office said in a
statement Tuesday that it could come up with an analysis by next week that
would determine whether the proposal meets the requirements to be considered
under the reconciliation process. But it said that more complicated questions
like how many people would lose insurance under the proposal or what would
happen to insurance premiums could not be answered “for at least several
weeks.”
That
has outraged Democrats, who are united in opposition to the measure.
“I
don’t know how any senator could go home to their constituents and explain why
they voted for a major bill with major consequences to so many of their people
without having specific answers about how it would impact their state,” said
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Senate floor Tuesday.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete