Disability News Service, Resources, Diversity, Americans with Disabilities Act; Local and National.

Showing posts with label American Health Care Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Health Care Act. Show all posts

Friday, November 17, 2017

Trump Puts Health Care for Millions At Risk as Republican Tax Plans Look for Revenue

The Republican tax plans are suddenly looking a lot more like healthcare bills, with provisions that may affect coverage and increase medical expenses for millions of families.

article by Toluse Olorunnipa and Anna Edney for Bloomberg News | Nov 16, 2017                
The House version of the tax bill, which President Donald Trump endorsed on Tuesday, would end a deduction that allows families of disabled children and elderly people to write off large medical expenses. The Senate plan would repeal the Obamacare requirement that most Americans carry insurance, a move that insurers promise would raise premiums in the nationwide individual insurance market.

The provisions would help offset the cost of large tax cuts for corporations and individuals. But the move has sparked a new wave of opposition from the health-care industry and others who are concerned about its impact -- the same political headwinds that tanked Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act earlier this year.

Either proposal, if signed into law, "could be devastating for some families with disabilities," said Kim Musheno, vice president of public policy at the Autism Society, a Bethesda, Maryland, organization that advocates for people with autism. "Families depend on that deduction. And if they deal with the individual mandate, that's going to cut 13 million people from their health care," she said, citing a Congressional Budget Office estimate

Republicans and some conservative groups, though, argue that removing the penalty for uninsured individuals would represent a tax cut for many low-income people who pay it now. Americans for Tax Reform, the group led by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, said that Internal Revenue Service data from tax year 2015 show that 79 percent of households that paid the penalty earned less than $50,000 a year.

Most Americans already think the tax legislation is designed to benefit the rich and oppose the bill by a two-to-one margin, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday. The survey was conducted between Nov. 7 and Nov. 13 -- before the repeal of the Obamacare mandate was introduced -- and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Some of the details in both tax plans have changed since the survey, and the Senate tax-writing committee is still working on its draft.

Few Republicans have spoken out about the House bill's repeal of the medical-expense break. The bill faces a vote on the House floor Thursday. But some criticism has begun to surface as advocacy groups including the AARP and the American Cancer Society have highlighted the harm the House bill could have on families battling diseases and on the elderly. People with tens of thousands of dollars in annual medical expenses often rely on the tax deduction to make ends meet.

Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, said Wednesday he'll vote against the House bill in part because it eliminates the deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

"There are a lot of seniors in my district and this is life and death for them," he said.

The deduction is allowed under current law if medical expenses exceed 10 percent of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Almost 9 million taxpayers deducted about $87 billion in medical expenses for the 2015 tax year, according to the IRS.

Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, said some of his constituents who live in expensive elder-care facilities could be harmed if the deduction is scrapped.

"I think it's one we have to continue to massage a bit," he said. "There's a lot of things out there and there's maybe going to be an opportunity to adjust some of them."

He declined to elaborate.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Republican leaders' sudden decision to add a partial Obamacare repeal to their bill has energized Democratic opposition.

"You don't fix the health insurance system by throwing it into a tax bill and causing premiums to go up 10 percent," Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, told reporters Wednesday.

Were the ACA's insurance mandate repealed absent a new policy to compel the purchase of coverage, the CBO projects that premiums would rise 10 percent for people who buy insurance on their own and more than 13 million Americans would lose or drop their coverage.

But a reduction in the number of people with insurance also translates to less taxpayer money spent to provide subsidies for premiums under the ACA. Ending the requirement as of 2019 would save the government an estimated $318 billion, helping to offset the cost of lowering the corporate tax rate.

In addition, the Senate's tax plan could trigger sharp cuts to Medicare and other programs in order to meet budget deficit rules, according to CBO.

The move to target Obamacare comes after Republicans lost elections in Virginia and other states earlier this month. Health care was a significant factor in those races and Republicans will face punishing campaign ads if they try to chip away at Obamacare or end the medical-expense deduction while cutting taxes, said political analyst David Axelrod, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama.

"The thing that makes it more of a potent issue is that it's all being done to facilitate what essentially is a massive corporate tax cut and an individual tax cut that's skewed to wealthy Americans," he said in an interview. "You don't have to work very hard to make those ads."

The White House argues that the ACA's insurance mandate isn't popular and disproportionately affects low- and middle-income Americans who are forced to buy insurance that may be more expensive than they can afford.

"The President's priorities for tax reform have been clear from the beginning: make our businesses globally competitive, and deliver tax cuts to the middle class," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. "He is glad to see the Senate is considering including the repeal of the onerous mandates of Obamacare in its tax reform legislation and hopes that those savings will be used to further reduce the burden it has placed on middle-class families."

Trump, though, has said proceeds from repealing the insurance mandate should be used to cut taxes even further for wealthy people.

"How about ending the unfair & highly unpopular Indiv Mandate in OCare & reducing taxes even further?" Trump said Monday in a tweet. "Cut top rate to 35% w/all of the rest going to middle income cuts?"

Like Republicans' failed attempts to repeal the ACA, the tax plan is amassing a growing list of opponents from the world of medicine.

Insurers, hospital groups and disability advocates have spoken out forcefully against the health-care proposals in the bill. Hospitals and insurance groups wrote a letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday warning of dire health-care outcomes if the tax measure becomes law.

"Repealing the individual mandate without a workable alternative will reduce enrollment, further destabilizing an already fragile individual and small group health insurance market on which more than 10 million Americans rely," said the letter, signed by six health-care groups, including the American Hospital Association and America's Health Insurance Plans.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

U.S. Senate November 2017 Tax Bill Goes After Obamacare (again)!

WASHINGTON ― Republicans in the U.S. Senate want to gut Obamacare in the latest draft of tax reform legislation they released late Tuesday (Nov. 14). 


article by Arthur Delaney for HuffPost | Nov 14, 2017                                                                 
The new version of the tax bill repeals the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all Americans either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
“By scrapping this unpopular tax from an unworkable law, we not only ease the financial burdens already associated with the mandate, but also generate additional revenue to provide more tax relief to these individuals,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, said in a press release.
Obamacare’s individual mandate, as it’s often called, is a core part of the law designed to bring healthier people into the insurance risk pool in order to offset the cost of sicker people who are more likely to buy insurance without the incentive of a mandate.

Until this week, Republicans had not signaled major interest in gouging the Affordable Care Act as part of tax reform. The tax bill in the House, which could see a floor vote this week, does not include the Obamacare provision. Including the mandate repeal helps put back some of the money that the bill loses through tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

In another big twist, the new Senate tax legislation makes many of the individual tax cuts in the plan temporary in a bid to comply with Senate rules that forbid certain legislation from adding to the federal budget deficit after 10 years.

The heart of the bill, a reduction in the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, will be permanent ― but things like reductions in the individual income tax and an increase of the standard deduction would expire at the end of 2025. So would an increase in the child tax credit.

The tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration had similar “sunset” provisions in order to comply with budget rules. Republicans at that time did not actually intend for the cuts to be temporary and correctly predicted that Congress wouldn’t allow most of the cuts to expire.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a Wednesday morning statement that with the sunsetting tax cuts, Republicans would put themselves in the position of later imposing big tax increases on the middle class.

“Either tens of millions of taxpayers will pay significantly more the longer this plan is in effect, or a future Congress will extend the tax breaks, making the deficit hole they create massively deeper,” Schumer said.

Republicans are advancing their legislation according to special “budget reconciliation” rules that allow bills to pass the Senate with only 51 votes instead of 60. Since Republicans control only 52 seats in the Senate, the reconciliation process allows them to cut taxes without any Democratic support.

This post has been updated with a statement from Schumer.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-tax-bill-obamacare_us_5a0bb637e4b00a6eece51eb3

And in a major gimmick, many of the bill’s tax breaks expire in 2025.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Autistic Self Advocacy Network Condemns New Attacks On The Affordable Care Act

 
Press Release - Oct 16, 2017 - The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) condemns the multiple new attacks on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from the Trump administration in the past 24 hours. These attacks undermine our health care system, will raise costs for everyone, and threaten the lives of people with disabilities. ASAN calls on Congress to step up to the plate and exercise real leadership by passing a bipartisan bill that will restore funding for Cost Sharing Reductions, protect and fully fund Open Enrollment, and shield the American people from future attacks on our health care. 

The recent actions from the White House hurt our country in multiple ways. The executive order signed yesterday threatens critical protections for people with disabilities by making it easier for insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. It also allows insurers to sell junk coverage that doesn’t cover critical services and won’t protect consumers from soaring health care costs. In addition, last night’s decision to withhold funding for Cost Sharing Reductions will raise costs for everyone, but particularly for working- and middle-class Americans who rely on this basic assistance to afford health insurance. These actions will directly harm millions of people and are without justification.

The American people have clearly and repeatedly rejected these kinds of proposal over the past nine months. As ASAN has stated in the past, any future attempts at health care reform must meet the needs of all Americans, leave the Medicaid program intact, and proactively include the disability community from the beginning of the process. ASAN calls on the Trump administration to listen to the voices of everyday Americans, stop the attacks on our health care, and support a bipartisan process in Congress. Our government must work to develop thoughtful and carefully considered proposals that make healthcare better for everyone and increase access to quality, affordable coverage rather than endangering the lives of people with disabilities.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization run by and for autistic people. ASAN was created to serve as a national grassroots disability rights organization for the autistic community run by and for autistic Americans, advocating for systems change and ensuring that the voices of autistic people are heard in policy debates and the halls of power. Our staff work to educate communities, support self-advocacy in all its forms, and improve public perceptions of autism. ASAN’s members and supporters include autistic adults and youth, cross-disability advocates, and non-autistic family members, professionals, educators, and friends.
source: press release 

Friday, October 13, 2017

Pres. Trump Cutting Billions In Obamacare Payments To Insurers, Low Income Americans Targeted

President Donald Trump plans to halt payments to health insurance companies serving the poorest customers on the Obamacare exchanges, the White House announced Thursday.


article by Jeffrey Young for HUFFPOST | Oct, 12, 2017                                                             
Trump has threatened to withhold these funds, valued at $7 billion this year, since shortly after his election victory last November. The threats alone have roiled the health insurance market, and if he follows through, it promises to be significantly disruptive. Trump will make an announcement Friday, according to Politico, which first reported the news.

In Trump’s mind, dealing damage to the Obamacare market is a means to achieve leverage he believes will force congressional Democrats to cooperate with replacing the Affordable Care Act, the law President Barack Obama signed in 2010 that has brought the number of uninsured Americans to a historic low.

Trump has been undermining the law and its programs since he took office in January, and he has ramped up his efforts in recent weeks in the aftermath of his failure to get the Affordable Care Act repealed by Congress. Earlier Thursday, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to change regulations to allow insurers to sell policies that exclude people with pre-existing conditions and have skimpier benefits than insurance governed by the Affordable Care Act.

The mere possibility that Trump would refuse to pay money owed to health insurance companies created additional instability in market. Insurers are raising premiums for next year even more than they would have as they try to protect themselves against financial losses if the federal government reneges on its obligations.

The open-enrollment period on health insurance exchanges, such as HealthCare.gov and Covered California, begins Nov. 1, less than three weeks from now.

The payments Trump plans to end are related to so-called cost-sharing reductions offered to insurance exchange enrollees who earn up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $30,150 for a single person. These subsidies serve to reduce out-of-pocket expenses for low-income people by shrinking their deductibles, co-payments and the like.

Almost 6 million people, or 57 percent of Obamacare enrollees, qualified for these subsidies when they enrolled this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies are required to reduce this cost-sharing. The federal government is supposed to reimburse them for the cost, and it has since exchange plans went live in January 2014.

Trump will change that soon. He has the authority to do so because of a lawsuit then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) brought against Obama in 2014. House Republicans claimed Obama illegally made these payments without an explicit congressional appropriation of the funding.

A federal judge sided with House Republicans last year but allowed Obama to continue paying back insurers while the case went through the appeals process.

But when Trump succeeded Obama as president, his administration became the defendant in the case, raising doubt about how Trump and House Republicans would proceed. The parties in the lawsuit have obtained several delays in the proceedings in the meantime. The appeals court ruled in August that the attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia are permitted take up the defense, based on the state officials’ concerns that the Trump administration would fail to do so.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced Thursday that he and those other attorneys general are prepared to sue Trump over the cost-sharing reduction payments.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a statement on the president’s decision Thursday night.
“Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare. In light of this analysis, the government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments. The United States House of Representatives sued the previous administration in federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful. The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system. Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”
Congress could address the cost-sharing reduction payments issue by authorizing the spending in legislation but has not done so.

The immediate effect of Trump pulling the cost-sharing reduction payments will be mixed. Health insurance exchange customers who earn too much to qualify for subsidies will have to bear the full brunt of the premium increases insurers instituted to protect themselves. Those customers who receive subsidies will mostly be shielded from the rate hikes because their subsidies will rise along with the premiums.

Ironically, cutting off these payments to health insurance companies will actually cost taxpayers more than continuing them. Because higher premiums mean bigger subsidies, federal spending will rise by almost $200 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The news about the cost-sharing reduction payments comes just hours after Trump signed an executive order that could shake up the Affordable Care Act’s insurance markets ― and quite possibly hobble them more.

Looking ahead, however, ending the payments jeopardizes the future of the exchanges. Many major health insurance companies already have pulled out of the marketplaces, citing financial losses. In future years, it’s likely fewer companies will want to participate in the exchanges knowing might not get expected payments. Some parts of the country would have no health insurance carriers in operation under this scenario, the Congressional Budget Office predicted.

Experts and a variety of health care groups immediately warned that the new insurance plans the executive order might allow would also draw healthy people out of the Affordable Care Act markets, forcing insurers to raise premiums or shut down plans altogether ― leaving the people who want or need comprehensive coverage with fewer, more expensive options, or none at all.

These are the latest moves Trump has made to weaken the health insurance exchanges:

The administration has severely cut back on the Department of Health and Human Services’ programs to promote health insurance enrollment, including major reductions in advertising and in-person assistance. The administration also halved the sign-up period to six weeks and plans to take the HealthCare.gov website down for as long as 12 hours every Sunday during the enrollment campaign.

The Department of Health and Human Services also spent money intended for enrollment support on a campaign that criticizes the programs it’s supposed to be managing.

Jonathan Cohn contributed to this report.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obamacare-payments-insurers_us_59e01859e4b03a7be57f71a9?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__101317&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__101317+CID_5e54519d198cb2607833064b39be3028&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__101317

Monday, September 25, 2017

GOP Graham-Cassidy Health Care Bill Might Be Potentially Dead For Now

The GOP's last-ditch effort to repeal and replace Obamacare received what appeared to be a fatal blow Monday evening when Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced her decision not to support the bill, becoming the crucial third Republican to oppose it.

nice article by LEIGH ANN CALDWELL for NBC NEWS | Sept 25, 2017                                     
Marilee Adamski-Smith from Brookfield, Wisconsin, left, and Colleen Flanagan of Boston, center, join others outside a hearing room where the Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing to consider the Graham-Cassidy healthcare proposal, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 25, 2017. Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP

Collins joins Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., as GOP "no" votes. Unless one of them switches their position, Republicans can't muster the 50 votes needed to pass it.

Momentum for the bill sputtered Monday morning even after a new version was released by authors Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy that included new incentives to appease the concerns of a handful of uncommitted Republican senators.

GOP leaders faced a Saturday deadline to pass Graham-Cassidy with a simple Senate majority and it's still unclear if Republican leaders will put the bill before the Senate for a vote, even without the votes for it to pass.

Leaving a leadership meeting, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said, "I doubt it" when asked if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would bring the legislation to the floor for a vote. And that was before Collins had solidified her position against it.

Collins' opposition caps off a months long effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act after years of campaign promises to do so. Senate Republicans failed to pass three other version of a repeal to Obamacare in late July when Collins, McCain and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, all voted against it.

Murkowski has not yet indicated her position on Graham-Cassidy.

"Today, we find out that there is now a fourth version of the Graham-Cassidy proposal, which is as deeply flawed as the previous iterations. The fact that a new version of this bill was released the very week we are supposed to vote compounds the problem," Collins said in a statement announcing her opposition.

Collins announced her position despite changes being made to the bill to get remaining holdouts on board. An analysis of state-by-state health care funding shows that under Graham-Cassidy, Maine would see a 43 percent increase in federal health care funds, Arizona would get an additional 14 percent, Kentucky another 4 percent and Alaska 3 percent. But Collins said despite the positive numbers, Maine would still lose money by dismantling the Affordable Care Act.

"Maine still loses money under whichever version of the Graham-Cassidy bill we consider because the bills use what could be described as a 'give with one hand, take with the other' distribution model. Huge Medicaid cuts down the road more than offset any short-term influx of money," Collins said in her statement.

Collins announced her position after an incomplete analysis of an earlier version of Graham-Cassidy by the Congressional Budget Office found that "millions" would lose their health insurance under the plan.

The rushed process to meet a September 30 deadline before the legislation expires that allows passage with just a simple majority frustrated a handful of senators, including McCain who had more problems with the process than the substance. He came out against the bill on Friday.

In an effort to calm the critics on a closed process, the Senate Finance Committee held the first and only hearing Monday afternoon on legislation. It turned out to be highly attended by passionate activists worried about their health care being stripped from them.

Protestors filled the hallways outside the hearing room that snaked around the corner and down the length of a city block. Hundreds of people chanted "shame" as Graham entered the hearing room to testify before the committee. Voluminous protests inside the hearing room delayed the start of the hearing. Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, attempted to gavel in the committee but protestors drowned him out. Police dragged them out, many of whom are disabled and in wheelchairs, out one by one.


             NBC News Coverage Sept 25, 2017

Once the committee room was clear of the public, the hearing began. Protestors maintained their chants in the hallway outside; their sound seeping through the doors providing constant background chanting.The Association of Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield released prepared testimony before the hearing stating that they can't support Graham-Cassidy.

"The bill would have negative consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market; cutting Medicaid; pulling back on protections for pre-existing conditions; not ending taxes on health insurance premiums and benefits; and potentially allowing government-controlled, single-payer health care to grow," a summary of their testimony states.

Graham testified that Obamacare was a “disaster” in his state and boasted that "every major insurance company opposes our bill,” saying it was evidence that his legislation would give states more flexibility in dealing with them.

But Democrats pointed out it wasn’t just insurers upset with Graham-Cassidy: The top industry groups representing doctors and hospitals also publicly opposed the bill along with a parade of patient advocacy groups, from AARP to the American Heart Association. These organizations have argued the bill would cut overall health funding while allowing insurers to treat customers differently based on a pre-existing condition, a practice banned by Obamacare.

Under questioning from Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Cassidy said their assessments were wrong and that it was “not true” that states could charge higher premiums based on their health status under his bill.

But the bill as written allows states to waive Obamacare’s rule preventing insurers from charging sick people more for care as well as its requirements that plans cover certain essential benefits. Outside analysts have consistently said it would weaken protections for pre-existing conditions.

The loosening of the regulations on insurance coverage was seen as an attempt to help conservatives come on board.

Protestors also sat-in the office of Murkowski in protest. Her deputy chief-of-staff came out to address the activists and said that she left Anchorage at 6 a.m. on Monday and is using her flight time back to D.C. “thinking about her decision.”

Marilee Adanski-Smith traveled to D.C. from Wisconsin on Saturday to attend the hearing. She was born without arms and legs and relies on Medicaid.

“We’re here to save Medicaid. Our lives depend on Medicaid,” she said, adding that she’s fearful that the legislation will take away Medicaid recipients' ability to live at home and force people into nursing homes.

“People are going to die in nursing homes if people don’t have the community and home-based services they need,” Adanski-Smith, a small-business owner, added.

Graham-Cassidy would end the Medicaid expansion in 2020 and reduce the money given to Medicaid by changing how it's allocated. It would no longer provide it for whoever is in need — instead, it would cap the number based on population.

The bill would also end the individual mandate to buy insurance and dismantle the structure of the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare. Instead, it would give money to states to implement their own health care systems. And while it would require that people with pre-existing conditions have access to health insurance, like Obamacare, it wouldn't prohibit insurance companies from charging people with long-term health care needs more money.

The new version of Graham-Cassidy would also provide billions of dollars more for states during the transition from Obamacare and as a contingency fund.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gop-health-care-bill-faces-crucial-uncertain-week-n804546

Friday, July 28, 2017

Rod Stewart: 'I have to do something' for disabled kids and families' who Protest Trump's Healthcare Cuts

(CNN) - July 27, 2017 - Three weeks ago, a group of children with disabilities and their parents chartered a bus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and headed to Washington to protest proposed cuts in Medicaid, the government health insurance they all rely on.

By Elizabeth Cohen, Senior Medical Correspondent for CNN | July 27, 2017                              
There was one problem. The trip cost about $30,000, and they'd raised only $7,000.

"I'm so nervous," organizer Angela Lorio said as she boarded the bus with her 4-year-old son, John Paul, who has severe disabilities.

She never dreamed that relief would end up coming from Sir Rod Stewart.

The rock icon was at his home in Palm Beach, Florida, on July 10 when he watched CNN's story about the families on "Erin Burnett OutFront."

The story didn't have a happy ending. Despite their best efforts, the families did not meet with their elected officials or anyone from the Republican National Committee.

Minutes after watching the piece, Stewart emailed his manager.

"I've just seen something on CNN that's heartbreaking. It was a group of families with severely disabled children who are driving to Washington to confront about health care cuts. See if you can find out who they are," Stewart wrote. "I'd like to help in some way.""He was so touched and heartbroken and actually teary," Arnold Stiefel, Stewart's manager for more than 30 years, told CNN. "He said to me 'As a father of eight I have to do something now.' "

Stiefel wrote back to Stewart: "I can't think of a better cause. By all means."

Stewart's team contacted Lorio and her friend Jessica Michot, co-founders of Trach Mommas of Louisiana, and wrote them a check that covered the remaining cost of the trip.

Lorio kept a video diary as she deposited "the biggest check of her life" Monday afternoon.

"This is amazing!" she said. "We love you, Rod -- thank you so, so much!"

In one of Stewart's most famous songs, "Forever Young," he sings: "May the good Lord be with you down every road you roam." He ended his concert Tuesday night at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey, with a video tribute to the families who took the road trip.

"Some of you may know that I live in America and pay my taxes here," the British singer said. "I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I am a father."

Now Lorio looks back at how the bus trip almost didn't happen.

Over the July 4 holiday weekend, families from the Trach Mommas group had participated in protests in Baton Rouge. When they felt that lawmakers hadn't heard their voices, Lorio's husband, Neal, suggested traveling to Washington.

"I was like 'ha, ha, ha,' " she said.

The next day, Lorio and Michot attended the funeral of a 2-year-old girl, the daughter of one of the Trach Mommas.

The day after that, while in church, Lorio heard "that little voice of God" telling her to organize the trip.

"I was like -- seriously? God, if you want this to happen, you're going to have to do this for us," she said.

She never dreamed that Rod Stewart, whose music she'd listened to since she was a little girl, would be the one to step in.
"It was beyond our wildest dreams -- not just anybody paid for it, but Rod Stewart!" she said. "God always hears your prayers and answers them -- they just might not be answered in the way that you expect."
Copyright 2017 by CNN NewSource. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/health/rod-stewart-disabled-kids/index.html

PRES. TRUMP & GOP REELING AFTER SENATE DEFEAT OF REPEAL OF 'OBAMACARE'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump's agenda, the Senate early Friday rejected a measure to repeal parts of former President Barack Obama's health care law after a night of high suspense in the U.S. Capitol.

Article by ERICA WERNER AND ALAN FRAM for the ASSOCIATED PRESS                          
Unable to pass even a so-called "skinny repeal," it was unclear if Senate Republicans could advance any health bill despite seven years of promises to repeal "Obamacare."

"This is clearly a disappointing moment," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "I regret that our efforts were not enough, this time."

"It's time to move on," he said. The vote was 49-51 with three Republicans joining all Democrats in voting 'no.'

McConnell put the health bill on hold and announced that the Senate would move onto other legislation next week.

Trump responded on Twitter: "3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!"

A key vote to defeat the measure was cast by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who returned to the Senate this week after receiving a diagnosis of brain cancer. In an impassioned speech the day he returned, McCain had called for bipartisanship on major issues of national concern, and a return to the "regular order" of legislating by committee.

Two other Republicans - Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine - joined McCain and all Democrats to reject the amendment, which would have repealed a mandate that most individuals get health insurance and would have suspended a requirement that large companies provide coverage to their employees. It would have also suspended a tax on medical devices and denied funding to Planned Parenthood for a year.

On Twitter, McCain said the repeal bill "fell short of our promise to repeal & replace Obamacare w/ meaningful reform," adding, "I hope we can rely on humility, cooperation & dependence on each other to better serve the people who elected us."

The amendment was a last resort for Senate Republicans to pass something - anything - to trigger negotiations with the House.

"It's time to turn the page," said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York. "We are not celebrating. We are relieved."

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said in a statement that the Trump administration would pursue its health care goals through regulation. "This effort will continue," Price said. But insurers, hospitals, doctors, and consumer groups are pressing the administration to guarantee billions of dollars in disputed subsidies to help stabilize insurance markets around the country.

Buoyed by a signal from House Speaker Paul Ryan, McConnell had introduced a pared-down health care bill late Thursday that he hoped would keep alive Republican ambitions to repeal "Obamacare."

McConnell called his measure the Health Care Freedom Act. It was not intended to become law, but to open a path for a House-Senate conference committee to try to work out comprehensive legislation Congress could pass and send to Trump.

The Congressional Budget Office said the amendment would have increased the number of uninsured people by 16 million, the same problem that vexed all the "repeal and replace" measures Republicans have offered. Obama's law extended coverage to some 20 million people, reducing the nation's uninsured rate to a historic low of around 9 percent.

Still, Ryan, R-Wis., had seemingly opened a path for McConnell earlier Thursday by signaling a willingness to negotiate a more comprehensive bill with the Senate. Some Republican senators had been concerned that the House would simply pass McConnell's "skinny bill" and send it to Trump. That would have sent a shock wave through health insurance markets, spiking premiums.

Ryan sent senators a statement saying that if "moving forward" requires talks with the Senate, the House would be "willing" to do so. But shortly afterward, his words received varied responses from three GOP senators who'd insisted on a clear commitment from Ryan.

"Not sufficient," said McCain, who returned to the Capitol Tuesday. The 80-year-old McCain had been home in Arizona trying to decide on treatment options for brain cancer.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., initially said "not yet" when asked if he was ready to vote for the scaled-back Senate bill. But later, he told reporters that Ryan had assured him and others in a phone conversation that the House would hold talks with the Senate.

"I feel comfortable personally. I know Paul; he's a man of his word," said Graham.

As the convoluted developments played out, the slender 52-48 GOP majority was divided among itself over what it could agree to. Democrats were unanimously opposed.

After a comprehensive "repeal and replace" bill failed on the Senate floor, and a straight-up repeal failed too, McConnell and his top lieutenants turned toward the "skinny repeal."

It was to have been the ticket to negotiations with the House, which had passed its own legislation in May.

Opponents mobilized quickly against McConnell's new strategy.

The insurance company lobby group, America's Health Insurance Plans, wrote to Senate leaders Thursday saying that ending Obama's requirement that people buy insurance without strengthening insurance markets would produce "higher premiums, fewer choices for consumers and fewer people covered next year."

And a bipartisan group of governors including John Kasich of Ohio and Brian Sandoval of Nevada also announced against it. So did the American Medical Association.

Numerous polls had shown little public support for the GOP's earlier proposals to repeal and replace Obama's law. A recent AP-NORC poll found only 22 percent of the public backing the Republican approach, while 51 percent were opposed.

In the end the misgivings of a few Republican senators derailed the GOP's seven-year quest to roll back "Obamacare." It remains to be seen whether a bipartisan deal can now be reached to stabilize insurance markets that have been rattled by rising premiums and insurer exits.

The dizzying series of legislative maneuvers this week left even veteran senators puzzled.

"We're in the twilight zone of legislating," said Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
----
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Stephen Ohlemacher and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.
© 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Senate Advances On Obamacare Repeal, Healthcare Advocates Fight For Medicaid - 64 Arrests

Many health care advocates were arrested at a Senate building, including several disabled activists.


article by Kaeli Subberwal for HUFFPOST | July 25, 2017
Crowds of protesters flooded the atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building on Tuesday to protest efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, making the halls echo with now-familiar chants: “I’d rather go to jail than die of no Medicaid!” and “No cuts to Medicaid! Save our liberty!”

The protests came as the Senate voted on a motion to proceed with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The procedural measure, which passed 51-50, allows Congress to move ahead with its goal to repeal Obamacare. As the Senate voted on the motion to proceed, protesters in the Senate gallery chanted, “Kill the bill! Don’t kill us!”

While the Senate prepared to vote on the bill, the line along the wheelchair ramp leading into the Hart Building snaked onto the sidewalk. Once protesters, representing groups including ADAPT, an organization of disability rights activists, and the National Council on Independent Living, entered the building, they gathered into a group and began their chants calling for Republicans to end their fight to repeal Obamacare.

Many of the protesters were in Washington for the annual conference of the National Council on Independent Living, which held a rally on the West Front Lawn of the Capitol earlier Tuesday.

The rally’s speakers included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez. Schumer emphasized the moral significance of the impending vote, saying, “You are reminding everybody how dismantling Medicaid is the wrong, inhumane way to go.”

Ashley Bridwell, a participant in the Hart Building protest, said that the benefits people with disabilities accrue from Medicaid are not luxuries.

“If the bill passes and Medicaid is cut by 30 percent, there are people in this room that will die as a result of the legislation and the cuts in the funding,” said Bridwell, who serves on the board of directors of a Phoenix-based center for independent livi

The consequences of a repeal are very real for protester Dina Garcia of Los Angeles. Garcia, her husband and their 11-year-old son would all be affected if Medicaid were cut. She vowed she would keep hounding Republicans to fight against the repeal.

“It’ll hurt so many people with disabilities,” Garcia said.

As the protesters continued chanting in the atrium of the Hart Building, a police officer raised a megaphone and warned them to desist or risk arrest. Slowly, protesters from the outskirts began to trickle away, and police officers formed a circle around the remaining crowd.

The police cordoned off the protesters with yellow police tape and began to arrest people one by one. Many of those arrested were in wheelchairs. As they progressed toward the door, each arrestee was heralded with applause; on their way out, many raised a hand in a victorious fist. 

Sixty-four people were arrested, according to a press release from the United States Capitol Police.
Although the atmosphere at the Hart Building was one of defiance and determination, the Affordable Care Act that the protesters were fighting to protect faces its biggest challenge yet in the aftermath of Tuesday’s vote.

“It’s crazy,” Bridwell said, “that for the first time we’re actually talking about it in terms of life and death.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/protesters-obamacare-repeal-senate_us_5977b667e4b0c95f375fa645

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Action Alert - AAPD! We're Not Out Of The Woods Yet On Republican Healthcare Attempts To Repeal and/or Replace!

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) has shared the following Action Alert to help the disability community, family members, friends, advocates, etc. information on the continuing issues of the attempts to repeal and/or replace the nation's healthcare system we have. Please take a few moments to review the below information and resources. TY!
# # #
AAPD - Power Logo

Action Alert!
We're not out of the woods yet on Healthcare

 

Please continue visiting, calling, tweeting, and emailing your Senators!

July 20, 2017

Thank you so much for all of your advocacy over the past few weeks to to protest the American Health Care Act and Better Care Reconciliation Act – together we sent the message loud and clear that we will not sit idly by as our healthcare and services are stripped away. Your advocacy made a difference!

Unfortunately, the Senate is still not listening. The effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and harm Medicaid is back again with two new versions.

The Senate’s “Better Care Reconciliation Act” (BCRA) and a new bill, the “Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act” (ORRA), are being readied for a vote next week. It is unclear which bill the Senate will move on at this point, but we expect a “motion to proceed” sometime next week — likely Tuesday or Wednesday. These bills are harmful to people with disabilities for many reasons.
  • The ORRA cuts taxes on the rich by removing health care from the poor and middle class
  • The ORRA would eliminate health care coverage for 32 million people by 2026; 17 million by next year (Congressional Budget Office)
  • The ORRA would increase health care plan premiums by at least 100%
  • The ORRA stops all Medicaid expansion at the end of 2019 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
  • The BCRA guts Medicaid by cutting over $700 billion
  • Both bills make it harder to provide home and community based services by eliminating the Community First Choice option for Medicaid
  • Both bills eliminate the protections against discrimination for pre-existing conditions
  • Both bills eliminate the requirement for essential health benefits (which include prescription drugs, mental health services, rehabilitative and habilitative services, and devices, and more)
Bar graph developed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to highlight how ACA Repeal-Without-Replace Would Lead to 32 Million Losing Coverage and Individual Market Collapse. The increase in uninsured would be 17 million the first year after the bill is enacted, 27 million after three years, and 32 million by 2026. Premiums would increase by 25% the first year after the bill is enacted, by 50% after three years, and by 100% by 2026. The share of people living in areas with no individual market insurers would be 10% the first year after the bill is enacted, 50% after three years, and 75% by 2026.
Vertical bar graph produced by the Congressional Buget Office to show the Net Effects of the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017 on the Budget Deficit. The repeal of Medicaid expansion woudl cut Medicaid funding by $842 billion. Termination of subsidies for nongroup health insurance would decrease the budget deficit by $454 billion due to cutting tax credits and selected coverage provisions. Reduced collections of penalty payments from employers and uninsured peopel would add $210 billion to the budget deficit. Repeal of taxes on high-income people, the annual fee imposed on health insurers, and excise taxes enacted under the ACA would increase the budget deficit by $613 billion. Overall the ORRA would reduce the budget deficit by $473 billion.

TAKE ACTION!


Everyone needs to continue visiting, calling, tweeting, and emailing their Senators to tell them to vote no on the motion to proceed to consider these bills. All Senators must understand the damage this bill will do to the lives and liberty of people with disabilities and their families. We are grateful for all the advocacy you have already done – it has been effective. Please, keep it up!
 

Contact your Senators

The message is clear:

“Senator _____ must reject any bill that causes large coverage losses, ends the Medicaid expansion, caps and cuts the Medicaid program, or guts critical protections for people with health conditions.”
 
Focus on telling stories when you meet with, call, or contact your Senators. Write stories or record brief 60-90 second videos about you, your child, your parent, your relatives, or your friends who have a disability and need the support of Medicaid and health care. Include pictures. Share these stories on Facebook and Twitter and ask your friends and family to do the same. Our Senators need to see the human face of Medicaid.

The most effective outreach is to meet with your Senator (or their staff) in-person. When you do so, share your story of how access to health care and home and community-based services are important to you or your loved ones with disabilities. Those stories will particularly be impactful.

Contacting Congress allows you to easily search for your Senators and access information on their D.C. offices.  

Engage your Senators through Social Media


Tweet your Senators and use the hashtags #SaveMedicaid, #NoCutsNoCaps, #ProtectOurCare, #ADAPTandRESIST, #KeepAmericaCovered, and/or #CoverageMatters
 

Sample Tweets:

  • [insert your Senator’s Twitter handle] Over 10 million people with disabilities rely on #Medicaid for healthcare coverage. Please – #ProtectOurCare & #SaveMedicaid.
     
  • [insert your Senator’s Twitter handle] Don’t allow insurers to discriminate against people w/ disabilities because of pre-existing conditions. #ProtectOurCare
     
  • [insert your Senator’s Twitter handle] The #BCRA is a threat the life, liberty, and independence of people with disabilities. #ProtectOurCare #SaveMedicaid
     
  • [insert your Senator’s Twitter handle] Medicaid provides essential services to millions of people with disabilities. #SaveMedicaid #NoCutsNoCaps
     
  • [insert your Senator’s Twitter handle] Repeal without a replacement is not an option! #SaveMedicaid #NoCutsNoCaps #ProtectOurCare
 
States to Target:
  • Arizona
  • Alaska
  • Colorado
  • Indiana
  • Maine
  • Nevada
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • West Virginia
Please be sure to thank Senators Capito (R-WV), Collins (R-ME), and Murkowski (R-AK) for their commitment to not vote for a repeal bill without a replacement.
 

Contact your Governors

While Senators have the most direct influence on the legislative future of the BCRA and ORRA, contacting Governors is another great way to put additional pressure on Senators. You can find contact information for governors here.
 

Social Media Graphics:

You are welcome to use any of the graphics below as part of your social media outreach. Thank you to SuMo Design Workshop for pulling these together!

 

A photo of disability advocates marching in Washington, DC with the Capitol Building in the background. The top right corner of the image reads "#SaveMedicaid #NoCutsNoCaps #ADAPTandRESIST Call your Senators Now! 202-224-3121" and includes the AAPD logo.
A photo of disability advocates marching in Washington, DC with the Capitol Building in the background. The top right corner of the image reads "#SaveMedicaid #NoCutsNoCaps #ADAPTandRESIST Call your Senators Now! 202-224-3121" and includes the AAPD logo.
A photo of disability advocates marching in Washington, DC with the Capitol Building in the background. Two advocates are holding a sign that reads "America for ALL" At the top of the image is a box with "#SaveMedicaid" in the middle. The bottom of the image reads "Call your Senators Now! 202-224-3121"
A photo of disability advocates marching in Washington, DC with the Capitol Building in the background. The top right of the image reads "#SaveMedicad #ADAPTandRESIST" and includes the AAPD logo. The text in the center of the image reads "Vote as if your life depends on it, because it does" - Justin Dart Call your Senator: 202-224-3121 Tell them to VOTE NO! on #TrumpCare"

Additional Resources and Analyses

 

Previous AAPD Healthcare Action Alerts


The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) is a convener, connector, and catalyst for change, increasing the political and economic power of people with disabilities.
Copyright © 2017 American Association of People with Disabilities, All rights reserved. 

Monday, July 3, 2017

American's Health Insurance Premiums Could Increase Under U.S. Senate Healthcare Bill aka TrumpCare

The U.S. Senate Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) would make significant changes to the amounts that people pay for nongroup coverage and for the care they receive under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The tables below provide estimates of how premiums after taking into account tax credits would change for people currently enrolled in the federal and state marketplaces.

Kaiser Family Foundation  REPORT | by  Gary Claxton, Anthony Damico, Larry Levitt , and Cynthia Cox | June 26, 2017                                                                                                                                  
Under current law, people with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for premium tax credits to help them pay the premium for nongroup coverage purchased through the federal or a state marketplace if they do not have access to other affordable coverage. People are responsible for paying a specified percent of their income (“required income percentage”) toward the cost of the benchmark plan (the second-lowest cost silver plan in their area), and the federal government pays the remainder of the premium to their insurer; this amount is the person’s premium tax credit. The required income percentages people are responsible to pay vary with income: In 2017, people with incomes between 100 percent and 133 percent of poverty contribute 2.04 percent of income, while people with incomes between 300 percent and 400 percent of poverty contribute 9.69 percent of their income.1 Because premiums vary with age but the share of income people are responsible to pay does not, older people receive larger premium tax credits than younger people with the same income but pay the same amount for the benchmark plan.

Beginning in 2020, the BCRA would make several significant revisions that affect the premium tax credits that people receive when they purchase nongroup coverage. First, the bill would revise income eligibility for premium tax credits, extending eligibility to people with incomes below poverty but capping eligibility at 350 percent of poverty. Second, the bill amends the way that premium tax credits are calculated so that the required income percentages vary with age and with income. Our estimates of the required income percentages under current law and the BCRA for 2020 are shown in the Appendix. The result is that on average people at younger ages would pay a lower share of their income to purchase a benchmark plan than they today while people at older ages would pay a higher share. Third, the bill reduces the value of the benchmark plans that are used to determine premium tax credits. The result is that a person who used their premium tax credit to purchase a benchmark plan would get a plan that on average would pay 58 percent of expected covered costs (a bronze plan), compared to 70 percent (a silver plan) under current law. A plan paying 58 percent of expected covered costs would have much higher cost sharing (e.g., deductibles) than a plan covering 70 percent of costs. This change is particularly important because the BCRA also would eliminate the cost sharing subsidies available under current law that reduce cost sharing and out-of-pocket limits for marketplace enrollees with incomes at or below 250 of poverty.

The bill also authorizes states to change the amount that premiums for adults can vary due to age, from 3:1 under current law to 5:1 (or a different ratio at state discretion). This would lower premiums for younger adults and raise them for older adults in states that made the change.2

Results
We estimated the average premiums that current marketplace enrollees would pay, after receiving any premium tax credit, for a benchmark silver plan in 2020 under current law and under the BCRA. Most current marketplace enrollees purchase silver plans, so we used those as the basis for a comparison of how much people would pay for equivalent coverage under the ACA versus the BCRA. The methods we used in making our estimates are described in more detail below.

Overall, marketplace enrollees would pay on average 74 percent more towards the premium for a benchmark silver plan in 2020 under the BCRA than under current law (Table 1). Younger enrollees would see modest increases on average (10 percent for those under age 18; 17 percent for those ages 18 to 34), while average premiums would more than double for enrollees ages 55 to 64. State-level results are in Appendix Table 2.

Table 1: Monthly Premium for a Silver Plan Among Exchange Enrollees (By Age), 2020 Age ACA Premium After Tax Credit  /  BCRA Premium After Tax Credit  /  % Change
Under 18 / $110 $120 / 10%

18-34 /  $145 $169  / 17%

35-44 /  $194 $271 / 39%

45-54 /  $208 $403 / 94%

55-64 /  $271 $583  / 115%

65 and Older  / $310 $660  / 113%

Overall (All Ages)  / $197 $342  /74%

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

These results vary significantly by income as well (Table 2). Marketplace enrollees with incomes below 200 percent of poverty would see an average increase in their premium costs of 177 percent, while higher income enrollees would see an increase of 57 percent.

Table 2: Monthly Premium for a Silver Plan Among Exchange Enrollees (By Income and Age), 2020
Income Below 200% of PovertyIncome 200% of Poverty or Above
AgeACA Premium After Tax CreditBCRA Premium After Tax Credit% ChangeACA Premium After Tax CreditBCRA Premium After Tax Credit% Change
< 18$26$58121%$176$170-4%
18-34$57$10382%$247$2470%
35-44$69$149117%$296$36925%
45-54$67$215223%$323$55672%
55-64$69$272294%$399$78296%
65 +$76$296288%$439$86296%
Overall$61$168177%$311$48957%
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
There are important differences by age within these income groups: among enrollees with incomes below 200 percent of poverty, those in 18 to 34 age group would see an average increase of 82 percent while those in the 55 to 64 age group would see an average increase of 288 percent. Among enrollees with incomes 200 percent of poverty and above, enrollees in the 18 to 34 age group would not see an increase while those age 55 to 64 would see their premium costs almost double.

Discussion

The vast majority of marketplace enrollees would pay higher premiums in 2020 for a silver plan. Older and lower income enrollees see the biggest increases. These results are driven by several provisions in the BCRA. First, the BCRA reduces the value of the benchmark plan used to calculate the premium tax credits (from a plan that, on average, pays 70 percent of expected costs to a plan that pays 58 percent of expected costs). Lowering the benchmark means that marketplace enrollees could enroll in what is roughly a bronze plan by paying their required income percentage, but that they would need to pay the entire difference in premium to enroll in the silver level plans that are most prevalent today. The second factor is the change in the required income percentages under the BCRA, which generally would reduce what younger adults would be required to pay but increases the amounts paid by older adults, particularly those at higher incomes. Among people with higher incomes, reducing the maximum income eligibility for premium tax credits from 400 percent of poverty to 350 percent of poverty increases costs for some marketplace enrollees, particularly people at higher ages who face relatively high premiums. Increasing the permitted premium variation due to age also would increase premiums for older adults not eligible for premium tax credits.

These significant increases in the costs for silver plans may cause some or many marketplace enrollees to look to lower-value bronze-level plans, which they could purchase by paying their required income percentage. For younger marketplace enrollees, they generally would pay less under the BCRA to purchase a bronze level plan than they would pay for a silver plan under current law; older enrollees, however, generally would pay more for a bronze level plan under the BCRA than they would pay for a silver plan under current law. Moving down to bronze level plans, however, would expose enrollees to much higher cost sharing than in silver plans, and for many enrollees who now receive cost-sharing subsidies, the increases would be very large. The BCRA would eliminate the cost sharing subsidies provided under current law beginning in 2020.

The reduction in the value of the benchmark plan, along with the elimination of cost sharing subsidies, raises questions about whether lower income people would continue their coverage under the BCRA. While premiums after premium tax credits might be somewhat lower for younger enrollees purchasing bronze plans, their cost sharing would likely be thousands of dollars higher; the average deductible for bronze plans in 2017 with a combined deductible for medical and prescription expenses is $6,105; this compares to an average deductible of $809 for plans with cost sharing reductions for people with incomes between 150 and 200 percent of poverty and $255 for people with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of poverty. Many people with low incomes would have a difficult time paying the cost sharing under the benchmark plans in the BCRA, and may decide they do not want to pay even a relatively small premium for a plan that they would struggle to use.

Because of the short time between the release of the discussion draft and the planned debate and vote in the Senate, we were unable to address all of the provisions that might affect premiums under the BCRA. Our analysis assumes that unsubsidized premiums for a 40-year-old would ultimately be the same under the ACA and BCRA. In the score released today (June 26), the Congressional Budget Office expects the difference in unsubsidized premiums for a 40-year-old between the ACA and BCRA to be quite small in 2026, which is consistent with our assumption; however, they expect BCRA premiums to be relatively lower in 2020, due in part to larger federal funding available in 2020 to reduce premiums. While these changes would have some impact on our results, the impact would be muted because we have focused on the amount that people pay after tax credits, and for most marketplace enrollees, those amounts are determined by their required income percentage and not the actual plan premium. For these people, the actual premium affects the amount of their tax credit, but not what they would pay for a benchmark plan. Generally lower premiums would affect our results primarily for those marketplace enrollees who would pay the full premium with no premium tax credit under the BCRA. These generally would be people with higher incomes or younger people facing very low premiums such that the full premium would be less than their required income percentage.


Methods
We used data from the March 2016 Current Population Survey, the 2016 National Health Interview Survey and administrative data about the income and demographic distribution of the population enrolled in the federal and state marketplaces to construct a model of nongroup enrollees.

To impute marketplace enrollment status for each individual reporting directly purchased private health insurance to the March 2016 Current Population Survey, we applied a series of modeling techniques to the health insurance units (HIUs) described here in order to model the division of individuals holding nongroup coverage between those enrolled in a marketplace and those enrolled outside of a marketplace. Using the same multiply-imputed technique described here, we repeated our draw of each state’s nongroup population ten times to accurately account for sampling error.

We revised our Uninsured Calibration described in here to more closely align with the insurance coverage movements shown by the recent CDC publication of full-year 2016 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) estimates.3 This CDC document shows continued gains in public coverage during the year and a leveling-off of private insurance coverage gains after the early 2016 Marketplace enrollment surge that mirrors administrative data sources. Our previous publications on this topic were calibrated to NHIS 2016 first quarter estimates; however, both HHS-published effectuated enrollment in the Exchanges at the end of March 2016 and also the insurer rate filings used to estimate the size of the off-marketplace population more closely align with the trends exhibited by NHIS 2016 full-year statistics.4 Calibrating to national CDC estimates allowed for on- and off-marketplace sampling targets consistent with administrative enrollment at the state level.

For each state’s on-marketplace and off-marketpace nongroup population, we drew purchasing units across five strata, each informed by federal data. For each state and the District of Columbia, we sampled subsidy-eligible marketplace enrollees both above and below 250% FPL, followed by a small group of ACA subsidy-eligibles forgoing help in the off-exchange market.5 Consistent with this administrative data, we also sampled a small group of wealthier nongroup enrollees (those not eligible for subsidies) into the Exchanges, and moved the remaining nongroup individuals into the off-exchange market. For non-immigrants with incomes below 100% of poverty, we calculate the amount of their required premium contribution as though their income were 138% of poverty. To most accurately reflect the age and income distribution of the Exchanges, each marketplace-purchasing unit received a sampling probability proportional to the average monthly subsidy per person within the state. At the conclusion of these ten repeated state sample draws, our average advanced premium tax credit (APTC) per month landed at $284 nationwide (compared to the $291 reported by HHS) and within $30 of the actual amounts displayed on table two of the HHS effectuated enrollment report for every geography except for the state of Connecticut.6 This close match of estimated APTC dollars for forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reflected a high degree of accuracy of the demographic (primarily age and income) distribution of our sampled exchange population.

To compare the effect of the Senate’s proposed Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) against current law under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), we attached both the second lowest cost silver and the lowest cost bronze plan premiums to each individual in each local market. These 2017 premiums from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Subsidy Calculator matched CPS respondents at the state and metropolitan area-level, with smaller areas not disclosed by the U.S. Census Bureau computed using a population-weighted average premium across the aggregation of non-metro areas. Matching our prior eligibility analyses, we computed ACA eligibility and subsidy receipt using the second lowest cost silver plan available to the HIU as the benchmark plan. To reflect the 58% Actuarial Value (AV) level stated by the BCRA, we used each geographic area’s lowest cost bronze plan as the benchmark plan for each HIU. In a small number of geographies without a bronze plan option for purchase on the 2017 exchanges, we used 85% of the silver plan as that local area’s benchmark plan premium. For each individual’s premium calculations under the BCRA, we relaxed the ACA’s 3:1 age rating to a 5:1 age band in all states that did not have community rating requirements in place prior to 2014. We followed CBO and HHS inflation factors to project all dollar values and thresholds to calendar year 2020. Using CBO’s economic projections,7 we inflated the 2015 income amounts in the 2016 CPS for each HIU to 2020 dollars. We increased premium dollars from 2017 to 2020 and both ACA and BCRA premium caps from 2014 to 2020 using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary projections.8 Our analysis assumes that states do not take up a waiver under the BCRA.

Gary Claxton, Larry Levitt, and Cynthia Cox are with the Kaiser Family Foundation. Anthony Damico is an independent consultant to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/premiums-under-the-senate-better-care-reconciliation-act/