Leading medical associations are calling on lawmakers to reject Republicans’ latest attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
In a statement issued Saturday, several doctor and hospital trade groups, including the American Medical Association and the Federation of American Hospitals said that the bill introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) ultimately falls short of key benchmarks, weakening patient protections and the individual insurance market.
The following article by Amber Phillips was posted on the Washington Post website September 21, 2017:
Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
This post has been updated to include that Pence also said this: “But this legislation, Graham-Cassidy, as its authors have said, contains all the same protections for preexisting conditions as the President indicated.”
The following article by David Weigel was posted on the Washington Post website September 21, 2017:
U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) speaks as Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) listen. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The chief sponsors of the GOP’s 11th-hour effort to curtail the Affordable Care Act will debate two of their Senate opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), on Monday night — an arrangement that surprised some of Sanders’s Democratic colleagues, who learned about the debate when host network CNN blasted out a news release.
The following article by Glenn Howatt and Jennifer Brooks was posted on the StarTribune website September 22, 2017:
Latest GOP bill would defund MinnesotaCare and shift our federal aid to other states.
Dr. Michael Kamp examines a patient Thursday at Open Cities Medical Center. The low-income clinic in St. Paul would face major funding losses under the Graham-Cassidy health care proposal. Credit: Leila Navidi, STAR TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON – Minnesota stands to lose billions of dollars in federal funding if Senate Republicans are successful next week in their latest bid to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
Supporters of the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill say it returns control of health care policy to the states. But many Minnesota health officials counter that it endangers care of seniors and people with disabilities and would lead to even more costly premiums in the individual market.
“People won’t be able to afford to get coverage and at the end of the day more people will go without the medical care that they need,” said Jim Schowalter, CEO of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. “This takes us back several steps.”
Like other states, Minnesota under the proposal would get a federal health care block grant, with flexibility in how to spend it. But an analysis by the Washington-based health care consulting firm Avalere Health found that Minnesota would lose $8 billion over the next decade compared to what it would receive under the Affordable Care Act.
The federal mandate to have health insurance would go away, along with the system of subsidies and tax credits designed to make premiums more affordable. The bill would also end the expansion of the Medicaid program to those who are slightly above the poverty level, and like other Republican proposals, federal Medicaid dollars to states will be capped.
That could result in a $37 billion loss to Minnesota in federal Medicaid funding by 2030, according to an analysis by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. MinnesotaCare would see its federal funding stream eliminated entirely. The program, which serves 92,000 working poor, is mostly paid for with federal dollars.
“If the repeal of ACA passes, it’s going to just be a nightmare,” Gov. Mark Dayton told reporters this week.
“The uncertainty for states and for the people of Minnesota is going to be really destructive.”
By comparison, Wisconsin would gain $3 billion under its block grant because the bill funnels federal dollars away from states that accepted aid during the Obama administration to those that did not.
“There’s a significant transfer of funds from blue states to red states,” said Andy Slavitt, a Minnesotan who served as acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the last two years of the Obama administration. The bill, he said, creates “losers and bigger losers.”
National and state groups representing hospitals, nursing homes, doctors and some insurance companies have opposed the bill.
“Not much has improved since the last failed attempt by the U.S. Senate to pass an ACA repeal and replace bill,” said Kari Thurlow, senior vice president of advocacy for LeadingAge Minnesota, a long-term care industry group.
Nearly 60 percent of all nursing home care in Minnesota is paid for by Medicaid, which also provides funds to help people live independently at home or in assisted care facilities. The Medicaid spending caps proposed by the bill would force the state to cut benefits and reduce provider reimbursement rates, she said.
“It will hurt the most vulnerable and in many cases jeopardize people’s ability to stay in their homes as they age,” said Will Phillips, state director for AARP Minnesota.
The elderly and people with disabilities make up about 20 percent of the 1.1 million people in Minnesota’s Medicaid program but account for nearly 60 percent of spending.
Minnesota currently provides benefits to people with disabilities that are not required by federal law, making them vulnerable to cuts as federal funding decreases over time, said Mike Gude, communications director for the Arc Minnesota, a disability rights group in St. Paul.
“These programs provide supports that help people with disabilities get and keep jobs in the community and helps them live in their own place in the community,” he said. “All of those kinds of services would be threatened.”
In addition to Medicaid cuts, Minnesota would have about two years to change health policy to conform with the new law, if enacted, compared to the seven years it has taken to implement Obamacare.
“All of sudden to undo all that and redo to establish new programs and new approaches,” said Lynn Blewett, a public health professor at the University of Minnesota. “I just can’t imagine what will happen.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician and a lead sponsor of the bill, dismissed criticism, saying it comes from “those who wish to preserve Obamacare, and they are doing everything they can to discredit the alternative.”
“More people will have coverage, and we protect those with pre-existing conditions,” Cassidy told CNN.
The bill does require that “adequate and affordable” coverage be available for those with pre-existing conditions, but since the terms aren’t defined in the bill, critics fear insurers could jack up the price of those plans beyond most people’s ability to pay. States could also obtain waivers that would erase some protections.
“Over the next 10 years, 32 million people will lose coverage,” Slavitt said. “Premiums are likely to shoot up in the near term — 20 percent in the first year, and the consumer protections that people really value, like: protection against being discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition, having a lifetime cap on your policy, all those are gone.”
The bill’s sponsors are scrambling to lock in the 50 votes they need to pass it before a Sept. 30 procedural deadline.
The following article by Amber Phillips was posted on the Washington Post website September 22, 2017:
Senate Republicans are trying to revive the momentum to overhaul the Affordable Care Act with the Cassidy-Graham proposal. Here are five things to know about the plan and the rush to pass it. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Republicans’ last-ditch effort to repeal Obamacare was always a moonshot.
A bill proposed by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) looks like it doesn’t have enough support in the Senate to pass on a party-line vote. Republican leaders were trying to rush something through by Sept. 30.
The Graham-Cassidy bill being considered on the Senate floor is a destructive and poorly thought out bill that, like its predecessors, looks to strip health care from millions.
It’s unethical and immoral. What’s worse, it is again being ram-rodded to a quick vote to save face with Republican constituents and gain a political “win.” The health of millions seems to be less important and only exist to these people as a bulletpoint from their corporate backers.
A working health care solution is a human issue that should not be defined by or designed for political gain. Political positioning should not determine accessibility and cost. Continue reading “Need to quit playing games”
The following article by Emily Yahr was posted on the Washington Post website September 21, 2017:
Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel attacked the Cassidy-Graham health-care plan on Sept. 19 and 20, and hit back at Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) for failing his own standard, “the Kimmel test.” (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
“I had an interesting day today,” Jimmy Kimmel said at the top of his late-night show Wednesday, which was quite the understatement. Kimmel saw his monologue about health care go viral after he tore into Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) on Tuesday night for the “horrible bill” that he proposed with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as the Senate tries to repeal Obamacare.
The following article by Robert Pear was posted on the New York Times website September 20, 2017:
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, could be one of the pivotal votes on health care legislation next week. Credit Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters
WASHINGTON — The health insurance industry, after cautiously watching Republican health care efforts for months, came out forcefully on Wednesday against the Senate’s latest bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that its state-by-state block grants could create health care chaos in the short term and a Balkanized, uncertain insurance market.
In the face of the industry opposition, Senate Republican leaders nevertheless said they would push for a showdown vote next week on the legislation, drafted by Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.
That puts Republican senators in a squeeze, especially those whose states would lose money under a complicated formula in the bill. Generally, it would shift federal funds away from states that have been successful in expanding coverage to states where Republican leaders refused to expand Medicaid or encourage enrollment. Continue reading “Insurers Come Out Swinging Against New Republican Health Care Bill”
The following article by Emily Gee was posted on the Center for American Progress website September 20, 2017:
Waves of color surround the Capitol Dome, February 2017
Senate Republicans are attempting to rally support for one last try at repealing major portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The latest incarnation of ACA repeal is a billchampioned by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Dean Heller (R-NV), and Ron Johnson (R-WI). Like the ACA repeal bills considered by the House and Senate earlier this year, Graham-Cassidy would slash the ACA programs that expanded health coverage to millions, weaken consumer protections for people with pre-existing conditions, as well as limit federal support for Medicaid coverage for low-income adults and children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Only 10 days remain for Senate Republicans to pass a bill with only 51 votes via the budget reconciliation process. Rushing Graham-Cassidy through at breakneck speed, Senate leadership is violating customary legislative procedure. Next week, the Finance Committee will hold the Senate’s sole hearing for a bill that would spend a trillion dollars and threaten coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said it will not have sufficient time to produce a comprehensive score of the bill that would show its impacts on coverage and premiums. Continue reading “Coverage Losses by State Under the Graham-Cassidy Bill to Repeal the ACA”
