Having repeatedly failed to repeal health care, President Trump and Republicans in Congress want to use their tax cut bill to try again. Republicans proposed paying for their huge tax cut for the rich in part by eliminating a tax deduction for people with high medical costs. In addition, there are talks of repealing the individual responsibility provision in the Affordable Care Act as another way to pay for these tax cuts. Repealing these two provisions would adversely impact people who need health care the most and raise costs on everyone. Here is the impact of the GOP’s latest effort to repeal health care:
15 million more uninsured. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the individual responsibility provision would result in 15 million more people uninsured.
20 percent higher premiums. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated repealing the individual responsibility provision would raise premiums 20 percent next year.
Higher costs for seniors in long-term care. The House GOP bill eliminates a tax deduction for people with costly health care bills, including long-term care.
Higher costs for people with pre-existing conditions. Repealing the individual responsibility provision would lead to the so-called “death spiral” in the individual market. In other words, younger and healthier people would not sign up for coverage, making coverage more expensive for older and sicker people.
In response to news reports tonight that the Trump administration plans to cancel funding the cost-sharing-reduction payments — a part of the Affordable Care Act — Protect Our Care Campaign Director Brad Woodhouse made the following statement.
“The President of the United States is now running a daily campaign to sabotage the health care of the American people. Nonpartisan analysts say canceling these payments means making people pay 20% higher premiums.
“The Trump administration and every Republican in Congress who lets him do this, is now responsible for every rate hike people see for the foreseeable future. They broke it, they own it.”
Analysts Agree: Every State Loses Under Graham-Cassidy Affecting People’s Care. Multipleindependentanalyses — and even Trump’s own CMS — agree that states would be worse off if theGraham-Cassidy repeal bill passess. Over time, every state loses because Graham-Cassidy zeroes out its block grants and ratchets down its spending on the Medicaid per capita cap. This means people would not have access to the financial assistance to help lower their health care bills, and federal Medicaid funding would no longer adjust for public health emergencies, prescription drug or other cost spikes, or other unexpected increases in need.
Alaska stands to lose $2 billion from 2020–2027 and $14 billion over the next two decades.
Arizona stands to lose $19 billion from 2020–2027 and $133 billion over the next two decades.
Maine stands to lose $2 billion from 2020–2027 and $17 billion over the next two decades.
Kentucky stands to lose $11 billion from 2020–2027 and $81 billion over the next two decades.
And according to an AARP analysis, the bill’s age tax would lead to huge increases in total costs for a 60-year-old making $25,000 in each of these states:
On Fox News Sunday this morning, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short admitted that the Graham-Cassidy health care repeal bill eliminates protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, the most popular and essential provisions in the law has been coverage for pre-existing conditions. As many as half of all Americans have them, and Republicans have consistently paid lip service to continuing to ensure they will be covered. The GOP’s latest repeal bill, however, allows states to waive these protections — paving the way for insurance companies to once again discriminate against hundreds of millions of people. And as the bill heats up, so has the coverage highlighting the GOP’s plan…
Associated Press: Winners and losers in GOP’s last-ditch health overhaul
“Losers — People with health problems or with pre-existing medical conditions could be charged more if the state they live in obtains a waiver from current requirements that forbid insurers from charging higher premiums based on health status. States could also seek waivers from the current requirement that insurers cover 10 basic kinds of services, such as maternity and childbirth, or mental health and substance abuse treatment.”
The Hill: GOP takes heavy fire over pre-existing conditions
“The new ObamaCare repeal measure from Senate Republicans would give states a way to repeal protections for people with pre-existing conditions, a controversial move that opponents of the bill are denouncing.”
Vox: How Cassidy-Graham brings back preexisting conditions
“The new Republican plan to repeal Obamacare would bring preexisting conditions back to the individual market, allowing insurers to charge sick people higher premiums — or deny them coverage outright. ‘You can be charged more for a specific condition,’ says Chris Sloan, a senior manager at the health research firm Avalere, of the Cassidy-Graham plan that has begun to gain traction on Capitol Hill.”
Bloomberg: GOP Health Bill Would End Guarantee That Sick People Won’t Pay More
“Under the latest Republican bill, states could get a waiver allowing insurers to charge people more if they or a dependent have a pre-existing condition, or if they get sick and want to keep their insurance. The key provision in the bill has vague language requiring a state to first show how it ‘intends to maintain access to adequate and affordable health insurance coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions.’”
Politico: Kimmel, not Cassidy, is right on health care, analysts say
“But experts say that Cassidy and Graham’s bill can’t guarantee those protections and that Kimmel’s assessment was basically accurate because of the flexibility the bill gives states to set up their own health care systems. For example, health insurers could hike premiums for patients with pre-existing conditions if their states obtain waivers from Obamacare regulations — as Kimmel said.
NPR: Latest GOP Effort To Replace Obamacare Could End Health Care For Millions
“But many experts say the bill would have an impact similar to earlier Republican proposals for repealing the Affordable Care Act. Graham-Cassidy would eliminate coverage for many low-income people who gained insurance through the Medicaid expansion and could gut protections for people with existing medical conditions because states would be encouraged to seek waivers from the federal government’s rules on what must be covered.
The Hill: Blue Cross warns GOP repeal bill ‘undermines’ pre-existing condition rules
“The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warned against a new GOP ObamaCare bill on Wednesday, saying it would ‘undermine’ protections for pre-existing conditions. ‘The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions,’ the association said in a statement.”
NBC News: New GOP Plan Could Sow Health Care Chaos
“Most notably, states could free up insurers to charge people more for pre-existing conditions or reduce their plan’s benefits, which could open up customers to annual or lifetime caps on coverage.”
New York Magazine: 4 Ways Graham-Cassidy Would Make the Health-Care System Far Worse
“Under Graham-Cassidy, insurers could not refuse to cover someone because of a preexisting condition, but they would be able to make coverage so exorbitantly expensive that sick people couldn’t afford it.”
The reviews are in for Graham-Cassidy, the latest iteration of the GOP’s secret, partisan health care bill which would raise costs, lower choices, eliminate protections for pre-existing protections and gut Medicaid. There is perhaps no state which would fare worse than Alaska, which could see a 65% percent reduction in federal funding and cost increases to the tune of $31,790 more per year in premiums and out of pocket costs for a 60-year old making $25,000 per year starting in 2020. Alaska Governor Bill Walker said yesterday, “Alaska would fare very, very poorly. Nothing has been brought to my attention that would increase my comfort level.”
Just take a look at the headlines…
Alaska Dispatch News: State analysis predicts a rough road for Alaska under GOP health care legislation
The Midnight Sun: Alaska would lose 38 percent of federal health care funding under Graham-Cassidy
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Medicaid directors, including Alaska’s, sign statement critical of GOP health bill
NBC KTVU 2: Alaska DHSS releases preliminary analysis into Graham-Cassidy’s impact on Alaska
State of Reform: Alaska Commission on Aging comments on Graham-Cassidy
Daily News Miner: Studies: GOP health care proposal could prove costly for Alaskans
KTVA: Mother: Healthcare repeal could mean ‘difference between life and death’
Daily News Miner: Walker airs concern about latest GOP health care bill
It’s been another long 24 hours for the Senate’s latest secret, partisan health care repeal bill. The insurance industry announced its opposition, laying out six principles and noting the legislation fails all of them; AARP found the average older American would see a premium increase of $16,174 under this legislation, with Alaskans seeing one as high as $26,986; and after health care analysts backed his knowledge of Graham-Cassidy over Sen. Bill Cassidy’s, Jimmy Kimmel asked the bill’s author which part he was misunderstanding: the $243 billion in federal cuts, or the lack of protections for pre-existing conditions? The 10 facts you need to know are below:
PRESIDENT TRUMP GETS IN ON THE ACTION. Last night, President Donald Trump tweeted that he “would not sign Graham-Cassidy if it did not include coverage of pre-existing conditions. It does!” The notion that this bill “covers” pre-existing conditions has been debunked by the Associated Press, NPR, Politico, The Hill, Vox, Bloomberg, NBC News and CNN, and was cited by Blue Cross Blue Shield in its opposition to the bill.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY ADMITS POLITICS, NOT CONCERN OVER PEOPLE’S HEALTH CARE, IS DRIVING FORCE BEHIND BILL. “You know, I could maybe give you ten reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” Sen. Grassley told Iowa reporters on a conference call, “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
GRAHAM-CASSIDY THREATENS COVERAGE FOR OLDER AMERICANS, HARMS ALASKA. AARP released an analysis of the bill regarding its effects on older Americans, and the results were not pretty. Graham-Cassidy “threatens to make health care unaffordable and inaccessible for millions of older Americans,” the report found, with a 60-year-old earning $25,000 a year seeing an increase of $16,174 in their premiums. The single biggest loser is Alaska, where seniors could see an increase of $26,986 per year. A separate AARP analysis found Alaska could lose $11 billion in Medicaid funding under the legislation.
INSURERS BLAST THE BILL. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the country’s largest insurance group, came out against the bill, writing that the bill “would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market.” Blue Cross Blue Shield offered criticism, too, writing that the legislation “would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans.”
AMERICA’S DOCTORS DO, TOO. In a joint letter to Senate leadership, the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association and American Psychiatric Association — representing over 560,000 physicians — described Graham-Cassidy as “worse” than previous bills and called for its rejection in favor of bipartisan negotiations.
OPPOSITION FROM GOP GOVERNORS GROWS FURTHER. Yesterday, Republican Governors Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Chris Christie of New Jersey both announced their opposition to Graham-Cassidy. They join GOP Governors Brian Sandoval (Nevada), John Kasich (Ohio), Charlie Baker (Massachusetts), Phil Scott (Vermont), Larry Hogan (Maryland) and Chris Sununu (New Hampshire) and Independent Governor Bill Walker (Alaska), who previously announced they were against the bill.
JIMMY KIMMEL: WHICH PART OF YOUR TERRIBLE BILL DO I NOT UNDERSTAND? Ending a day when health care experts backed his understanding of the bill ahead of that of its co-author in a piece entitled, “Kimmel, not Cassidy, is right on health care, analysts say,” Jimmy Kimmel again took Sen. Bill Cassidy to task, asking, “Oh I get it, I don’t understand it because I’m a talk show host. Then help me out. Which part don’t I understand? The part where you cut $243 billion dollars from federal healthcare assistance? Am I not understanding the part where states would let insurance companies price you out of coverage for having pre-existing conditions?”
DON’T FORGET ABOUT MEDICAID. As the Kaiser Family Foundation points out, often overlooked has been what Graham-Cassidy would do do Medicaid — namely, it would devastate the program. The bill would end all federal funding in 2026, cutting off untold people from their health insurance; massively redistribute funds, penalizing states that expanded coverage for their most vulnerable citizens while rewarding those that didn’t; and eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, preventing millions of women from getting the coverage they need.
THE BILL STRIPS THE CONCESSIONS MODERATES SAID WERE NECESSARY. In a piece published this morning, Talking Points Memo reporter Alice Ollstein notes that every demand GOP moderates like Sen. Rob Portman and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said were necessary for their support, including Medicaid funding, federal dollars for opioid relief and protections for pre-existing conditions, have been removed from Graham-Cassidy.
MEDICAID CUTS AND CHANGES TO THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE WOULD HARM AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVES. According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the bill would harm American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in two major ways. “First, Cassidy-Graham would end the ACA’s Medicaid expansion starting in 2020, but it would let AI/ANs who remain continuously enrolled in Medicaid remain covered after the expansion ends for everyone else. Any help that this exception provides would be short-lived, however. Low-income people frequently move on and off Medicaid, depending on their economic circumstances, so most AI/ANs would likely lose Medicaid eligibility within a year or two…Second, Medicaid currently pays 100 percent of the cost of services that Indian Health Service (IHS) and Tribally operated facilities provide for AI/ANs…Cassidy-Graham would enable Medicaid to also pay 100 percent of the cost of services that non-IHS and Tribally operated facilities provide for AI/ANs…which would jeopardize coverage for AI/ANs and the financial stability of IHS and Tribally operated facilities.”
We know in the heat of a political debate, especially on an issue as important as health care, the details can seem complicated or confusing. The best way to cut through the noise is to look who is for the Cassidy-Graham repeal and who is against it. Take a look for yourself. Who do you trust?
Washington, D.C. — Protect Our Care Campaign Director Brad Woodhouse released the following statement in reaction to today’s Senate HELP Committee hearing on the health care marketplace:
“First and foremost, today’s hearing was a notable and welcome departure from the secretive, partisan and ultimately failed repeal effort which President Trump and Senate and House Republicans pursued for the first half of this year,” said Woodhouse. “The mere fact that these hearings are occurring and that bipartisan approaches to market stabilization are being discussed should send a strong signal to the partisan repeal holdouts that it is time to set aside that approach and instead work together to ensure more and more Americans have access to reliable, affordable care. It should also send an unmistakable signal to President Trump that his strategy to sabotage the law is wrong headed and faces bipartisan opposition.
“Substantively, there was broad agreement that Congress must ensure that cost sharing reduction payments continue to be made to lower out of pocket costs for millions of low-income Americans. Every insurance commissioner who testified agreed that ensuring these payments are made must be part of any stabilization plan and nearly all Senators on the panel agreed with that notion. As we have said before, these payments are an essential feature of the health care law, President Trump has been wrong to sow uncertainty in the market by threatening not to pay them and ensuring they continue is among the most important features of any stabilization bill. That there was broad agreement by the panel and the witnesses on the importance of these payments to make health care more affordable for millions of Americans was a welcome sign to say the least.”
