text:
Chris Jacobs' Writing Archive
Tag: Tricare
Let the Individual Mandate Die
In May New Jersey imposed a health-insurance mandate requiring all residents to buy insurance or pay a penalty. More states will feel pressure to follow suit in the coming year as the federal mandate's penalty disappears Jan. 1 and state legislatures reconvene, some with new Democratic majorities intent on "protecting" Obamacare. But conflicts with federal law will make state-level health-insurance mandates ineffective or unduly onerous, and governors and legislatures would do well to steer clear.
While states can require citizens to purchase health coverage, they will have trouble ensuring compliance. Federal law prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from disclosing tax-return data, except under limited circumstances. And there is no clear precedent allowing the IRS to disclose coverage data to verify compliance with state insurance requirements.
Accordingly, mandates enacted in New Jersey and the District of Columbia earlier this year created their own coverage-reporting regimes. But those likely conflict with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which explicitly pre-empts "any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." The point is to protect large employers who self-insure workers from 50 sets of conflicting state laws.
No employer has used ERISA to challenge Massachusetts' 2006 individual mandate, which includes reporting requirements, but that doesn't mean it's legal. Last month a Brookings Institution paper conceded that "state requirements related to employer benefits like health coverage may be subject to legal challenge based on ERISA preemption."
A 2016 Supreme Court ruling would bolster such a challenge. In Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, the court struck down a Vermont law that required employers to submit health-care payment claims to a state database. The court said the law was pre-empted by ERISA.
Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted the myriad reporting requirements under federal law. Vermont's law required additional record-keeping. Justice Kennedy concluded that "differing, or even parallel, regulations from multiple jurisdictions could create wasteful administrative costs and threaten to subject plans to wide-ranging liability."
Justice Kennedy's opinion provides a how-to manual for employers to challenge state-level insurance mandates. A morass of state-imposed insurance mandates and reporting requirements would unnecessarily burden employers with costs and complexity. It cries out for pre-emptive relief.
Unfortunately, policy makers have ignored these concerns. Notes from the working group that recommended the District of Columbia's individual mandate never mention the reporting burden or ERISA pre-emption. And in August the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved New Jersey's waiver application that relied in part upon funding from that state's new individual mandate, even though money from the difficult-to-enforce requirement may never materialize.
States already cannot require federal agencies to report coverage. This means their mandates won't track the 2.3 million covered by the Indian Health Service, 9.3 million receiving health care from the Veterans Administration, 8.8 million disabled under age 65 who are enrolled in Medicare, 9.4 million military Tricare enrollees and 8.2 million federal employees and retirees.
If a successful ERISA challenge also exempts some of the 181 million with employer-based insurance from coverage-reporting requirements, state insurance mandates become farcical. States would have to choose between mandates that run on the "honor system"—thus likely rife with cheating—or taking so much time and energy to verify coverage that administration becomes prohibitively expensive.
States should take the hint and refrain from even considering their own coverage mandates. But if they don't, smart employers should challenge the mandate's reporting requirements. They'd likely win.
This post was originally published at The Wall Street Journal.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on November 19, 2018 January 4, 2019 Categories Coverage, Regulations, TaxesTags Anthony Kennedy, Brookings Institution, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, DC Health Link, Department of Veterans Affairs, District of Columbia, Employer-provided health coverage, ERISA, FEHBP, Fraud, Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, Indian Health Service, Individual mandate, Internal Revenue Service, Massachusetts, Medicare, New Jersey, Pre-emption, Romneycare, Supreme Court case, Tricare, Verification, Waivers, Wall Street Journal
Florida Democrats' Campaign to Abolish Seniors' Medicare
Full disclosure: I have done paid consulting work for Florida's current governor, Rick Scott, in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. And I have provided informal advice to Rep. Ron DeSantis, the Republican nominee for governor. However, neither the Scott nor DeSantis campaigns had any involvement with this article, and my views are—as always—my own.
On Tuesday, Democrats in Florida nominated an unusual candidate for governor, and it has nothing to do with his skin color or background. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who would serve as Florida's first African-American governor if elected, says on his campaign's website that the health plan U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has offered at the national level "will help lower costs and expand coverage to more Floridians."
Here's how that plan, which Sanders turned into legislation (S. 1804), would "expand coverage to more Floridians":
SEC. 901. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.
(a) MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (SCHIP).—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)—
(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)… [emphasis added].
In case you didn't know, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act refers to Medicare. Section 901(a)(1)(A) of Sanders' bill, which he brands as "Medicare-for-all," would prohibit the Medicare program from paying out any benefits once the single-payer system takes effect. Section 701(d) of his bill would liquidate the Medicare trust funds, transferring "any funds remaining in" them to the single-payer plan.
In other words, Democrats just nominated as a statewide candidate in Florida—a state with the highest population of seniors, and where seniors and near-seniors (i.e., all those over age 50) comprise nearly half of the voting electorate—someone who, notwithstanding Sanders' claims about his single-payer bill, supports legislation that would abolish Medicare for seniors entirely. Good luck with that.
That's What 'Radical Experiment' Means, Folks
The recent hullabaloo over an estimated budget score of the Sanders plan, which would require tens of trillions—yes, I said trillions—of dollars in tax increases, highlighted only one element of its radical nature. However, as I pointed out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this year, the Sanders experiment would go far beyond raising taxes, by abolishing traditional Medicare, along with just about every other form of insurance.
Under the Sanders bill—or "Medicare-for-None," to use its more accurate title—only about 11 million individuals would retain their current health care coverage. That number includes 2.2 million Native Americans receiving services from the Indian Health Service, and 9.3 million veterans enrolled in, and receiving care from, the Veterans Administration.
Everyone else, which is roughly 300 million people, would lose their current coverage. Traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program would all evaporate. Even the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program would disappear.
With those changes in coverage, people could well lose access to their current doctors. As a study earlier this summer noted, medical providers like doctors and hospitals would get paid at much lower reimbursement rates, of 40 percent lower than private insurance. (A liberal blogger claimed earlier this week that, because other payers reimburse at lower levels than private insurers, the average pay cut to a doctor or hospital may total "only" 11-13 percent.)
Doctors and hospitals would also have to provide more health care services to more people, since "free" health care without co-payments will induce more demand for care. If you think doctors will voluntarily work longer hours for even less pay, I've got some land I want to sell you.
In fall 2013, Barack Obama's "If you like your plan, you can keep it" promise turned into a firestorm, and Politifact's "Lie of the Year," when "only" a few million people received insurance cancellation notices. By abolishing private insurance entirely, the Sanders plan would represent a change multiple orders of magnitude greater than what cost Obama—and Obamacare—precious political capital five years ago.
Déjà vu All Over Again?
In 1983, the British Labour Party wrote an election manifesto that one of its own members of Parliament famously dubbed "the longest suicide note in history." That plan pledged unilateral nuclear disarmament, higher taxes on the rich, to abolish the House of Lords, and renationalization of multiple industries.
Although Sanders' bill weighs in at 96 pages in total, opponents of the legislation can sum up its contents much more quickly: "It abolishes Medicare for seniors." That epithet could prove quite a short suicide note for Gillum—and the Left's socialist dreams around the country.
This post was originally published at The Federalist.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on August 31, 2018 October 14, 2019 Categories Coverage, Medicare, RegulationsTags Andrew Gillum, Bernie Sanders, Department of Veterans Affairs, Employer-provided health coverage, FEHBP, Florida, Indian Health Service, Induced demand, Lie of the Year, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare for None, Mercatus Center, Michael Foot, Physician reimbursement, Plan cancellations, Politifact, Provider access, Rick Scott, Ron DeSantis, SCHIP, Single payer, The Federalist, Tricare, Wall Street Journal
Bernie Sanders Proposes Medicare for None
Sen. Bernie Sanders will hold an online town-hall meeting next Tuesday regarding his single-payer health-care legislation. Mr. Sanders calls it "Medicare for All." But the text of the bill itself reveals a more accurate name: Medicare for None. The Orwellian way in which Mr. Sanders characterizes his plan speaks to the larger problem facing the left, whose plans for health care remain so radical that speaking of them honestly would prompt instant repulsion from most voters.
Last September, the socialist Mr. Sanders and 16 Democratic colleagues introduced what they style the Medicare for All Act. Section 901(a) of the bill explicitly states that "no benefits shall be available under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act"—that is, Medicare—"for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date" of the new single-payer program.
While Mr. Sanders claims that his bill would extend Medicare to all, it would instead create an entirely new program while borrowing the Medicare name. Case in point: Section 701(d) of the Sanders bill would liquidate the existing Medicare trust funds, transferring their entire proceeds into a new "Universal Medicare Trust Fund."
If the roughly 59 million Medicare enrollees have qualms about giving up their current coverage, at least they'll have company. The bill would also end Medicaid (except for long-term care), the State Children's Health Insurance Program, federal employee coverage, and Tricare for the military. And it would prohibit any insurer, including any employer, from covering benefits and services provided through the government system.
Out of nearly 330 million Americans, the only ones who would retain their current coverage are the 2.2 million who receive services from the Indian Health Service and the 9.3 million who get it from the Veterans Administration. Is Mr. Sanders's decision to preserve VA coverage—in which, as we learned in 2014, veterans died while waiting months for treatment—suggestive of the type of care he has in mind for all Americans?
Selling a bill that would abolish Medicare as "Medicare for All" takes some chutzpah—akin to the promise that if you like your health-care plan, you can keep it. Here's hoping that the American people, having been subjected once to the disastrous consequences of the left's reassuring but deceitful rhetoric on health care, don't get fooled again.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on January 18, 2018 October 14, 2019 Categories Coverage, Medicare, RegulationsTags Bernie Sanders, Department of Veterans Affairs, Employer-provided health coverage, FEHBP, Indian Health Service, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare for None, Medicare trust fund, SCHIP, Single payer, Tricare, Wall Street Journal
The "Technical" Amendment That Could Affect Millions of Veterans' Health Coverage
As the House of Representatives steamrolls toward a vote tomorrow on Republicans' "repeal-and-replace" legislation, lawmakers weighing their vote may wish to consider a few key questions. These include:
How did an ostensibly "technical" amendment end up withdrawing refundable tax credits from up to seven million veterans?
Does Donald Trump—who released a specific plan early in his campaign to "ensure our veterans get the care they need wherever and whenever they need it"—realize the potentially broad-ranging effects of this "technical" amendment on veterans?
What other supposedly "technical" language will have unintended consequences should House Republicans rush to put this legislation on the statute books without fully digesting its effects?
Conservatives have their own (justifiable) concerns with the underlying substance of the new tax credit entitlement, but this "technical" amendment provides a microcosm of the problems that result when legislators rush to judgment based on arbitrary deadlines. Just as with Obamacare itself, lawmakers may find they have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Where the Conflict Comes From
As I explained last week, the original House bill had a potentially fatal flaw in its tax credit "firewall." Language designed to ensure individuals with other forms of health insurance—such as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and Veterans Affairs coverage—did not receive the credit touched upon other committees of jurisdiction in the Senate, such as Armed Services and Veterans Affairs. Under budget reconciliation procedures, a committee—the Senate Finance Committee, in this instance—cannot include subject matter outside its own jurisdiction; doing so could cause the entire bill to lose its procedural privilege as a reconciliation measure.
Due to these procedural concerns, the House released a technical amendment late Monday evening that, according to a summary, "includes the technical restructuring of the new tax credit made as a result of Senate guidance to maintain the privilege of the bill." However, in restructuring the credit, staff—whether by accident or design—ended up eliminating eligibility for an entire class of veterans.
Pages 97-98 of the original House bill included specific language stating that veterans eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA health benefits would qualify for the credit:
''(2) SPECIAL RULE WITH RESPECT TO VETERANS HEALTH PROGRAMS.—In the case of other specified coverage described in paragraph (1)(F) [i.e., VA coverage], an individual shall not be treated as eligible for such coverage unless such individual is enrolled in such coverage.
However, the "technical" amendment released Monday evening strikes that language. The replacement language, on pages 9-10 of the amendment, states that individuals qualify for the credit only if they are "not eligible for" other types of coverage, including VA coverage:
''(2) The individual is not eligible for—
''(A) coverage under a group health plan (within the meaning of section 5000(b)(1)) other than coverage under a plan substantially all of the coverage of which is of excepted benefits described in section 9832(c), or
''(B) coverage described in section 5000A(f)(1)(A) [which includes VA coverage]
The revised language therefore means that individuals eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA coverage cannot qualify for the new insurance subsidies created by the bill.
How This Will Affect Veterans
The most recent estimates suggest about 9.1 million individuals are enrolled in VA health programs. However, a 2014 Congressional Budget Office score of veterans' choice legislation concluded that "about 8 million [veterans] qualify to enroll in VA's health system but have not enrolled." Subtracting for VA enrollment gains since that CBO score leaves approximately seven million veterans eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA health programs, and thus potentially affected by the House's "technical" change.
At least some of those seven million veterans eligible for but not enrolled in VA health programs may not qualify for the House's new insurance subsidies for other reasons. For instance, some of those seven million veterans may have other forms of health coverage—from a current or former employer, Medicare, Tricare, etc.—that would render them ineligible for the credit regardless of their VA status.
However, given a universe of seven million veterans potentially affected by the changes, doubtless many would be actually affected by the House language. As a policy matter, it is unclear why the revised House language, by cutting off access to the credit for those eligible for but not enrolled in VA coverage, seeks to direct more people into a government-run VA health system still suffering from the effects of the wait time reporting scandal.
The Fallout
It is possible, and perhaps even probable, that this "technical" change was entirely unintentional, caused by harried, sleep-deprived congressional staff rushing to complete work on the bill. But it raises the obvious question: What other changes, tweaks, errors, or other unintended consequences might such rushed legislation contain?
We've seen this show before. In 2010, the text of Obamacare as passed failed to make clear that VA and Tricare coverage qualified as minimum benefits—making soldiers and veterans subject to taxes for violating the law's individual mandate. Because of that drafting error, Republicans forced a vote on exempting soldiers and veterans from the mandate, before the issue was eventually resolved.
This week's "technical" amendment, with potentially wide-reaching implications, reprises the errors of Obamacare, and demonstrates the dangers of House Republicans' rushed strategy. With a highly compressed timetable seemingly dictating the entire process, unforced errors seem almost inevitable. President Trump has made clear his desire to move to tax reform as soon as possible—but how would he defend disqualifying up to seven million veterans from the bill's tax credits?
Once finding out about the effects of this "technical" amendment, House leadership will quite probably move to change it—and fast. But what about the other "technical" problems lurking in the bill? Given the rushed process, doubtless more of these "bugs" and "glitches" exist. Who will find them—and when? What if they aren't found until after the measure's enactment, and then can't be fixed legislatively? Lawmakers should think long and hard about these unintended consequences before they vote to assume responsibility for them for a long time to come.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on March 22, 2017 December 31, 2018 Categories Coverage, RegulationsTags "Repeal and Replace", American Health Care Act, Byrd rule, Congressional Budget Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, Donald Trump, Firewall, Individual mandate, Reconciliation, Senate Finance Committee, Tax credits, The Federalist, Transparency, Tricare
Legislative Bulletin: Updated Summary of "Repeal-and-Replace" Legislation
UPDATE: On March 13, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its score of the bill. CBO found that the bill would:
Reduce deficits by about $337 billion over ten years—$323 billion in on-budget savings, along with $13 billion in off-budget (i.e., Social Security) savings.
Increase the number of uninsured by 14 million in 2018, rising to a total of 24 million by 2026.
Raise individual market premiums by 15-20 percent in 2018 and 2019, but then lower premiums in years following 2020, such that in 2026, premiums would be about 10 percent lower than under current law.
Among CBO's major conclusions regarding provisions in the bill:
Individual Market Changes, 2017-19: CBO believes that eliminating the mandate penalties will effectively increase insurance premiums; however, the presence of subsidies will still induce "a significant number of relatively healthy people" to purchase coverage. The budget office believes that elimination of the mandate will increase the number of uninsured by roughly 4 million in 2017. In 2018, CBO believes the number of uninsured would increase by 14 million—6 million from the individual market, 5 million from Medicaid, and 2 million from employer coverage. "In 2019, the number of uninsured would grow to 16 million people because of further reductions in Medicaid and non-group coverage." CBO believes most of these coverage losses would be due to repealing the individual mandate—as a result of individuals who stop buying coverage with repeal of the mandate penalties, or those deterred by expected premium spikes.
With respect to premiums, CBO believes that "average premiums for single policy-holders in the non-group market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because of the elimination of the individual mandate penalties." Eliminating the mandate penalties would increase adverse selection (i.e., a disproportionately older and sicker enrollee population), mitigated somewhat by potential reinsurance payments from the State Stability Fund.
CBO believes that the availability of Obamacare premium subsidies (but NOT cost-sharing subsidies) to individuals purchasing coverage off of Exchanges in 2018 and 2019 will lead to about 2 million individuals taking the subsidies for off-Exchange coverage. Likewise, CBO believes that altering the subsidy regime for 2019 only—to increase subsidies for younger enrollees, while decreasing them for older enrollees—will increase enrollment by about one million, "the net result of higher enrollment among younger people and lower enrollment among older people."
With respect to other market changes during the transition period, CBO expects that the State Stability Fund will operate through the Department of Health and Human Services (as opposed to the states) before 2020, as states will not have adequate time to set up their own programs for 2018 and 2019. CBO also notes that the "continuous coverage" provision—i.e., a 30 percent surcharge for those who lack coverage for more than 63 days—will induce about 1 million individuals to purchase coverage in 2018, but will deter about 2 million individuals from purchasing coverage in 2019 and future years.
CBO also notes that "the people deterred from purchasing coverage [by the surcharge] would tend to be healthier than those who would not be deterred and would be willing to pay the surcharge"—raising the question of whether or not this "continuous coverage" provision would exacerbate, rather than alleviate, adverse selection in insurance markets.
The expansion of age rating bands—from 3-to-1 under current law to 5-to-1 in the new bill—would increase enrollment marginally, by less than 500,000 in 2019, "the net result of higher enrollment among younger people and lower enrollment among older people."
While CBO does not believe a "death spiral" would emerge in most sections of the country, it does note that "significant changes in non-group subsidies and market rules would occur each year for the first three years following enactment, which might cause uncertainty for insurers in setting premiums." CBO believes that the health status of enrollees would worsen in 2018, due to the elimination of the individual mandate penalties. However, in 2019 CBO notes that two changes for that year—expansion of the age rating bands, as well as a one-year change to the Obamacare subsidies—may attract healthier enrollees, but "it might be difficult for insurers to set premiums for 2019 using their prior experience in the market."
Individual Market Changes, 2020-2026: In 2020, CBO believes that roughly 9 million fewer individuals would purchase coverage on the individual market than under current law—a number that would fall to 2 million in 2026. Employer-based coverage would also decline, by a net of roughly 2 million in 2020, rising to 7 million by 2026, because elimination of the individual mandate penalties will discourage individuals from taking up employer-sponsored coverage. "In addition, CBO and JCT expect that, over time, fewer employers would offer health insurance to their workers." Overall, the number of uninsured would increase to 48 million by 2020, and 52 million by 2026, with the increase "disproportionately larger among older people with lower income."
With respect to premiums in years 2020 and following, CBO believes that "the increase in average premiums from repealing the individual mandate penalties would be more than offset by the combination of three main factors:" 1) a younger and healthier mix of enrollees than under current law; 2) elimination of actuarial value requirements, therefore lowering premiums; and 3) reinsurance payments from the State Stability Fund. CBO believes that "by 2025, average premiums for single policy-holders in the non-group market under the legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower than the estimates under current law." Some conservatives may note that in 2009, CBO analyzed Obamacare as increasing premiums by 10-13 percent relative to prior law—meaning that under the best possible assumptions, the bill might only begin to undo one decade from now the harmful premium increases created by Obamacare.
CBO also notes that the overall reduction in premiums would mask significant changes by age, raising premiums for older enrollees while lowering them for younger enrollees. Specifically, "premiums in the non-group market would be 20 percent to 25 percent lower for a 21-year-old and 8 percent to 10 percent lower for a 40-year-old—but 20 percent to 25 percent higher for a 64-year-old."
CBO notes that, while elimination of the actuarial value requirements would theoretically allow health insurance plans to reduce coverage below 60 percent of actuarial value (i.e., percentage of expected health costs covered by insurance), retention of Obamacare's essential health benefits requirements would "significantly limit the ability of insurers to design plans with an actuarial value much below 60 percent."
However, CBO does believe that the insurance market changes would lower plans' average actuarial value overall, while increasing out-of-pocket costs. "CBO and JCT [also] expect that, under the legislation, plans would be harder to compare, making shopping for a plan on the basis of price more difficult."
The transition to a new subsidy regime in 2020 would change market composition appreciably. Specifically, CBO believes that "fewer lower-income people would obtain coverage through the non-group market under the legislation than under current law," and that because "the tax credits under the legislation would tend to be larger than current law premium tax credits for many people with higher income," the new subsidy regime "would tend to increase enrollment in the non-group market among higher-income people."
In general, changes in the age-rating in the individual market, coupled with changes in the subsidy regime, lead CBO to conclude that "a larger share of enrollees in the non-group market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people." Overall spending on subsidies would be "significantly smaller under the legislation than under current law," due to both smaller take-up of the subsidies and smaller per-beneficiary subsidies. CBO believes that subsidies in 2020 will equal about 60 percent of average premium subsidies under current law, and will equal about 50 percent of current law subsidies in 2026.
According to CBO, the State Stability Fund grants "would exert substantial downward pressure on premiums in the non-group market in 2020 and later years and would help encourage participation in the market by insurers." However, CBO did note that effects may be determined by whether states elect to participate in the grant programs, and whether states' activities directly affect the individual market for health insurance.
CBO believes that the bill would encourage employers to drop employer-sponsored health coverage—both due to the elimination of the employer mandate penalties, and the broader availability of subsidies to individuals at higher income levels than Obamacare. In part as a result, CBO scores a total of $70 billion in savings due to interaction effects—that is, individuals' compensation moving from pre-tax health insurance to after-tax wages as employers drop coverage. However, CBO also believes that the lower level of subsidies compared to Obamacare—which would grow more slowly over time—coupled with less rich health coverage offered on the individual market would mitigate employers' incentives to drop coverage.
In 2020, CBO believes the State Stability Fund grants "would contribute substantially to the stability of the non-group market," and that "the non-group market is expected to be smaller in 2020 than in 2019 but then is expected to grow somewhat over the 2020-2026 period."
Medicaid Changes: Overall, CBO believes that about 5 million fewer individuals with enroll in Medicaid in 2018 (due largely to elimination of the individual mandate penalties), 9 million fewer individuals in 2020, and 14 million in 2026.
If the bill passes, CBO believes that coming changes taking effect in 2020 mean that "no additional states will expand eligibility, thereby reducing both enrollment in and spending on Medicaid," because CBO's current-law baselines assume that additional states will expand their programs by 2026. This change would lead to a reduction in estimated enrollment of approximately 5 million by 2026.
CBO believes that "some states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs would no longer offer that coverage, reducing the share of the newly eligible population residing in a state with expanded eligibility to about 30 percent in 2026." (CBO believes roughly half of the Medicaid eligible population currently lives in one of the 31 states that have expanded eligibility—and that, absent changes, this percentage will increase to 80 percent in 2026.)
CBO believes that, once the "freeze" on the enhanced Medicaid match takes effect at the beginning of 2020, "about one-third of those enrolled as of December 31, 2019 would have maintained continuous eligibility two years later," remaining eligible for the enhanced federal match. By the end of 2024 (i.e., five years after the "freeze" takes effect), the enhanced federal match would apply to under 5 percent of newly eligible enrollees.
With respect to the per capita caps on Medicaid, CBO believes that the CPI-medical inflation measure in the House bill would reduce spending slightly compared to CBO's baseline projections: CPI-medical would increase at a 3.7 percent rate, compared to a 4.4 percent increase in Medicaid spending under current law. CBO believes states would adopt a mix of approaches to reflect the lower spending growth: increasing state spending; reducing payments to health care providers and plans; eliminating optional services; restricting eligibility; or improving program efficiency.
Where available, scores of specific provisions are integrated into the earlier summary of the legislation, which follows below.
On March 6, House leadership released a revised draft of their Obamacare "repeal-and-replace" bill—the Energy and Commerce title is here, and the Ways and Means title is here.
A detailed summary of the bill is below, along with possible conservative concerns where applicable. Changes with the original leaked discussion draft (dated February 10) are noted where applicable. Where provisions in the bill were also included in the reconciliation bill passed by Congress early in 2016 (H.R. 3762, text available here), differences between the two versions, if any, are noted.
Of particular note: It is unclear whether this legislative language has been vetted with the Senate Parliamentarian. When the Senate considers budget reconciliation legislation—as it plans to do with the Obamacare "repeal-and-replace" bill—the Parliamentarian plays a key role in determining whether provisions are budgetary in nature and can be included in the bill (which can pass with a 51-vote simple majority), and which provisions are not budgetary in nature and must be considered separately (i.e., require 60 votes to pass).
In the absence of a fully drafted bill and complete CBO score, it is entirely possible the Parliamentarian has not vetted this draft—which means provisions could change substantially, or even get stricken from the bill, due to procedural concerns as the process moves forward.
Title I—Energy and Commerce
Prevention and Public Health Fund: Eliminates funding for the Obamacare prevention "slush fund," and rescinds all unobligated balances. This language is substantially similar to Section 101 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Saves $8.8 billion over ten years.
Community Health Centers: Increases funding for community health centers by $422 million for Fiscal Year 2018—money intended to offset reductions in spending on Planned Parenthood affiliates (see "Federal Payments to States" below). The spending amount exceeds the $285 million provided in the leaked discussion draft. Language regarding community health centers was included in Section 102 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Costs $422 million over ten years.
Federal Payments to States: Imposes a one-year ban on federal funds flowing to certain entities. This provision would have the effect of preventing Medicaid funding of certain medical providers, including Planned Parenthood, so long as Planned Parenthood provides for abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother). This language is virtually identical to Section 206 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. CBO believes that, after taking into account increased births (and Medicaid spending) due to lack of access to contraceptive care, this provision will save Medicaid a net of $156 million over ten years.
Medicaid: The discussion draft varies significantly from the repeal of Medicaid expansion included in Section 207 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. The 2015/2016 reconciliation bill repealed both elements of the Medicaid expansion—the change in eligibility allowing able-bodied adults to join the program, and the enhanced (90-100%) federal match that states received for covering them.
By contrast, the House discussion draft retains eligibility for the able-bodied adult population—making this population optional for states to cover, rather than mandatory. (The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius made Medicaid expansion optional for states.) Some conservatives may be concerned that this change represents a marked weakening of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill language, one that will entrench a massive expansion of Medicaid beyond its original focus on the most vulnerable in society.
With respect to the Medicaid match rate, the discussion draft reduces the enhanced federal match to states, effective December 31, 2019. The bill provides that states receiving the enhanced match for individuals enrolled by December 31, 2019 will continue to receive that enhanced federal match, provided they do not have a break in Medicaid coverage of longer than one month. (In the case of states that already expanded Medicaid to able-bodied adults prior to Obamacare's enactment, the bill provides for an 80 percent federal match for 2017 and all subsequent years.)
Some conservatives may be concerned that—rather than representing a true "freeze" that was advertised, one that would take effect immediately upon enactment—the language in this bill would give states a strong incentive to sign up many more individuals for Medicaid over the next three years, so they can qualify for the higher federal match as long as those individuals remain in the program.
The bill also repeals the requirement that Medicaid "benchmark" plans comply with Obamacare's essential health benefits, also effective December 31, 2019.
The repeal of the Medicaid expansion, when coupled with the per-capita caps, will reduce Medicaid spending by a total of $880 billion over ten years. CBO did not provide granularity on the savings associated with each specific provision.
Finally, the bill repeals the Community First Choice Option, eliminating a six percent increase in the Medicaid match rate for some home and community-based services. This provision saves $12 billion over ten years.
DSH Payments: Repeals the reduction in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. Non-expansion states would see their DSH payments restored immediately, whereas states that expanded Medicaid to the able-bodied under Obamacare would see their DSH payments restored in 2019. This language varies from both Section 208 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill and the leaked discussion draft. Spends $31.2 billion over ten years. In addition, increases in the number of uninsured will have the effect of increasing Medicare DSH payments, raising spending by an additional $43 billion over ten years.
Medicaid Program Integrity: Beginning January 1, 2020, requires states to consider lottery winnings and other lump sum distributions as income for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility. Effective October 2017, restricts retroactive eligibility in Medicaid to the month in which the individual applied for the program; current law requires three months of retroactive eligibility.
Requires, beginning six months after enactment, Medicaid applicants to provide verification of citizenship or immigration status prior to becoming presumptively eligible for benefits during the application process. With respect to eligibility for Medicaid long-term care benefits, reduces states' ability to increase home equity thresholds that disqualify individuals from benefits; within six months of enactment, the threshold would be reduced to $500,000 in home equity nationwide, adjusted for inflation annually. These provisions were not included in the leaked discussion draft.
Eligibility Re-Determinations: Requires states, beginning October 1, 2017, to re-determine eligibility for individuals qualifying for Medicaid on the basis of income at least every six months. This provision was not included in the leaked discussion draft. All told, this change, along with the program integrity provisions highlighted above, saves a total of $7.1 billion over ten years.
Non-Expansion State Funding: Includes $10 billion ($2 billion per year) in funding for Medicaid non-expansion states, for calendar years 2018 through 2022. States can receive a 100 percent federal match (95 percent in 2022), up to their share of the allotment. A non-expansion state's share of the $2 billion in annual allotments would be determined by its share of individuals below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) when compared to non-expansion states. This funding would be excluded from the Medicaid per capita spending caps discussed in greater detail below. This provision was not included in the leaked discussion draft. Costs $8 billion over ten years.
Medicaid Per Capita Caps: Creates a system of per capita spending caps for federal spending on Medicaid, beginning in Fiscal Year 2019. States that exceed their caps would have their federal match reduced in the following fiscal year.
The cap would include all spending on medical care provided through the Medicaid program, with the exception of DSH payments and Medicare cost-sharing paid for dual eligibles (individuals eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare). The cap would rise by medical CPI plus one percentage point annually.
While the cap would take effect in Fiscal Year 2019, the "base year" for determining cap levels would be Fiscal Year 2016 (which concluded on September 30, 2016), adjusted forward to 2019 levels using medical CPI. The inflation adjustment is lower than the leaked discussion draft, which set the level at medical CPI plus one percent.
Creates five classes of beneficiaries for whom the caps would apply: 1) elderly individuals over age 65; 2) blind and disabled beneficiaries; 3) children under age 19; 4) expansion enrollees (i.e., able-bodied adults enrolled under Obamacare); and 5) all other non-disabled, non-elderly, non-expansion adults (e.g., pregnant women, parents, etc.). Excludes State Children's Health Insurance Plan enrollees, Indian Health Service participants, breast and cervical cancer services eligible individuals, and certain other partial benefit enrollees from the per capita caps.
Requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reduce states' annual growth rate by one percent for any year in which that state "fails to satisfactorily submit data" regarding its Medicaid program. Permits HHS to adjust cap amounts to reflect data errors, based on an appeal by the state, increasing cap levels by no more than two percent.
For the period including calendar quarters beginning on October 1, 2017 through October 1, 2019, increases the federal Medicaid match for certain state expenditures to improve data recording, including a 100 percent match in some instances.
Some conservatives may note the bill's creation of a separate category of Obamacare expansion enrollees, and its use of 2016 as the "base year" for the per capita caps, benefit states who expanded Medicaid to able-bodied adults under Obamacare. The most recent actuarial report on Medicaid noted that, while the actuary originally predicted that adults in the expansion population would cost less than existing populations, in reality each newly eligible enrollee cost 13.6% more than existing populations in 2016. Some states have used the 100% federal match for their expansion populations—i.e., "free money from Washington"—to raise provider reimbursement levels.
Some conservatives may therefore be concerned that the draft bill would retain the increased spending on adults in expansion states—extending the inequities caused by states that have used Obamacare's "free money" to raise Medicaid spending while sending Washington the tab.
The per-capita caps, when coupled with the repeal of the Medicaid expansion, will reduce Medicaid spending by a total of $880 billion over ten years. CBO did not provide granularity on the savings associated with each specific provision.
Cost-Sharing Subsidies: Repeals Obamacare's cost-sharing subsidies, effective December 31, 2019. However, the bill does not include an appropriation for cost-sharing subsidies for 2017, 2018, or 2019. The House of Representatives filed suit against the Obama Administration (House v. Burwell) alleging the Administration acted unconstitutionally in spending funds on the cost-sharing subsidies without an explicit appropriation from Congress. The case is currently on hold pending settlement discussions between the Trump Administration and the House. Similar language regarding cost-sharing subsidies was included in Section 202(b) of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
On a related note, the bill does NOT include provisions regarding reinsurance, risk corridors, and risk adjustment, all of which were repealed by Section 104 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. While the reinsurance and risk corridor programs technically expired on December 31, 2016, insurers have outstanding claims regarding both programs. Some conservatives may be concerned that failing to repeal these provisions could represent an attempt to bail out health insurance companies.
Patient and State Stability Fund: Creates a Patient and State Stability Fund, to be administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for the years 2018 through 2026. Grants may be used to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions (whether through high-risk pools or another arrangement), stabilizing or reducing premiums, encouraging insurer participation, promoting access, directly paying providers, or subsidizing cost-sharing (i.e., co-payments, deductibles, etc.).
In the leaked discussion draft, the program in question was called the State Innovation Grant program. The new bill changes the program's name, and includes additional language requiring the CMS Administrator, in the case of a state that does not apply for Fund dollars, to spend the money "for such state," making "market stabilization payments" to insurers with claims over $50,000, using a specified reinsurance formula. Some conservatives may view this as a federal infringement on state sovereignty—Washington forcibly intervening in state insurance markets—to bail out health insurers.
Provides for $15 billion in funding for each of calendar years 2018 and 2019, followed by $10 billion for each of calendar years 2020 through 2026 ($100 billion total). Requires a short, one-time application from states describing their goals and objectives for use of the funding, which will be deemed approved within 60 days absent good cause.
For 2018 and 2019, funding would be provided to states on the basis of two factors. 85% of the funding would be determined via states' relative claims costs, based on the most recent medical loss ratio (MLR) data. The remaining 15% of funding would be allocated to states 1) whose uninsured populations increased from 2013 through 2015 or 2) have fewer than three health insurers offering Exchange plans in 2017. This formula is a change from the leaked discussion draft, which determined funding based on average insurance premiums, and guaranteed every state at least a 0.5% share of funding ($75 million).
For 2020 through 2026, CMS would be charged with determining a formula that takes into account 1) states' incurred claims, 2) the number of uninsured with incomes below poverty, and 3) the number of participating health insurers in each state market. The bill requires stakeholder consultation regarding the formula, which shall "reflect the goals of improving the health insurance risk pool, promoting a more competitive health insurance market, and increasing choice for health care consumers." The formula language and criteria has been changed compared to the leaked discussion draft.
Requires that states provide a match for their grants in 2020 through 2026—7 percent of their grant in 2020, 14 percent in 2021, 21 percent in 2022, 28 percent in 2023, 35 percent in 2024, 42 percent in 2025, and 50 percent in 2026. For states that decline to apply for grants, requires a 10 percent match in 2020, 20 percent match in 2021, 30 percent match in 2022, 40 percent match in 2023, and 50 percent match in 2024 through 2026. In either case, the bill prohibits federal allocation should a state decline to provide its match.
Some conservatives may note the significant changes in the program when compared to the leaked discussion draft—let alone the program's initial variation, proposed by House Republicans in their alternative to Obamacare in 2009. These changes have turned the program's focus increasingly towards "stabilizing markets," and subsidizing health insurers to incentivize continued participation in insurance markets. Some conservatives therefore may be concerned that this program amounts to a $100 billion bailout fund for insurers—one that could infringe upon state sovereignty.
This program spends a total of $80 billion over ten years, according to CBO.
Continuous Coverage: Requires insurers, beginning after the 2018 open enrollment period (i.e., open enrollment for 2019, or special enrollment periods during the 2018 plan year), to increase premiums for individuals without continuous health insurance coverage. The premium could increase by 30 percent for individuals who have a coverage gap of more than 63 days during the previous 12 months. Insurers could maintain the 30 percent premium increase for a 12 month period. Requires individuals to show proof of continuous coverage, and requires insurers to provide said proof in the form of certificates. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision maintains the federal intrusion over insurance markets exacerbated by Obamacare, rather than devolving insurance regulation back to the states.
Essential Health Benefits: Permits states to develop essential health benefits—which include actuarial value and cost-sharing requirements—for insurance for all years after December 31, 2019.
Age Rating: Changes the maximum variation in insurance markets from 3-to-1 (i.e., insurers can charge older applicants no more than three times younger applicants) to 5-to-1 effective January 1, 2018, with the option for states to provide for other age rating requirements. Some conservatives may be concerned that, despite the ability for states to opt out, this provision, by setting a default federal standard, maintains the intrusion over insurance markets exacerbated by Obamacare.
Special Enrollment Verification: Removes language in the leaked discussion draft requiring verification of all special enrollment periods beginning for plan years after January 1, 2018, effectively codifying proposed regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this month.
Transitional Policies: Removes language in the leaked discussion draft permitting insurers who continued to offer pre-Obamacare health coverage under President Obama's temporary "If you like your plan, you can keep it" fix to continue to offer those policies in perpetuity in the individual and small group markets outside the Exchanges.
Title II—Ways and Means
Subsidy Recapture: Eliminates the repayment limit on Obamacare premium subsidies for the 2018 and 2019 plan years. Obamacare's premium subsidies (which vary based upon income levels) are based on estimated income, which must be reconciled at year's end during the tax filing season. Households with a major change in income or family status during the year (e.g., raise, promotion, divorce, birth, death) could qualify for significantly greater or smaller subsidies than the estimated subsidies they receive. While current law caps repayment amounts for households with incomes under 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL, $98,400 for a family of four in 2017), the bill would eliminate the repayment limits for 2018 and 2019. This provision is similar to Section 201 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Saves $4.9 billion over ten years.
Modifications to Obamacare Premium Subsidy: Allows non-compliant and non-Exchange plans to qualify for Obamacare premium subsidies, with the exception of grandfathered health plans (i.e., those purchased prior to Obamacare's enactment) and plans that cover abortions (although individuals receiving subsidies can purchase separate coverage for abortion). In a change from the leaked discussion draft, individuals with "grandmothered" plans—that is, those purchased after Obamacare's enactment, but before the law's major benefit mandates took effect in 2014—also cannot qualify for subsidies.
While individuals off the Exchanges can receive premium subsidies, they cannot receive these subsidies in advance—they would have to claim the subsidy back on their tax returns instead.
Modifies the existing Obamacare subsidy regime beginning in 2018, by including age as an additional factor for determining subsidy amounts. Younger individuals would have to spend a smaller percentage of income on health insurance than under current law, while older individuals would spend a higher percentage of income. For instance, an individual under age 29, making just under 400% FPL, would pay 4.3% of income on health insurance, whereas an individual between ages 60-64 at the same income level would pay 11.5% of income on health insurance. (Current law limits individuals to paying 9.69% of income on insurance, at all age brackets, for those with income just below 400% FPL.)
Some conservatives may be concerned that 1) these changes would make an already complex subsidy formula even more complicated; 2) could increase costs to taxpayers; and 3) distract from the purported goal of the legislation, which is repealing, not modifying or "fixing," Obamacare. No independent score of the cost of the modified subsidy regime is available—that is, the CBO score did not provide a granular level of detail regarding these particular provisions in isolation.
Repeal of Tax Credits: Repeals Obamacare's premium and small business tax credits, effective January 1, 2020. This language is similar to Sections 202 and 203 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, with one major difference—the House bill provides for a three-year transition period, whereas the reconciliation bill provided a two-year transition period. Repeal of the subsidy regime saves a net of $673 billion (after taking into account the modifications to subsidies outlined above), while repeal of the small business tax credit saves an additional $8 billion.
In addition, CBO estimates an additional $70 billion of "interaction" savings—based largely on assumed reductions in employer-sponsored health coverage, which would see individuals receiving less compensation in the form of pre-tax health insurance and more compensation in the form of after-tax wages.
Abortion Coverage: Clarifies that firms receiving the small business tax credit may not use that credit to purchase plans that cover abortion (although they can purchase separate plans that cover abortion).
Individual and Employer Mandates: Sets the individual and employer mandate penalties to zero, for all years after December 31, 2015. This language is similar to Sections 204 and 205 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, except with respect to timing—the House bill zeroes out the penalties beginning with the previous tax year, whereas the reconciliation bill zeroed out penalties beginning with the current tax year. Reduces revenues by $38 billion over ten years in the case of the individual mandate, and $171 billion in the case of the employer mandate.
Repeal of Other Obamacare Taxes: Repeals all other Obamacare taxes, effective January 1, 2018. Taxes repealed include (along with CBO/Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates over ten years):
Limitation on deductibility of salaries to insurance industry executives (lowers revenue by $400 million);
Tax on tanning services (lowers revenue by $600 million);
Tax on pharmaceuticals (lowers revenue by $24.8 billion);
Health insurer tax (lowers revenue by $144.7 billion);
Net investment tax (lowers revenue by $157.6 billion);
Tax on high-cost health plans (also known as the "Cadillac tax")—but only through 2025 (lowers revenue by $48.7 billion);
Restrictions on use of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Arrangements to pay for over-the-counter medications (lowers revenue by $5.5 billion);
Increased penalties on non-health care uses of Health Savings Account dollars (lowers revenue by $100 million);
Limits on Flexible Spending Arrangement contributions (lowers revenue by $18.6 billion);
Medical device tax (lowers revenue by $19.6 billion);
Elimination of deduction for employers who receive a subsidy from Medicare for offering retiree prescription drug coverage (lowers revenue by $1.7 billion);
Limitation on medical expenses as an itemized deduction (lowers revenue by $34.9 billion);
Medicare tax on "high-income" individuals (lowers revenue by $117.3 billion);
These provisions are all substantially similar to Sections 209 through 221 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. However, when compared to the leaked discussion draft, the bill delays repeal of the tax increases by one year, until the end of calendar year 2017. Additionally, the bill does NOT repeal the economic substance tax, which WAS repealed in Section 222 of the 2015/2016 bill, as well as the leaked discussion draft.
Refundable Tax Credit: Creates a new, age-rated refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance. Credits total $2,000 for individuals under age 30, $2,500 for individuals aged 30-39, $3,000 for individuals aged 40-49, $3,500 for individuals aged 50-59, and $4,000 for individuals over age 60, up to a maximum credit of $14,000 per household. The credit would apply for 2020 and subsequent years, and increase every year by general inflation (i.e., CPI) plus one percent. Excess credit amounts can be deposited in individuals' Health Savings Accounts.
When compared to the leaked discussion draft, the bill would also impose a means-test on the refundable credits. Individuals with modified adjusted gross incomes below $75,000, and families with incomes below $150,000, would qualify for the full credit. The credit would phase out linearly, at a 10 percent rate—every $1,000 of income would cause the subsidy to shrink by $100. Assuming the maximum credit possible ($14,000), the credit would phase out completely at income of $215,000 for an individual, and $290,000 for a family.
The credit may be used for any individual policy sold within a state, or unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage. The credit may also not be used for grandfathered or "grandmothered" health plans—a change from the leaked discussion draft. The bill also increases penalties on erroneous claims for the credit, from 20 percent under current law for all tax credits to 25 percent for the new credit—a change from the leaked discussion draft.
Individuals may not use the credit to purchase plans that cover abortions (although they can purchase separate plans that cover abortion). The credit would be advanceable (i.e., paid before individuals file their taxes), and the Treasury would establish a program to provide credit payments directly to health insurers.
Individuals eligible for or participating in employer coverage, Part A of Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Tricare, or health care sharing ministries cannot receive the credit; however, veterans eligible for but not enrolled in VA health programs can receive the credit. Only citizens and legal aliens qualify for the credit; individuals with seriously delinquent tax debt can have their credits withheld.
Some conservatives may be concerned that, by creating a new refundable tax credit, the bill would establish another source of entitlement spending at a time when our nation already faces significant fiscal difficulties.
Some conservatives may also note that, by introducing means-testing into the bill, the revised credit (when compared to the leaked discussion draft) by its very nature creates work disincentives and administrative complexities. However, whereas Obamacare includes several "cliffs"—where one additional dollar of income could result in the loss of thousands of dollars in subsidies—this credit phases out more gradually as income rises. That structure reduces the credit's disincentives to work—but it by no means eliminates them. Costs $361 billion over ten years. The CBO score did not provide any granularity on the amount of the credit that represents revenue effects (i.e., tax cuts to individuals with income tax liability) versus outlay effects (i.e., spending on "refunds" to individuals who have no income tax liability).
Health Savings Accounts: Increases contribution limits to HSAs, raising them from the current $3,400 for individuals and $6,750 for families in 2017 to the out-of-pocket maximum amounts (currently $6,550 for an individual and $13,100 for a family), effective January 2018. Allows both spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same Health Savings Account. Permits individuals who take up to 60 days to establish an HSA upon enrolling in HSA-eligible coverage to be reimbursed from their account for medical expenses. The increase in contribution limits would lower revenue by $18.6 billion, and the other two provisions would lower revenue by a combined $600 million.
Cap on Employer-Provided Health Coverage: Does NOT contain a proposed cap on the deductibility of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage included in the leaked discussion draft.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on March 13, 2017 December 31, 2018 Categories Costs, Coverage, Jobs, Medicaid and SCHIP, Medicare, Premiums, Regulations, TaxesTags "Repeal and Replace", Abortion, Actuarial value, Age rating, American Health Care Act, Bailouts, Cadillac tax, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, COBRA, Community health centers, Congressional Budget Office, Continuous coverage, Cost estimates, Cost-sharing reductions, Coverage estimates, Department of Veterans Affairs, Device tax, Disproportionate Share Hospitals, Employer mandate, Employer-provided health coverage, Enrollment freeze, Essential health benefits, Exchange subsidies, Flexible Spending Arrangements, Fraud, Full repeal, Government spending, Grandmothered plans, Health Savings Accounts, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House v. Burwell, House Ways and Means Committee, Hyde Amendment, Indian Health Service, Individual mandate, Insurer tax, Legislative Bulletin, Medicaid expansion, Medical loss ratio, Out-of-pocket maximums, Per capita cap, Planned Parenthood, Premiums, Prevention and Public Health Fund, Reconciliation, Reinsurance, SCHIP, Special enrollment periods, Stability Fund, Subsidy cliffs, Supreme Court case, Tax credits, Tax treatment of health insurance, Taxes, Tricare, Uninsured, Verification, Work disincentives
Will the "Byrd Bath" Turn into a Tax Credit Bloodbath?
While most of official Washington waits for word—expected early this week—from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) about the fiscal effects of House Republicans' "repeal-and-replace" legislation, another, equally critical debate is taking place within the corridors of the Capitol. Arcane arguments behind closed doors about the nuances of parliamentary procedure will do much to determine the bill's fate in the Senate—and could lead to a vastly altered final product.
In recent days, House leaders have made numerous comments highlighting the procedural limitations of the budget reconciliation process in the Senate. However, those statements do not necessarily mean the legislation released last week comports with all of those Senate strictures. Indeed, my conversations with more than half a dozen current and former senior Senate staff, all of whom have years of expertise in the minutiae of Senate rules and procedure, have revealed at least four significant procedural issues—one regarding abortion, two regarding immigration, and one regarding a structural "firewall"—surrounding the bill's tax credit regime.
Those and other procedural questions explain why, according to my sources, Senate staff will spend the coming week determining whether they will need to write an entirely new bill to substitute for the House's proposed language. The stakes involved are high: Guidance from the parliamentarian suggesting the House bill contains fatal procedural flaws, meaning it does not qualify as a reconciliation bill, could force the House to repeat the process, starting again with a new, "clean" reconciliation measure.
It is far too premature to claim that any of these potential flaws will necessarily be fatal. The Senate parliamentarian's guidance to senators depends on textual analysis—of the bill's specific wording, the underlying statutes to which it refers, and the CBO scores (not yet available)—and arguments about precedent made by both parties. Senate staff could re-draft portions of the House bill to make it pass procedural muster, or make arguments to preserve the existing language that the parliamentarian accepts as consistent with Senate precedents.
Nevertheless, if the parliamentarian validates even one of the four potential procedural problems, Republicans could end up with a tax credit regime that is politically unsustainable, or whose costs escalate appreciably.
In 2009, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad famously opined that passing health care legislation through budget reconciliation would make the bill look like "Swiss cheese." (While Democrats did not pass Obamacare through reconciliation, they did use the reconciliation process to "fix" the bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009.)
In reality, it's much easier to repeal provisions of a budgetary nature—like Obamacare's taxes, entitlements, and even its major regulations—through reconciliation than to create a new replacement regime. The coming week may provide firsthand proof of Conrad's 2009 axiom.
The 'Byrd Rule' and Abortion
The Senate's so-called "Byrd rule" governing debate on budget reconciliation rules, named after former Senate Majority Leader and procedural guru Robert Byrd (D-WV), consists of not one rule, but six. The six points of order (codified here) seek to keep extraneous material out of the expedited reconciliation process, preserving the Senate tradition of unlimited debate, subject to the usual 60-vote margin to break a filibuster.
The Byrd rule's most famous test states that "a provision shall be considered extraneous if it produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the legislation." If the section in question primarily makes a policy change, and has a minimal budgetary impact, it remains in the bill only if 60 senators (the usual margin necessary to break a filibuster) agree to waive the Byrd point of order.
One example of this test may apply to the House bill's tax credits: "Hyde amendment" language preventing the credits from funding plans that cover abortion. Such language protecting taxpayer funding of abortion coverage occurs several places throughout the bill, including at the top of page 25 of the Ways and Means title.
Over multiple decades and numerous parliamentarians, Republican efforts to enact Hyde amendment protections through budget reconciliation have all failed. It is possible that Republicans could in the next few weeks find new arguments that allow these critical protections to remain in the House bill, but that cannot be considered likely.
The question will then occur as to what becomes of both the credit and the Hyde protections. Some within the administration have argued that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can institute pro-life protections through regulations, but administration insiders doubt HHS' authority to do so. Moreover, most pro-life groups publicly denounced President Obama's March 2010 executive order, which he claimed would prevent taxpayer funding of abortion coverage in Obamacare, as 1) insufficient and 2) subject to change under a future administration. How would those pro-life groups view a regulatory change by the current administration any differently?
Two Procedural Problems Related to Immigration
A similarly controversial issue—immigration—brings an even larger set of procedural challenges. Apart from the separate question of whether the current verification provisions in the House bill are sufficiently robust, any eligibility verification regime for tax credits faces not one, but two major procedural obstacles in the Senate.
Of the six tests under the Byrd rule, some are more fatal than others. For instance, if the Hyde amendment restrictions outlined above are ruled incidental in nature, then those provisions merely get stricken from the bill unless 60 Senators vote to retain them—a highly improbable scenario in this case.
But two other tests under the Byrd rule—provisions outside a committee's jurisdiction, and provisions making changes to Title II of the Social Security Act—are fatal not just to that particular provision, but to the entire bill, potentially forcing the process to begin all over again in the House. The eligibility verification regime touches them both.
Page 37 of the Ways and Means title of the bill requires creation of a verification regime for tax credits similar to that created under Sections 1411 and 1412 of Obamacare. As Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold testified last week during the Ways and Means Committee markup, verifying citizenship requires use of a database held by the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS).
That admission creates a big problem: The tax credit lies within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, but CIS lies within the jurisdiction of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. And because the Finance Committee's portion of the reconciliation bill can affect only programs within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, imposing programmatic requirements on CIS to verify citizenship status could exceed the Finance Committee's scope—potentially jeopardizing the entire bill.
The verification provisions in Sections 1411 and 1412 of Obamacare also require using Social Security numbers, triggering another potentially fatal blow to the entire bill. Senate sources report that, during drafting the original reconciliation bill repealing Obamacare in the fall of 2015, Republicans attempted to repeal the language in Obamacare (Section 1414(a)(2), to be precise) giving the HHS secretary authority to collect and use Social Security numbers to establish eligibility. However, because Section 1414(a)(2) of Obamacare amended Title II of the Social Security Act, Republicans ultimately did not repeal this section of Obamacare in the reconciliation bill because it could have triggered a point of order fatal to the legislation.
If both the points of order against the verification regime are sustained, Congress will have to re-write the bill to create an eligibility verification system that 1) does not rely on the Department of Homeland Security and 2) does not use Social Security numbers. Doing so would create both political and policy problems. On the political side, the revised verification regime would exacerbate existing concerns that undocumented immigrants may have access to federal tax credits.
But the policy implications of a weaker verification regime might actually be more profound. Weaker verification would likely result in a higher score from CBO and JCT—budget scorekeepers would assume a higher incidence of fraud, raising the credits' costs. House leaders might then have to reduce the amount of their tax credit to reflect the higher take-up of the credit by fraudsters taking advantage of lax verification. Any reduction in the credit amounts would bring with it additional political and policy implications, including lower coverage rates.
Concerns over the Tax Credit Firewall
Finally, the tax credit "firewall"—designed to ensure that only individuals without access to other health insurance options receive federal subsidies—could also present procedural concerns. Specifically, pages 27 and 28 of the bill make ineligible for the credit individuals participating in other forms of health insurance, several of which—Tricare, Veterans Administration coverage, coverage for Peace Corps volunteers, etc.—lie outside the Finance Committee's jurisdiction.
If the Senate parliamentarian advises for the removal of references to these programs because they lie outside the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, then participants in those programs will essentially be able to "double-dip"—to receive both the federal tax credit and maintain their current coverage. As with the immigration provision outlined above, such a scenario could significantly increase the tax credits' cost, requiring offsetting cuts elsewhere, which would have their own budgetary implications.
Senate sources indicate this "firewall" concern could prove less problematic than the immigration concern outlined above. While the immigration provision extends new programmatic authority to the administration to develop a revised eligibility verification system, the "firewall" provisions have the opposite effect—essentially excluding Tricare and other program recipients from the credit. However, if the parliamentarian gives guidance suggesting that some or all of the "firewall" provisions must go, that will have a significant impact on the bill's fiscal impact.
Broader Implications Of These Procedural Problems
Both individually and collectively, these four potential procedural concerns hint at an intellectual inconsistency in the House bill's approach, one Yuval Levin highlighted in National Review last week. House leaders claim their bill was drafted to comply with the Senate reconciliation procedures. But the bill itself contains numerous actual or potential violations of those procedures and amends some of Obamacare's insurance regulations, rather than repealing them outright, making their argument incoherent.
Particularly on Obamacare's costly insurance regulations, there seems little reason not to make the "ol' college try," and attempt to repeal the major mandates that have raised premium levels. According to prior CBO scores, other outside estimates, and the Obama administration's own estimates, the major regulations have significant budgetary effects.
Republicans can and should argue to the parliamentarian that the regulations' repeal would be neither incidental nor extraneous—their repeal would remove the terms and conditions under which Obamacare created its insurance subsidies in the first place, thus meeting the Byrd test. If successful, such efforts would provide relief on the issue Americans care most about: Reducing health costs and staggering premium increases.
On the tax credit itself, Republicans may face some difficult choices. Abortion and immigration present thorny—and controversial—issues, either of which could sink the legislation. On the bill's tax credits, the "Byrd bath," in which the parliamentarian gives guidance on what provisions can remain in the reconciliation bill, could become a bloodbath. If pro-life protections and eligibility verification come out of the bill, a difficult choice for conservatives on whether to support tax credits will become that much harder.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on March 13, 2017 December 31, 2018 Categories UncategorizedTags "Repeal and Replace", Abortion, Byrd rule, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Congressional Budget Office, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Veterans Affairs, Filibuster, Firewall, Full repeal, Hyde Amendment, Immigration, Joint Committee on Taxation, Kent Conrad, National Review, Reconciliation, Regulations, Robert Byrd, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senate parliamentarian, Social Security, Tax credits, The Federalist, Tom Barthold, Tricare, Verification, Yuval Levin
Legislative Bulletin: "Repeal and Replace" Legislation
A PDF of this document is available at the Texas Public Policy Foundation website.
This evening, House leadership released a revised draft of their Obamacare "repeal-and-replace" bill—the Energy and Commerce title is here, and the Ways and Means title is here.
Prevention and Public Health Fund: Eliminates funding for the Obamacare prevention "slush fund," and rescinds all unobligated balances. This language is substantially similar to Section 101 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Community Health Centers: Increases funding for community health centers by $422 million for Fiscal Year 2018—money intended to offset reductions in spending on Planned Parenthood affiliates (see "Federal Payments to States" below). The spending amount exceeds the $285 million provided in the leaked discussion draft. However, the section does NOT include language adding Hyde amendment protections—which would ensure that this stream of mandatory funding occurring outside the usual discretionary appropriations process, does not result in taxpayer funding of abortions—despite a parenthetical note indicating intent to do so in the leaked discussion draft. Language regarding community health centers was included in Section 102 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Federal Payments to States: Imposes a one-year ban on federal funds flowing to certain entities. This provision would have the effect of preventing Medicaid funding of certain medical providers, including Planned Parenthood, so long as Planned Parenthood provides for abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother). This language is virtually identical to Section 206 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Finally, the bill repeals the requirement that Medicaid "benchmark" plans comply with Obamacare's essential health benefits, also effective December 31, 2019.
DSH Payments: Repeals the reduction in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. Non-expansion states would see their DSH payments restored immediately, whereas states that expanded Medicaid to the able-bodied under Obamacare would see their DSH payments restored in 2019. This language varies from both Section 208 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill and the leaked discussion draft.
Non-Expansion State Funding: Includes $10 billion ($2 billion per year) in funding for Medicaid non-expansion states, for calendar years 2018 through 2022. States can receive a 100 percent federal match (95 percent in 2022), up to their share of the allotment. A non-expansion state's share of the $2 billion in annual allotments would be determined by its share of individuals below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) when compared to non-expansion states. This funding would be excluded from the Medicaid per capita spending caps discussed in greater detail below. This provision was not included in the leaked discussion draft.
Eligibility Re-Determinations: Requires states, beginning October 1, 2017, to re-determine eligibility for individuals qualifying for Medicaid on the basis of income at least every six months. This provision was not included in the leaked discussion draft.
While the cap would take effect in Fiscal Year 2019, the "base year" for determining cap levels would be Fiscal Year 2016 (which concluded on September 30, 2016), adjusted forward to 2019 levels using medical CPI. The adjustment between years 2016 and 2019 was reduced from medical CPI plus one percentage point in the leaked discussion draft; however, the adjustment for years after 2019 remains medical CPI plus one percentage point.
Subsidy Recapture: Eliminates the repayment limit on Obamacare premium subsidies for the 2018 and 2019 plan years. Obamacare's premium subsidies (which vary based upon income levels) are based on estimated income, which must be reconciled at year's end during the tax filing season. Households with a major change in income or family status during the year (e.g., raise, promotion, divorce, birth, death) could qualify for significantly greater or smaller subsidies than the estimated subsidies they receive. While current law caps repayment amounts for households with incomes under 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL, $98,400 for a family of four in 2017), the bill would eliminate the repayment limits for 2018 and 2019. This provision is similar to Section 201 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Some conservatives may be concerned that 1) these changes would make an already complex subsidy formula even more complicated; 2) could increase costs to taxpayers; and 3) distract from the purported goal of the legislation, which is repealing, not modifying or "fixing," Obamacare.
Repeal of Tax Credits: Repeals Obamacare's premium and small business tax credits, effective January 1, 2020. This language is similar to Sections 202 and 203 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, with one major difference—the House bill provides for a three-year transition period, whereas the reconciliation bill provided a two-year transition period.
Individual and Employer Mandates: Sets the individual and employer mandate penalties to zero, for all years after December 31, 2015. This language is similar to Sections 204 and 205 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, except with respect to timing—the House bill zeroes out the penalties beginning with the previous tax year, whereas the reconciliation bill zeroed out penalties beginning with the current tax year.
Repeal of Other Obamacare Taxes: Repeals all other Obamacare taxes, effective January 1, 2018, including:
Limitation on deductibility of salaries to insurance industry executives;
Tax on tanning services;
Tax on pharmaceuticals;
Health insurer tax;
Net investment tax;
Tax on high-cost health plans (also known as the "Cadillac tax")—but only through 2025;
Restrictions on use of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Arrangements to pay for over-the-counter medications;
Increased penalties on non-health care uses of Health Savings Account dollars;
Limits on Flexible Spending Arrangement contributions;
Medical device tax;
Elimination of deduction for employers who receive a subsidy from Medicare for offering retiree prescription drug coverage;
Limitation on medical expenses as an itemized deduction;
Medicare tax on "high-income" individuals;
Some conservatives may also note that, by introducing means-testing into the bill, the revised credit (when compared to the leaked discussion draft) by its very nature creates work disincentives and administrative complexities. However, whereas Obamacare includes several "cliffs"—where one additional dollar of income could result in the loss of thousands of dollars in subsidies—this credit phases out more gradually as income rises. That structure reduces the credit's disincentives to work—but it by no means eliminates them.
Health Savings Accounts: Increases contribution limits to HSAs, raising them from the current $3,400 for individuals and $6,750 for families in 2017 to the out-of-pocket maximum amounts (currently $6,550 for an individual and $13,100 for a family), effective January 2018. Allows both spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same Health Savings Account. Permits individuals who take up to 60 days to establish an HSA upon enrolling in HSA-eligible coverage to be reimbursed from their account for medical expenses.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on March 7, 2017 December 31, 2018 Categories Costs, Coverage, Jobs, Medicaid and SCHIP, Premiums, Regulations, TaxesTags "Repeal and Replace", Abortion, Actuarial value, Age rating, Bailouts, Cadillac tax, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, COBRA, Community health centers, Continuous coverage, Cost-sharing reductions, Department of Veterans Affairs, Device tax, Disproportionate Share Hospitals, Employer mandate, Employer-provided health coverage, Enrollment freeze, Essential health benefits, Exchange subsidies, Flexible Spending Arrangements, Fraud, Full repeal, Government spending, Grandmothered plans, Health Savings Accounts, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House v. Burwell, House Ways and Means Committee, Hyde Amendment, Indian Health Service, Individual mandate, Insurer tax, Legislative Bulletin, Medicaid expansion, Medical loss ratio, Out-of-pocket maximums, Per capita cap, Planned Parenthood, Prevention and Public Health Fund, Reconciliation, Reinsurance, SCHIP, Special enrollment periods, Stability Fund, Subsidy cliffs, Supreme Court case, Tax credits, Tax treatment of health insurance, Taxes, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Tricare, Verification, Work disincentives
Legislative Bulletin: House Republicans' Leaked Obamacare Replacement Draft
On Friday, Politico released a leaked version of draft budget reconciliation legislation circulating among House staff—a version of House Republicans' Obamacare "repeal-and-replace" bill. The discussion draft is time-stamped on the afternoon of February 10, and according to my sources has been changed in the two weeks since then, but it represents a glimpse into where House leadership was headed going into the President's Day recess.
A detailed summary of the bill is below, along with possible conservative concerns where applicable. Where provisions in the discussion draft were also included in the reconciliation bill Congress passed early in 2016 (H.R. 3762, text here), differences between the two versions, if any, are noted. In general, however, whereas the prior reconciliation bill sunset Obamacare's entitlements after a two-year transition period, the discussion draft would sunset them at the end of calendar year 2019—nearly three years from now.
Of particular note: It is unclear whether this legislative language has been vetted with the Senate parliamentarian. When the Senate considers budget reconciliation legislation, as it plans to do with the Obamacare "repeal-and-replace" bill, the parliamentarian plays a key role in determining whether provisions are budgetary in nature and can be included in the bill (which can pass with a 51-vote simple majority), and which provisions are not budgetary in nature and must be considered separately (i.e., require 60 votes to pass).
In the absence of a fully drafted bill and complete Congressional Budget Office score, it is entirely possible the parliamentarian has not vetted this discussion draft, which means provisions could change substantially, or even get struck, due to procedural concerns as the process moves forward.
Community Health Centers: Increases funding for community health centers by $285 million for Fiscal Year 2018—money intended to offset reductions in spending on Planned Parenthood affiliates (see "Federal Payments to States" below). A parenthetical note indicates intent to add Hyde Amendment restrictions, to ensure this mandatory funding for health centers—which occurs outside their normal stream of funding through discretionary appropriations—retains prohibitions on federal funding of abortions. Language regarding community health centers was included in Section 102 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Medicaid: The discussion draft varies significantly from the repeal of Medicaid expansion included in Section 207 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. The 2015/2016 reconciliation bill repealed both elements of the Medicaid expansion—the change in eligibility allowing able-bodied adults to join the program, and the enhanced (90-100 percent) federal match that states received for covering them.
By contrast, the House discussion draft retains eligibility for the able-bodied adult population, making this population optional for states to cover, rather than mandatory. (The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius made Medicaid expansion optional for states.) Some conservatives may be concerned that this change markedly weakens the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill language, and will entrench a massive expansion of Medicaid beyond its original focus on the most vulnerable in society.
Some conservatives may be concerned that, rather than representing a true "freeze" that was advertised, one that would take effect immediately upon enactment, the language in this bill would give states a strong incentive to sign up many more individuals for Medicaid over the next three years, so they can qualify for the higher federal match as long as those individuals remain in the program.
DSH Payments: Repeals the reduction in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. This language is identical to Section 208 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Cost-Sharing Subsidies: Repeals Obamacare's cost-sharing subsidies, effective December 31, 2019 (the year is noted in brackets, however, suggesting it may change). However, the bill does not include an appropriation for cost-sharing subsidies for 2017, 2018, or 2019. The House of Representatives filed suit against the Obama administration (House v. Burwell) alleging the administration acted unconstitutionally in spending funds on the cost-sharing subsidies without an explicit appropriation from Congress. The case is currently on hold pending settlement discussions between the Trump administration and the House. Similar language regarding cost-sharing subsidies was included in Section 202(b) of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
On a related note, the House's draft bill does not include provisions regarding reinsurance, risk corridors, and risk adjustment, all of which were repealed by Section 104 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. While the reinsurance and risk corridor programs technically expired on December 31, 2016, insurers have outstanding claims regarding both programs. Some conservatives may be concerned that failing to repeal these provisions could represent an attempt to bail out health insurance companies.
The cap would include all spending on medical care provided through the Medicaid program, with the exception of DSH payments and Medicare cost-sharing paid for dual-eligibles (individuals eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare). The cap would rise by medical consumer price index (CPI) plus one percentage point annually.
While the cap would take effect in Fiscal Year 2019, the "base year" for determining cap levels would be Fiscal Year 2016 (which concluded on September 30, 2016), adjusted forward to 2019 levels using medical CPI plus one percentage point.
Creates five classes of beneficiaries for whom the caps would apply: 1) elderly individuals over age 65; 2) blind and disabled beneficiaries; 3) children under age 19; 4) expansion enrollees (i.e., able-bodied adults enrolled under Obamacare); and 5) all other non-disabled, non-elderly, non-expansion adults (e.g., pregnant women, parents, etc.). Excludes State Children's Health Insurance Plan enrollees, Indian Health Service participants, breast and cervical cancer services-eligible individuals, and certain other partial benefit enrollees from the per capita caps.
Requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reduce states' annual growth rate by 1 percent for any year in which that state "fails to satisfactorily submit data" regarding its Medicaid program. Permits HHS to adjust cap amounts to reflect data errors, based on an appeal by the state, increasing cap levels by no more than 2 percent.
The bill benefits states who expanded Medicaid to able-bodied adults under Obamacare.
Some conservatives may note the bill's creation of a separate category of Obamacare expansion enrollees, and its use of 2016 as the "base year" for the per capita caps, benefit states who expanded Medicaid to able-bodied adults under Obamacare. The most recent actuarial report on Medicaid noted that, while the actuary originally predicted that adults in the expansion population would cost less than existing populations, in reality each newly eligible enrollee cost 13.6 percent more than existing populations in 2016. Many states have used the 100 percent federal match for their expansion populations—i.e., "free money from Washington"—to raise provider reimbursement levels.
Some conservatives may therefore be concerned that the draft bill would retain the increased spending on adults in expansion states, extending in perpetuity the inequities caused by states that have used Obamacare's "free money" to raise Medicaid spending while sending Washington the tab.
State Innovation Grants: Creates a new program of State Innovation Grants, to be administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, for the years 2018 through 2026. Grants may be used to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions (whether through high-risk pools or another arrangement), stabilizing or reducing premiums, encouraging insurer participation, promoting access, directly paying providers, or subsidizing cost-sharing (i.e., co-payments, deductibles, etc.). A similar program was first proposed by House Republicans in their alternative to Obamacare in 2009.
This provision maintains the federal intrusion over insurance markets exacerbated by Obamacare, rather than devolving insurance regulation back to the states.
Provides for $15 billion in funding for each of calendar years 2018 and 2019, followed by $10 billion for each of calendar years 2020 through 2026 ($100 billion total). Requires a short, one-time application from states describing their goals and objectives for the funding, which will be deemed approved within 60 days absent good cause.
For 2018 and 2019, funding would be provided to states on the basis of relative costs, determined by the number of federal exchange enrollees and the extent to which individual insurance premiums in the state exceed the national average. Every state would receive at least 0.5 percent of the national total (at least $75 million in 2018 and 2019).
For 2020 through 2026, CMS would be charged with determining a formula that takes into account the percentage of low-income residents in the state (the bill text includes in brackets three possible definitions of "low-income"—138 percent, 250 percent, or 300 percent of the federal poverty level) and the number of residents without health insurance.
Requires that states match their grants in 2020 through 2026—by 7 percent of their grant in 2020, 14 percent in 2021, 21 percent in 2022, 28 percent in 2023, 35 percent in 2024, 42 percent in 2025, and 50 percent in 2026.
Continuous Coverage: Requires insurers, beginning after the 2018 open enrollment period (i.e., open enrollment for 2019, or special enrollment periods during the 2018 plan year), to increase premiums for individuals without continuous health insurance coverage. The premium could increase by 30 percent for individuals who have a coverage gap of more than 63 days during the previous 12 months. Insurers could maintain the 30 percent premium increase for a 12-month period. Requires individuals to show proof of continuous coverage, and requires insurers to provide said proof in the form of certificates. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision maintains the federal intrusion over insurance markets exacerbated by Obamacare, rather than devolving insurance regulation back to the states.
Essential Health Benefits: Permits states to develop essential health benefits for insurance for all years after December 31, 2019.
Special Enrollment Verification: Requires verification of all special enrollment periods beginning for plan years after January 1, 2018. This provision would effectively codify proposed regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this month. Some conservatives may be concerned about the continued federal intrusion over a matter that has been until now left to state regulation, and question the need to verify enrollment in exchanges, given that the underlying legislation was intended to repeal Obamacare—and thus the exchanges—entirely.
Transitional Policies: Permits insurers who continued to offer pre-Obamacare health coverage under President Obama's temporary "If you like your plan, you can keep it" fix to continue to offer those policies in perpetuity in the individual and small group markets outside the exchanges.
Modifications to Obamacare Premium Subsidy: Allows non-compliant and non-exchange plans to qualify for Obamacare premium subsidies, with the exception of grandfathered health plans (i.e., those purchased prior to Obamacare's enactment) and plans that cover abortions (although individuals receiving subsidies can purchase separate coverage for abortion). While individuals off the exchanges can receive premium subsidies, they cannot receive these subsidies in advance—they would have to claim the subsidy back on their tax returns instead. Only citizens and legal aliens could receive subsidies.
These changes would make an already complex subsidy formula even more complicated; increase costs to taxpayers; and distract from the purported goal of the legislation.
Modifies the existing Obamacare subsidy regime beginning in 2018 by including age as an additional factor for determining subsidy amounts. Younger individuals would have to spend a smaller percentage of income on health insurance than under current law, while older individuals would spend a higher percentage of income.
For instance, an individual under age 29 who makes just under 400 percent FPL would pay 4.3 percent of income on health insurance, whereas an individual between ages 60-64 at the same income level would pay 11.5 percent of income on health insurance. (Current law limits individuals to paying 9.69 percent of income on insurance, at all age brackets, for those with income just below 400 percent FPL.)
Repeal of Tax Credits: Repeals Obamacare's premium and small business tax credits, effective January 1, 2020. This language is similar to Sections 202 and 203 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, with one major difference—the House discussion draft provides for a three-year transition period, whereas the reconciliation bill provided a two-year transition period.
Individual and Employer Mandates: Sets the individual and employer mandate penalties to zero, for all years after December 31, 2015. This language is similar to Sections 204 and 205 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, except with respect to timing—the House discussion draft zeroes out the penalties beginning with the previous tax year, whereas the reconciliation bill zeroed out penalties beginning with the current tax year.
Tax on high-cost health plans (also known as the "Cadillac tax");
Limitation on deductibility of salaries to insurance industry executives; and
Economic substance doctrine.
These provisions are all substantially similar to Sections 209 through 222 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill.
Refundable Tax Credit: Creates a new, age-rated refundable tax credit for purchasing health insurance. Credits total $2,000 for individuals under age 30, $2,500 for individuals aged 30-39, $3,000 for individuals aged 40-49, $3,500 for individuals aged 50-59, and $4,000 for individuals over age 60, up to a maximum credit of $14,000 per household. The credit would apply for 2020 and subsequent years, and increase every year by general inflation (i.e., CPI) plus 1 percent. Excess credit amounts can be deposited in individuals' health savings accounts.
By creating a new refundable tax credit, the bill would establish another source of entitlement spending at a time when our nation already faces significant fiscal difficulties.
The credit may be used for any individual policy sold within a state (although apparently not a policy purchased across state lines) or unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage.
Individuals may not use the credit to purchase plans that cover abortions (although they can purchase separate plans that cover abortion).
The credit would be advanceable (i.e., paid before individuals file their taxes), and the Treasury would establish a program to provide credit payments directly to health insurers.
Individuals eligible for or participating in employer coverage, Part A of Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Tricare, or health-care-sharing ministries cannot receive the credit; however, veterans eligible for but not enrolled in Veterans Administration health programs can. Only citizens and legal aliens qualify for the credit; individuals with seriously delinquent tax debt can have their credits withheld.
Cap on Employer-Provided Health Coverage: Establishes a cap on the current exclusion for employer-provided health coverage, making any amounts received above the cap taxable to the employee. Sets the cap, which includes both employer and employee contributions, at the 90th percentile of group (i.e., employer) plans for 2019. In 2020 and subsequent years, indexes the cap to general inflation (i.e., CPI) plus two percentage points. Also applies the cap on coverage to include self-employed individuals taking an above-the-line deduction on their tax returns. While the level of the cap would be set in the year 2019, the cap itself would take effect in 2020 and subsequent tax years.
An unlimited exclusion for employer-provided health insurance encourages over-consumption of health insurance, and therefore health care.
Excludes contributions to health savings accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts, as well as long-term care, dental, and vision insurance policies, from the cap. Exempts health insurance benefits for law enforcement, fire department, and out-of-hospital emergency medical personnel from the cap.
Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision raises taxes. Economists on all sides of the political spectrum generally agree that an unlimited exclusion for employer-provided health insurance encourages over-consumption of health insurance, and therefore health care. However, there are other ways to reform the tax treatment of health insurance without raising taxes on net. Given the ready availability of other options, some conservatives may be concerned that the bill repeals all the Obamacare tax increases, only to replace them with other tax hikes.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on February 28, 2017 December 31, 2018 Categories Costs, Coverage, Jobs, Medicaid and SCHIP, Premiums, Regulations, TaxesTags "Repeal and Replace", Abortion, Age rating, COBRA, Community health centers, Continuous coverage, Cost-sharing reductions, Department of Veterans Affairs, Device tax, Disproportionate Share Hospitals, Employer mandate, Employer-provided health coverage, Enrollment freeze, Essential health benefits, Exchange subsidies, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, Flexible Spending Arrangements, Health Savings Accounts, High-risk pools, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, Indian Health Service, Individual mandate, Insurer tax, Legislative Bulletin, Medicaid, Medicaid expansion, Payroll taxes, Per capita cap, Planned Parenthood, Politico, Prevention and Public Health Fund, Reconciliation, Reinsurance, Risk adjustment, Risk corridors, SCHIP, Senate parliamentarian, Special enrollment periods, Supreme Court case, Tax credits, Tax increases, Tax treatment of health insurance, The Federalist, Tricare, Verification
The President's Shrinking Entitlement Savings
The President's deficit proposal released this morning claims to achieve $320 billion in deficit savings. As we've previously noted, given the size of our entitlement programs, that's a comparatively insignificant amount – barely enough to finance a long-term "doc fix," let alone make Medicare and Medicaid solvent for the long term. But what's interesting is how the size of the health care savings put forward by the President has actually SHRUNK over time. The White House's April "deficit framework" (i.e., a speech) claimed to achieve $340 billion in savings – $20 billion MORE than this morning's proposal.
So what exactly prompted the President to LOWER his sights for entitlement savings over the last five months? Was it the unprecedented downgrade of America's debt rating? The stock market swoon that quickly followed? The chaos in Europe as that continent struggles to achieve fiscal discipline and avert a sovereign default crisis? Or was it the event that happens on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November every fourth year? You be the judge…
All that said, a detailed summary of the President's (new) proposal follows below. Keep in mind that Administration/OMB estimates may vary significantly from CBO scores, so remember that your budgetary mileage may vary. (All scores are over a ten-year period unless otherwise indicated.)
Medicare Proposals (Total savings of $248 Billion)
Bad Debts: Reduces bad debt payments to providers – for unpaid cost-sharing owed by beneficiaries – from 70 percent down to 25 percent over three years, beginning in 2013. The Fiscal Commission had made similar recommendations in its final report. Saves $20.2 billion.
Medical Education Payments: Reduces the Indirect Medical Education adjustment paid to teaching hospitals by 10 percent beginning in 2013, saving $9.1 billion. Previous studies by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) have indicated that IME payments to teaching hospitals may be greater than the actual costs the hospitals incur.
Rural Payments: Ends add-on payments for providers in frontier states, saving $2.1 billion. Reduces critical access hospital payments from 101% of costs to 100% of costs, saving $1 billion, and prohibits hospitals fewer than 10 miles away from the nearest hospital from receiving a critical access hospital designation, saving $3 billion.
Post-Acute Care: Reduces various acute-care payment updates (details not specified) during the years 2014 through 2021, saving $32.5 billion. Equalizes payment rates between skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities, saving $4.5 billion. Increases the minimum percentage of inpatient rehabilitation facility patients that require intensive rehabilitation from 60 percent to 75 percent, saving $2.6 billion. Reduces skilled nursing facility payments by up to 3%, beginning in 2015, for preventable readmissions, saving $2 billion.
Pharmaceutical Price Controls: Expands Medicaid price controls to dual eligible and low-income subsidy beneficiaries participating in Part D, saving $135 billion according to OMB. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 Budget Options (Option 25), this proposal would generate smaller savings ($112 billion). Some have expressed concerns that further expanding government-imposed price controls to prescription drugs could harm innovation and the release of new therapies that could help cure diseases.
MA Repayment Provisions: Recovers payments to insurers participating in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. MA plans are currently paid on a prospective basis, with those payments adjusted according to the severity of beneficiaries' ill health. Some sample audits have discovered instances where plans could not retrospectively produce the necessary documentation to warrant the prospective coding adjustment that some beneficiaries received. The deficit plan would apply this adjustment, currently contemplated for some beneficiaries based on the sample audit, to ALL beneficiaries. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $2.3 billion; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $6.2 billion.
Anti-Fraud Provisions: Assumes $600 million in savings from various anti-fraud provisions, including limiting the discharge of debt in bankruptcy proceedings associated with fraudulent activities.
EHR Penalties: Re-directs Medicare reimbursement penalties against physicians who do not engage in electronic prescribing beginning in 2020 back into the Medicare program. The "stimulus" legislation that enacted the health IT provisions had originally required that penalties to providers be placed into the Medicare Improvement Fund; the budget would instead re-direct those revenues into the general fund, to finance the "doc fix" and related provisions. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $500 million; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $3.2 billion.
Imaging: Reduces imaging payments by assuming a higher level of utilization for certain types of equipment, saving $400 million. Also imposes prior authorization requirements for advanced imaging, saving $900 million.
Additional Means Testing: Increases means tested premiums under Parts B and D by 15%, beginning in 2017. Freezes the income thresholds at which means testing applies until 25 percent of beneficiaries are subject to such premiums. Saves $20 billion over ten years, and presumably more thereafter, as additional seniors would hit the means testing threshold, subject them to higher premiums.
Medicare Deductible Increase: Increases Medicare Part B deductible by $25 in 2017, 2019, and 2021 – but for new beneficiaries only; "current beneficiaries or near retirees [not defined] would not be subject to the revised deductible." Saves $1 billion.
Home Health Co-Payment: Introduces a home health co-payment of $100 per episode for new beneficiaries only, in cases where an episode lasts five or more visits and is NOT proceeded by a hospital stay. MedPAC has previously recommended introducing home health co-payments as a way to ensure appropriate utilization. Saves $400 million.
Medigap Surcharge: Imposes a Part B premium surcharge equal to about 15 percent of the average Medigap premium – or about 30 percent of the Part B premium – for seniors with Medigap supplemental insurance that provides first dollar coverage. Applies beginning in 2017 to new beneficiaries only. A study commissioned by MedPAC previously concluded that first dollar Medigap coverage induces beneficiaries to consume more medical services, thus increasing costs for the Medicare program and federal taxpayers. Saves $2.5 billion.
Lower Caps on Medicare Spending: Section 3403 of the health care law established an Independent Payment Advisory Board tasked with limiting Medicare spending to the growth of the economy plus one percentage point (GDP+1) in 2018 and succeeding years. The White House proposal would reduce this target to GDP+0.5 percent. This approach has two potential problems:
First, under the Congressional Budget Office's most recent baseline, IPAB recommendations would not be triggered at all – so it's unclear whether the new, lower target level would actually generate measurable budgetary savings. (In August 2010, CBO concluded an IPAB with an overall cap of GDP+1 would yield $13.8 billion in savings through 2020 – not enough to make a measurable impact on a program spending $500 billion per year.)
Second, the Medicare actuary has previously written that the spending adjustments contemplated by IPAB and the health care law "are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent annual basis" and "very challenging" – problems that would be exacerbated by utilizing a slower target rate for Medicare spending growth.
According to the Administration document, this proposal would NOT achieve additional deficit savings.
Medicaid and Other Health Proposals (Total savings of $72 Billion)
Medicaid Provider Taxes: Reduces limits on Medicaid provider tax thresholds, beginning in 2015; the tax threshold would be reduced over a three year period, to 3.5 percent in 2017 and future years. State provider taxes are a financing method whereby states impose taxes on medical providers, and use these provider tax revenues to obtain additional federal Medicaid matching funds, thereby increasing the federal share of Medicaid expenses paid while decreasing the state share of expenses. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, enacted by a Republican Congress, capped the level of Medicaid provider taxes, and the Bush Administration proposed additional rules to reform Medicaid funding rules – rules that were blocked by the Democrat-run 110th Congress. However, there is bipartisan support for addressing ways in which states attempt to "game" the Medicaid system, through provider taxes and other related methods, to obtain unwarranted federal matching funds – the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities previously wrote about a series of "Rube Goldberg-like accounting arrangements" that "do not improve the quality of health care provided" and "frequently operate in a manner that siphons extra federal money to state coffers without affecting the provision of health care." This issue was also addressed in the fiscal commission's report, although the commission exceeded the budget proposals by suggesting that Congress enact legislation "restricting and eventually eliminating" provider taxes, saving $44 billion. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $26.3 billion; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $18.4 billion.
Blended Rate: Proposes "replac[ing]…complicated federal matching formulas" in Medicaid "with a single matching rate specific to each state that automatically increases if a recession forces enrollment and state costs to rise." Details are unclear, but the Administration claims $14.9 billion in savings from this proposal – much less than the $100 billion figure bandied about in previous reports this summer. It is also worth noting that the proposal could actually INCREASE the deficit, if a prolonged recession triggers the automatic increases in the federal Medicaid match referenced in the proposal. On a related note, the deficit plan once again ignored the governors' multiple requests for flexibility from the mandates included in the health care law – unfunded mandates on states totaling at least $118 billion.
Limit Durable Medical Equipment Reimbursement: Caps Medicaid reimbursements for durable medical equipment (DME) at Medicare rates, beginning in 2013. The health care law extended and expanded a previous Medicare competitive bidding demonstration project included in the Medicare Modernization Act, resulting in savings to the Medicare program. This proposal, by capping Medicaid reimbursements for DME at Medicare levels, would attempt to extend those savings to the Medicaid program. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $4.2 billion; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $6.4 billion.
Third Party Liability: Removes exceptions to the requirement that Medicaid must reject payments when another party is liable for a medical claim, saving $1.3 billion.
Rebase Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments: In 2021, reallocates Medicaid DSH payments to hospitals treating low-income patients, based on states' actual 2020 allotments (as amended and reduced by the health care law). Saves $4.1 billion.
Medicaid Anti-Fraud Savings: Assumes $110 million in savings from a variety of Medicaid anti-fraud provisions, largely through tracking and enforcement of various provisions related to pharmaceuticals.
Amend MAGI Definition: Amends the health care law to include Social Security benefits in the new definition of Modified Adjusted Gross Income used to determine eligibility for Medicaid benefits. As previously reported, this "glitch" in the law would make millions of early retirees – who receive a large portion of their income from Social Security – eligible for free taxpayer-funded benefits, and would discourage work by providing greater subsidies to those relying on Social Security, as opposed to wage earnings, for their income. Saves $14.6 billion.
Flexibility on Benchmark Plans: Proposes some new flexibility for states to require Medicaid "benchmark" plan coverage for non-elderly, non-disabled adults – but ONLY those with incomes above 133 percent of the federal poverty level (i.e., NOT the new Medicaid population obtaining coverage under the health care law). No savings assumed.
"Pay-for-Delay:" Prohibits brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers from entering into arrangements that would delay the availability of new generic drugs. Some Members have previously expressed concerns that these provisions would harm innovation, and actually impede the incentives to generic manufacturers to bring cost-saving generic drugs on the market. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $2.7 billion; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $8.8 billion.
Follow-on Biologics: Reduces to seven years the period of exclusivity for follow-on biologics. Current law provides for a twelve-year period of exclusivity, based upon an amendment to the health care law that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in both the House and Senate (one of the few substantive bipartisan amendments adopted). Some Members have expressed concern that reducing the period of exclusivity would harm innovation and discourage companies from developing life-saving treatments. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $3.5 billion; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $2.3 billion.
FEHB Contracting: Proposes streamlining pharmacy benefit contracting within the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, by centralizing pharmaceutical benefit contracting within the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Some individuals, noting that OPM is also empowered to create "multi-state plans" as part of the health care overhaul, may be concerned that these provisions could be part of a larger plan to make OPM the head of a de facto government-run health plan. OMB now scores this proposal as saving $1.6 billion; when included in the President's budget back in February, these changes were scored as saving $1.8 billion.
Prevention "Slush Fund:" Reduces spending by $3.5 billion on the Prevention and Public Health Fund created in the health care law. Some Members have previously expressed concern that this fund would be used to fund projects like jungle gyms and bike paths, questionable priorities for the use of federal taxpayer dollars in a time of trillion-dollar deficits.
State Waivers: Accelerates from 2017 to 2014 the date under which states can submit request for waivers of SOME of the health care law's requirements to HHS. While supposedly designed to increase flexibility, even liberal commentators have agreed that under the law's state waiver program "critics of Obama's proposal have a point: It wouldn't allow to enact the sorts of health care reforms they would prefer" and that "conservatives can't do any better – at least not under these rules." The proposal states that "the Administration is committed to the budget neutrality of these waivers;" however, the plan allocates $4 billion in new spending "to account for the possibility that CBO will estimate costs for this proposal."
Implementation "Slush Fund:" Proposes $400 million in new spending for HHS to implement the proposals listed above.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on September 19, 2011 January 4, 2020 Categories Costs, Coverage, Medicaid and SCHIP, Medicare, RegulationsTags "Stimulus", 1099 paperwork mandate, Anti-fraud, Blended rate, Budget, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Congressional Budget Office, Cost estimates, Cost-sharing, Deductibles, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of the Treasury, Disproportionate Share Hospitals, Drug prices, Durable medical equipment, FEHBP, Follow-on biologics, Food and Drug Administration, Generic drugs, Government-run plan, Graduate Medical Education, Health IT, Home health, Independent Payment Advisory Board, Induced demand, Joint Committee on Taxation, Maintenance of effort, Means testing, Medicaid, Medical liability reform, Medicare, Medicare actuary, Medicare Advantage, Medicare premiums, Medigap, Modified adjusted gross income, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Prevention and Public Health Fund, Price controls, Provider taxes, Rebates, Risk adjustment, SCHIP, Simpson-Bowles, Site-neutral payments, Slush fund, Social Security, State flexibility, Supercommittee, Sustainable Growth Rate, Tax Relief and Health Care Act, Tricare, Unfunded mandates, Unsustainable, Waivers
Updated Summary of President's Budget Proposals
Apologies for sending a further e-mail, but this revised (hopefully final) summary reflects documents that weren't available when I sent out my first summary document around lunchtime. Specifically, the below reflects the Administration's justifications for reductions and terminations, the HHS Budget in Brief, and the Treasury's Green Book proposals.
Below is a summary of the changes included in the President's budget proposal. As previously indicated, the budget includes $62 billion in mandatory health care savings that would pay for approximately two years of a Medicare "doc fix." (However, the budget does NOT specify offsets for the $315.4 billion cost of a "doc fix" beyond 2013.) The $62 billion in savings comes from a "grab bag" of relatively minor tweaks to entitlement spending – the largest of which are $18.4 billion in savings from a reduction in Medicaid provider taxes and $12.9 billion in savings from the pharmaceutical industry, including a shorter exclusivity period for follow-on biologics and provisions to end so-called "pay-for-delay" arrangements.
I've also included discretionary request amounts for major HHS divisions below. These numbers have been updated, and reflect the budget authority proposals included in the HHS Budget in Brief document. (Some of these numbers are slightly different from the OMB budget document, but it's not fully clear why – and unfortunately HHS staff weren't particularly enlightening on this technical detail during their budget briefing.) Of particular note is the more than $1 billion, 30% increase in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services discretionary program management account – which likely reflects money needed to implement the health care law. (Remember when Democrats attempted to refute the CBO letter indicating the law would lead to $115 billion in discretionary appropriations? This 30% increase is a down payment on that $115 billion total…) Since it's drawn some attention, I'll also point out that the Administration proposed eliminating the Graduate Medical Education program for children's hospitals, which is a discretionary $318 million program run through HRSA. (For more details, see page 16 of the terminations document.)
I didn't include it in the below summary, but page 97 of the Treasury Green Book "would repeal the additional [1099] information reporting requirements imposed by" the health care law. However, the Treasury document scores this proposal as costing only $9.2 billion over ten years – far less than the $19 billion cost the Joint Committee on Taxation has previously assigned to 1099 repeal – so it's unclear whether this discrepancy is a result of the differences in OMB and JCT scoring models, or whether there's some other explanation.
A final note: Please keep in mind that these proposals were scored by the Office of Management and Budget, not CBO; the specific details on the scoring may change slightly when CBO issues its re-estimate of the budget in a few weeks. (All numbers in my summary represent 10-year totals, except for the section on discretionary appropriations.)
Mandatory Spending
Medicare "Doc Fix": Freezes Medicare physician payments under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism, preventing a scheduled cut of more than 25 percent scheduled to take effect in January 2012. Total cost of the provision is $369.8 billion over ten years – $54.4 billion in 2012 and 2013, and $315.4 billion in 2014 and succeeding years. While the cost of the two-year fix is paid for, the $315.4 billion extension beyond 2014 is not – the budget summary tables include a line marked "offsets," but none are specified in the document. (Details of the $62.2 billion in pay-fors that would fund a two year fix are listed below.) Note also that this year's proposal calls for a ten-year freeze on physician payments; last year's budget document assumed a 1 percent per year increase, likely explaining its higher cost ($371 billion last year vs. $369.8 billion this year).
Tricare for Life: Assumes $530 million in new Medicare spending associated with a proposal to shift Uniformed Services Family Health Plan enrollees into Tricare for Life and Medicare.
Transitional Medical Assistance/QI Program: Provides for temporary, nine-month extensions of the Transitional Medical Assistance program, which provides Medicaid benefits for low-income families transitioning from welfare to work, along with the Qualifying Individual program, which provides assistance to low-income seniors in paying Medicare premiums. The extensions cost $665 million and $495 million, respectively.
Liability Reform: The Justice Department portion of the budget calls for $250 million in new mandatory spending – $100 million in fiscal year 2012, followed by $50 million in 2013 through 2015, to "provide incentives for state medical malpractice reform." Specific details are unclear, but an article on this issue can be found here.
Discretionary Spending
When compared to Fiscal Year 2010 appropriated amounts, the budget calls for the following changes in discretionary spending by major HHS divisions (tabulated by budget authority):
$380 million (13.8%) increase for the Food and Drug Administration;
$684 million (9.1%) decrease for the Health Services and Resources Administration;
$572 million (14.1%) increase for the Indian Health Service;
$580 million (9.0%) decrease for the Centers for Disease Control;
$745 million (2.4%) increase for the National Institutes of Health;
$1.029 billion (30.6%) increase for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program management account; and
$270 million (86.8%) increase for the discretionary Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control fund.
With regard to the above numbers for CDC and HRSA, note that these are discretionary numbers only. The Administration's budget also would allocate $1 billion in mandatory spending from the new Prevention and Public Health "slush fund" created in the health care law, likely eliminating any real budgetary savings (despite the appearance of same in the table referred to above).
Detail to Fund Two Year "Doc Fix" (Total savings of $62.2 billion)
Program Integrity Provisions (Total savings of $32.3 billion)
Medicaid Provider Taxes: Reduces limits on Medicaid provider tax thresholds, beginning in 2015; the tax threshold would be reduced over a three year period, to 3.5 percent in 2017 and future years. State provider taxes are a financing method whereby states impose taxes on medical providers, and use these provider tax revenues to obtain additional federal Medicaid matching funds, thereby increasing the federal share of Medicaid expenses paid while decreasing the state share of expenses. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, enacted by a Republican Congress, capped the level of Medicaid provider taxes, and the Bush Administration proposed additional rules to reform Medicaid funding rules – rules that were blocked by the Democrat-run 110th Congress. However, there is bipartisan support for addressing ways in which states attempt to "game" the Medicaid system, through provider taxes and other related methods, to obtain unwarranted federal matching funds – the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities previously wrote about a series of "Rube Goldberg-like accounting arrangements" that "do not improve the quality of health care provided" and "frequently operate in a manner that siphons extra federal money to state coffers without affecting the provision of health care." This issue was also addressed in the fiscal commission's report, although the commission exceeded the budget proposals by suggesting that Congress enact legislation "restricting and eventually eliminating" provider taxes, saving $44 billion. As proposed in the budget, the above provisions would save $18.4 billion.
Medicaid Third-Party Liability: Strengthens third-party liability provisions allowing Medicaid to recover costs from other insurers, saving $1.6 billion.
High-Risk Products: Requires states to track high prescribers and utilizers of prescription drugs within Medicaid, saving $3.5 billion. Also creates a system to validate orders for high-risk products and services (e.g., imaging services, DME, home health, etc.), saving an additional $1.8 billion.
MA Repayment Provisions: Recovers payments to insurers participating in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. MA plans are currently paid on a prospective basis, with those payments adjusted according to the severity of beneficiaries' ill health. Some sample audits have discovered instances where plans could not retrospectively produce the necessary documentation to warrant the prospective coding adjustment that some beneficiaries received. The budget would apply this adjustment, currently contemplated for some beneficiaries based on the sample audit, to ALL beneficiaries. The budget scores this proposal as saving $6.2 billion.
Other Provisions: Also included in the program integrity section are proposals that would:
Require manufacturers to repay states in cases of improper reporting (savings of $125 million);
Allow civil monetary penalties for providers who do not update enrollment information (savings of $80 million);
Permit the exclusion of officials affiliated with sanctioned entities from participating in health care programs (savings of $50 million);
Require prepayment review for all power wheelchairs (savings of $240 million);
Use up to 25 percent of Recovery Audit Contractor recoveries to implement anti-fraud actions (savings of $230 million);
Provide flexibility to HHS/CMS in using predictive modeling to recover improper and/or fraudulent payments (savings of $100 million); and
Limit debt discharges in bankruptcy proceedings associated with fraudulent activity (savings of $150 million).
Provisions without Scoreable Savings: Included on this list are proposals to:
Enforce Medicaid drug price rebate agreements;
Increase penalties on drug manufacturers for fraudulent non-compliance with Medicaid drug price rebate agreements;
Require drugs to be listed with the FDA in order to be reimbursed under the Medicaid program
Prohibit federal funds from being used as a state's share of Medicaid/SCHIP spending unless specifically authorized;
Increase scrutiny of providers receiving Medicare reimbursement through higher-risk banking arrangements;
Study the feasibility of using universal product numbers in Medicare to improve payment accuracy; and
Strengthen penalties for illegal distribution of Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP identity and billing information
Medicaid Provisions (Total savings of $10.6 billion)
Limit Durable Medical Equipment Reimbursement: Caps Medicaid reimbursements for durable medical equipment (DME) at Medicare rates. The health care law extended and expanded a previous Medicare competitive bidding demonstration project included in the Medicare Modernization Act, resulting in savings to the Medicare program. This proposal, by capping Medicaid reimbursements for DME at Medicare levels, would attempt to extend those savings to the Medicaid program. Saves $6.4 billion.
Medicare Provisions (Total savings of $6.5 billion)
Quality Improvement Organizations: Includes several provisions regarding the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program within Medicare. Proposals would require QIO contracts to be determined on a geographic basis to maximize efficiency (savings of $2.2 billion), eliminate conflicts of interest between QIOs' activities on beneficiary protection and quality improvement (savings of $710 million), expand the eligible pool of QIO contractors (savings of $170 million), extend QIO contract from three to five years (savings of $160 million), and align QIO contract terminations with federal regulations (no savings scored). Provisions would save $3.1 billion total.
Health IT Penalties: Re-directs Medicare reimbursement penalties against physicians who do not engage in electronic prescribing beginning in 2020 back into the Medicare program. The "stimulus" legislation that enacted the health IT provisions had originally required that penalties to providers be placed into the Medicare Improvement Fund; the budget would instead re-direct those revenues into the general fund, to finance the "doc fix" and related provisions. Estimated savings of $3.2 billion.
Pharmaceutical Provisions (Total savings of $12.9 billion)
Follow-on Biologics: Reduces to seven years the period of exclusivity for follow-on biologics. Current law provides for a twelve-year period of exclusivity, based upon an amendment to the health care law that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in both the House and Senate (one of the few substantive bipartisan amendments adopted). Some Members have expressed concern that reducing the period of exclusivity would harm innovation and discourage companies from developing life-saving treatments. Saves $2.3 billion over ten years.
"Pay-for-Delay:" Prohibits brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers from entering into arrangements that would delay the availability of new generic drugs. Some Members have previously expressed concerns that these provisions would harm innovation, and actually impede the incentives to generic manufacturers to bring cost-saving generic drugs on the market. Saves $8.8 billion over ten years.
FEHB Contracting: Proposes streamlining pharmacy benefit contracting within the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, by centralizing pharmaceutical benefit contracting within the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Some individuals, noting that OPM is also empowered to create "multi-state plans" as part of the health care overhaul, may be concerned that these provisions could be part of a larger plan to make OPM the head of a de facto government-run health plan. Saves $1.8 billion.
Author chrisjacobsPosted on February 14, 2011 January 4, 2020 Categories Costs, Medicaid and SCHIP, Medicare, Regulations, TaxesTags "Stimulus", 1099 paperwork mandate, Anti-fraud, Budget, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Centers for Disease Control, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Cost estimates, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, Disproportionate Share Hospitals, Drug prices, Durable medical equipment, FEHBP, Follow-on biologics, Food and Drug Administration, Generic drugs, Government-run plan, Graduate Medical Education, Health IT, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, Joint Committee on Taxation, Medicaid, Medical liability reform, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Prevention and Public Health Fund, Provider taxes, Rebates, Risk adjustment, SCHIP, Simpson-Bowles, Slush fund, Sustainable Growth Rate, Tax Relief and Health Care Act, Tricare
Is Elizabeth Warren Trying to Use a "Goldilocks" Strategy to Win the Democratic Nomination?
Three Ways Pete Buttigieg Is No Moderate
Joe Biden's Obamacare Gaffe Points to a Larger Truth
Tweets by @chrisjacobsHC
Chris Jacobs' Writing Archive Proudly powered by WordPress