Trump Really Does Have a Plan That’s Better Than Obamacare
By Doug Badger
The Daily Signal, April 1, 2019
“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out,” President Trump said last week, “we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare.” A look at his fiscal year 2020 budget shows that the president does have a plan to reduce costs and increase health care choices. His budget would redirect federal premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion money into grants to states. States would be required to use the money to establish consumer-centered programs that make health insurance affordable regardless of income or medical condition. The proposal is buttressed by a growing body of evidence that shows relaxing federal regulations and freeing the states to innovate makes health care more affordable for families and small businesses.
Replacing Obamacare Is Still a Republican Duty
By The Editors
National Review, April 1, 2019
President Trump has tasked three Republican senators with coming up with a replacement for Obamacare if courts strike it down. It’s a prudent contingency plan. Republicans should, for that matter, advance their own health care plan even if the lawsuit fails. They cannot prevent Democrats from attacking them over health care by abandoning the issue. They should propose that the federal government both remove many of Obamacare’s regulations and redirect the money now flowing to Obamacare’s exchanges and its Medicaid expansions to state governments, which would then determine how to spend it to meet their residents’ health-care needs. Under such a proposal, states would be able, for example, to take some of the money that they currently spend on able-bodied Medicaid recipients above the poverty line and devote it to recipients who are disabled, below the line, or both.
Conservatives Take on ‘Credibility Gap’ on Health Care, Push Localized Reform
By Tyler O'Neil
PJ Media, April 3, 2019
On Wednesday, conservative policy leaders met with reporters to discuss the framework for Republican health care reform. The policy experts admitted that Republicans start with a “credibility gap” on health care but argued that limited government approaches will better achieve the goals of driving down costs, providing more options, and helping the most vulnerable obtain health insurance. Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, said, “I think the reason conservatives are in that gap is because they spent so much time talking about policy details and not enough time talking about goals.” In order to bridge the credibility gap, Turner directly addressed the key goals of health care reform to lower costs and increase choices while protecting the vulnerable and explained how the Health Care Choices Proposal would achieve them.
If The Court Strikes Down Obamacare, How Bad Would That Be?
By John C. Goodman and Linda Gorman
Forbes, April 3, 2019
The Trump administration has decided to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare in court. Some Republicans in Congress and even some in the administration resisted this decision. Critics assume that if there is no Obamacare, we would revert to the pre-Obamacare health system. If so, how bad would that be? Although the Obamacare individual mandate is gone, people who are sick still need health insurance. Under Obamacare, people who must purchase insurance on their own have seen (1) their premiums double, (2) their deductibles double and triple and (3) their access to care increasingly restricted to an ever-narrower network of providers. All three problems arise for the same reason: under current law, insurance plans have perverse incentives—to attract the healthy and avoid the sick.
|
|
Government-Controlled Health Care
|
|
|
Democratic Senators Unveil ‘Medicare X’ Bill to Expand Coverage
By Jessie Hellmann
The Hill, April 2, 2019
Two Democratic senators rolled out a proposal Tuesday that would allow anyone to buy Medicare plans. The introduction of “Medicare X” comes as the Democratic Party debates its next steps on health care, with the left wing of the caucus pushing for a more sweeping single-payer “Medicare for all” system. The latest bill, sponsored by Sen. Michael Benet (D-CO) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), would leave the existing health care system intact but would create a public option for Medicare, allowing individuals of any age to purchase plans that would include access to the program's network of health care providers and Obamacare’s range of benefits, like maternity care and mental health services.
Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care
By Sally Pipes
Forbes, April 1, 2019
Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more. Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.
|
|
Senate Republicans Push Forward with Adding Work Requirements to Medicaid Expansion
By Audrey Dutton
Idaho Statesman, April 1, 2019
As the Idaho Senate considers legislation to implement voter-approved Medicaid expansion, several senators offered amendments to add work requirements for this population, even after a federal judge last week struck down Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas and Kentucky. Under amendments proposed by in the Idaho senate, failure to comply with work requirements wouldn’t mean losing Medicaid. People still would have coverage. They would just have a co-pay imposed—such as $5 to $30 for a doctor’s appointment—until they complied. Some people would be exempt, such as parents, caregivers and those filing for disability. [We will keep you posted on developments.]
Nebraska’s Medicaid Expansion Plan Won’t Start Until Late 2020, Has Two Tiers of Coverage
By Martha Stoddard
Omaha World-Herald, April 2, 2019
Under a plan announced Monday, those newly eligible for Medicaid in Nebraska will have different benefits and requirements than others on Medicaid. To get full coverage, they would have to work, care for a family member, volunteer, look for work, or attend college or an apprenticeship. Matthew Van Patton, the state Medicaid director, said the newly-eligible recipients would be offered two levels of coverage, basic and prime. He said basic coverage would be modeled after a Blue Cross Blue Shield small group insurance plan, rather than traditional Medicaid coverage. [What is wrong with this picture where the only coverage many small businesses can afford is considered inferior to the coverage they are supporting for working-age, non-disabled people on Medicaid?]
Trump Administration Approves Partial Utah Medicaid Expansion
By Rachana Pradhan
Politico, March 29, 2019
The Trump administration today approved Utah’s request for a scaled-back Medicaid expansion with a work requirement—just days after a federal judge blocked similar rules in Kentucky and Arkansas. The approval also lets Utah cap program enrollment if the state runs out of money and marks the first phase of a plan to replace a Medicaid expansion that voters approved last November with a scaled-down program to extend benefits to adults with incomes below the federal poverty line. Utah is still seeking approval for two unprecedented ideas that HHS has so far declined to act on—obtaining the enhanced funding even when a state is covering fewer people than Obamacare envisions, and imposing per-person limits on the amount of federal funds the state receives. If these ideas are approved, it is likely to open the door for other Republican holdout states to adopt similar plans.
|
|
Conservatives Oppose IPI at ATR Capitol Hill Briefing
By Tom Hebert
Americans for Tax Reform, April 2, 2019
On Tuesday, Americans for Tax Reform held a Capitol Hill briefing on an administration proposal to subject Medicare Part B drugs to an “International Pricing Index” (IPI). As ATR has written, the IPI payment model will effectively import foreign price controls into the United States, lowering quality and access to lifesaving medicine. Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner reviewed a recent study by Doug Badger comparing availability of drugs in the U.S. versus countries with price controls on prescription drugs. The study found that Americans have access to approximately 89% of total new drugs, while patients in countries such as Greece (14%) and Canada (43%) have much less access to lifesaving medicines.
|
|
|
