Category Archives: Entitlement Reform

UPDATED Summary of Senate Health Care Legislation

UPDATE: On July 20, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimate of the revised legislation, EXCEPT for the “consumer freedom” provisions included in Title III of the revised draft. Important nuggets from the CBO score:

  • The bill overall would save $420 billion—an increase of $99 billion from the prior draft—largely due to the elimination of the repeal of two Obamacare “high-income” taxes (retains $231 billion in revenue). That higher revenue is offset in part by $39 billion more spending on substance abuse grants, $51 billion in additional Stability Fund spending (with the additional $19 billion authorized being spent after 2026), an $8 billion home and community-based services demonstration in Medicaid, and $5 billion in changes to Medicaid block grants and per capita caps for states with designated health emergencies.
  • The bill would reduce spending on traditional Medicaid by much less than spending on Medicaid expansion to the able-bodied, as outlined in a new chart (Table 3) not previously included in any prior CBO estimates. Over ten years (2017-2026), the bill would reduce spending on traditional Medicaid compared to current law by $164 billion, or about 4%. The bill would reduce spending on Medicaid expansion by $575 billion, or about 59%. In 2026, the final year of the budget window, the bill would reduce spending on traditional populations by $43 billion, or 9%, while reducing spending on expansion populations by $117 billion, or 87%.
  • Coverage estimates are largely unchanged—a reduction of 15 million insured in 2018, 19 million in 2020, and 22 million in 2026. These numbers include 1) several million people who would not enroll in Medicaid due to the repeal of the individual mandate and 2) several million people not covered under Medicaid now, but whom CBO estimates would be covered in the future, because CBO believes more states will choose to expand Medicaid in future years under current law.
  • Premium estimates are slightly changed later in the decade—a 20 percent increase compared to current law in 2018, a 10 percent increase in 2019, and a 30 percent decrease in 2020 (all unchanged), but a 25 percent decrease (up from 20 percent in the prior draft) compared to current law by 2026, due to additional federal taxpayer dollars being provided to the Stability Fund.
  • Under the bill, CBO estimates that a person with income at 175 percent of the poverty level ($21,105 for an individual in 2017) would pay less for insurance ($1,450, compared to $1,700 under Obamacare), but more in cost-sharing, “contribut[ing] significantly to a decrease in the number of lower-income people” with individual market coverage.
  • While the bill would lower the maximum income at which people qualify for subsidies from 400 to 350 percent of poverty, CBO believes that “for many single policyholders with income at either 375 percent or 450 percent of the [federal poverty level], net premiums would be somewhat lower under the legislation…in part because of the tax savings resulting from the use of health savings accounts.” However, CBO did not provide a separate estimate on the tax savings associated with the new provision to allow individuals to use HSA funds to pay for high-deductible health plan premiums.
  • CBO believes that the bill would create cross-pressuring forces between deductibles and actuarial value. While the bill links subsidies to a plan with an actuarial value (estimated percentage of average health expenses paid) of 58 percent (down from 70 percent under Obamacare), CBO notes that for the essential health benefits included in Obamacare, “all plans must pay for most of the cost of high-cost services….Hence, to design a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent and pay for required high-cost services, insurers must set high deductibles.”
  • CBO believes that under the bill, deductibles for single coverage would total $13,000 in 2026—higher than the projected limit on out-of-pocket costs under Obamacare ($10,900) in that year. Therefore, “CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that a plan with a deductible equal to the limit on out-of-pocket spending in 2026 would have an actuarial value of 62 percent. A percent enrolled in such a plan would pay for all health care costs (except for preventive care) until the deductible was met, and none thereafter until the end of the year.”
  • CBO believes the high deductibles—which would exceed annual income for some people below the poverty level, and half and a quarter of income for individuals at 175 and 375 percent of poverty—will discourage enrollment by individuals of low and modest income. It is worth noting however that the analysis of deductibles and cost-sharing did NOT take into account “any cost-sharing reductions that might be implemented through the State Stability and Innovation Program.”

Original post follows below, with budgetary estimates changed to reflect the newer CBO score…

 

On July 13, Senate leadership issued a revised draft of their Obamacare “repeal-and-replace” bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act. Changes to the bill include:

  • Modifies the current language (created in last year’s 21st Century Cures Act) allowing small businesses of under 50 employees to reimburse employees’ individual health insurance through Health Reimbursement Arrangements;
  • Allows Obamacare subsides to be used for catastrophic insurance plans previously authorized under that law;
  • Amends the short-term Stability Fund, by requiring the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reserve one percent of fund monies “for providing and distributing funds to health insurance issuers in states where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average”—a provision which some conservatives may view as an earmark for Alaska (the only state that currently qualifies);
  • Increases appropriations for the long-term Stability Fund to $19.2 billion for each of calendar years 2022 through 2026, up from $6 billion in 2022 and 2023, $5 billion in 2024 and 2025, and $4 billion in 2026—an increase of $70 billion total;
  • Strikes repeal of the Medicare tax increase on “high-income” earners, as well as repeal of the net investment tax;
  • Allows for Health Savings Account funds to be used for the purchase of high-deductible health plans, but only to the extent that such insurance was not purchased on a tax-preferred basis (i.e., through the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, or through Obamacare insurance subsidies);
  • Allows HSA dollars to be used to reimburse expenses for “dependents” under age 27, effectively extending the “under-26” provisions of Obamacare to Health Savings Accounts;
  • Prohibits HSA-qualified high deductible health plans from covering abortions, other than in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother—an effective prohibition on the use of HSA funds to purchase plans that cover abortion, but one that the Senate Parliamentarian may advise does not comport with procedural restrictions on budget reconciliation bills;
  • Changes the methodology for calculating Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payment reductions, such that 1) non-expansion states’ DSH reductions would be minimized for states that have below-average reductions in the uninsured (rather than below-average enrollment in Medicaid, as under the base text); and 2) provides a carve-out treating states covering individuals through a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver as non-expansion states for purposes of having their DSH payment reductions undone;
  • Retains current law provisions allowing 90 days of retroactive Medicaid eligibility for seniors and blind and disabled populations, while restricting eligibility to the month an individual applied for the program for all other Medicaid populations;
  • Includes language allowing late-expanding Medicaid states to choose a shorter period (but not fewer than four) quarters as their “base period” for determining per capita caps—a provision that some conservatives may view as improperly incentivizing states that decided to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied;
  • Exempts declared public health emergencies from the Medicaid per capita caps—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency—but such exemption may not exceed $5 billion;
  • Modifies the per capita cap treatment for states that expanded Medicaid during Fiscal Year 2016, but before July 1, 2016—a provision that may help states like Louisiana that expanded during the intervening period;
  • Creates a four year, $8 billion demonstration project from 2020 through 2023 to expand home- and community-based service payment adjustments in Medicaid—with payment adjustments eligible for a 100 percent federal match, and the 15 states with the lowest population density given priority for funds;
  • Modifies the Medicaid block grant formula, prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for other health programs (a change from the base bill), and eliminates a quality standards requirement;
  • Allows for modification of the Medicaid block grant during declared public health emergencies—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency;
  • Makes a state’s expenses on behalf of Indians eligible for a 100 percent match, irrespective of the source of those services (current law provides for a 100 percent match only for services provided at an Indian Health Service center);
  • Makes technical and other changes to small business health plan language included in the base text;
  • Modifies language repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund, to allow $1.25 billion in funding for Fiscal Year 2018;
  • Increases opioid funding to a total of $45 billion—$44.748 billion from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2026 for treatment of substance use or mental health disorders, and $252 million from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2022 for opioid addiction research—all of which are subject to few spending restrictions, which some conservatives may be concerned would give virtually unfettered power to the Department of Health and Human Services to direct this spending;
  • Modifies language regarding continuous coverage provisions, and includes health care sharing ministries as “creditable coverage” for the purposes of imposing waiting periods;
  • Grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to exempt other individuals from the continuous coverage requirement—a provision some conservatives may be concerned gives HHS excessive authority;
  • Makes technical changes to the state innovation waiver program amendments included in the base bill;
  • Allows all individuals to buy Obamacare catastrophic plans, beginning on January 1, 2019;
  • Applies enforcement provisions to language in Obamacare allowing states to opt-out of mandatory abortion coverage;
  • Allows insurers to offer non-compliant plans, so long as they continue to offer at least one gold and one silver plan subject to Obamacare’s restrictions;
  • Allows non-compliant plans to eliminate requirements related to actuarial value; essential health benefits; cost-sharing; guaranteed issue; community rating; waiting periods; preventive health services (including contraception); and medical loss ratios;
  • Does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to a single risk pool, which some conservatives may consider both potentially unworkable—as it will be difficult to combine non-community-rated plans and community-rated coverage into one risk pool—and unlikely to achieve significant premium reductions;
  • Does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to annual and lifetime limits, or coverage for “dependents” under age 26—which some conservatives may view as an incomplete attempt to provide consumer freedom and choice;
  • States that non-compliant coverage shall not be considered “creditable coverage” for purposes of the continuous coverage/waiting period provision;
  • Allows HHS to increase the minimum actuarial value of plans above 58 percent if necessary to allow compliant plans to be continued to offered in an area where non-compliant plans are available;
  • Uses $70 billion in Stability Fund dollars to subsidize high-risk individuals in states that choose the “consumer freedom” option—a provision that some conservatives may be concerned will effectively legitimize a perpetual bailout fund for insurers in connection with the “consumer freedom” option; and
  • Appropriates $2 billion in funds for state regulation and oversight of non-compliant plans.

A full summary of the bill, as amended, follows below, along with possible conservative concerns 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 fully 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 advises 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).

As the bill was released prior to issuance of a full CBO score, it is entirely possible the Parliamentarian has not fully 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

Revisions to Obamacare Subsidies:             Modifies eligibility thresholds for the current regime of Obamacare subsidies. Under current law, households with incomes of between 100-400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL, $24,600 for a family of four in 2017) qualify for subsidies. This provision would change eligibility to include all households with income under 350% FPL—effectively eliminating the Medicaid “coverage gap,” whereby low-income individuals (those with incomes under 100% FPL) in states that did not expand Medicaid do not qualify for subsidized insurance.

Clarifies the definition of eligibility by substituting “qualified alien” for the current-law term “an alien lawfully present in the United States” with respect to the five-year waiting period for said aliens to receive taxpayer-funded benefits, per the welfare reform law enacted in 1996.

Changes the bidding structure for insurance subsidies. Under current law, subsidy amounts are based on the second-lowest silver plan bid in a given area—with silver plans based upon an actuarial value (the average percentage of annual health expenses covered) of 70 percent. This provision would base subsidies upon the “median cost benchmark plan,” which would be based upon an average actuarial value of 58 percent.

Modifies the existing Obamacare subsidy regime, 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 350% FPL, would pay 6.4% of income on health insurance, whereas an individual between ages 60-64 at the same income level would pay 16.2% 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.)

Lowers the “failsafe” at which secondary indexing provisions under Obamacare would apply. Under current law, if total spending on premium subsidies exceeds 0.504% of gross domestic product annually in years after 2018, the premium subsidies would grow more slowly. (Additional information available here, and a Congressional Budget Office analysis available here.) This provision would reduce the overall cap at which the “failsafe” would apply to 0.4% of GDP.

Eliminates subsidy eligibility for households eligible for employer-subsidized health insurance. Also modifies definitions regarding eligibility for subsidies for employees participating in small businesses’ health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

Increases penalties on erroneous claims of the credit from 20 percent to 25 percent. Applies most of the above changes beginning in calendar year 2020. Allows Obamacare subsides to be used for catastrophic insurance plans previously authorized under that law.

Beginning in 2018, changes the definition of a qualified health plan, to prohibit plans from covering abortion other than in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision may eventually be eliminated under the provisions of the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” therefore continuing taxpayer funding of plans that cover abortion. (For more information, see these two articles.)

Eliminates provisions that limit repayment of subsidies for years after 2017. Subsidy eligibility is based upon estimated income, with recipients required to reconcile their subsidies received with actual income during the year-end tax filing process. Current law limits the amount of excess subsidies households with incomes under 400% FPL must pay. This provision would eliminate that limitation on repayments, which may result in fewer individuals taking up subsidies in the first place. Saves $25 billion over ten years—$18.7 billion in lower outlay spending, and $6.3 billion in additional revenues.

Some conservatives may be concerned first that, rather than repealing Obamacare, these provisions actually expand Obamacare—for instance, extending subsidies to some individuals currently not eligible. Some conservatives may also be concerned that, as with Obamacare, these provisions will create disincentives to work that would reduce the labor supply by the equivalent of millions of jobs. Finally, as noted above, some conservatives may believe that, as with Obamacare itself, enacting these policy changes through the budget reconciliation process will prevent the inclusion of strong pro-life protections, thus ensuring continued taxpayer funding of plans that cover abortion. When compared to Obamacare, these provisions reduce the deficit by a net of $295 billion over ten years—$238 billion in reduced outlay spending (the refundable portion of the subsidies, for individuals with no income tax liability), and $57 billion in increased revenue (the non-refundable portion of the subsidies, reducing individuals’ tax liability).

Small Business Tax Credit:             Repeals Obamacare’s small business tax credit, effective in 2020. Disallows the small business tax credit beginning in 2018 for any plan that offers coverage of abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother—which, as noted above, some conservatives may believe will be stricken during the Senate’s “Byrd rule” review. This language is substantially similar to Section 203 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, with the exception of the new pro-life language. Saves $6 billion over ten years.

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. The individual mandate provision cuts taxes by $38 billion, and the employer mandate provision cuts taxes by $171 billion, both over ten years.

Stability Funds:        Creates two stability funds intended to stabilize insurance markets—the first giving funds directly to insurers, and the second giving funds to states. The first would appropriate $15 billion each for 2018 and 2019, and $10 billion each for 2020 and 2021, ($50 billion total) to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to “fund arrangements with health insurance issuers to address coverage and access disruption and respond to urgent health care needs within States.” Instructs the CMS Administrator to “determine an appropriate procedure for providing and distributing funds.” Does not require a state match for receipt of stability funds.

Requires the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reserve one percent of fund monies “for providing and distributing funds to health insurance issuers in states where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average”—a provision which some conservatives may view as an earmark for Alaska (the only state that currently qualifies).

Creates a longer term stability fund with a total of $132 billion in federal funding—$8 billion in 2019, $14 billion in 2020 and 2021, and $19.2 billion in 2022 through 2026. Requires a state match beginning in 2022—7 percent that year, followed by 14 percent in 2023, 21 percent in 2024, 28 percent in 2025, and 35 percent in 2026. Allows the Administrator to determine each state’s allotment from the fund; states could keep their allotments for two years, but unspent funds after that point could be re-allocated to other states.

Long-term fund dollars could be used to provide financial assistance to high-risk individuals, including by reducing premium costs, “help stabilize premiums and promote state health insurance market participation and choice,” provide payments to health care providers, or reduce cost-sharing. However, all of the $50 billion in short-term stability funds—and $15 billion of the long-term funds ($5 billion each in 2019, 2020, and 2021)—must be used to stabilize premiums and insurance markets. The short-term stability fund requires applications from insurers; the long-term stability fund would require a one-time application from states.

Both stability funds are placed within Title XXI of the Social Security Act, which governs the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While SCHIP has a statutory prohibition on the use of federal funds to pay for abortion in state SCHIP programs, it is unclear at best whether this restriction would provide sufficient pro-life protections to ensure that Obamacare plans do not provide coverage of abortion. It is unclear whether and how federal reinsurance funds provided after-the-fact (i.e., covering some high-cost claims that already occurred) can prospectively prevent coverage of abortions.

Some conservatives may be concerned first that the stability funds would amount to over $100 billion in corporate welfare payments to insurance companies; second that the funds give nearly-unilateral authority to the CMS Administrator to determine how to allocate payments among states; third that, in giving so much authority to CMS, the funds further undermine the principle of state regulation of health insurance; fourth that the funds represent a short-term budgetary gimmick—essentially, throwing taxpayer dollars at insurers to keep premiums low between now and the 2020 presidential election—that cannot or should not be sustained in the longer term; and finally that placing the funds within the SCHIP program will prove insufficient to prevent federal funding of plans that cover abortion. Spends a total of $158 billion over ten years, with additional funds to be spent after 2026.

Implementation Fund:        Provides $500 million to implement programs under the bill. Costs $500 million over ten years.

Repeal of Some Obamacare Taxes:             Repeals some Obamacare taxes:

  • Tax on high-cost health plans (also known as the “Cadillac tax”)—but only through 2025, lowering revenues by $66 billion;
  • Restrictions on use of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Arrangements to pay for over-the-counter medications, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $5.6 billion;
  • Increased penalties on non-health care uses of Health Savings Account dollars, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $100 million;
  • Limits on Flexible Spending Arrangement contributions, effective January 1, 2018, lowering revenues by $18.6 billion;
  • Tax on pharmaceuticals, effective January 1, 2018, lowering revenues by $25.7 billion;
  • Medical device tax, effective January 1, 2018, lowering revenues by $19.6 billion;
  • Health insurer tax (currently being suspended), lowering revenues by $144.7 billion;
  • Elimination of deduction for employers who receive a subsidy from Medicare for offering retiree prescription drug coverage, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $1.8 billion;
  • Limitation on medical expenses as an itemized deduction, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $36.1 billion; and
  • Tax on tanning services, effective September 30, 2017, lowering revenues by $600 million.

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. Lowers revenues by a total of $19.2 billion over ten years.

Allows for Health Savings Account funds to be used for the purchase of high-deductible health plans, but only to the extent that such insurance was not purchased on a tax-preferred basis (i.e., through the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, or through Obamacare insurance subsidies).

Allows HSA dollars to be used to reimburse expenses for “dependents” under age 27, effectively extending the “under-26” provisions of Obamacare to Health Savings Accounts. Prohibits HSA-qualified high deductible health plans from covering abortions, other than in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother—an effective prohibition on the use of HSA funds to purchase plans that cover abortion, but one that the Senate Parliamentarian may advise does not comport with procedural restrictions on budget reconciliation bills. No separate cost estimate provided for the revenue reduction associated with allowing HSA dollars to be used to pay for insurance premiums.

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). CBO believes this provision would save a total of $225 million in Medicaid spending, while increasing spending by $79 million over a decade, because 15 percent of Planned Parenthood clients would lose access to services, increasing the number of births in the Medicaid program by several thousand. This language is virtually identical to Section 206 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Saves $146 million over ten years.

Medicaid Expansion:           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 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—scheduled under current law as 90 percent in 2020—to 85 percent in 2021, 80 percent in 2022, and 75 percent in 2023. The regular federal match rates would apply for expansion states—defined as those that expanded Medicaid prior to March 1, 2017—beginning in 2024, and to all other states effective immediately. (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 through 2023.)

The bill also repeals the requirement that Medicaid “benchmark” plans comply with Obamacare’s essential health benefits, also effective December 31, 2019. In general, the Medicaid provisions outlined above, when combined with the per capita cap provisions below, would save a net of $756 billion over ten years.

Finally, the bill repeals provisions regarding presumptive eligibility and the Community First Choice Option, eliminating a six percent increase in the Medicaid match rate for some home and community-based services. Saves $19 billion over ten years.

Some conservatives may be concerned that the language in this bill would give expansion states a strong incentive to sign up many more individuals for Medicaid over the next seven years. Some conservatives may also be concerned that, by extending the Medicaid transition for such a long period, it will never in fact go into effect.

Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Allotments:                Exempts non-expansion states from scheduled reductions in DSH payments in fiscal years 2021 through 2024, and provides an increase in DSH payments for non-expansion states in fiscal year 2020, based on a state’s Medicaid enrollment. Spends $26.5 billion over ten years.

Retroactive Eligibility:       Effective October 2017, restricts retroactive eligibility in Medicaid to the month in which the individual applied for the program for; current law requires three months of retroactive eligibility. These changes would NOT apply to aged, blind, or disabled populations, who would still qualify for three months of retroactive eligibility. Saves $1.4 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. Spends $10 billion over ten years.

Eligibility Re-Determinations:             Permits—but unlike the House bill, does not require—states, beginning October 1, 2017, to re-determine eligibility for individuals qualifying for Medicaid on the basis of income every six months, or at shorter intervals. Provides a five percentage point increase in the federal match rate for states that elect this option. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Work Requirements:           Permits (but does not require) states to, beginning October 1, 2017, impose work requirements on “non-disabled, non-elderly, non-pregnant” beneficiaries. States can determine the length of time for such work requirements. Provides a five percentage point increase in the federal match for state expenses attributable to activities implementing the work requirements.

States may not impose requirements on pregnant women (through 60 days after birth); children under age 19; the sole parent of a child under age 6, or sole parent or caretaker of a child with disabilities; or a married individual or head of household under age 20 who “maintains satisfactory attendance at secondary school or equivalent,” or participates in vocational education. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Provider Taxes
:        Reduces permissible Medicaid provider taxes from 6 percent under current law to 5.8 percent in fiscal year 2021, 5.6 percent in fiscal year 2022, 5.4 percent in fiscal year 2023, 5.2 percent in fiscal year 2024, and 5 percent in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years. Some conservatives may view provider taxes as essentially “money laundering”—a game in which states engage in shell transactions solely designed to increase the federal share of Medicaid funding and reduce states’ share. More information can be found here. CBO believes states would probably reduce their spending in response to the loss of provider tax revenue, resulting in lower spending by the federal government. Saves $5.2 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 2020. 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 2020, states could choose their “base period” based on any eight consecutive quarters of expenditures between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. The CMS Administrator would have authority to make adjustments to relevant data if she believes a state attempted to “game” the look-back period. Late-expanding Medicaid states can choose a shorter period (but not fewer than four) quarters as their “base period” for determining per capita caps—a provision that some conservatives may view as improperly incentivizing states that decided to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied.

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. Exempts declared public health emergencies from the Medicaid per capita caps—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency—but such exemption may not exceed $5 billion. Modifies the per capita cap treatment for states that expanded Medicaid during Fiscal Year 2016, but before July 1, 2016—a provision that may help states like Louisiana that expanded during the intervening period.

For years before fiscal year 2025, indexes the caps to medical inflation for children, expansion enrollees, and all other non-expansion enrollees, with the caps rising by medical inflation plus one percentage point for aged, blind, and disabled beneficiaries. Beginning in fiscal year 2025, indexes the caps to overall inflation.

Includes provisions in the House bill regarding “required expenditures by certain political subdivisions.” Some conservatives may question the need to insert a parochial New York-related provision into the bill.

Provides a provision—not included in the House bill—for effectively re-basing the per capita caps. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to increase the caps by between 0.5% and 2% for low-spending states (defined as having per capita expenditures 25% below the national median), and lower the caps by between 0.5% and 2% for high-spending states (with per capita expenditures 25% above the national median). The Secretary may only implement this provision in a budget-neutral manner, i.e., one that does not increase the deficit. However, this re-basing provision shall NOT apply to any state with a population density of under 15 individuals per square mile.

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. Requires new state reporting on inpatient psychiatric hospital services and children with complex medical conditions. Requires the HHS Inspector General to audit each state’s spending at least every three years.

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 that the use of the past several years as the “base period” for the per capita caps, benefits 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. Coupled with the expansion provisions outlined above, saves a net of $772 billion over ten years.

Home and Community-Based Services:             Creates a four year, $8 billion demonstration project from 2020 through 2023 to expand home- and community-based service payment adjustments in Medicaid, with such payment adjustments eligible for a 100 percent federal match. The 15 states with the lowest population density would be given priority for funds.

Medicaid Block Grants:      Creates a Medicaid block grant, called the “Medicaid Flexibility Program,” beginning in Fiscal Year 2020. Requires interested states to submit an application providing a proposed packet of services, a commitment to submit relevant data (including health quality measures and clinical data), and a statement of program goals. Requires public notice-and-comment periods at both the state and federal levels.

The amount of the block grant would total the regular federal match rate, multiplied by the target per capita spending amounts (as calculated above), multiplied by the number of expected enrollees (adjusted forward based on the estimated increase in population for the state, per Census Bureau estimates). In future years, the block grant would be increased by general inflation.

Prohibits states from increasing their base year block grant population beyond 2016 levels, adjusted for population growth, plus an additional three percentage points. This provision is likely designed to prevent states from “packing” their Medicaid programs full of beneficiaries immediately prior to a block grant’s implementation, solely to achieve higher federal payments.

Permits states to roll over block grant payments from year to year, provided that they comply with maintenance of effort requirements. Reduces federal payments for the following year in the case of states that fail to meet their maintenance of effort spending requirements, and permits the HHS Secretary to make reductions in the case of a state’s non-compliance. Requires the Secretary to publish block grant amounts for every state every year, regardless of whether or not the state elects the block grant option.

Permits block grants for a program period of five fiscal years, subject to renewal; plans with “no significant changes” would not have to re-submit an application for their block grants. Permits a state to terminate the block grant, but only if the state “has in place an appropriate transition plan approved by the Secretary.”

Imposes a series of conditions on Medicaid block grants, requiring coverage for all mandatory populations identified in the Medicaid statute, and use of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) standard for determining eligibility. Includes 14 separate categories of services that states must cover for mandatory populations under the block grant. Requires benefits to have an actuarial value (coverage of average health expenses) of at least 95 percent of the benchmark coverage options in place prior to Obamacare. Permits states to determine the amount, duration, and scope of benefits within the parameters listed above.

Applies mental health parity provisions to the Medicaid block grant, and extends the Medicaid rebate program to any outpatient drugs covered under same. Permits states to impose premiums, deductibles, or other cost-sharing, provided such efforts do not exceed 5 percent of a family’s income in any given year.

Requires participating states to have simplified enrollment processes, coordinate with insurance Exchanges, and “establish a fair process” for individuals to appeal adverse eligibility determinations. Allows for modification of the Medicaid block grant during declared public health emergencies—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency.

Exempts states from per capita caps, waivers, state plan amendments, and other provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act while participating in Medicaid block grants. Coupled with the expansion provisions outlined above, saves a net of $772 billion over ten years.

Performance Bonus Payments:             Provides an $8 billion pool for bonus payments to state Medicaid and SCHIP programs for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2026. Allows the Secretary to increase federal matching rates for states that 1) have lower than expected expenses under the per capita caps and 2) report applicable quality measures, and have a plan to use the additional funds on quality improvement. While noting the goal of reducing health costs through quality improvement, and incentives for same, some conservatives may be concerned that this provision—as with others in the bill—gives near-blanket authority to the HHS Secretary to control the program’s parameters, power that conservatives believe properly resides outside Washington—and power that a future Democratic Administration could use to contravene conservative objectives. CBO believes that only some states will meet the performance criteria, leading some of the money not to be spent between now and 2026. Costs $3 billion over ten years.

Medicaid Waivers:  Permits states to extend Medicaid managed care waivers (those approved prior to January 1, 2017, and renewed at least once) in perpetuity through a state plan amendment, with an expedited/guaranteed approval process by CMS. Requires HHS to adopt processes “encouraging States to adopt or extend waivers” regarding home and community-based services, if those waivers would improve patient access. No budgetary impact.

Coordination with States:               After January 1, 2018, prohibits CMS from finalizing any Medicaid rule unless CMS and HHS 1) provide an ongoing regular process for soliciting comments from state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid directors; 2) solicit oral and written comments in advance of any proposed rule on Medicaid; and 3) respond to said comments in the preamble of the proposed rule. No budgetary impact.

Inpatient Psychiatric Services:             Provides for optional state Medicaid coverage of inpatient psychiatric services for individuals over 21 and under 65 years of age. (Current law permits coverage of such services for individuals under age 21.) Such coverage would not exceed 30 days in any month or 90 days in any calendar year. In order to receive such assistance, the state must maintain its number of licensed psychiatric beds as of the date of enactment, and maintain current levels of funding for inpatient services and outpatient psychiatric services. Provides a lower (i.e., 50 percent) match for such services, furnished on or after October 1, 2018. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Medicaid and Indian Health Service:             Makes a state’s expenses on behalf of Indians eligible for a 100 percent match, irrespective of the source of those services. Current law provides for a 100 percent match only for services provided at an Indian Health Service center. Costs $3.5 billion over ten years.

Small Business Health Plans:             Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to allow for creation of small business health plans. Some may question whether or not this provision will meet the “Byrd rule” test for inclusion on a budget reconciliation measure. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Title II

Prevention and Public Health Fund:             Eliminates funding for the Obamacare prevention “slush fund,” and rescinds all unobligated balances, beginning in Fiscal Year 2019. Saves $7.9 billion over ten years.

Opioid Funding:       Appropriates $45 billion—$44.748 billion from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2026 for treatment of substance use or mental health disorders, and $252 million from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2022 for opioid addiction research. The $45 billion in funds are subject to few spending restrictions, which some conservatives may be concerned would give virtually unfettered power to the Department of Health and Human Services to direct this spending. Spends $40.7 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” above). Language regarding community health centers was included in Section 102 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Spends $422 million over ten years.

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, 2019, 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. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Medical Loss Ratios:            Permits states to determine their own medical loss ratios, beginning for plan years on or after January 1, 2019. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Insurance Waiting Periods:             Imposes waiting periods on individuals lacking continuous coverage (i.e., with a coverage gap of more than 63 days). Requires carriers to, beginning with plan years starting after January 1, 2019, impose a six-month waiting period on individuals who cannot show 12 months of continuous coverage. However, the bill states that such waiting period “shall not apply to an individual who is enrolled in health insurance coverage in the individual market on the day before the effective date of the coverage in which the individual is newly enrolling.” The waiting period would extend for six months from the date of application for coverage, or the first date of the new plan year.

Permits the Department of Health and Human Services to require insurers to provide certificates of continuous coverage, and includes health care sharing ministries as “creditable coverage” for purposes of the requirement. Prohibits waiting periods for newborns and adopted children, provided they obtain coverage within 30 days of birth or adoption, and other individuals the Secretary may designate—an overly broad grant of authority that some conservatives may believe will give excessive power to federal bureaucrats.

Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision, rather than repealing Obamacare’s regulatory mandates, would further entrench a Washington-centered structure, one that has led premiums to more than double since Obamacare took effect. Some conservatives may also note that this provision will not take effect until the 2019 plan year—meaning that the effective repeal of the individual mandate upon the bill’s enactment, coupled with the continuation of Obamacare’s regulatory structure, could further destabilize insurance markets over the next 18 months. CBO believes this provision will only modestly increase the number of people with health insurance. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

State Innovation Waivers:              Amends Section 1332 of Obamacare regarding state innovation waivers. Eliminates the requirement that states codify their waivers in state law, by allowing a Governor or State Insurance Commissioner to provide authority for said waivers. Appropriates $2 billion for Fiscal Years 2017 through 2019 to allow states to submit waiver applications, and allows states to use the long-term stability fund to carry out the plan. Allows for an expedited approval process “if the Secretary determines that such expedited process is necessary to respond to an urgent or emergency situation with respect to health insurance coverage within a State.”

Requires the HHS Secretary to approve all waivers, unless they will increase the federal budget deficit—a significant change from the Obamacare parameters, which many conservatives viewed as unduly restrictive. (For more background on Section 1332 waivers, see this article.)

Provides for a standard eight-year waiver (unless a state requests a shorter period), with automatic renewals upon application by the state, and may not be cancelled by the Secretary before the expiration of the eight-year period.

Provides that Section 1332 waivers approved prior to enactment shall be governed under the “old” (i.e., Obamacare) parameters, that waiver applications submitted after enactment shall be governed under the “new” parameters, and that states with pending (but not yet approved) applications at the time of enactment can choose to have their waivers governed under the “old” or the “new” parameters. Spends $2 billion over ten years. With respect to the fiscal impact of the waivers themselves, CBO noted no separate budgetary impact noted, including them in the larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Catastrophic Coverage:      Allows all individuals to buy Obamacare catastrophic plans, beginning on January 1, 2019.

Cost-Sharing Subsidies:      Repeals Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies, effective December 31, 2019. Appropriates funds for cost-sharing subsidy claims for plan years through 2019—a provision not included in the House bill. 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. Some conservatives may view the appropriation first as likely to get stricken under the “Byrd rule,” and second as a budget gimmick—acknowledging that Obamacare did NOT appropriate funds for the payments by including an appropriation for 2017 through 2019, but then relying on over $100 billion in phantom “savings” from repealing the non-existent “appropriation” for years after 2020. Saves $105 billion over ten years.

Title III

“Consumer Freedom” Option:             Allows insurers to offer non-compliant plans, so long as they continue to offer at least one gold and one silver plan subject to Obamacare’s restrictions. Allows non-compliant plans to eliminate requirements related to:

  • Actuarial value;
  • Essential health benefits;
  • Cost-sharing;
  • Guaranteed issue;
  • Community rating;
  • Waiting periods;
  • Preventive health services (including contraception); and
  • Medical loss ratios.

Does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to a single risk pool, which some conservatives may consider both potentially unworkable—as it will be difficult to combine non-community-rated plans and community-rated coverage into one risk pool—and unlikely to achieve significant premium reductions. Also does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to annual and lifetime limits, or coverage for “dependents” under age 26—which some conservatives may view as an incomplete attempt to provide consumer freedom and choice.

States that non-compliant coverage shall not be considered “creditable coverage” for purposes of the continuous coverage/waiting period provision. Allows HHS to increase the minimum actuarial value of plans above 58 percent if necessary to allow compliant plans to be continued to offered in an area where non-compliant plans are available.

Uses $70 billion in Stability Fund dollars to subsidize high-risk individuals in states that choose the “consumer freedom” option—a provision that some conservatives may be concerned will effectively legitimize a perpetual bailout fund for insurers in connection with the “consumer freedom” option. Also appropriates $2 billion in funds for state regulation and oversight of non-compliant plans.

Does Andy Slavitt Know Anything About Medicaid?

The debate on health care has seen numerous examples of hyperbolic rhetoric in recent months. But one series of allegations made earlier this month takes the cake, both for its factual ignorance and logical incoherence. That these demonstrably false allegations were made by a former senior official in the Obama administration makes them that much more disconcerting.

While many Americans were enjoying a long Independence Day weekend, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Andy Slavitt took to Twitter to make the bold claim that Republicans were changing their health-care bill “not just to gut Medicaid, but to allow states to eliminate it.”

Before delving into his bill of particulars, it’s worth rebutting the overall claim that Republicans would allow states to “eliminate” Medicaid. That’s false—and provably so. Under our Constitution, the federal government cannot require states to participate in a program to begin with. By definition, the Republican health-care bill cannot “allow states to eliminate” Medicaid—states already have that right, and always will. That’s the point of the Tenth Amendment, and of federalism. Perhaps Slavitt needs to read the Constitution, and if he doesn’t have a copy, I will gladly lend him mine.

Moreover, Slavitt’s allegation reflects not just ignorance of fundamental constitutional principles, but the history of Medicaid itself. Arizona did not join the Medicaid program until 1982, 17 years after Medicaid’s creation, and nearly a decade after every other state joined the program. If, as Slavitt claims, Republicans are concocting some nefarious plot to “allow” states to “eliminate” Medicaid, then why did a Democratic Congress “allow” Arizona not to join Medicaid for nearly two decades after the program’s creation? Again, his allegations are, in a word, nonsense—because he either does not know, or does not wish to know, how Medicaid works.

These Waivers Ain’t New, Buddy

As Slavitt’s general claim is outlandishly ignorant, so too the details supposedly bolstering his assertions. Specifically, he claims that “the new state waiver process in the Senate bill already allows Medicaid to be replaced by giving [people] a subsidy.” Setting aside the question of whether giving some Medicaid beneficiaries access to private insurance coverage represents good policy, this claim likewise lacks any factual basis—because the waiver program he mentions has nothing to do with Medicaid.

Slavitt’s claim about a “new state waiver process” references Section 207 of the Senate bill (pages 138-145 here). That language doesn’t create a “new” state waiver process; rather, it amends an existing waiver program created by Section 1332 of Obamacare. Under Section 1332(a)(2) of the law, states can only use the innovation program to waive specific requirements: 1) the individual mandate to purchase coverage; 2) the employer mandate to offer coverage; 3) subsidies for exchange coverage, which states can take as a block grant and distribute to their citizens through other means; and 4) some insurance regulations, such as the definition of a qualified health plan, essential benefits, and actuarial value requirements (see page 98 here). While the Senate bill would change the way states could apply for waivers, it would not change what provisions states could waive.

To summarize: The waiver process outlined above—which Slavitt claims will be used to “eliminate” Medicaid by moving Medicaid beneficiaries off private coverage—says nothing about Medicaid. The Medicaid Payment and Access Commission, which advises Congress on Medicaid policies, admits this Section 1332 waiver process “cannot be used to change Medicaid.” Regulatory guidance put out by CMS while Andy Slavitt was running it noted the inability of Section 1332 waivers to reform Medicaid. And a reporter helpfully pointed all this out to Slavitt during his Twitter posts, yet he didn’t change his argument one whit, or even bother to acknowledge these inconvenient truths.

Credibility: Shot

While at CMS, Slavitt ran an organization which, as the New York Times noted, “finances health care for one in three Americans and has a budget bigger than the Pentagon’s.” For that reason, there’s no other way to say it: Given the number of false statements in Slavitt’s Medicaid Twitter rant, he is either grossly misinformed about how Medicaid operates—in other words, he was never competent to run such a large organization in the first place—or he’s flat-out lying to the American public now.

Either way, his statements deserve much more scrutiny than they’ve received from an otherwise fawning press. Instead of writing pieces lionizing Slavitt as an Obamacare “rabble-rouser,” analysts should focus more on his misstatements and hypocrisy—his apparent failure to go on Obamacare himself while running the law’s exchanges, and his attacks on Republican plans to cap Medicaid spending, even though Obamacare did the exact same thing to Medicare. The American people deserve an honest, serious debate about the future of health care in our country. Unfortunately, they’re not getting it from Andy Slavitt.

This post was originally published in The Federalist.

What Killed the Senate Health Bill? Liberal Alarmism on Medicaid

The Senate health care bill is dead, and that’s at least in part due to overheated rhetoric from the left about Medicaid. Many of the over-the-top claims lacked important facts or context, and seemed primarily designed to scare people rather than prompt civil debate.

For instance, liberals claimed that Republican plans to reduce the growth of Medicaid spending by nearly $800 billion in the next decade would “unravel” the program, as Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich put it. Yet Obamacare did nearly the exact same thing to Medicare. Obamacare reduced Medicare spending by $716 billion, according to a 2012 Congressional Budget Office estimate. And it did so not to improve Medicare’s ability to pay for care for the next generation of seniors, but instead to fund new Obamacare entitlements.

The liberals who claimed this year’s Republican health bills would “cut” Medicaid are the same ones who endorsed Obamacare’s reductions in Medicare spending. Just look at AARP’s framing of the issue: When Democrats reduce Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, the organization calls it “taking steps to reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency.” But when Republicans reduce Medicaid spending by roughly equivalent amounts, AARP decries “unsustainable cuts” to the program.

Likewise the issue of caps on spending. A group of health care advocacy organizations sent a letter to Capitol Hill last month expressing “grave concern about potential changes to the fundamental structure and purpose of Medicaid,” saying they “vehemently oppose converting Medicaid’s funding into a capped financing structure.”

But this objection to capped payments also seems ironic at best, and disingenuous at worst. Section 3403 of Obamacare imposed per capita caps on Medicare spending, to be enforced by the Independent Payment Advisory Board — a group of unelected bureaucrats. So why did many of the same organizations who claim they “vehemently oppose” capped funding for Medicaid, endorse a health care bill that created the same funding structure for Medicare? Is it because a Democratic president proposed the former change, and a Republican Congress is debating the latter?

Then there’s the alarm raised by Andy Slavitt, a former head of Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration. He recently claimed that Republicans had a secret plan “not just to cut Medicaid, but to allow states to eliminate it.” He said a “new waiver process” in the Senate bill — really a modification of an existing Obamacare waiver — would allow states to transfer Medicaid beneficiaries to private coverage, thereby allowing them to “eliminate” Medicaid.

Yet the Obamacare waiver process explicitly prohibits changes to Medicaid — and the Senate bill would not have changed that. In addition, states have always had the ability to “eliminate” Medicaid; the federal government can’t force states to participate in the program. That’s why Arizona didn’t join until 1982, nearly two decades after Medicaid’s creation. States have remained in Medicaid because the federal government provides significant funding to them for their programs — and that funding would continue to rise, albeit more slowly, under both the House and Senate bills.

To be sure, both sides have exhibited their share of political opportunism. Republicans shouldn’t have attacked Obamacare’s Medicare savings as “cuts” — a reduction in projected growth rates should never be considered a “cut” in government spending. And conservatives were guaranteed to reap the political whirlwind sooner or later.

But the left’s hyperbolic rhetoric, coupled with some pretty apparent hypocrisy, not only helped kill the Senate health bill. It did the American people a disservice by detracting from the debate on health care that our country deserves.

This post was originally published at USA Today.

What You Need to Know about Today’s Medicare Trustees Report

Earlier this afternoon, the Medicare trustees released their annual report on the state of the program’s finances. Here’s a quick take about what you need to know in the report:

Insolvency Date:  The insolvency date for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is 2029, one year later than last year’s report. However, remember that, if not for the double-counting in Obamacare (about which see more below), the Trust Fund would ALREADY be insolvent, as in 2009 — the last trustees report prior to Obamacare’s enactment — the trustees projected insolvency for 2017 (i.e., this year).

IPAB NOT Triggered:  Despite prior predictions, this year’s trustees report did NOT trigger a reporting requirement related to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). In other words, Medicare spending over the relevant five year period (2015 through 2019) is not projected to exceed the per capita caps established for Medicare in Obamacare itself. Which makes one wonder — if per capita caps for Medicare haven’t yet bit, why are liberals objecting so loudly to per capita caps for Medicaid…?

A Brief Break from Massive Deficits:  For the first time in nearly a decade, the Medicare Part A Trust Fund did NOT run a deficit. However, the small $5.4 billion surplus did not even begin to overcome the $132.2 billion in deficits run by the Medicare program from 2008 through 2015.

Funding Warning:  For the first time since 2013, the trustees issued a funding warning showing that the Medicare program is taking a disproportionate share of its funding from general revenues, thus crowding out programs like defense and education. If a second warning is issued next year, the President will be required to submit legislation to Congress remedying the problem.

Unrealistic Assumptions:  As it has every year since the passage of Obamacare, the trustees issued an alternative scenario, because “absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems,” the payment reductions included in Obamacare mean that “access to, and delivery of, Medicare benefits would deteriorate over time for beneficiaries.”

Double Counting:  The actuary also previously confirmed that the Medicare reductions in Obamacare “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays and to extend the [Medicare] trust fund” solvency date – rendering dubious any potential claims that Obamacare will extend Medicare’s solvency.  As Nancy Pelosi previously admitted, Democrats “took a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare in [Obamacare], the health care bill” – and you can’t improve Medicare’s solvency by taking money out of the program.

UPDATED Summary of Senate Health Care Legislation

On July 13, Senate leadership issued a revised draft of their Obamacare “repeal-and-replace” bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act. Changes to the bill include:

  • Modifies the current language (created in last year’s 21st Century Cures Act) allowing small businesses of under 50 employees to reimburse employees’ individual health insurance through Health Reimbursement Arrangements;
  • Allows Obamacare subsides to be used for catastrophic insurance plans previously authorized under that law;
  • Amends the short-term Stability Fund, by requiring the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reserve one percent of fund monies “for providing and distributing funds to health insurance issuers in states where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average”—a provision which some conservatives may view as an earmark for Alaska (the only state that currently qualifies);
  • Increases appropriations for the long-term Stability Fund to $19.2 billion for each of calendar years 2022 through 2026, up from $6 billion in 2022 and 2023, $5 billion in 2024 and 2025, and $4 billion in 2026—an increase of $70 billion total;
  • Strikes repeal of the Medicare tax increase on “high-income” earners, as well as repeal of the net investment tax;
  • Allows for Health Savings Account funds to be used for the purchase of high-deductible health plans, but only to the extent that such insurance was not purchased on a tax-preferred basis (i.e., through the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, or through Obamacare insurance subsidies);
  • Allows HSA dollars to be used to reimburse expenses for “dependents” under age 27, effectively extending the “under-26” provisions of Obamacare to Health Savings Accounts;
  • Prohibits HSA-qualified high deductible health plans from covering abortions, other than in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother—an effective prohibition on the use of HSA funds to purchase plans that cover abortion, but one that the Senate Parliamentarian may advise does not comport with procedural restrictions on budget reconciliation bills;
  • Changes the methodology for calculating Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payment reductions, such that 1) non-expansion states’ DSH reductions would be minimized for states that have below-average reductions in the uninsured (rather than below-average enrollment in Medicaid, as under the base text); and 2) provides a carve-out treating states covering individuals through a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver as non-expansion states for purposes of having their DSH payment reductions undone;
  • Retains current law provisions allowing 90 days of retroactive Medicaid eligibility for seniors and blind and disabled populations, while restricting eligibility to the month an individual applied for the program for all other Medicaid populations;
  • Includes language allowing late-expanding Medicaid states to choose a shorter period (but not fewer than four) quarters as their “base period” for determining per capita caps—a provision that some conservatives may view as improperly incentivizing states that decided to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied;
  • Exempts declared public health emergencies from the Medicaid per capita caps—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency—but such exemption may not exceed $5 billion;
  • Modifies the per capita cap treatment for states that expanded Medicaid during Fiscal Year 2016, but before July 1, 2016—a provision that may help states like Louisiana that expanded during the intervening period;
  • Creates a four year, $8 billion demonstration project from 2020 through 2023 to expand home- and community-based service payment adjustments in Medicaid—with payment adjustments eligible for a 100 percent federal match, and the 15 states with the lowest population density given priority for funds;
  • Modifies the Medicaid block grant formula, prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for other health programs (a change from the base bill), and eliminates a quality standards requirement;
  • Allows for modification of the Medicaid block grant during declared public health emergencies—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency;
  • Makes a state’s expenses on behalf of Indians eligible for a 100 percent match, irrespective of the source of those services (current law provides for a 100 percent match only for services provided at an Indian Health Service center);
  • Makes technical and other changes to small business health plan language included in the base text;
  • Modifies language repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund, to allow $1.25 billion in funding for Fiscal Year 2018;
  • Increases opioid funding to a total of $45 billion—$44.748 billion from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2026 for treatment of substance use or mental health disorders, and $252 million from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2022 for opioid addiction research—all of which are subject to few spending restrictions, which some conservatives may be concerned would give virtually unfettered power to the Department of Health and Human Services to direct this spending;
  • Modifies language regarding continuous coverage provisions, and includes health care sharing ministries as “creditable coverage” for the purposes of imposing waiting periods;
  • Grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to exempt other individuals from the continuous coverage requirement—a provision some conservatives may be concerned gives HHS excessive authority;
  • Makes technical changes to the state innovation waiver program amendments included in the base bill;
  • Allows all individuals to buy Obamacare catastrophic plans, beginning on January 1, 2019;
  • Applies enforcement provisions to language in Obamacare allowing states to opt-out of mandatory abortion coverage;
  • Allows insurers to offer non-compliant plans, so long as they continue to offer at least one gold and one silver plan subject to Obamacare’s restrictions;
  • Allows non-compliant plans to eliminate requirements related to actuarial value; essential health benefits; cost-sharing; guaranteed issue; community rating; waiting periods; preventive health services (including contraception); and medical loss ratios;
  • Does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to a single risk pool, which some conservatives may consider both potentially unworkable—as it will be difficult to combine non-community-rated plans and community-rated coverage into one risk pool—and unlikely to achieve significant premium reductions;
  • Does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to annual and lifetime limits, or coverage for “dependents” under age 26—which some conservatives may view as an incomplete attempt to provide consumer freedom and choice;
  • States that non-compliant coverage shall not be considered “creditable coverage” for purposes of the continuous coverage/waiting period provision;
  • Allows HHS to increase the minimum actuarial value of plans above 58 percent if necessary to allow compliant plans to be continued to offered in an area where non-compliant plans are available;
  • Uses $70 billion in Stability Fund dollars to subsidize high-risk individuals in states that choose the “consumer freedom” option—a provision that some conservatives may be concerned will effectively legitimize a perpetual bailout fund for insurers in connection with the “consumer freedom” option; and
  • Appropriates $2 billion in funds for state regulation and oversight of non-compliant plans.

A full summary of the bill, as amended, follows below, along with possible conservative concerns 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.

Ten-year fiscal impacts from the original Congressional Budget Office score are noted—however, these estimates do not reflect the updated language. An updated CBO score of the revised draft is expected early next week.

Of particular note: It is unclear whether this legislative language has been fully 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 advises 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).

As the bill was released prior to issuance of a full CBO score, it is entirely possible the Parliamentarian has not fully 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

Revisions to Obamacare Subsidies:             Modifies eligibility thresholds for the current regime of Obamacare subsidies. Under current law, households with incomes of between 100-400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL, $24,600 for a family of four in 2017) qualify for subsidies. This provision would change eligibility to include all households with income under 350% FPL—effectively eliminating the Medicaid “coverage gap,” whereby low-income individuals (those with incomes under 100% FPL) in states that did not expand Medicaid do not qualify for subsidized insurance.

Clarifies the definition of eligibility by substituting “qualified alien” for the current-law term “an alien lawfully present in the United States” with respect to the five-year waiting period for said aliens to receive taxpayer-funded benefits, per the welfare reform law enacted in 1996.

Changes the bidding structure for insurance subsidies. Under current law, subsidy amounts are based on the second-lowest silver plan bid in a given area—with silver plans based upon an actuarial value (the average percentage of annual health expenses covered) of 70 percent. This provision would base subsidies upon the “median cost benchmark plan,” which would be based upon an average actuarial value of 58 percent.

Modifies the existing Obamacare subsidy regime, 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 350% FPL, would pay 6.4% of income on health insurance, whereas an individual between ages 60-64 at the same income level would pay 16.2% 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.)

Lowers the “failsafe” at which secondary indexing provisions under Obamacare would apply. Under current law, if total spending on premium subsidies exceeds 0.504% of gross domestic product annually in years after 2018, the premium subsidies would grow more slowly. (Additional information available here, and a Congressional Budget Office analysis available here.) This provision would reduce the overall cap at which the “failsafe” would apply to 0.4% of GDP.

Eliminates subsidy eligibility for households eligible for employer-subsidized health insurance. Also modifies definitions regarding eligibility for subsidies for employees participating in small businesses’ health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

Increases penalties on erroneous claims of the credit from 20 percent to 25 percent. Applies most of the above changes beginning in calendar year 2020. Allows Obamacare subsides to be used for catastrophic insurance plans previously authorized under that law.

Beginning in 2018, changes the definition of a qualified health plan, to prohibit plans from covering abortion other than in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision may eventually be eliminated under the provisions of the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” therefore continuing taxpayer funding of plans that cover abortion. (For more information, see these two articles.)

Eliminates provisions that limit repayment of subsidies for years after 2017. Subsidy eligibility is based upon estimated income, with recipients required to reconcile their subsidies received with actual income during the year-end tax filing process. Current law limits the amount of excess subsidies households with incomes under 400% FPL must pay. This provision would eliminate that limitation on repayments, which may result in fewer individuals taking up subsidies in the first place. Saves $25 billion over ten years—$18.7 billion in lower outlay spending, and $6.3 billion in additional revenues.

Some conservatives may be concerned first that, rather than repealing Obamacare, these provisions actually expand Obamacare—for instance, extending subsidies to some individuals currently not eligible. Some conservatives may also be concerned that, as with Obamacare, these provisions will create disincentives to work that would reduce the labor supply by the equivalent of millions of jobs. Finally, as noted above, some conservatives may believe that, as with Obamacare itself, enacting these policy changes through the budget reconciliation process will prevent the inclusion of strong pro-life protections, thus ensuring continued taxpayer funding of plans that cover abortion. When compared to Obamacare, these provisions reduce the deficit by a net of $292 billion over ten years—$235 billion in reduced outlay spending (the refundable portion of the subsidies, for individuals with no income tax liability), and $57 billion in increased revenue (the non-refundable portion of the subsidies, reducing individuals’ tax liability).

Small Business Tax Credit:             Repeals Obamacare’s small business tax credit, effective in 2020. Disallows the small business tax credit beginning in 2018 for any plan that offers coverage of abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother—which, as noted above, some conservatives may believe will be stricken during the Senate’s “Byrd rule” review. This language is substantially similar to Section 203 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill, with the exception of the new pro-life language. Saves $6 billion over ten years.

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. The individual mandate provision cuts taxes by $38 billion, and the employer mandate provision cuts taxes by $171 billion, both over ten years.

Stability Funds:        Creates two stability funds intended to stabilize insurance markets—the first giving funds directly to insurers, and the second giving funds to states. The first would appropriate $15 billion each for 2018 and 2019, and $10 billion each for 2020 and 2021, ($50 billion total) to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to “fund arrangements with health insurance issuers to address coverage and access disruption and respond to urgent health care needs within States.” Instructs the CMS Administrator to “determine an appropriate procedure for providing and distributing funds.” Does not require a state match for receipt of stability funds.

Requires the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reserve one percent of fund monies “for providing and distributing funds to health insurance issuers in states where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average”—a provision which some conservatives may view as an earmark for Alaska (the only state that currently qualifies).

Creates a longer term stability fund with a total of $132 billion in federal funding—$8 billion in 2019, $14 billion in 2020 and 2021, and $19.2 billion in 2022 through 2026. Requires a state match beginning in 2022—7 percent that year, followed by 14 percent in 2023, 21 percent in 2024, 28 percent in 2025, and 35 percent in 2026. Allows the Administrator to determine each state’s allotment from the fund; states could keep their allotments for two years, but unspent funds after that point could be re-allocated to other states.

Long-term fund dollars could be used to provide financial assistance to high-risk individuals, including by reducing premium costs, “help stabilize premiums and promote state health insurance market participation and choice,” provide payments to health care providers, or reduce cost-sharing. However, all of the $50 billion in short-term stability funds—and $15 billion of the long-term funds ($5 billion each in 2019, 2020, and 2021)—must be used to stabilize premiums and insurance markets. The short-term stability fund requires applications from insurers; the long-term stability fund would require a one-time application from states.

Both stability funds are placed within Title XXI of the Social Security Act, which governs the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While SCHIP has a statutory prohibition on the use of federal funds to pay for abortion in state SCHIP programs, it is unclear at best whether this restriction would provide sufficient pro-life protections to ensure that Obamacare plans do not provide coverage of abortion. It is unclear whether and how federal reinsurance funds provided after-the-fact (i.e., covering some high-cost claims that already occurred) can prospectively prevent coverage of abortions.

Some conservatives may be concerned first that the stability funds would amount to over $100 billion in corporate welfare payments to insurance companies; second that the funds give nearly-unilateral authority to the CMS Administrator to determine how to allocate payments among states; third that, in giving so much authority to CMS, the funds further undermine the principle of state regulation of health insurance; fourth that the funds represent a short-term budgetary gimmick—essentially, throwing taxpayer dollars at insurers to keep premiums low between now and the 2020 presidential election—that cannot or should not be sustained in the longer term; and finally that placing the funds within the SCHIP program will prove insufficient to prevent federal funding of plans that cover abortion. Spends a total of $107 billion over ten years.

Implementation Fund:        Provides $500 million to implement programs under the bill. Costs $500 million over ten years.

Repeal of Some Obamacare Taxes:             Repeals some Obamacare taxes:

  • Tax on high-cost health plans (also known as the “Cadillac tax”)—but only through 2025, lowering revenues by $66 billion;
  • Restrictions on use of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Arrangements to pay for over-the-counter medications, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $5.6 billion;
  • Increased penalties on non-health care uses of Health Savings Account dollars, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $100 million;
  • Limits on Flexible Spending Arrangement contributions, effective January 1, 2018, lowering revenues by $18.6 billion;
  • Tax on pharmaceuticals, effective January 1, 2018, lowering revenues by $25.7 billion;
  • Medical device tax, effective January 1, 2018, lowering revenues by $19.6 billion;
  • Health insurer tax (currently being suspended), lowering revenues by $144.7 billion;
  • Elimination of deduction for employers who receive a subsidy from Medicare for offering retiree prescription drug coverage, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $1.8 billion;
  • Limitation on medical expenses as an itemized deduction, effective January 1, 2017, lowering revenues by $36.1 billion; and
  • Tax on tanning services, effective September 30, 2017, lowering revenues by $600 million.

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. Lowers revenues by a total of $19.2 billion over ten years.

Allows for Health Savings Account funds to be used for the purchase of high-deductible health plans, but only to the extent that such insurance was not purchased on a tax-preferred basis (i.e., through the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, or through Obamacare insurance subsidies).

Allows HSA dollars to be used to reimburse expenses for “dependents” under age 27, effectively extending the “under-26” provisions of Obamacare to Health Savings Accounts. Prohibits HSA-qualified high deductible health plans from covering abortions, other than in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother—an effective prohibition on the use of HSA funds to purchase plans that cover abortion, but one that the Senate Parliamentarian may advise does not comport with procedural restrictions on budget reconciliation bills.

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). CBO believes this provision would save a total of $225 million in Medicaid spending, while increasing spending by $79 million over a decade, because 15 percent of Planned Parenthood clients would lose access to services, increasing the number of births in the Medicaid program by several thousand. This language is virtually identical to Section 206 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Saves $146 million over ten years.

Medicaid Expansion:           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 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—scheduled under current law as 90 percent in 2020—to 85 percent in 2021, 80 percent in 2022, and 75 percent in 2023. The regular federal match rates would apply for expansion states—defined as those that expanded Medicaid prior to March 1, 2017—beginning in 2024, and to all other states effective immediately. (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 through 2023.)

The bill also repeals the requirement that Medicaid “benchmark” plans comply with Obamacare’s essential health benefits, also effective December 31, 2019. In general, the Medicaid provisions outlined above, when combined with the per capita cap provisions below, would save a net of $772 billion over ten years.

Finally, the bill repeals provisions regarding presumptive eligibility and the Community First Choice Option, eliminating a six percent increase in the Medicaid match rate for some home and community-based services. Saves $19 billion over ten years.

Some conservatives may be concerned that the language in this bill would give expansion states a strong incentive to sign up many more individuals for Medicaid over the next seven years. Some conservatives may also be concerned that, by extending the Medicaid transition for such a long period, it will never in fact go into effect.

Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Allotments:                Exempts non-expansion states from scheduled reductions in DSH payments in fiscal years 2021 through 2024, and provides an increase in DSH payments for non-expansion states in fiscal year 2020, based on a state’s Medicaid enrollment. Spends $19 billion over ten years.

Retroactive Eligibility:       Effective October 2017, restricts retroactive eligibility in Medicaid to the month in which the individual applied for the program for; current law requires three months of retroactive eligibility. These changes would NOT apply to aged, blind, or disabled populations, who would still qualify for three months of retroactive eligibility. Saves $5 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. Spends $10 billion over ten years.

Eligibility Re-Determinations:             Permits—but unlike the House bill, does not require—states, beginning October 1, 2017, to re-determine eligibility for individuals qualifying for Medicaid on the basis of income every six months, or at shorter intervals. Provides a five percentage point increase in the federal match rate for states that elect this option. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Work Requirements:           Permits (but does not require) states to, beginning October 1, 2017, impose work requirements on “non-disabled, non-elderly, non-pregnant” beneficiaries. States can determine the length of time for such work requirements. Provides a five percentage point increase in the federal match for state expenses attributable to activities implementing the work requirements.

States may not impose requirements on pregnant women (through 60 days after birth); children under age 19; the sole parent of a child under age 6, or sole parent or caretaker of a child with disabilities; or a married individual or head of household under age 20 who “maintains satisfactory attendance at secondary school or equivalent,” or participates in vocational education. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Provider Taxes
:        Reduces permissible Medicaid provider taxes from 6 percent under current law to 5.8 percent in fiscal year 2021, 5.6 percent in fiscal year 2022, 5.4 percent in fiscal year 2023, 5.2 percent in fiscal year 2024, and 5 percent in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years. Some conservatives may view provider taxes as essentially “money laundering”—a game in which states engage in shell transactions solely designed to increase the federal share of Medicaid funding and reduce states’ share. More information can be found here. CBO believes states would probably reduce their spending in response to the loss of provider tax revenue, resulting in lower spending by the federal government. Saves $5.2 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 2020. 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 2020, states could choose their “base period” based on any eight consecutive quarters of expenditures between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. The CMS Administrator would have authority to make adjustments to relevant data if she believes a state attempted to “game” the look-back period. Late-expanding Medicaid states can choose a shorter period (but not fewer than four) quarters as their “base period” for determining per capita caps—a provision that some conservatives may view as improperly incentivizing states that decided to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied.

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. Exempts declared public health emergencies from the Medicaid per capita caps—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency—but such exemption may not exceed $5 billion. Modifies the per capita cap treatment for states that expanded Medicaid during Fiscal Year 2016, but before July 1, 2016—a provision that may help states like Louisiana that expanded during the intervening period.

For years before fiscal year 2025, indexes the caps to medical inflation for children, expansion enrollees, and all other non-expansion enrollees, with the caps rising by medical inflation plus one percentage point for aged, blind, and disabled beneficiaries. Beginning in fiscal year 2025, indexes the caps to overall inflation.

Includes provisions in the House bill regarding “required expenditures by certain political subdivisions.” Some conservatives may question the need to insert a parochial New York-related provision into the bill.

Provides a provision—not included in the House bill—for effectively re-basing the per capita caps. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to increase the caps by between 0.5% and 2% for low-spending states (defined as having per capita expenditures 25% below the national median), and lower the caps by between 0.5% and 2% for high-spending states (with per capita expenditures 25% above the national median). The Secretary may only implement this provision in a budget-neutral manner, i.e., one that does not increase the deficit. However, this re-basing provision shall NOT apply to any state with a population density of under 15 individuals per square mile.

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. Requires new state reporting on inpatient psychiatric hospital services and children with complex medical conditions. Requires the HHS Inspector General to audit each state’s spending at least every three years.

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 that the use of the past several years as the “base period” for the per capita caps, benefits 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. Coupled with the expansion provisions outlined above, saves a net of $772 billion over ten years.

Home and Community-Based Services:             Creates a four year, $8 billion demonstration project from 2020 through 2023 to expand home- and community-based service payment adjustments in Medicaid, with such payment adjustments eligible for a 100 percent federal match. The 15 states with the lowest population density would be given priority for funds.

Medicaid Block Grants:      Creates a Medicaid block grant, called the “Medicaid Flexibility Program,” beginning in Fiscal Year 2020. Requires interested states to submit an application providing a proposed packet of services, a commitment to submit relevant data (including health quality measures and clinical data), and a statement of program goals. Requires public notice-and-comment periods at both the state and federal levels.

The amount of the block grant would total the regular federal match rate, multiplied by the target per capita spending amounts (as calculated above), multiplied by the number of expected enrollees (adjusted forward based on the estimated increase in population for the state, per Census Bureau estimates). In future years, the block grant would be increased by general inflation.

Prohibits states from increasing their base year block grant population beyond 2016 levels, adjusted for population growth, plus an additional three percentage points. This provision is likely designed to prevent states from “packing” their Medicaid programs full of beneficiaries immediately prior to a block grant’s implementation, solely to achieve higher federal payments.

Permits states to roll over block grant payments from year to year, provided that they comply with maintenance of effort requirements. Reduces federal payments for the following year in the case of states that fail to meet their maintenance of effort spending requirements, and permits the HHS Secretary to make reductions in the case of a state’s non-compliance. Requires the Secretary to publish block grant amounts for every state every year, regardless of whether or not the state elects the block grant option.

Permits block grants for a program period of five fiscal years, subject to renewal; plans with “no significant changes” would not have to re-submit an application for their block grants. Permits a state to terminate the block grant, but only if the state “has in place an appropriate transition plan approved by the Secretary.”

Imposes a series of conditions on Medicaid block grants, requiring coverage for all mandatory populations identified in the Medicaid statute, and use of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) standard for determining eligibility. Includes 14 separate categories of services that states must cover for mandatory populations under the block grant. Requires benefits to have an actuarial value (coverage of average health expenses) of at least 95 percent of the benchmark coverage options in place prior to Obamacare. Permits states to determine the amount, duration, and scope of benefits within the parameters listed above.

Applies mental health parity provisions to the Medicaid block grant, and extends the Medicaid rebate program to any outpatient drugs covered under same. Permits states to impose premiums, deductibles, or other cost-sharing, provided such efforts do not exceed 5 percent of a family’s income in any given year.

Requires participating states to have simplified enrollment processes, coordinate with insurance Exchanges, and “establish a fair process” for individuals to appeal adverse eligibility determinations. Allows for modification of the Medicaid block grant during declared public health emergencies—based on an increase in beneficiaries’ average expenses due to such emergency.

Exempts states from per capita caps, waivers, state plan amendments, and other provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act while participating in Medicaid block grants. Coupled with the expansion provisions outlined above, saves a net of $772 billion over ten years.

Performance Bonus Payments:             Provides an $8 billion pool for bonus payments to state Medicaid and SCHIP programs for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2026. Allows the Secretary to increase federal matching rates for states that 1) have lower than expected expenses under the per capita caps and 2) report applicable quality measures, and have a plan to use the additional funds on quality improvement. While noting the goal of reducing health costs through quality improvement, and incentives for same, some conservatives may be concerned that this provision—as with others in the bill—gives near-blanket authority to the HHS Secretary to control the program’s parameters, power that conservatives believe properly resides outside Washington—and power that a future Democratic Administration could use to contravene conservative objectives. CBO believes that only some states will meet the performance criteria, leading some of the money not to be spent between now and 2026. Costs $3 billion over ten years.

Medicaid Waivers:  Permits states to extend Medicaid managed care waivers (those approved prior to January 1, 2017, and renewed at least once) in perpetuity through a state plan amendment, with an expedited/guaranteed approval process by CMS. Requires HHS to adopt processes “encouraging States to adopt or extend waivers” regarding home and community-based services, if those waivers would improve patient access. No budgetary impact.

Coordination with States:               After January 1, 2018, prohibits CMS from finalizing any Medicaid rule unless CMS and HHS 1) provide an ongoing regular process for soliciting comments from state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid directors; 2) solicit oral and written comments in advance of any proposed rule on Medicaid; and 3) respond to said comments in the preamble of the proposed rule. No budgetary impact.

Inpatient Psychiatric Services:             Provides for optional state Medicaid coverage of inpatient psychiatric services for individuals over 21 and under 65 years of age. (Current law permits coverage of such services for individuals under age 21.) Such coverage would not exceed 30 days in any month or 90 days in any calendar year. In order to receive such assistance, the state must maintain its number of licensed psychiatric beds as of the date of enactment, and maintain current levels of funding for inpatient services and outpatient psychiatric services. Provides a lower (i.e., 50 percent) match for such services, furnished on or after October 1, 2018. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Medicaid and Indian Health Service:             Makes a state’s expenses on behalf of Indians eligible for a 100 percent match, irrespective of the source of those services. Current law provides for a 100 percent match only for services provided at an Indian Health Service center.

Small Business Health Plans:             Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to allow for creation of small business health plans. Some may question whether or not this provision will meet the “Byrd rule” test for inclusion on a budget reconciliation measure. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Title II

Prevention and Public Health Fund:             Eliminates funding for the Obamacare prevention “slush fund,” and rescinds all unobligated balances, beginning in Fiscal Year 2019.

Opioid Funding:       Appropriates $45 billion—$44.748 billion from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2026 for treatment of substance use or mental health disorders, and $252 million from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2022 for opioid addiction research. The $45 billion in funds are subject to few spending restrictions, which some conservatives may be concerned would give virtually unfettered power to the Department of Health and Human Services to direct this spending.

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” above). Language regarding community health centers was included in Section 102 of the 2015/2016 reconciliation bill. Spends $422 million over ten years.

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, 2019, 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. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Medical Loss Ratios:            Permits states to determine their own medical loss ratios, beginning for plan years on or after January 1, 2019. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Insurance Waiting Periods:             Imposes waiting periods on individuals lacking continuous coverage (i.e., with a coverage gap of more than 63 days). Requires carriers to, beginning with plan years starting after January 1, 2019, impose a six-month waiting period on individuals who cannot show 12 months of continuous coverage. However, the bill states that such waiting period “shall not apply to an individual who is enrolled in health insurance coverage in the individual market on the day before the effective date of the coverage in which the individual is newly enrolling.” The waiting period would extend for six months from the date of application for coverage, or the first date of the new plan year.

Permits the Department of Health and Human Services to require insurers to provide certificates of continuous coverage, and includes health care sharing ministries as “creditable coverage” for purposes of the requirement. Prohibits waiting periods for newborns and adopted children, provided they obtain coverage within 30 days of birth or adoption, and other individuals the Secretary may designate—an overly broad grant of authority that some conservatives may believe will give excessive power to federal bureaucrats.

Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision, rather than repealing Obamacare’s regulatory mandates, would further entrench a Washington-centered structure, one that has led premiums to more than double since Obamacare took effect. Some conservatives may also note that this provision will not take effect until the 2019 plan year—meaning that the effective repeal of the individual mandate upon the bill’s enactment, coupled with the continuation of Obamacare’s regulatory structure, could further destabilize insurance markets over the next 18 months. CBO believes this provision will only modestly increase the number of people with health insurance. No separate budgetary impact noted; included in larger estimate of coverage provisions.

State Innovation Waivers:              Amends Section 1332 of Obamacare regarding state innovation waivers. Eliminates the requirement that states codify their waivers in state law, by allowing a Governor or State Insurance Commissioner to provide authority for said waivers. Appropriates $2 billion for Fiscal Years 2017 through 2019 to allow states to submit waiver applications, and allows states to use the long-term stability fund to carry out the plan. Allows for an expedited approval process “if the Secretary determines that such expedited process is necessary to respond to an urgent or emergency situation with respect to health insurance coverage within a State.”

Requires the HHS Secretary to approve all waivers, unless they will increase the federal budget deficit—a significant change from the Obamacare parameters, which many conservatives viewed as unduly restrictive. (For more background on Section 1332 waivers, see this article.)

Provides for a standard eight-year waiver (unless a state requests a shorter period), with automatic renewals upon application by the state, and may not be cancelled by the Secretary before the expiration of the eight-year period.

Provides that Section 1332 waivers approved prior to enactment shall be governed under the “old” (i.e., Obamacare) parameters, that waiver applications submitted after enactment shall be governed under the “new” parameters, and that states with pending (but not yet approved) applications at the time of enactment can choose to have their waivers governed under the “old” or the “new” parameters. Spends $2 billion over ten years. With respect to the fiscal impact of the waivers themselves, CBO noted no separate budgetary impact noted, including them in the larger estimate of coverage provisions.

Catastrophic Coverage:      Allows all individuals to buy Obamacare catastrophic plans, beginning on January 1, 2019.

Cost-Sharing Subsidies:      Repeals Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies, effective December 31, 2019. Appropriates funds for cost-sharing subsidy claims for plan years through 2019—a provision not included in the House bill. 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. Some conservatives may view the appropriation first as likely to get stricken under the “Byrd rule,” and second as a budget gimmick—acknowledging that Obamacare did NOT appropriate funds for the payments by including an appropriation for 2017 through 2019, but then relying on over $100 billion in phantom “savings” from repealing the non-existent “appropriation” for years after 2020. Saves $105 billion over ten years.

Title III

“Consumer Freedom” Option:             Allows insurers to offer non-compliant plans, so long as they continue to offer at least one gold and one silver plan subject to Obamacare’s restrictions. Allows non-compliant plans to eliminate requirements related to:

  • Actuarial value;
  • Essential health benefits;
  • Cost-sharing;
  • Guaranteed issue;
  • Community rating;
  • Waiting periods;
  • Preventive health services (including contraception); and
  • Medical loss ratios.

Does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to a single risk pool, which some conservatives may consider both potentially unworkable—as it will be difficult to combine non-community-rated plans and community-rated coverage into one risk pool—and unlikely to achieve significant premium reductions. Also does NOT allow non-compliant plans to waive or eliminate requirements related to annual and lifetime limits, or coverage for “dependents” under age 26—which some conservatives may view as an incomplete attempt to provide consumer freedom and choice.

States that non-compliant coverage shall not be considered “creditable coverage” for purposes of the continuous coverage/waiting period provision. Allows HHS to increase the minimum actuarial value of plans above 58 percent if necessary to allow compliant plans to be continued to offered in an area where non-compliant plans are available.

Uses $70 billion in Stability Fund dollars to subsidize high-risk individuals in states that choose the “consumer freedom” option—a provision that some conservatives may be concerned will effectively legitimize a perpetual bailout fund for insurers in connection with the “consumer freedom” option. Also appropriates $2 billion in funds for state regulation and oversight of non-compliant plans.

Reforming Medicaid to Serve Wyoming Better

A PDF copy of this report is available on the Wyoming Liberty Group website.

Reforming Medicaid to Serve Wyoming Better

              In the past several years, Wyoming has accomplished several key changes to its Medicaid program. A series of reforms regarding long-term care, and other methods to improve care delivery and coordination, have stabilized the overall spending on Medicaid—and reduced expenditures on a per-beneficiary basis.

However, the commitment by both the new Administration and Congressional leaders to examine Medicaid reform closely presents Wyoming with the possibility to accelerate its current reform efforts. Seema Verma, the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and a former Medicaid consultant, has publicly committed to provide states with greater flexibility and freedom to innovate.[1] Likewise, legislation advancing fundamental Medicaid reform has begun to advance in Congress.

Whether through a block grant, per capita allotments, or enhanced waiver authority from the federal government, states like Wyoming can and should receive greater freedom to manage their programs, in exchange for a series of fixed federal payments. Upon receiving this flexibility, Wyoming can put into place additional reforms that will improve care for beneficiaries, encourage transitions to employment and employer-based health coverage where appropriate, reduce health costs, and save taxpayer funds. These reforms would modernize Medicaid to incorporate the best of 21st century medicine, help Baby Boomers as that generation ages into retirement, and alleviate the fiscal challenges Wyoming faces in managing its Medicaid program.

The Problem

Enacted into law in 1965, the Medicaid program as originally designed provided federal matching funds to states to cover discrete populations, including the blind, needy seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Over time, expansions of the program to new populations, and changes in the delivery of health care, have made the Medicaid program large, costly, and unwieldy for states to manage. A significant body of evidence demonstrates that, after more than a half-century, Medicaid is long overdue for a modernization.

Cost:    According to government-provided data, Medicaid now approaches Medicare for the title of largest taxpayer-funded health care program. According to non-partisan government actuaries, state and federal taxpayers combined will spend an estimated $595.5 billion on Medicaid in the current fiscal year—$368.9 billion by the federal government, and $226.6billion by states.[2] By comparison, the Congressional Budget Office projects that this fiscal year, Medicare will spend a net of $598 billion, excluding premium payments by enrollees.[3] Even as the Baby Boomers retire in the coming decade, Medicaid will stay on pace with Medicare when it comes to total expenditures—Medicaid spending will total an estimated $57.5 billion in fiscal year 2025, compared to an estimated $1.005 trillion in net Medicare spending the same fiscal year.[4]

On the state level, rising spending on Medicaid has crowded out other key state priorities like education, transportation, and law enforcement. While states often cut back on those other programs during recessions, Medicaid spending continues to grow in both good economic times and bad. For instance, for fiscal year 2017, states adopted a total of $7.7 billion in spending increases on Medicaid when compared to fiscal 2016—less than the growth of K-12 education spending ($8.9 billion increase), but more than spending on higher education or corrections (both $1.1 billion increases).[5] But in fiscal year 2012—as states recovered from the last recession—states sharply cut K-12 education ($2.5 billion decrease) and higher education ($5 billion decrease) to finance a massive increase in Medicaid spending ($15 billion increase).[6]

With program spending growing at a near-constant pace, Medicaid has grown substantially over the past several decades to become the largest line-item in most state budgets. In fiscal year 2016, Medicaid consumed an average of 29.0 percent of state spending from all fund sources, and 20.3 percent of general fund expenditures.[7] By comparison, in fiscal year 1996, Medicaid consumed 20.3 percent of state spending, and 14.8 percent of general fund spending—and in fiscal year 1987, Medicaid consumed only 10.2 percent of state spending, and 8.1 percent of general fund spending.[8] With program spending nearly tripling as a size of their overall budgets from 1987 through 2016, Medicaid growth has limited states’ ability to provide for other critical state priorities—or return some of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash back into their pockets.

Quality:            Unfortunately, many Medicaid programs suffer from poor access to physicians, high rates of emergency room usage, and poor quality outcomes. A New England Journal of Medicine survey using “secret shopper” methods found that two-thirds of Medicaid children were denied appointments with specialty physicians, compared to only 11% of patients with private insurance coverage. Moreover, those Medicaid patients that did receive appointments had to wait an average of more than three weeks longer than privately insured children.[9] Perhaps unsurprisingly, beneficiaries themselves think much less of Medicaid coverage due to their lack of access:

You feel so helpless thinking, something’s wrong with this child and I can’t even get her into a doctor….When we had real insurance, we could call and come in at the drop of a hat.[10]

Even supporters of Medicaid call an enrollment card nothing more than a “hunting license”—a card that grants beneficiaries the ability to go try to find a physician that will actually treat them.[11]

Because of the difficulties beneficiaries face in obtaining timely access to physicians, Medicaid patients often end up with worse outcomes than the general population as a whole. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment—which compared outcomes for identically situated groups of uninsured individuals, some of whom enrolled in Medicaid and some of whom did not—concluded that patients who enrolled in Medicaid received no measurable improvements in their physical health than those that remained uninsured.[12] Moreover, the newly enrolled Medicaid patients increased their emergency room usage by 40 percent when compared to those who did not obtain coverage—and those disparities persisted over time.[13] Such results tend to bolster previous findings that patients with Medicaid coverage may end up with worse outcomes than uninsured patients.[14]

Impact in Wyoming:  A January 2015 brief by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and a 2014 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Medicaid variations by state, provide helpful metrics comparing Wyoming’s Medicaid program to its peers. The Kaiser brief analyzed per-beneficiary spending in Medicaid for “full-benefit” patients—that is, excluding any partial benefit enrollees.[15] As the table below shows, as of 2011, Wyoming’s spending on aged beneficiaries led the nation—nearly double the national average—and its spending on individuals with disabilities ranked high as well.

Moreover, per-beneficiary spending in Wyoming grew at a rapid, above-average pace for the aged and disabled populations. During the years 2000 to 2011, costs per beneficiary nationally grew by an average of 3.7% for aged beneficiaries and 4.5% for individuals with disabilities. By comparison, in Wyoming spending rose an average of 6.8%—again, nearly twice the national average—for aged beneficiaries, and an above-average 5.45% for individuals with disabilities during the same 2000-2011 period.[16]

   

Aged

Individuals with Disabilities  

Adults

 

Children

United States $17,522 $18,518 $4,141 $2,492
Wyoming $32,199 $25,346 $3,986 $1,967
Difference $14,677 $6,828 -$155 -$525
Wyoming Rank Highest 7th Highest 31st Highest 46th Highest

The 2014 GAO report provides additional context as to why Wyoming has relatively high levels of spending on aged and disabled populations.[17] Whereas the Kaiser report studied spending for the years 2000 through 2011, GAO analyzed spending for federal fiscal year 2008 only. However, like Kaiser, GAO also found that Wyoming’s per-enrollee spending on aged ($21,662) and disabled ($24,644) beneficiaries significantly exceeded national averages ($17,609 and $19,135, respectively).[18]

In addition to analyzing per-beneficiary spending by state, the GAO study also examined factors known to influence spending—and on these, Wyoming and its rural neighbors also ranked high. Wyoming ranked more than ten percentage points above the national average for the percentage of aged beneficiaries receiving long-term care services (48.7% in Wyoming vs. 37.7% nationally), and for the percentage of aged Medicaid enrollees ever institutionalized during the year (35.7% in Wyoming vs. 24.5% nationally).[19] Crucially, most of Wyoming’s neighbors—North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Colorado—also have percentages of aged seniors receiving long-term care services, and receiving institutional care, well above national averages, and in some cases higher than Wyoming. These data suggest that the difficulties of life in rural and frontier communities may result in above-average rates of institutionalization, as aged or disabled individuals cannot live far from care support structures.

The prior reports indicating high levels of spending on Wyoming’s Medicaid program do not consider the significant reforms the state has implemented to date. Efforts to increase the percentage of beneficiaries receiving home and community-based services, rather than institutional care, have driven the percentage of members receiving long-term care in the home above 50%.[20] As a result, spending on Medicaid has remained relatively flat from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. Per enrollee costs have actually declined over that period, particularly for the aged population.[21]

However, the Kaiser and GAO studies illustrate the challenges and the opportunities the Medicaid program faces in Wyoming. Despite the reforms put in place to date, spending on the aged and disabled population remains at comparatively high levels. While spending on aged beneficiaries has declined from $32,199 per enrollee in 2011 to $26,222 in fiscal 2015, even that lower level remains higher than the national per-beneficiary average in 2011 ($17,522).

But if Wyoming can build upon its existing Medicaid reforms to improve care for the aged and vulnerable population—coordinating care better, and ensuring that individuals who can be treated at home are not inappropriately diverted into institutional settings—then beneficiaries will benefit, as will taxpayers. If Medicaid enrollees receive better care, their lives will improve in both measurable and immeasurable ways. Likewise, simply bringing spending on aged and disabled beneficiaries down to national averages will drive millions of dollars in savings to the Medicaid program.

The Vision

Ultimately, the Medicaid program would work best if transformed into a block grant or per capita allotment to states. Under either of these proposals, states would receive additional flexibility from the federal government to manage their health care programs, in exchange for a series of fixed payments from Washington. The American Health Care Act, passed by the House of Representatives on May 4, contains both options, creating a new system of per capita spending caps for Medicaid, while allowing states to choose a block grant for some of their Medicaid populations.[22]

While fundamental changes to Medicaid’s funding formulae must pass through Congress, the incoming Administration can work from its first days to give states more freedom and flexibility to manage their Medicaid programs. Specifically, Section 1115 of the Social Security Act gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to waive certain requirements under Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for “any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the programs.[23]

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration  often refused or watered down Section 1115 waiver requests from Republican governors. For instance, the last Administration repeatedly refused requests from governors to impose work requirements for able-bodied adults as a condition of participation in the Medicaid program.[24] Ironically, Obamacare actually made the process of obtaining waivers more difficult; one section of the law imposed new requirements, including a series of hearings, that states must undertake when applying for a waiver.[25] In the years since, federal legislative changes have sought to streamline the process for states requesting extensions of waivers already granted.[26]

In the hands of the right Administration, waiver authority could provide states with a significant amount of flexibility to reform their Medicaid programs. Among the finest examples of such reform is the Rhode Island Global Compact Waiver, approved in the waning days of the George W. Bush Administration on January 16, 2009. The waiver combined and consolidated myriad Medicaid waivers into one comprehensive waiver, with a capped allotment on overall spending. Rather than considering the silos of various program requirements, or specific waivers on discrete issues, Rhode Island was able to examine Medicaid reform holistically—focusing on the big picture, rather than specific bureaucratic dictates from Washington.[27]

Given flexibility from Washington, Rhode Island succeeded in controlling Medicaid expenditures—indeed, in reducing them on a per beneficiary basis. Overall spending remained roughly constant from 2010 through 2013, while enrollment grew by 6.6%.[28] Per beneficiary costs declined by 5.2% over that four-year period—a decline in absolute terms, even before factoring in inflation.[29] Perhaps most importantly, an independent report from the Lewin Group found that the Global Compact was “highly effective in controlling Medicaid costs,” while “improving members’ access to more appropriate services.”[30] In other words, Rhode Island reduced its Medicaid costs not by providing less care to beneficiaries—but providing more, and more appropriate, care to them.

The Rhode Island example has particular applicability to Wyoming’s Medicaid program. Just as Wyoming spends above national averages on Medicaid care for the aged and individuals with disabilities, so too did Rhode Island have a highly institutionalized population prior to implementing its Global Compact. Moreover, Wyoming’s current system of discrete waivers—two (including one pending with CMS) under Section 1115, and seven separate long-term care waivers under Section 1915 of the Social Security Act—lends itself towards potential care silos and unnecessary duplication. Consolidating these myriad waivers into one global waiver would allow Wyoming to “see the forest for the trees”—focusing on overall changes that will improve the quality of care. Implementing a global waiver will also give Wyoming the flexibility to accelerate reforms regarding delivery of long-term supports and services to the aged and disabled population, while introducing new consumer-oriented options for non-disabled beneficiaries.

Specific Solutions

A block grant, per capita allotment, or waiver along the lines of Rhode Island’s Global Compact provides the vision that will give states the tools needed to reform Medicaid for the 21st century. Fortunately, states have experimented with several specific reforms that can provide more granular details regarding how a reformed Medicaid program might look. Proposals in documents such as House Republicans’ “Better Way” plan, released last year, and a report issued by Republican governors in 2011, provide good sources of ideas.[31] Both individually and collectively, these solutions can 1) improve the quality of care beneficiaries receive; 2) better engage beneficiaries with the health care system, and where appropriate, provide a transition to employment and employer-sponsored coverage; 3) reduce health costs overall; and 4) provide sound stewardship of the taxpayer dollars funding the Medicaid program.

Delivery System Reform

With a Medicaid program based around fee-for-service medicine—which pays doctors and hospitals for every service they perform—Wyoming in particular would benefit from reforms that encourage greater value and coordination in health care delivery. As explained above, the state’s above-average spending on aged and disabled beneficiaries speaks to the way in which uncoordinated care can result in health problems for patients—and ultimately, greater expenses for taxpayers.

Promote Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS):         The Lewin Group’s analysis of Rhode Island’s Global Compact Waiver delineated many of the ways in which that state reformed its Medicaid program to de-institutionalize aged and disabled beneficiaries. Between the January 2009 approval of the waiver and the December 2011 report, Rhode Island achieved impressive savings from providing more coordinated, and “right-sized,” care to patients:

  • Shifting nursing home services into the community saved $35.7 million during the period examined by the study;
  • More accurate rate setting in nursing homes saved an additional $15 million in 2010 alone;
  • Better care management for adults with disabilities and special needs children saved between $4.5 and $11.9 million; and
  • Enrollment in managed care significantly increased the access of adults with disabilities to physician services.[32]

The results from the Rhode Island waiver demonstrate the possible savings to Wyoming associated with reform of long-term services and supports (LTSS)—savings that the Lewin report confirms came not from denying care to beneficiaries, but by improving it.

Other states have also taken actions to promote HCBS. Testifying before the Congressionally-chartered Commission on Long-Term Care in 2013, Tennessee’s head of Long-Term Supports and Services proposed several solutions, focused largely on turning the bias in favor of nursing home care toward a bias in favor of HCBS—to use nursing homes as a last resort, rather than a first resort.[33] Her proposals included a possible limit on nursing home capacity; converting nursing home “slots” into HCBS care “slots;” and requiring patients to try HCBS as the default option before moving to a more intense (i.e., institutional) setting.[34] Integrating these proposals into a comprehensive waiver would not only provide Wyoming residents with more appropriate care, it could also save taxpayers money.

Managed Care:            Wyoming could benefit by exploring the use of managed care plans to deliver Medicaid services to beneficiaries. Providing plans with a capitated payment—that is, a flat payment per beneficiary per month—would give them an incentive to streamline care. Moreover, a transition to managed care would provide more fiscal certainty to the state, as payment levels would not change during a fiscal or contract year.

In June 2014, a report commissioned by the Wyoming Legislature and prepared for the Wyoming Department of Health recommended against pursuing full-risk managed care, despite an admitted high level of vendor interest in doing so.[35] Three years later, Wyoming should explore the issue again, as both the Department of Health and medical providers in Wyoming have additional experience implementing other forms of coordinated care. The 2014 report notes that managed care plans have numerous tools available that could help reduce costs, particularly for high-cost patients, including data analytics, case managers, and quality metric incentives. Given the unique capacities that managed care plans bring to the table, it is worth exploring again the issue of whether full-risk plans could improve care to Wyoming beneficiaries while providing fiscal stability to the state.

While managed care could provide significant benefits to Wyoming, the state may be hamstrung by Medicaid’s current requirement that beneficiaries have the choice of at least two managed care plans. Given that Wyoming has only one insurer participating on its insurance Exchange this year, and a heavily rural population, this requirement may not be realistic or feasible. If approved by CMS, a waiver application could enable only one managed care plan to deliver care to rural Wyomingites.

Provider-Led Groups:              In addition to managed care products organized and sold by insurance companies, Wyoming could also explore the possibility of creating groups led by teams of providers to manage care delivery. Similar to the accountable care organization (ACO) model promoted through the Medicare program, these provider-led groups could provide coordinated care to patients, either on a fully- or partially-capitated payment model.

In recent years, at least 18 state Medicaid programs have either adopted or studied the creation of various provider-led organizations.[36] Adopters include neighboring states like Utah and Colorado, as well as southern states like Louisiana and Alabama. Whether a hospital-led ACO, or a group of doctors providing direct primary care to patients, these provider-led organizations would have greater incentives to coordinate care for patients, hopefully resulting in better health outcomes, and reduced spending for the Medicaid program.

Payment Bundling:     One other option for reforming delivery systems lies in bundled payments, which would see Medicaid providing a lump-sum payment for all the costs of a procedure (e.g., a hip replacement and associated post-operative therapy). Such concepts date back more than a quarter-century; a Medicare demonstration that began in the summer of 1991 reduced spending on heart bypass patients by $42.3 million—a savings of nearly 10 percent.[37] More recently, Pennsylvania’s Geisinger Health System helped bring the payment bundle model into the national lexicon, implementing a 90-day “warranty” on heart bypass patients beginning in February 2006.[38]

In recent years, government payers have increasingly adopted the payment bundle as a means to improve care quality and limit spending increases. Beginning in 2011, Arkansas’ Medicaid program worked with its local Blue Cross affiliate to improve health care delivery through payment improvement, and has implemented an episode-of-care payment model (i.e., a payment bundle) as one of its efforts.[39] Likewise, Medicare has moved ahead with efforts to embrace bundled payments—offering providers the option of a retrospective or prospective lump-sum payment for an inpatient stay, post-acute care provided after the stay, or both.[40]

A reformed Medicaid program in Wyoming could offer providers the opportunity to utilize bundled payment models as one vehicle to deliver better care. Ideally, Medicaid need not mandate participation from providers, as Medicare has done for some payment bundles, but instead help to encourage broader trends in the industry.[41] While not as dramatic a change as a move toward managed care, the bundled payment option may appeal to some providers as a “middle ground” for those not yet ready to embrace a fully capitated payment model.

De-Identified Patient Data:   In a bid to harness the power of “big data,” the federal government has made de-identified Medicare patient claims information available to companies that can analyze the information for patterns of care usage. Those initiatives have recently expanded to Medicaid, with one start-up compiling a database of 74 million Medicaid patients.[42] Wyoming could ask outside vendors or consultants to analyze its claims data for relevant patterns and trends—yielding valuable insights into the delivery of care, and potentially improving outcomes for beneficiaries. By releasing its own Medicaid data and encouraging companies to analyze it, Wyoming will encourage the development of Wyoming-specific solutions to the state’s unique health care needs.

Consumer-Directed Options

As part of a move towards modernizing Medicaid, Wyoming should adopt several different consumer-directed elements for its health coverage. These provisions would give beneficiaries incentives to act as smart shoppers, using ideas proven to lower the growth of health care costs. Providing appropriate incentives to beneficiaries will also make Medicaid coverage more closely resemble private health insurance plans—providing an easy transition for beneficiaries who move into employer-based coverage as their income rises.

Health Opportunity Accounts:            In 2005, provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act created Health Opportunity Accounts.[43] The language in the statute called for several demonstration projects by states, who could offer non-elderly and non-disabled beneficiaries the choice to enroll in Health Opportunity Accounts on a voluntary basis. The Opportunity Accounts would be used to pay for medical expenses up to a deductible, at which point traditional insurance coverage would take over. While the Opportunity Accounts under the demonstration would function in many respects like a Health Savings Account (HSA)—the state and/or charities would fund the accounts, and beneficiaries could build up savings within them—they included a twist. Upon becoming ineligible for Medicaid, beneficiaries could access most of their remaining Opportunity Account balance for a period of up to three years, to purchase either health insurance coverage or “job training and tuition expenses.”[44]

By creating an HSA-like account mechanism, and giving beneficiaries the flexibility to use their Opportunity Account funds on job training or health insurance expenses upon becoming ineligible for Medicaid, the Opportunity Account demonstration promoted both smart health care shopping and employment opportunities for Medicaid beneficiaries. Unfortunately, in 2009 a Democratic Congress and President Obama passed legislation prohibiting the approval of any new Health Opportunity Account demonstrations— effectively killing this innovative program before it had a chance to take root.[45]

Thankfully, some states have continued to incorporate HSA-like incentives into their Medicaid programs. In the non-Medicaid space, HSAs and consumer-directed options have demonstrated their ability to reduce health care costs. A 2012 study in the prestigious journal Health Affairs found that broader adoption of the HSA model could reduce health care costs by more than $57 billion annually.[46] If extended into the Medicaid realm, slower growth of health costs would save taxpayers—in Wyoming and elsewhere.

The upcoming reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)—currently due to expire on September 30, 2017—gives Congress an opportunity to re-examine Health Opportunity Accounts. Regardless of whether lawmakers in Washington reinstate this particular model, however, account-based health coverage in Medicaid deserves a close look in Wyoming as part of a comprehensive reform waiver. Although the Opportunity Account mechanism was somewhat prescriptive in its approach, allowing beneficiaries to keep some portion of remaining account balances upon becoming ineligible for Medicaid represents an innovative and sound concept. Such a program could represent a true win-win: Both the state and beneficiaries receive a portion of the benefits from lower health spending—cash which the beneficiary can use to help adjust to life after Medicaid.

Right to Shop:              Thanks to several states’ reform of transparency laws, patients can now engage in a “right to shop” in many locations across the country.[47] The movement centers around the basic principle that consumers should share in the benefits of savings from choosing less expensive locations for medical and health procedures. Particularly for non-urgent care—for instance, medical tests or radiological procedures—variations among medical facilities provide patients with the opportunity to achieve significant savings by choosing a less costly provider.

Results from large employers illustrate how price transparency and competition have yielded savings for payers and consumers alike. A California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) program of reference pricing—in which CalPERS set a maximum price of $30,000 for hip and knee replacements—led to savings of $2.8 million ($7,000 per patient) to CalPERS, and $300,000 (nearly $700 per patient) in lower cost-sharing, in its first year alone. The program led hospitals to renegotiate their rates with CalPERS, which expanded its reference pricing program to other procedures the very next year.[48]

Other estimates suggest that the potential savings from transparency and competition could range into the tens of billions of dollars. One study concluded that reference pricing for a handful of specific procedures could reduce health spending by 1.6 percent—or nearly $10 billion, if applied to all individuals with employer-sponsored health coverage.[49] A separate estimate found that eliminating variation in “shoppable” (i.e., high-cost and known in advance) health services could reduce spending on individuals with employer health coverage by $36 billion.[50]

A reformed Medicaid program should look to bring these positive effects of “patient power” to Medicaid—by allowing consumers to share in the savings from choosing wisely among providers. The right to shop could work particularly well in conjunction with an account-based model for Medicaid reform, which provides a ready vehicle for the state to deposit a portion of savings to beneficiaries. Citizens have literally saved millions of dollars using the right to shop; tapping into those savings for the Medicaid program would benefit taxpayers significantly.[51] Moreover, by incentivizing all providers to price their services more competitively, right to shop will exert downward pressure on health costs—an important goal for our nation’s health care system.

Wellness Incentives:   Over the past several years, successful employers have used incentives for healthy behaviors to help control the skyrocketing growth in health care costs. For instance, Safeway used such incentives to keep overall health costs flat over four years—at a time when costs for the average employer plan grew by 38 percent.[52]

Many large employers have increasingly embraced the results of the “Safeway model,” offering employees incentives for participating in healthy behaviors. According to the most recent annual survey of employer-provided health plans, approximately one-third of large employers (those with over 200 workers) offer employees incentives to complete a health risk assessment (32%), undergo biometric screening (31%), or participate or complete a wellness program (35%).[53] Among the largest employers—those with over 5,000 workers—nearly half offer incentives for risk assessments (50%), biometric screening (44%), and wellness programs (48%).[54] The trend of employer wellness incentives suggests Wyoming should bring this innovation to its Medicaid program.

Even though Obamacare passed on a straight party-line vote, expanding employer wellness incentives represented one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement. Language in the law permitted employers to increase the permitted variation for participation in wellness programs from 20 percent of premiums to 30 percent.[55] Medicaid programs should have the flexibility to implement such changes to their programs without requesting permission from Washington—and Wyoming should incorporate incentives for healthy behaviors into its revised Medicaid program as part of a comprehensive waiver.

Premiums and Co-Payments:              In addition to more innovative models discussed above, a revised Medicaid program in Wyoming could look to impose modest cost-sharing on beneficiaries through a combination of premiums and co-payments. Applying cost-sharing to specific services—for instance, unnecessary use of the emergency room for non-urgent care—should encourage beneficiaries to find the most appropriate source of care. Reasonable, enforceable cost-sharing would encourage beneficiaries to take responsibility for their care, making them partners in the road to better health.

Transition to Employment and Employer-Based Health Insurance

In many cases, individuals on Medicaid can, and ultimately should, make the transition to employment, and to the employer-based health insurance that comes with many quality jobs. However, the benefits currently provided by Medicaid bear little resemblance to most forms of employer-based coverage. In conjunction with the consumer-directed options discussed above, Wyoming should implement other steps to encourage beneficiaries to make the transition into work, and encourage the adoption of employer-based health insurance.

Work Requirements:               Fortunately, the Trump Administration has indicated a willingness to embrace state flexibility in Medicaid—which with respect to work requirements in particular would represent a welcome change from the Obama Administration.[56] A requirement that able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries either work, look for work, or prepare for work through enrollment in job-training programs would help transform state economies, as even voluntary job-referral programs have led to some impressive success stories. In the neighboring state of Montana, one participant obtained skills that helped her find not just a job, but a new career:

“I think it’s a success story,” [Ruth] McCafferty says about the [Medicaid] jobs program. “I love this. I’m the poster child!”

McCafferty is a 53-year-old single mom with three kids living at home. Seven months ago, she lost her job in banking, and interviews for new jobs weren’t panning out.…

The jobs component of [her Medicaid coverage] means she also got a phone call from her local Job Service office, saying they might be able to hook her up with a grant to pay for training to help her get a better job than the one she lost. She was pretty skeptical, but came in anyway…

Job Service ended up paying not just for online training, but a trip to Helena to take a certification exam. Now, they’re funding an apprenticeship at a local business until she can start bringing in her own clients and get paid on commission.

“I’m able to support my family,” [McCafferty] says. “I’ve got a career opportunity that’s more than just a job.”[57]

Ruth McCafferty is not the only success story associated with Montana’s Medicaid Job Service program. Five in six individuals who participated in the program are now employed, and with an average 50 percent increase in pay, to about $40,000 per year—enough in some cases to transition off of Medicaid.[58] Unfortunately, however, because the program is not mandatory for beneficiaries, only a few thousand out of 53,000 Medicaid enrollees have embraced this life-changing opportunity.[59]

In December 2015, the Congressional Budget Office noted that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion will reduce beneficiaries’ labor force participation by about 4 percent, “creat[ing] a tax on additional earnings for those considering job changes” that would raise their income above the threshold for eligibility.[60] Rather than discouraging work, as under Obamacare, Medicaid should encourage work, and a transition into working life. Imposing a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, coupled with appropriate resources for job training and education, would help beneficiaries, taxpayers—and ultimately, Wyoming’s economy.

Flexible Benefits:         Particularly for non-disabled adults and optional coverage populations, Wyoming should consider offering a more flexible and limited set of insurance benefits than the standard Medicaid package. Congress moved down this route in 2005, using a section of the Deficit Reduction Act to create a set of “benchmark” benefits that certain populations could receive.[61] However, the “benchmark” plan section limits eligibility to certain populations, and excludes provisions permitting states to impose modest cost-sharing for beneficiaries.

As part of a comprehensive waiver, Wyoming should request the ability to shift non-disabled beneficiaries into “benchmark” plans. Moreover, the waiver application should include provisions for modest cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and make those cost-sharing payments enforceable. Receiving authority from Washington to customize health coverage options for non-traditional beneficiaries would give the state the ability to innovate, and tailor benefit packages to beneficiary needs and fiscal realities.

Premium Assistance:               Premium assistance—in which Medicaid helps subsidize premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage—could play an important role in encouraging the use of private insurance where available, while also keeping all members of a family on the same health insurance policy. Unfortunately, however, current regulatory requirements for premium assistance have proven ineffective and unduly burdensome. All current premium assistance programs require Medicaid programs to provide wrap-around benefits to beneficiaries.[62] In addition, two premium assistance options created by Congress in 2009 explicitly prohibit states from using high-deductible health plans—regardless of whether or not the state funds an HSA to subsidize beneficiaries’ medical expenses in conjunction with the high-deductible plan.[63]

As part of its comprehensive waiver application, Wyoming should ask for more flexibility to use Medicaid dollars to subsidize employer coverage, without providing additional wrap-around benefits. In addition, the state’s application should require non-disabled adults to utilize premium assistance where available—another policy consistent with maximizing the use of private health coverage.

Preventing “Crowd-Out”:        Many government-run health programs face the problem of “crowd-out”—individuals purposefully dropping their private health coverage to enroll in taxpayer-funded insurance. Prior studies have estimated the “crowd-out” rate for certain coverage expansions at around 60 percent.[64] In these cases, coverage expansions enrolled more people who dropped their private coverage than previously uninsured individuals—a poor use of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.

States like Wyoming should have the ability to impose reasonable restrictions on enrollment as one way to prevent “crowd-out.” For instance, ensuring enrollees do not have an available offer of employer coverage, or only enrolling persistently uninsured individuals (e.g., those uninsured for at least 90-180 days prior to enrollment), would prevent individuals from attempting to “game the system” and ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Program Integrity

Estimates suggest that health care fraud represents an industry of massive proportions, with tens of billions in taxpayer dollars lost every year to fraudulent activities.[65] Medicaid has remained on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) list of “high-risk” programs since 2003 “due to its size, growth, diversity of programs, and concerns about the adequacy of fiscal oversight.”[66] In its most recent update, GAO noted that improper payments—whether erroneous or fraudulent in nature—increased from a total of $29.1 billion in fiscal year 2015 to $36.3 billion in fiscal 2016—an increase of nearly 25 percent.[67]

A reformed Medicaid program in Wyoming would use flexibility provided by the federal government to strengthen programs and methods ensuring proper use of taxpayer dollars. Because any dollar stolen by a fraudster represents one dollar not used to help the patients—many of them aged and vulnerable—that Medicaid treats, policy-makers should work diligently to ensure that scarce taxpayer funds are used solely by the populations for whom Medicaid was designed.

Verify Eligibility and Identity:            A 2015 report by the Foundation for Government Accountability provides numerous cases of ineligible—or in some cases deceased—beneficiaries remaining on state Medicaid rolls:

  • Arkansas identified thousands of individuals not qualified for Medicaid benefits in 2014, including 495 deceased beneficiaries;
  • Pennsylvania removed over 160,000 individuals from benefit rolls in 2011, including individuals in prison and million-dollar lottery winners; and
  • In Illinois, state officials removed over 400,000 ineligible beneficiaries in one year alone, saving taxpayers approximately $400 million annually.[68]

In the past two years, Wyoming has taken decisive action to crack down on fraud. The eligibility checks begun in mid-2015 removed several thousand ineligible individuals from the Medicaid rolls.[69] Moreover, Act 57, passed by the state legislature last year, introduced a new comprehensive program to stop fraud.[70] By verifying eligibility and identity upon enrollment, monitoring eligibility through quarterly database checks, and prosecuting offenders where found, Act 57 should save Wyoming taxpayers, while ensuring that eligible beneficiaries can continue to receive the health services they need.[71]

Asset Recovery:            A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report raised concerns about whether Wyoming’s Medicaid program is appropriately protecting taxpayer dollars. GAO concluded that Wyoming ranks second in the percentage of Medicaid beneficiaries (20.6%) with additional private health insurance coverage, and third in the percentage of Medicaid beneficiaries (26.02%) with additional public health insurance coverage.[72] By comparison, GAO concluded that only 13.4% of Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide had an additional source of private insurance coverage—meaning Wyoming has a rate of additional private coverage among Medicaid beneficiaries roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.[73]

As with the concept of crowd-out—individuals dropping private coverage entirely to enroll in Medicaid—discussed above, Medicaid should serve as the payer of last resort, not of first instance. If another payer has liability with respect to a Medicaid beneficiary’s claims, the state has the duty—both a statutory obligation under the federal Medicaid law, and a moral obligation to its taxpayers—to avoid incurring those claims, and seek to recover payments already made when it is cost-effective to do so.

Asset recovery can take several forms. Improving recovery for third-party liability claims could involve participation in electronic data matching between Medicaid enrollment files and private insurer files; empowering any managed care organizations contracted to the Medicaid program to adjudicate third-party liability claims; and prohibiting insurers from denying third-party liability claims for purely procedural reasons, such as failure to obtain prior authorization.[74] As part of these efforts, Wyoming should have the freedom to hire contingency fee-based contractors as one means to stem the flow of improper payments to health care providers.

Long-term services and supports represent another area where Wyoming can take steps to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent on the vulnerable populations for whom Medicaid was designed. The state can and should utilize existing authority to recover funds from estates, or impose sanctions on individuals who transferred assets at below-market rates in their efforts to qualify for Medicaid.[75]

Conclusion

             In the past decade, Wyoming has made numerous reforms to its Medicaid program. The state has begun to re-balance care away from institutional settings where possible, and has implemented several programs to improve care coordination. These changes have helped stabilize Medicaid spending as a share of the budget, and reduce spending on a per-beneficiary basis.

However, given freedom and flexibility from Washington—flexibility which should be forthcoming under the new Administration—Wyoming can go further. This vision would see additional reforms designed to keep patients out of intensive and costly settings—whether the hospital or a nursing home—and an exploration of managed care options. Beyond the aged population, Wyoming would implement consumer-driven principles into Medicaid, giving beneficiaries greater incentives to take responsibility for their own care, and the tools to do so. And many recipients would ultimately transition out of Medicaid entirely, using skills they learned through Medicaid-sponsored job training programs to build a better life.

This vision stands within Wyoming’s reach—indeed, it stands within every state’s reach. All it takes is flexibility from Washington, and the desire on the part of policy-makers to embrace the vision for a modern Medicaid system. With a comprehensive waiver, Wyoming can transform and revitalize Medicaid. It’s time to embrace the opportunity and do just that.

 


[1] Letter by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma to state governors regarding Medicaid reform, March 14, 2017, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sec-price-admin-verma-ltr.pdf.

[2] Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “2016 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid,” https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financing-and-reimbursement/downloads/medicaid-actuarial-report-2016.pdf, Table 3, p. 15.

[3] Congressional Budget Office, January 2017 Medicare baseline, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/recurringdata/51302-2017-01-medicare.pdf.

[4] 2016 Actuarial Report, Table 3, p. 15; CBO January 2017 Medicare baseline.

[5] National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Survey of States: Spring 2016, https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/Reports/Spring%202016%20Fiscal%20Survey%20of%20States-S.pdf, Table 11: Fiscal Year 2017 Recommended Program Area Adjustments by Value, p. 16.

[6] National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Survey of States: Spring 2011, https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/Fiscal%20Survey/Spring%202011%20Fiscal%20Survey.pdf, Table 11: Fiscal Year 2012 Recommended Program Area Adjustments by Value, p. 13.

[8] National Association of State Budget Officers, 1996 State Expenditure Report, April 1997, https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/SER%20Archive/ER_1996.PDF, Table 3, p. 11.

[9] Joanna Bisgaier and Karin Rhodes, “Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance,” New England Journal of Medicine June 16, 2011, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1013285.

[10] Vanessa Fuhrmans, “Note to Patients: The Doctor Won’t See You,” Wall Street Journal July 19, 2007, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118480165648770935.

[11] Statement by DeAnn Friedholm, Consumers Union, at Alliance for Health Reform Briefing on “Affordability and Health Reform: If We Mandate, Will They (and Can They) Pay?” November 20, 2009, http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/TranscriptFINAL-1685.pdf, p. 40.

[12] Katherine Baicker, et al., “The Oregon Experiment—Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes,” New England Journal of Medicine May 2, 2013, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321.

[13] Amy Finklestein et al., “Effect of Medicaid Coverage on ED Use—Further Evidence from Oregon’s Experiment,” New England Journal of Medicine October 20, 2016, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1609533.

[14] Scott Gottlieb, “Medicaid Is Worse than No Coverage at All,” Wall Street Journal March 10, 2011, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704758904576188280858303612.

[15] Katherine Young et al., “Medicaid Per Enrollee Spending: Variation Across States,” http://files.kff.org/attachment/issue-brief-medicaid-per-enrollee-spending-variation-across-states-2, Appendix Table 1, p. 9.

[16] Ibid., Appendix Table 2, p. 11.

[17] Government Accountability Office, “Medicaid: Assessment of Variation among States in Per-Enrollee Spending,” Report GAO-14-456, June 16, 2014, http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664115.pdf.

[18] Ibid., Appendix II, pp. 40-41.

[19] Ibid., Appendix VII, pp. 53-54.

[20] Wyoming Department of Health, “Introduction to Wyoming Medicaid,” p. 31.

[21] Ibid., pp. 11, 14.

[22] Section 121 of H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 4, 2017.

[23] Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1315.

[24] Mattie Quinn, “On Medicaid, States Won’t Take Feds’ No for an Answer,” Governing October 11, 2016, http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-medicaid-waivers-arizona-ohio-cms.html.

[25] Section 10201 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148, created a new Section 1115(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315(d)) imposing such requirements.

[26] Section 1115 (e) and (f) of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1315(e) and (f).

[27] Testimony of Gary Alexander, former Rhode Island Secretary of Health and Human Services, on “Strengthening Medicaid Long-Term Supports and Services” before the Commission on Long Term Care, August 1, 2013, http://ltccommission.org/ltccommission/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Garo-Alexander.pdf.

[28] Ibid., p. 4.

[29] Ibid., p. 4.

[30] Lewin Group, “An Independent Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Global Waiver,” December 6, 2011, http://www.ohhs.ri.gov/documents/documents11/Lewin_report_12_6_11.pdf, p. 3.

[31] House of Representatives Republican Task Force, “A Better Way—Our Vision for a Confident America: Health Care,” June 22, 2016, http://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf, pp. 23-28; Republican Governors Public Policy Committee, “A New Medicaid: A Flexible, Innovative, and Accountable Future,” August 30, 2011, https://www.scribd.com/document/63596104/RGPPC-Medicaid-Report.

[32] Lewin Group, “An Independent Evaluation.”

[33] The author served as a member of the commission, whose work can be found at www.ltccommission.org.

[34] Testimony of Patti Killingsworth, TennCare Chief of Long-Term Supports and Services, before the Commission on Long-Term Care on “What Would Strengthen Medicaid LTSS?” August 1, 2013, http://ltccommission.org/ltccommission/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Patti-Killingsworth-Testimony.pdf.

[35] Health Management Associates, “Wyoming Coordinated Care Study,” June 27, 2014, http://legisweb.state.wy.us/InterimCommittee/2014/WyoCoordinatedCareReportAppendices.pdf.

[36] National Academy for State Health Policy, “State ‘Accountable Care’ Activity Map,” http://nashp.org/state-accountable-care-activity-map/.

[37] Health Care Financing Administration, “Medicare Participating Heart Bypass Demonstration,” Extramural Research Report, September 1998, https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Reports/downloads/oregon2_1998_3.pdf.

[38] Reed Abelson, “In Bid for Better Care, Surgery with a Warranty,” New York Times May 17, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/business/17quality.html?pagewanted=all.

[39] State of Arkansas, “Health Care Payment Improvement Initiative—Episodes of Care,” http://www.paymentinitiative.org/episodesOfCare/Pages/default.aspx.

[40] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative: General Information,” https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Bundled-Payments/.

[41] On December 20, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that participation in new cardiac and orthopedic bundles would be mandatory for all hospitals in selected metropolitan statistical areas beginning July 1, 2017; see https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-12-20.html. Both lawmakers and provider groups have suggested that CMS is imposing too many mandates on providers and exceeding its statutory and constitutional authority; see http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomprice.house.gov/files/assets/September%2029%2C%202016%20CMMI%20Letter.pdf.

[42] Steve Lohr, “Medicaid’s Data Gets an Internet-Era Makeover,” New York Times January 9, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/technology/medicaids-data-gets-an-internet-era-makeover.html.

[43] Section 6082 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171, which created a new Section 1938 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-8).

[44] The statute provided that, upon a beneficiary becoming ineligible for Medicaid, 25 percent of state contributions to the Opportunity Account would be returned to the state, but the beneficiary would retain 100 percent of any other contributions to the account, along with 75 percent of state contributions.

[45] Section 613 of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-2.

[46] Amelia Haviland et al., “Growth of Consumer-Directed Health Plans to One-Half of All Employer-Sponsored Insurance Could Save $57 Billion Annually,” Health Affairs May 2012, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/5/1009.full.

[47] Josh Archambault and Nic Horton, “Right to Shop: The Next Big Thing in Health Care,” Forbes August 5, 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/08/05/right-to-shop-the-next-big-thing-in-health-care/#6f0ebcd91f75.

[48] Amanda Lechner et al., “The Potential of Reference Pricing to Generate Savings: Lessons from a California Pioneer,” Center for Studying Health System Change Issue Brief No. 30, December 2013, http://hschange.org/CONTENT/1397/1397.pdf.

[49] Paul Fronstin and Christopher Roebuck, “Reference Pricing for Health Care Services: A New Twist on the Defined Contribution Concept in Employment-Based Health Benefits,” Employee Benefit Research Institute Issue Brief No. 398, April 2014, https://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_398_Apr14.RefPrcng.pdf.

[50] Bobbi Coluni, “Save $36 Billion in U.S. Health Care Spending through Price Transparency,” Thomson Reuters, February 2012, https://www.scribd.com/document/83286153/Health-Plan-Price-Transparency.

[51] Archambault and Horton, “Right to Shop.”

[52] Steven Burd, “How Safeway is Cutting Health Care Costs,” Wall Street Journal June 12, 2009, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124476804026308603.

[53] Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, “Employer Health Benefits: 2016 Annual Survey,” September 14, 2016, http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Employer-Health-Benefits-2016-Annual-Survey, Exhibit 12.20, p. 227.

[54] Ibid.

[55] PPACA Section 1201, which re-wrote Section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4).

[56] Quinn, “States Won’t Take Feds’ No.”

[57] Eric Whitney, “Montana’s Medicaid Expansion Jobs Program Facing Scrutiny,” Montana Public Radio November 21, 2016, http://mtpr.org/post/montanas-medicaid-expansion-jobs-program-facing-scrutiny.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Edward Harris and Shannon Mok, “How CBO Estimates Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Labor Market,” Congressional Budget Office Working Paper 2015-09, December 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/workingpaper/51065-ACA_Labor_Market_Effects_WP.pdf, p. 12.

[61] Section 6044 of the Deficit Reduction Act, P.L. 109-171, codified at Section 1937 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396u-7.

[62] Joan Aiker et al., “Medicaid Premium Assistance Programs: What Information Is Available about Benefit and Cost-Sharing Wrap-Around Coverage?” Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured Issue Brief, December 2015, http://files.kff.org/attachment/issue-brief-medicaid-premium-assistance-programs-what-information-is-available-about-benefit-and-cost-sharing-wrap-around-coverage; Joan Aiker, “Premium Assistance in Medicaid and CHIP: An Overview of Current Options and Implications of the Affordable Care Act,” Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured Issue Brief, March 2013, https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/8422.pdf.

[63] Section 301 of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(10)(B)(ii)(II) and 42 U.S.C. 1396e-1(b)(2)(B).

[64] Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon, “Crowd-Out 10 Years Later: Have Recent Public Insurance Expansions Crowded Out Private Health Insurance?” Journal of Health Economics February 21, 2008, http://economics.mit.edu/files/6422.

[65] “Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime,” 60 Minutes October 23, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-fraud-a-60-billion-crime-23-10-2009/.

[66] Government Accountability Office, “High-Risk Series: An Update,” Report GAO-15-290, February 2015, http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668415.pdf, p. 366.

[67] Government Accountability Office, “High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others,” Report GAO-17-317, February 2017,  http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682765.pdf, p. 579.

[68] Jonathan Ingram, “Stop the Scam: How to Prevent Welfare Fraud in Your State,” Foundation for Government Accountability, April 2, 2015.

[69] Wyoming Department of Health, “Introduction to Wyoming Medicaid,” p. 13.

[70] Enrolled Act 57, Wyoming Legislature, 63rd Session.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Government Accountability Office, “Medicaid: Additional Federal Action Needed to Further Improve Third Party Liability Efforts,” GAO Report GAO-15-208, January 2015, http://gao.gov/assets/670/668134.pdf, Appendix II, Table 3, pp. 27-28.

[73] Ibid., Figure 1, p. 10.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Kirsten Colello, “Medicaid Financial Eligibility for Long-Term Services and Supports,” Congressional Research Service Report R43506, April 24, 2014, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43506.pdf.

A PDF copy of this report is available on the Wyoming Liberty Group website.

CBO Analysis of Senate Republican Health Legislation

On June 26, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its score of the Senate Republican Obamacare legislation. CBO found that the bill would:

  • Reduce deficits by about $321 billion over ten years—$202 billion more than the House-passed legislation.
  • Increase the number of uninsured by 15 million in 2018, rising to a total of 22 million by 2026—a slight short-term increase, and slight long-term decrease, of the uninsured numbers compared to the House bill.
  • Generally increase individual market insurance premiums between now and 2020, followed by a reduction in most parts of the country. However, impacts would vary based on states’ decisions regarding benefit structures, as listed below.
  • Reduce Medicaid spending by less than the House-passed measure ($772 billion vs. $834 billion), but have greater net savings with respect to insurance subsidies ($408 billion in deficit reduction vs. $276 billion for the House bill)—calculated as repeal of the Obamacare cost-sharing and premium subsidies, offset by the new spending on “replacement” subsidies.

In its analysis, CBO noted that it continues to use the March 2016 baseline to score the reconciliation legislation (as it did with the House bill). It has done so largely because 1) its updated January 2017 baseline was not available at the time Congress passed the budget resolution in early January and 2) the ten-year timeframe of the March 2016 baseline synchs with the timeframe of the current budget resolution. Had CBO used the January 2017 budget baseline to score the bill, coverage losses would likely have been smaller—CBO has reduced its estimates of Exchange coverage due to anemic enrollment. However, because premiums spiked in 2017, thus raising spending on subsidies, the fiscal effects likely would have been similar.

Premiums:    CBO believes premiums will rise by 20 percent compared to current law in 2018, and by about 10 percent compared to current law in 2019. The increases would stem largely from the effective repeal of the individual mandate (penalty set to $0), which would lead healthy individuals to drop coverage—offset in part by new “stability” funding to insurers.

In 2020, premiums would decline by about 30 percent compared to current law, and by 2026, premiums would be about 20 percent lower than current law (premium reductions declining slightly as “stability” funding declines in years after 2021). The premium reductions would come largely because of a decrease in the actuarial value (i.e., the average percentage of health expenses covered by insurance) of plans.

CBO believes that “few low-income people would purchase coverage” despite subsidies provided under the bill, because in its estimation, deductibles for low-premium plans would be prohibitively expensive for low-income individuals—and premiums for low-deductible plans would also be prohibitively expensive. In general, CBO believes out-of-pocket expenses would rise for most individuals purchasing coverage on the individual market.

Changes in Insurance Coverage:               CBO believes that under the bill, the number of uninsured would rise by 15 million in 2018, and 22 million in 2026. Moreover, “the increase [in the uninsured] would be disproportionately larger among older people with lower income—particularly people between 50 and 64 years old” with income under twice the poverty level. With respect to Medicaid, 15 million fewer people would have coverage than under current law; however, about five million of those individuals “would be among people who CBO projects would, under current law, become eligible in the future as additional states adopted” Medicaid expansion.

CBO believes that the individual insurance market would decline by 7 million in 2018, 9 million in 2020, and 7 million in 2026. The estimate notes CBO’s belief that “a small fraction of the population” will reside in areas where no insurers would participate. A reduction in subsidies would 1) make insurers’ fixed costs a higher percentage of revenues, discouraging them from participating, and 2) reduce the overall percentage of subsidized enrollees—giving some markets a disproportionate number of unsubsidized enrollees with higher health costs. However, in these cases, CBO believes that states could take steps to restore the markets within a few years, whether by obtaining waivers and/or “stability fund” dollars.

CBO believes that effectively repealing the individual mandate would, all things equal, increase premiums in the individual market; lead some employers not to offer employer-based coverage; and discourage individuals from enrolling in Medicaid. However, CBO “do[es] not expect that, with the [mandate] penalty eliminated under this legislation, people enrolled in Medicaid would disenroll.”

Waivers:         With respect to the state waivers for insurance regulations—including essential health benefits and other Obamacare requirements—CBO believes that “about half the population would be in states receiving substantial pass-through funding” under the Obamacare Section 1332 waiver provision, which the bill would revamp. States could receive pass-through funding to reflect savings to the federal government from lower spending on insurance subsidies from the waivers. Those pass-through funds could be used to lower premiums or cost-sharing for individuals.

While CBO believes that many states would apply for waivers with respect to insurance regulations or other requirements, few would “make significant changes” to the subsidy regime, to avoid administering said regime themselves—leaving this task to the Internal Revenue Service instead. However, CBO believes that about one-fifth of the total subsidy dollars available will be provided through the waiver pass-through, rather than directly to individuals.

CBO believes that, particularly in the first few years of the waiver regime, these waivers would actually increase the budget deficit—despite a requirement in the legislation that they not do so. CBO believes that states with waivers currently pending—who can choose whether their waiver would apply under the current regime or the “new” one created by the bill—would use this arbitrage opportunity to pick the more advantageous position for their state. Likewise, the agency notes that states would use overly optimistic data estimates when defining “budget-neutrality”—and that in the first few years of the bill, “the Administration would not have enough data about experience under this legislation to fully adjust [sic] for that incentive.”

In its analysis, CBO concludes that “the additional waivers would have little effect on the number of people insured, on net, by 2026.” Most waivers would be used to narrow the essential health benefits, lowering premiums and giving savings to states as pass-through funds. While lower premiums would increase individual market coverage, it would in CBO’s estimate encourage some employers to drop coverage. Moreover, “people eligible for subsidies in the non-group market would receive little benefit from the lower premiums, and many would therefore decline to purchase a plan providing fewer benefits.” A small fraction of individuals might live in states that “substantially reduce the number of people insured,” either by re-directing subsidy assistance to those who would have purchased coverage even without a subsidy, or by taking pass-through funds and re-directing them for purposes other than health insurance coverage.

CBO believes that, in cases where states use waivers to narrow essential health benefits, “insurance covering certain services [could] become more expensive—in some cases, extremely expensive.” While states could use pass-through funding to subsidize coverage of these services, CBO “anticipate[s] that the funding available to help provide coverage for those high-cost services would be insufficient.”

Other Regulatory Changes:            CBO notes the two “stability funds”—the one short-term fund for insurers, and the second longer-term fund for states—and believes that about three-quarters of the $62 billion provided to states from 2019 through 2026 would go to arrangements with insurers to reduce premiums in the individual market—whether reinsurance, direct subsidies, or some other means.

CBO believes the six-month waiting period added to the legislation would “slightly increase the number of people with insurance, on net, throughout the 2018-2026 period—but not in 2019, when the incentives to obtain coverage would be weak because premiums would be relatively high.”

The changes in age-rating rules—allowing states to charge older applicants five times as much as younger ones, unless a state chooses another ratio—“would tend to reduce premiums for younger people and increase premiums for older people, resulting in a slight increase in insurance coverage, on net—mainly among people not eligible for subsidies,” as the subsidies would insulate most recipients from the effects of the age rating changes. However, net premiums for older individuals not eligible for subsidies would rise significantly.

CBO believes that about half the population will reside in states that will reduce or eliminate current medical loss ratio requirements. “In those states, in areas with little competition among insurers, the provision would cause insurers to raise premiums and would increase federal costs for subsidies,” CBO expects. However, this provision “would have little effect on the number of people coverage by health insurance.”

Insurance Subsidies:           In general, average subsidies under the bill “would be significantly lower than the average subsidy under current law,” despite some exceptions. For instance, while net premiums would be roughly equal for a 40-year-old with income of 175 percent of poverty, “the average share of the cost of medical services paid by the insurance purchased by that person would fall—from 87 percent to 58 percent,” thereby raising deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. The changes “would contribute significantly to a reduction in the number of lower-income people” obtaining coverage under the bill when compared to current law.

CBO believes that the high cost of premiums and/or deductibles under the bill would discourage many low-income individuals eligible for Medicaid under current law, and who would instead be eligible for subsidies under the bill, from enrolling. “Some people with assets to protect or who expect to have high use of health care would” enroll, but many would not.

CBO also notes that “it is difficult to design plans” that might be “more attractive to people with low income” because of the mandated benefit requirements under Obamacare. For instance, it would be difficult to design plans that provide prescription drugs with low co-payments, or services below the plan’s high deductible, while meeting the 58 percent actuarial value benchmark in the bill. However, waivers could lessen these constraints somewhat, potentially yielding more attractive benefit designs.

While the bill eliminates eligibility for subsidies for individuals making between 351-400 percent of poverty, CBO believes that net premiums for individual (but not necessarily for family) coverage would be relatively similar under both current law and the bill. With respect to age, CBO believes that the addition of age as a factor in calculating subsidies, coupled with the changes to age rating in the bill, would mean that a larger share of individual market enrollees will be younger than under current law.

Medicaid Per Capita Caps and Block Grants:                         CBO believes that, in the short term (2017 through 2024), per capita caps would reduce outlays for non-disabled children and non-disabled adults, because spending would grow faster (4.9 percent) than the medical inflation index prescribe in the law (3.7 percent). However, spending on disabled adults or seniors would grow much more slowly (3.3 percent) than medical inflation plus one percent (4.7 percent). “In 2025 and beyond, the differences between spending growth for Medicaid under current law and the growth rate of the per capita caps for all groups would be substantial,” as CBO projects general inflation will average 2.4 percent.

With respect to the block grant option, CBO believes it “would be attractive to a few states that expect to decline in population (and not in most states experiencing population growth, as it would further constrain federal reimbursement).” Therefore, CBO considers the block grant to have little effect on Medicaid enrollment.

In CBO’s opinion, “states would not have substantial additional flexibility under the per capita caps. Under the block grant option, states would have additional flexibility to make changes to their Medicaid program—such as altering cost sharing and, to a limited degree, benefits.” In the absence of flexibility, CBO believes states facing the per capita caps would reduce provider reimbursements, eliminate optional services, restrict enrollment through work requirements, and/or deliver more efficient care. Specifically, “because caps on federal Medicaid spending would shift a greater share of the cost of Medicaid to state over time,” states would use work requirements to “reduce enrollment and the associated costs.”

Over the longer term, “CBO projects that the growth rate of Medicaid under current law would exceed the growth rate of the per capita caps for all groups covered by the caps starting in 2025.” As a result, CBO believes Medicaid enrollment would continue to decline after 2026 relative to current law.

Medicaid Expansion:           Currently, about half of the population resides in the 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have expanded Medicaid. CBO believes that, under current law, that percentage will rise to 80 percent of the newly eligible population by 2026. Under the bill, CBO believes that no additional states will expand Medicaid—resulting in coverage “losses” compared to current law, albeit without individuals actually losing coverage. Moreover, as the enhanced federal matching rate for the Medicaid expansion declines under the bill CBO believes the share of the newly eligible population in states that continue their Medicaid expansion will decline to 30 percent in 2026.

Top Ten Ways Senate Obamacare Bill Is #FakeRepeal

1.     Retains Obamacare Insurance Subsides.  The bill modifies, but does not repeal, Obamacare’s system of insurance subsidies—an expansion of the welfare state, administered through the tax code.

2.     Retains Obamacare Medicaid Expansion.           The bill as written would never repeal Obamacare’s massive expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied adults, while it would not fully eliminate the enhanced match states currently receive to cover those adults until 2024—nearly seven years from now.

3.     Expands Obamacare Insurance Subsidies.             Rather than repealing all of the law “root and branch,” as Sen. McConnell claimed was his goal, the bill instead expands eligibility for Obamacare’s subsidy regime. Some conservatives may question the need to “fix” Obamacare, when the legislation should repeal Obamacare.

4.     Retains ALL Obamacare Regulations.         While modifying some and allowing states to waive others, the bill does not repeal any of Obamacare’s onerous insurance regulations—the prime drivers of the premium spikes that have seen rates more than double since Obamacare went into effect.

5.     Retains Obamacare’s Undermining of State Sovereignty.   Because the bill keeps in place the federal mandates associated with Obamacare, states must ask permission to opt-out of just some parts of Obamacare, which remains the default standard. This turning of federalism on its head will allow Democratic Governors—and/or a future Democratic Administration—to reinstitute Obamacare mandates quickly and easily.

6.     Appropriates Obamacare Cost-Sharing Reductions.    Unlike Obamacare itself, the bill actually spends federal tax dollars on cost-sharing reductions authorized, but not appropriated, under the law. While conservatives might support a temporary appropriation to ensure a stable transition as Obamacare is fully repealed, the bill does the former—but certainly not the latter.

7.     Extends and Expands Obamacare’s Corporate Welfare Bailouts.    The bill includes not one, but two, separate “stability funds” designed to make slush fund payments to insurance companies. Between now and 2021, the bill would spend at least $65 billion on such payments—over and above the cost-sharing reduction subsidies listed above.

8.     Includes Obamacare’s Work Disincentives.    The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that the subsidy “cliffs” included in Obamacare would discourage work—because individuals could lose thousands of dollars in subsidies by gaining one additional dollar of income—and that the law would reduce the labor supply by the equivalent of over two million jobs. The Senate bill retains those subsidy “cliffs.”

9.     Continues Obamacare Pattern of Giving Too Much Authority to Federal Bureaucrats.      The bill gives near-blanket authority to the Administration on several fronts—from creating the “stability funds” to giving Medicaid incentives to states—that would allow federal bureaucrats to abuse this excessive grant of power.

10.  Obamacare Architect Admits It’s Not Repeal.  Speaking on CNN Thursday, famed Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that “this is no longer an Obamacare repeal bill—that’s good.” He continued: “If you look at what’s criticized [about] Obamacare, it was subsidies, it was regulations…this law wouldn’t really change those…It really [doesn’t] change very much.” Those admissions come from an individual who received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Obama Administration to consult on Obamacare.

A PDF version of this document can be found on the Texas Public Policy Foundation website.

How “Repeal and Replace” Legislation Could Increase the Deficit

Even if the Congressional Budget Office releases an estimate early next week claiming that the Senate Obamacare discussion draft reduces the deficit, the legislation could well end up increasing the deficit. That’s because the bill repeals most of the law’s taxes, but leaves one in place—for the moment. Under the discussion draft, Obamacare’s “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans would return in 2026.

The New York Times noted earlier this week that Republicans intend to offer an amendment to eliminate the tax outright. If an outright repeal of the “Cadillac tax” receives more than 60 votes in the Senate—as it has before—that would mean the legislation could (and likely would) increase the deficit in the long term, while still passing through budget reconciliation measures on a simple majority vote.

About the Heller Amendment

Congressional staff have considered this scenario for months—whereby the “repeal” bill can bust the budget, by using Democratic votes to repeal the “Cadillac tax,” just as they did in 2015. During consideration of that repeal-only reconciliation bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a substitute amendment sunsetting the tax in 2025. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) then offered an amendment to that substitute repealing the “Cadillac tax” outright. That amendment passed on a bipartisan vote, with 90 senators voting to repeal the tax.

Because that vote passed overwhelmingly (i.e., with more than 60 votes), the Congressional Budget Act restrictions on reconciliation legislation—that the provision not increase the deficit outside the ten-year budget window—did not apply, and would not apply in this case either. In other words, if the bill increases the deficit solely due to the “Cadillac tax” repeal amendment, and 60 senators have supported said amendment, the bill’s overall deficit impact doesn’t matter.

It’s the Spending, Stupid

Should this scenario transpire, and the reconciliation bill ultimately increase the deficit, congressional leadership may claim that the long-term deficit increase would be due to the full repeal of the Obamacare “Cadillac tax.” But an examination of prior CBO scores shows a different picture.

  • The initial House “repeal” reconciliation bill (H.R. 3762) from the fall of 2015—which repealed the “Cadillac tax,” but did not repeal Obamacare’s entitlements—would have appreciably increased the deficit in the long term, according to CBO; but
  • The revised “repeal” reconciliation bill that passed the Senate later in 2015—which repealed the “Cadillac tax,” and all the Obamacare taxes, while also repealing the law’s new entitlements—would have had a minimal, almost infinitesimal, deficit impact over the coming half-century.

Given this dynamic, some conservatives may argue that it isn’t the repeal of the “Cadillac tax” that would cause any increase in the long-term budget deficit—it’s the entitlement spending included in the bill.

Raise the Deficit, Raise Costs

Not only would repeal of the “Cadillac tax” increase the budget deficit, it would also increase overall health-care spending. Although crude—it taxes all health plans at 40 percent, rather than at filers’ marginal tax rates, and raises taxes overall—the “Cadillac tax” would, if ever allowed to go into effect, serve as a control on health care spending. Most economists agree that the current, unlimited tax exclusion for employer-provided health coverage encourages workers to over-consume health insurance, and thus health care. Limiting this exclusion—albeit without raising taxes—represents sound conservative policy.

Ironically, if this procedural gambit succeeds, Republicans will have raised both the budget deficit and overall health care costs. Those potential outcomes provide further evidence the bill would reprise Obamacare, not repeal it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Obamacare Really Does Disadvantage Americans with Disabilities

My article last week regarding disability groups’ political and policy views prompted some comments and criticisms on Twitter. Rather than trying to explain detailed subjects in bursts of 140-character tweets, I considered it best to compile them into a longer-form article.

To summarize my prior work: Obamacare provides states with a greater incentive to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults than to cover services for individuals with disabilities. States receive a 95 percent match this year (declining to 90 percent in 2020 and all future years) to cover the able-bodied, but a match ranging from 50-75 percent to cover individuals with disabilities, while more than half a million are on waiting lists to receive home or attendant care.

My article raised this disparity—essentially discrimination against individuals with disabilities—pointing out that the major disability advocacy consortium failed to object to it when Obamacare passed, and questioned why the groups were so silent on this issue then, but so vocal in their opposition to Republican legislative proposals to slow the growth of Medicaid spending now.

Many of the responses I discuss in greater detail below attempt to obscure two separate and distinct issues: The question of the amount of funding for programs versus the priorities within those programs.

As a conservative, I’m likely to disagree with liberals on the ideal size of many government programs, but I thought I would at least agree with them that individuals with disabilities should receive precedence within those programs. However, Obamacare actually tilted Medicaid’s preference away from individuals with disabilities, which makes disability groups’ silence on that front surprising.

There Is No Correlation Between Waiting Lists and Medicaid Expansion

The timeliest rebuttal comes from a story on a long-term care report none other than AARP released yesterday. Susan Reinhard with that organization—no right-wing conservative group, by any stretch—said that

Many states have struggled to expand home- and community-based options for Medicaid enrollees needing long-term care because that is an optional benefit. Nursing homes are mandatory under federal law. While states focus on Medicaid coverage for children and families — as well as non-disabled adults covered by the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act — adults with disabilities have received less attention. ‘Long-term care is a stepchild of the program and not a top focus for states,’ she said. (emphasis mine.)

That statement notwithstanding, several people cited two different analyses that compare states’ decisions on expansion to the able-bodied and their waiting lists for home-based care for individuals with disabilities. But each of those “studies” (based on only one year of data available) take an overly simplistic approach, and therefore don’t get at the core issue of the extent to which the skewed incentives Obamacare created have encouraged states to prioritize the able-bodied over those with disabilities.

A state’s decision to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied, or reduce its waiting lists for individuals with disabilities, depends on myriad factors. For instance:

  • A wealthy state with a greater tax base would have more resources both to expand Medicaid to the able-bodied and to reduce its waiting list of individuals with disabilities, while a poorer state with a smaller tax base might not have resources to do either;
  • A state with “bad” demographics (e.g., an older and sicker population), or higher costs for health and personal care services, might have more difficulty reducing their Medicaid waiting lists;
  • A state may face other fiscal pressures—controversy over school funding, a natural disaster, a pension crisis—that could affect overall Medicaid spending.

Numerous variables affect states’ budget choices, and therefore their Medicaid waiting lists. The “studies” controlled for exactly none of them. They examined whether a state expanded Medicaid and the total number of people on a state’s waiting list, and that’s it.

It’s not entirely surprising that wealthy states like California (2015 median income: $64,500) could both reduce disability waiting lists and expand Medicaid to the able-bodied, while poorer states like Alabama (2015 median income: $44,765) could afford neither, seeing their waiting lists grow while not expanding Medicaid. In general, non-expansion states are poorer than expansion states; the latter therefore have more resources to spend on Medicaid.

Moreover, under Obamacare, all states receive the same (higher) federal match to cover able-bodied adults—another change in policy (prior to Obamacare, all Medicaid match rates were based on states’ relative income) skewing the balance in favor of wealthier expansion states. Yet, as noted above, the analyses claiming no correlation between expansion and Medicaid waiting lists didn’t even attempt to control for these variables—or any other.

Therefore, in the absence of a quality study examining the issue, I’ll go with something far simpler: Common sense. If you’re a state that wants to spend more money on Medicaid, and you can do something (i.e., cover the able-bodied) that gives you 95 cents on the dollar, or something (i.e., reduce waiting lists for individuals with disabilities) that gives you 50 cents on the dollar, which are you going to do first?

I thought so. The incentives in Obamacare strongly favor coverage of the able-bodied over coverage for individuals with disabilities. And no number of crude analyses attempting to provide retroactive justification for this bad policy can hide that fact.

Waiting Lists Are Worst In Two Non-Expansion States

This comment reinforces the crudeness of the analysis being cited. All else being equal, as the second- and third-largest states in the Union, Texas and Florida would be expected to have a larger number of people on its waiting lists for home- and community-based services than a smaller expansion state like Connecticut. All else isn’t equal, of course, but did the analysts attempt to control for these kinds of factors? Nope. They examined raw waiting list numbers, rather than waiting lists as a percentage of the population.

But just suppose for a second that the commenters above are correct, and there is no correlation between expansion to the able-bodied and waiting lists for home-based care. That means that the greater incentives Obamacare gives to states to cover the able-bodied—and while the advocacy community might not want to admit it, Obamacare clearly does give states greater incentives to cover the able-bodied—didn’t affect state behavior, or decisions about whether to reduce disability waiting lists at all.

In that case, why has the disability community expressed such outrage about the impact of per capita caps or block grants on Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities? If states make decisions without considering federal incentives—the point of the claims that there is no correlation between expanding Medicaid to the able-bodied and longer waiting lists for individuals with disabilities—then why also claim that “cost-shifting to states will force massive cuts in Medicaid services?” Why wouldn’t states shift around resources to protect individuals with disabilities—what the disability community claims that states did to reduce waiting lists even while expanding Medicaid under Obamacare?

There are really only two credible possibilities:

  • States are affected by incentives, therefore Obamacare—by giving states a higher match to cover the able-bodied—encouraged discrimination against individuals with disabilities; or
  • States are not affected by incentives, and therefore the per capita caps—which generate a comparatively small amount of savings in the House repeal bill—will have little impact, because states will re-prioritize their budgets to protect the most vulnerable.

It’s therefore worth asking why some appear to be trying to argue both sides of this question, and doing so in a way that neatly lines up with partisan lines—trying to ignore Obamacare’s skewed incentives, while roundly castigating the House Republican bill for incentives that will “force massive cuts in Medicaid.”

Republicans’ Bill Would Cut Program Helping People Live at Home

This is a true statement: Section 111(2) of the American Health Care Act, House Republicans’ “repeal-and-replace” bill, would sunset the enhanced match for the Community First Choice program on January 1, 2020. That option provides states with a 6 percent increase in their federal match for home- and community-based services, including to individuals with disabilities. But here again, raising this issue demonstrates the inherent disconnect between the incentives being offered to states, and the disability community’s responses to those incentives.

  • Obamacare provides states with a match ranging from 20-45 percentage points higher to cover the able-bodied than individuals with disabilities: “No correlation between expansion and waiting lists for individuals with disabilities!”
  • Obamacare provides states with a 6 percentage point increase for home-based services: A “huge change to improve HCBS [home and community-based services] care.”
  • The Republican alternative to Obamacare would reduce Medicaid spending for traditional (i.e., non-expansion) populations by a comparatively small amount: “Massive cuts to Medicaid services.”

Isn’t there a slight contradiction in these responses—both in their tone and in their logic? And isn’t it worth noting that these contradictions all happen to align perfectly with the natural partisan response to each of these issues?

This Is A Political Problem, Not a Policy Problem

Claiming that the greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities stems from a “political history problem” deliberately obscures its roots. This “history” did not take place half a century ago, at Medicaid’s creation, it took place in the past few years, as part of Obamacare.

When crafting that legislation, Democrats could have come up with other policy solutions that expanded Medicaid to the able-bodied without discriminating against individuals with disabilities in the process. They could have proposed increasing the federal match for coverage of individuals with disabilities, in exchange for states covering the able-bodied at the existing federal match rates. Congress enacted a similar type of “swap” in the Medicare Modernization Act. The federal government took over the prescription drug cost of Medicare-Medicaid “dual eligibles” in exchange for a series of “clawback” payments from states.

Democrats in Congress could have considered other ways to expand Medicaid without giving states a greater match to cover the able-bodied than individuals with disabilities. To the best of my knowledge, they chose not to do so. President Obama could have insisted on a more equitable Medicaid formula, but he chose not to do so. And the disability community could have pointed out this disparity to the president and leaders in Congress, but chose not to do so.

Agree or disagree with them, these were deliberate policy choices, not a mere historical accident.

How Can You Support Lower Funding While Complaining About Access?

The argument about lower funding levels misses several points. First, while the Congressional Budget Office has not released estimates of how much the per capita caps (as opposed to changes associated with scaling back Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion) will reduce federal spending, multiple estimates suggest a comparatively small amount of savings from this particular change—at most 1 or 2 percent of spending on traditional Medicaid populations over the coming decade.

Second, if given sufficient flexibility from Washington, states can reduce their Medicaid spending, rendering the discussion of “cuts” under the caps moot. Rhode Island’s Global Compact Waiver, approved in January 2009, actually resulted in a year-on-year decline of Medicaid spending per beneficiary. Moreover, the non-partisan Lewin Group concluded that Rhode Island’s waiver reduced that spending by improving beneficiary access and care, not by denying medical services.

Third, if caps on Medicaid are so harmful and damaging, then why did Obamacare cap spending on Medicare—and why did disability groups remain silent about it? Current law imposes a per capita cap on Medicare spending, one enforced by Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) of unelected bureaucrats.

What’s more, Obamacare imposes an annual inflation adjustment (gross domestic product growth plus 1 percent) likely to be lower than the inflation adjustment for disabled populations included in the House-passed bill (medical inflation plus 1 percent). Yet a critique of the Medicare payment caps or IPAB appears nowhere in the disability community’s 14 pages of comments regarding the bill that became Obamacare.

So the question to the disability community is obvious: Why does a Democratic proposal to impose per capita caps on Medicare raise no objections, but a Republican proposal to impose (potentially higher) per capita caps on Medicaid guaranteed to prompt “massive cuts in Medicaid services?”

Let’s Just Pay More for Everyone

This comment attempts to obscure the distinction between the amount of funding and the priorities for that funding. I might disagree with liberals about the overall level of funding for the program—not least because efforts like that in Rhode Island demonstrate the potential for Medicaid to become more efficient—but I should agree with them about the need to prioritize care for the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion goes in the opposite direction.

In thinking about the important distinction between overall program funding and priorities within a program, I’m often reminded of a speech that former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) gave on the House floor in September 2009: “At some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgment and say, if we take care of everybody, we won’t be able to take care of those who need us most. That’s my concern. If we take care of everybody…then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America.”

Yes, Hoyer’s speech discussed Medicare, not Medicaid, and he voted for Obamacare (and its Medicaid expansion) six months after giving it. But the speech raises an important point about the need to prioritize entitlements, one that the notion of giving higher reimbursement rates to all populations ignores.

That’s what’s wrong with focusing solely on the question on the amount of funding for a program. Reasonable people can (and will) disagree about where to draw the funding line, but it has to be drawn somewhere. “Solving” the question of funding priorities by increasing reimbursements for all populations—the equivalent of promising everyone a pony—will, by failing to choose wisely now, cause even tougher fiscal choices for generations to come.

Disability Groups Have More Important Priorities

Yes, I have. For one, in 2013, I served on the Commission on Long-Term Care Congress created in the wake of the CLASS Act’s failure and repeal. We took many hours of public testimony from disability groups and others, and received dozens of other written comments—many from dedicated and passionate parents or caregivers of individuals with disabilities, and all of which I made a point to read. I won’t claim to have made disability policy my life’s work, but my jobs over the years have intersected with the disability community on several occasions.

By claiming that disability groups have “way more priorities than comparing their FMAP [i.e., their federal match rate],” this comment actually makes my point for me. The January 2010 letter by the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) setting out priorities for what became Obamacare was 14 pages in length, amounted to over 5,500 words, and included (by my count) 73 separate bulleted recommendations regarding the legislation. All that, and yet not one word on the bill prioritizing coverage of the able-bodied over individuals with disabilities? Frankly, the issue seems quite conspicuous by its absence.

Just Interview Someone From This Consortium

I received a series of tweets—culminating in a dramatic “Shame on you”—attacking me for not having contacted any members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) prior to writing my piece. It is correct that I didn’t reach out to any CCD member groups before printing the article. I didn’t need to because I had already spent years working with them.

The charge that I never spoke to “ONE SINGLE CCD MEMBER” is false—and demonstrably so. For nearly four years, from the spring of 2004 until the end of 2007, I worked as a lobbyist for the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR). During that time, I spent many hours in CCD task force meetings, interacting both directly and indirectly with CCD members. The commenter’s accusation that if I had reached out to CCD members, I would know about the lengthy adjudication process for many Social Security disability claims holds no small amount of irony—I handled those issues over a decade ago.

In reality, my time working with CCD members while representing the disability representatives prompted me to write my article last week. While attending CCD meetings, I saw firsthand how some meeting participants—several of which remain in their current positions and active in CCD activities—made offhand comments of a rather partisan nature. Not everyone joined in the political commentary, but several felt comfortable enough to make clear their partisan affiliations in open discussions, even if I and others did not.

Similarly, I recall how the disability community fought against George W. Bush’s idea for personal accounts within Social Security almost uniformly, and even before Congress and the administration had an opportunity to fully develop their proposals. At the time, my client, the National Association of Disability Representatives, took an agnostic view towards the personal account concept, focusing more on the specifics of whether and how it could work for the disability community.

For instance, NADR wanted to ensure that any personal account proposal would hold the Social Security Disability Trust Fund (separate from the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund) harmless, and that people who spent time receiving disability benefits would not be financially harmed (e.g., lack the opportunity to save wage earnings in a personal account, yet have their retirement benefits reduced) for having done so.

By contrast, most CCD members opposed the proposal from the get-go, often coordinating with Nancy Pelosi, Sander Levin, and other Democrats for events and strategy meetings. Archives on the disability coalition’s website from that era appear incomplete, but a 2005 August recess “Action Alert: Efforts to Privatize Social Security Continue!” gives a sense of the message coming from most CCD members, and the organization as a whole.

At this point any liberals still reading might applaud the disability community for having come out so strongly against the Bush proposal. But that idea focused on the Social Security retirement system, not the disability program, and the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress wanted to engage with disability groups to ensure any reforms held the disability community harmless. So how did failing to engage them—choosing instead to oppose from the outset—help the disability community?

In truth, early and vocal opposition to personal accounts may have put the disability community at greater risk had the personal account proposal been enacted without disability groups’ technical expertise on how best to structure it. And given both the partisan comments I heard from at least some CCD members at CCD meetings, it’s worth asking whether partisan or ideological concerns—separate and distinct from the interests of the disability community—unduly or improperly influenced the organization’s collective judgment back then.

Their inherent contradictions in the current debate—remaining silent about Obamacare’s unfair Medicaid match rate disparity and Medicare payment caps, while strenuously objecting to Republican attempts to impose payment caps on Medicaid—reinforce those concerns about undue partisanship.

It isn’t always easy stating inconvenient truths—pointing out that laws one doesn’t like should be enforced along with every other law, or where policies proposed by lawmakers with whom one might ordinarily be aligned fall woefully short. But such truth-telling remains an essential ingredient to authenticity and credibility. As I argued last week, I don’t think the disability community has done that in this case. I wish they had.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.