Why Do Louisiana Republicans Want to Replace Obamacare with Obamacare?

For the latest evidence that bipartisanship occurs in politics when conservatives agree to rubber-stamp liberal policies, look no further than Louisiana. Last week, that state’s senate passed a health-care bill by a unanimous 38-0 margin.

The bill provides that, if a court of competent jurisdiction strikes down all of Obamacare, Louisiana would replace that law with something that…looks an awful lot like Obamacare. Granted, most remain skeptical that the Supreme Court will strike down all (or even most) of Obamacare, not least because the five justices who upheld its individual mandate in 2012 all remain on the bench. Notwithstanding that fact, however, the Louisiana move would codify bad policies on the state level.

If a federal court strikes down the health-care law, the bill would re-codify virtually all of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations on the state level in Louisiana, including:

  • A prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions;
  • Limits on rates that insurers can charge;
  • Coverage of essential health benefits “that is substantially similar to that of the essential health benefits required for a health plan subject to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as of January 1, 2019,” including the ten categories spelled out both in the text of Obamacare and of the Louisiana bill;
  • “Annual limitations on cost sharing and deductibles that are substantially similar to the limitations for health plans subject to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as of January 1, 2019”;
  • “Levels of coverage that are substantially similar to the levels of coverage required for health plans subject to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as of January 1, 2019”;
  • A prohibition on annual and lifetime limits; and
  • A requirement for coverage of “dependent” children younger than age 26.

The Louisiana bill does allow for slightly more flexibility in age rating than Obamacare does. Obamacare permits insurers to charge older individuals no more than three times younger enrollees’ premiums, whereas the Louisiana bill would expand this ratio to 5-to-1. But in every other respect, the bill represents bad or incoherent policy, on several levels.

First, the regulations above caused premiums to more than double from 2013 through 2017, as Obamacare’s main provisions took effect. Reinstating these federal regulations on the state level would continue the current scenario whereby more than 2.5 million people nationwide were priced out of the market for coverage in a single year alone.

Second, the latter half of the Louisiana bill would create a “Guaranteed Benefits Pool,” essentially a high-risk pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Given that the bill provides a clear option for individuals with pre-existing conditions, it makes little sense to apply pre-existing condition regulations—what the Heritage Foundation called the prime driver of premium increases under Obamacare—to Louisiana’s entire insurance market. This provision would effectively raise healthy individuals’ premiums for no good policy reason.

Third, the legislation states that the regulations “shall be effective or enforceable only” if a court upholds the Obamacare subsidy regime, “or unless adequate appropriations are timely made by the federal or state government” in a similar amount and manner. Curiously, the bill does not specify who would declare the “adequa[cy]” of such appropriations. But should a court ever strike down most or all of Obamacare, this language provides a clear invitation for Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards to demand that Louisiana lawmakers raise taxes—again—to fund “adequate appropriations” reinstating the law on the state level.

As on the federal level, conservatives in Louisiana should not fall into the trap of reimposing Obamacare’s failed status quo for pre-existing conditions. Liberal organizations don’t want to admit it, but the American people care most about making coverage affordable. Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all approach undermined that affordability; better solutions should restore that affordability, by implementing a more tailored approach to insurance markets.

Recognizing that they will get attacked on pre-existing conditions regardless of what they do, conservatives should put forward solutions that reduce people’s insurance costs, such as those previously identified in this space. Conservatives do have better ideas than Obamacare’s failed status quo, if only they will have the courage of their convictions to embrace them.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The CBO Report on Single Payer Isn’t the One We Deserve to See

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 30-page report analyzing a single-payer health insurance plan. While the publication explained some policy considerations behind such a massive change to America’s health care market, it included precious few specifics about such a change—like what it would cost.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), perhaps single payer’s biggest supporter, serves as the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. If he asked the budget scorekeepers to analyze his legislation in full to determine what it would cost, and how to go about paying for the spending, CBO would give it high-priority treatment.

But to the best of this observer’s knowledge, that hasn’t happened. Might that be because the senator does not want to know—or, more specifically, does not want the public to know—the dirty secrets behind his proposed health-care takeover?

Hypothetical Scenarios

The CBO report examined single payer as an academic policy exercise, running through various options for establishing and operating such a mechanism. In the span of roughly thirty pages, the report used the word “would” 245 times and “could” 209 times, outlining various hypothetical scenarios.

That said, CBO did highlight several potential implications of a single-payer system for both the demand and supply of care. For instance, “free” health care could lead to major increases in demand that the government system could not meet:

An expansion of insurance coverage under a single-payer system would increase the demand for care and put pressure on the available supply of care. People who are currently uninsured would receive coverage, and some people who are currently insured could receive additional benefits under the single-payer system, depending on its design. Whether the supply of providers would be adequate to meet the greater demand would depend on various components of the system, such as provider payment rates. If the number of providers was not sufficient to meet demand, patients might face increased wait times and reduced access to care.

The report noted that in the United Kingdom, a system of global budgets—a concept included in the House’s single-payer legislation—has led to massive strains on the health-care system. Because payments to hospitals have not kept up with inflation, hospitals have had to reduce the available supply of care, leading to annual “winter crises” within the National Health Service:

In England, the global budget is allocated to approximately 200 local organizations that are responsible for paying for health care. Since 2010, the global budget in England has grown by about 1 percent annually in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, compared with an average real growth of about 4 percent previously. The relatively slow growth in the global budget since 2010 has created severe financial strains on the health care system. Provider payment rates have been reduced, many providers have incurred financial deficits, and wait times for receiving care have increased.

While cutting payments to hospitals could cause pain in the short term, CBO noted that reducing reimbursement levels could also have consequences in the long term, dissuading people from taking up medicine to permanently reduce the capacity of America’s health-care market:

Changes in provider payment rates under the single-payer system could have longer-term effects on the supply of providers. If the average provider payment rate under a single-payer system was significantly lower than it currently is, fewer people might decide to enter the medical profession in the future. The number of hospitals and other health care facilities might also decline as a result of closures, and there might be less investment in new and existing facilities. That decline could lead to a shortage of providers, longer wait times, and changes in the quality of care, especially if patient demand increased substantially because many previously uninsured people received coverage and if previously insured people received more generous benefits.

That said, because the report did not analyze a specific legislative proposal, its proverbial “On the one hand, on the other hand” approach generates a distinctly muted tone.

Tax Increases Ahead

To give some perspective, the report spent a whopping two pages discussing “How Would a Single Payer System Be Financed?” (Seriously.) This raises the obvious question: If single-payer advocates think their bill would improve the lives of ordinary Americans, because the middle class would save so much money by not having to pay insurance premiums, wouldn’t they want the Congressional Budget Office to fully analyze how much money people would save?

During his Fox News town hall debate last month, Sanders claimed a large show of support from blue-collar residents of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania for single payer. The ostensible support might have something to do with Sanders’ claim during the town hall that “the overwhelming majority of people are going to end up paying less for health care because they’re not paying premiums, co-payments, and deductibles.”

Where have we heard that kind of rhetoric before? Oh yeah—I remember:

At least one analysis has already discounted the accuracy of Sanders’ claims about people paying less. In scrutinizing Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign plan, Emory University economist Kenneth Thorpe concluded that the plan had a $10 trillion—yes, that’s $10 trillion—hole in its financing mechanism.

Filling that hole with tax increases meant that 71 percent of households would pay more under single payer than under the status quo, because taxes would have to go up by an average of 20 percentage points. Worse yet, 85 percent of Medicaid households—that is, people with the lowest incomes—would pay more, because a single-payer system would have to rely on regressive payroll taxes, which hit the poor hardest, to fund socialized medicine.

Put Up or Shut Up, Bernie

If Sanders really wants to prove the accuracy of his statement at the Fox News town hall, he should 1) ask CBO to score his bill, 2) release specific tax increases to pay for the spending in the bill, and 3) ask CBO to analyze the number of households that would pay more, and pay less, under the bill and all its funding mechanisms.

That said, I’m not holding my breath. A full, public, and honest accounting of single payer, and how to pay for it, would expose the game of three-card monty that underpins Sanders’ rhetoric. But conservatives should keep pushing for Sanders to request that score from CBO—better yet, they should request it themselves.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Inside the Federal Government’s Health IT Fiasco

Recent surveys of doctors show a sharp rise in frustrated physicians. One study last year analyzed a nearly 10 percentage point increase in burnout from 2011 to 2014, and laid much of the blame for the increase on a single culprit: Electronic health records. Physicians now spend more time staring at computer screens than connecting with patients, and find the drudgery soul-crushing.

What prompted the rise in screen fatigue and physician burnout? Why, government, of course. A recent Fortune magazine expose, titled “Death by 1,000 Clicks,” analyzed the history behind federal involvement in electronic records. The article reveals how electronic health records not only have not met their promise, but have led to numerous unintended and harmful consequences for American’s physicians, and the whole health care market.

Electronic Bridge to Nowhere

The Fortune story details all the ways health information technology doesn’t work:

  • Error-prone and glitch-laden systems;
  • Impromptu work-arounds created by individual physicians and hospitals make it tough to compare systems to each other;
  • An inability for one hospital’s system to interact with another’s—let alone deliver data and records directly to patients; and
  • A morass of information, presented in a non-user-friendly format, that users cannot easily access—potentially increasing errors.

The data behind the EHR debacle illustrate the problem vividly. Physicians spend nearly six hours per day on EHRs, compared to just over five hours of direct time with patients. A study concluding that emergency room physicians average 4,000 mouse clicks per shift, a number that virtually guarantees doctors will make data errors. Thousands of documented medication errors caused by EHRs, and at least one hundred deaths (likely more) from “alert fatigue” caused by electronic systems’ constant warnings.

Other anecdotes prove almost absurdly hysterical. The EHR that presents emergency room physicians 86 separate options to order Tylenol. The parody Twitter account that plays an EHR come to life: “I once saw a doctor make eye contact with a patient. This horror must stop.” The EHR system that warns physicians ordering painkillers for female patients about the dangers of prescribing ibuprofen to women while pregnant—even if the patient is 80 years old.

What caused all this chaos in the American health care market? One doctor explained his theory: “I have an iPhone and a computer and they work the way they’re supposed to work, and then we’re given these incredibly cumbersome and error-prone tools. This is something the government mandated” (emphasis added). Therein lies the problem.

Obama’s ‘Stimulus’ Spending Spree

In June 2011, when talking about infrastructure projects included in the 2009 “stimulus” legislation, President Obama famously admitted that “shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Electronic health records, another concept included in the “stimulus,” ran into a very similar problem. Farzad Mostashari, who worked on health IT for the Obama administration from 2009-11, admitted to Fortune that creating a useful national records system was “utterly infeasible to get to in a short time frame.”

At the time, however, the Obama administration billeted electronic health records as the “magic bullet” that would practically eliminate medical errors, while also reducing health costs. Every government agency had its own “wish list” of things to include in EHR systems. Mostashari admitted this dynamic led to the typical bureaucratic problem of trying to do too much, too fast: “We had all the right ideas that were discussed and hashed out by the committee, but they were all of the right ideas” (emphasis original).

Meanwhile, records vendors saw dollar signs, and leapt at the business opportunity. As Fortune notes, many systems weren’t ready for prime time, but vendors didn’t focus on solving those types of inconsequential details:

[The] vendor community, then a scrappy $2 billion industry, griped at the litany of requirements but stood to gain so much from the government’s $36 billion injection that it jumped in line. As Rusty Frantz, CEO of EHR vendor NextGen Healthcare, put it: ‘The industry was like, ‘I’ve got this check dangling in front of me, and I have to check these boxes to get there, and so I’m going to do that.’’

The end result: Hospitals and doctors spent billions of dollars—because the government paid them to do so, and threatened to reduce their Medicare and Medicaid payments if they didn’t—to buy records systems that didn’t work well. These providers then became stuck with the systems once they purchased them, because of the systems’ cost, and because providers could not easily switch from one system to another.

David Blumenthal, who served as national coordinator for health IT under Obama, summed up the debacle accurately when he admitted that electronic health records “have not fulfilled their potential. I think few would argue they have.”

Electronic health records therefore provide an illustrative cautionary tale in which a government-imposed scheme spends billions of dollars but fails to live up to its hype, and alienates physicians and providers in the process. When the same thing happens under Democrats’ next proposed big-government health scheme—whether single payer, or some “moderate compromise” that only takes away half of Americans’ existing health coverage—don’t say you weren’t warned.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Medicare Trustees Report Exposes Sanders’ Socialist Delusions

Many of the left’s policy proposals come with the same design flaw: While sounding great on paper, they have little chance of working in practice. Monday brought one such type of reality check to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and supporters of single-payer health care, in the form of the annual Medicare trustees report.

The report once again demonstrates Medicare’s shaky financial standing, as the retirement of 10,000 Baby Boomers every day continues to tax the program’s limited resources. So why would Sanders and Democrats raid this precariously funded program to finance their government takeover of health care?

Medicare’s Ruinous Finances

Before even dissecting the report itself, one major caveat worth noting: The trustees report assumes that many of the Medicare payment reductions, and tax increases, included in Obamacare can be used “both” to “save Medicare” and fund Obamacare. In practice, however, sheer common sense suggests the impossibility of this scenario—as not even the federal government can spend the same dollars twice.

The last trustees report prior to these Obamacare gimmicks, in 2009, predicted that the Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) Trust Fund would become insolvent in 2017—two years ago. To put it another way, under a more accurate accounting mechanism, Medicare has already become functionally insolvent. Obamacare’s accounting gimmicks just allowed politicians (including President Trump) to continue to ignore Medicare’s funding shortfalls, thus making them worse by failing to act.

Even despite the double-counting created by Obamacare, the Part A Trust Fund faces significant obstacles. Monday’s report reveals that the trust fund suffered a $1.6 billion loss in 2018. This loss comes on the heels of a total of $132.2 billion in trust fund deficits from 2008 through 2015, as payroll tax revenues dropped dramatically during the Great Recession.

Worse yet, the trustees report that trust fund deficits will continue forever. Deficits will continue to rise, and by 2026—within the decade—the Trust Fund will become insolvent, and unable to pay all of its bills.

Replacing One Decrepit Program with an Even Worse One

In 2003, House conservatives included this mechanism in the Medicare Modernization Act, which requires the trustees to make an annual assessment of the program’s funding. If general revenues—as opposed to the payroll tax revenues that largely cover the costs of the Part A program—are projected to exceed 45 percent of total program outlays, this provision seeks to prompt a debate about Medicare’s long-term funding.

Compare this provision, which triggers whenever general revenues (i.e., those not specifically dedicated to Medicare) approach half of total program spending, with single payer. As these pages have previously noted, here’s what Section 701(d) both the House and Senate single payer bills would do to Medicare:

(d) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Any amounts remaining in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i) or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395t) after the payment of claims for items and services furnished under title XVIII of such Act have been completed, shall be transferred into the Universal Medicare Trust Fund under this section.

Both bills would liquidate both of the current Medicare trust funds—and abolish the current Medicare program—to pay for the new single-payer plan. But how do Democrats propose to pay for the rest of the estimated $32 trillion cost of their program? Sanders referenced a list of potential tax increases (not drafted as legislative language), but the House sponsors didn’t even bother to go that far.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Proposed Insurer Bailout

The more things change, the more they stay the same. On a Friday, the Trump administration issued a little-noticed three paragraph statement that used seemingly innocuous language to outline a forthcoming bailout of health insurers—this one designed to avoid political controversy prior to the president’s re-election campaign.

Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) quite rightly criticized President Obama for wanting to bail out health insurers via a crony capitalist boondoggle. They should do the same now that Trump wants to waste billions more on a similar tactic that has all the stench of the typical Washington “Swamp.”

Explaining the President’s Drug Pricing Proposal

At present, drug manufacturers pay rebates to PBMs in exchange for preferred placement on an insurer’s pharmacy formulary. PBMs then share (most of) these rebates with insurers, who pass them on to beneficiaries. But historically, PBMs have passed those rebates on via lower premiums, rather than via lower drug prices to consumers.

For instance, Drug X may have a $100 list price (the “sticker” price that Manufacturer Y publicly advertises), but Manufacturer Y will pay a PBM a $60 rebate to get Drug X on the PBM’s formulary list. It sounds like a great deal, one in which patients get the drug for less than half price—except that’s not how it works at present.

Instead, the PBM uses the $60 rebate to lower premiums for everyone covered by Insurer A. And the patient’s cost-sharing is based on the list price (i.e., $100) rather than the lower price net of rebates (i.e., $40). This current policy hurts people whose insurance requires them to pay co-insurance, or who have yet to meet their annual deductible—because in both cases, their cost-sharing will be based on the (higher) list price.

The Policy and Political Problems

The administration’s proposed rule conceded that the proposed change could raise Medicare Part D premiums. The CMS Office of the Actuary estimated the rule would raise premiums anywhere from $3.20 to $5.64 per month. (Some administration officials have argued that premiums may stay flat, if greater pricing transparency prompts more competition among drug manufacturers.)

The rule presents intertwined practical and political problems. From a practical perspective, the administration wants the rule to take effect in 2020. But the comment period on the proposed rule just closed, and the review of those comments could last well beyond the June 3 date for plans to submit bids to offer Part D coverage next year.

The political implications seem obvious. The administration doesn’t want to anger seniors with Part D premium increases heading into the president’s re-election bid. And while the administration could have asked insurers to submit two sets of plan bids for 2020—one assuming the rebate rule goes into effect next year, and one assuming that it doesn’t—doing so would have made very explicit how much the change will raise premiums, handing Democrats a political cudgel on a hot-button issue.

Here Comes the Bailout

That dynamic led to the Friday announcement from CMS:

If there is a change in the safe harbor rules effective in 2020, CMS will conduct a demonstration that would test an efficient transition for beneficiaries and plans to such a change in the Part D program. The demonstration would consist of a modification to the Part D risk corridors for plans for which a bid is submitted. For CY2020, under the demonstration, the government would bear or retain 95% of the deviation between the target amount, as defined in section 1860D-15(e)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and the actual incurred costs, as defined in section 1860D-15(e)(1) of the Act, beyond the first 0.5%. Participation in the two-year demonstration would be voluntary and plans choosing to participate would do so for both years. Under the demonstration, further guidance regarding the application process would be provided at a later date.

To translate the jargon: Risk corridors are a program in which the federal government subsidizes insurers who incur large losses, and in exchange insurers agree to give back any large gains. I explained how they worked in the Obamacare context here. However, unlike Obamacare—which had a risk corridor program that lasted only from 2014-2016—Congress created a permanent risk corridor program for Medicare Part D.

It all sounds well and good—until you look more closely at the announcement. CMS says it will “bear or retain 95% of the deviation…beyond the first 0.5%.” That’s not a government agency sharing risk—that’s a government agency assuming virtually all of the risk associated with the higher premium costs due to the rebate rule. In other words, a bailout.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

The use of a supposed “demonstration project” to implement this bailout echoes back to the Obama administration. In November 2010, the Obama administration announced it would create a “demonstration project” regarding Medicare Advantage, and Republicans—rightfully—screamed bloody murder.

They had justifiable outrage, because the added spending from the project, which lasted from years 2012 through 2014, seemed purposefully designed to delay the effects of Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage. Put simply, the Obama administration didn’t want stories of angry seniors losing their coverage due to Obamacare during the president’s re-election campaign, so they used a “demonstration project” to buy everyone’s silence.

In response to requests from outraged Republicans, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted multiple reviews of the Medicare Advantage “demonstration project.” Not only did GAO note that the $8 billion cost of the project “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations…in its estimated budgetary impact and is larger in size and scope than many of them,” it also questioned “the agency’s legal authority to undertake the demonstration.” In other words, the Obama administration did not just undertake a massive insurer bailout, it undertook an illegal one as well.

The current administration has yet to release official details about what it proposes to study in its “demonstration project,” but, in some respects, those details matter little. The real points of inquiry are as follows: Whether buying off insurance companies and seniors will aid Trump’s re-election; and whether any enterprising journalists, fiscal conservatives, or other good government types will catch on, and raise enough objections to nix the bailout.

Congress Should Stop the Insanity

On the latter count, Congress has multiple options open to it. It can obtain request audits and rulings from GAO regarding the legality of the “demonstration,” once those details become public. It can explore passing a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which would nullify Friday afternoon’s memo.

It can also use its appropriations power to defund the “demonstration project,” preventing the waste of taxpayer funds on slush funds and giveaways to insurers. Best of all, they can do all three.

Republicans objected to crony capitalism under Democrats—Rubio famously helped block a taxpayer bailout of Obamacare’s risk corridor program back in 2014. Here’s hoping they will do the same thing when it comes to the latest illegal insurer bailout proposed by CMS.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Nancy Pelosi Violated Her Oath of Office

At their swearing in, members of Congress take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Few members would openly admit to violating that oath. Nancy Pelosi just did.

In filing a lawsuit against Donald Trump’s border emergency late last week, the House speaker claimed that “the House will once again defend our democracy and our Constitution, this time in the courts.” But the facts demonstrate that the last time the House defended the Constitution in the courts, Pelosi actively worked to undermine that defense of constitutional principles.

Lawsuits, Then and Now

The complaint Pelosi filed last week claims that, in using the National Emergencies Act to redirect funds towards border security, President Trump violated both underlying statutes and Congress’ constitutional duty to appropriate funds. Unfortunately, however, as I pointed out at the time of the border declaration, it did not represent the first time the executive has violated both statutes and Congress’ appropriations power.

The text of Obamacare did not contain an appropriation for cost-sharing subsidies, which offset discounts on co-pays and deductibles provided to low-income individuals. The Obama administration requested funds for those subsidies, just as Trump requested funds for border security. In both cases, Congress turned down those requests—and in both cases, the executive concocted legal arguments to spend the funds anyway.

But when the House of Representatives sued in 2014 seeking to block President Obama’s unconstitutional appropriation of funds, did Pelosi—who claimed last week to “defend our democracy and our Constitution”—support the complaint? Quite the contrary. In fact, she filed two legal briefs in court objecting to the House’s suit, and claiming that Obamacare implied an appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies.

Abrogating Congress’ Institutional Prerogatives

In a word, no. In the Obamacare lawsuit, she not only attacked House Republicans’ claims regarding the merits of their case, she attacked the House’s right to bring the claim against the executive in court.

When it comes to whether the House has suffered an injury allowing it to file suit, compare this language in the House’s lawsuit against Trump: “The House has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by defendants’ unlawful actions, which, among other things, usurp the House’s legislative authority,” with Pelosi’s claims in her brief regarding the Obamacare lawsuit:

Legislators’ allegations that a member of the executive branch has not complied with a statutory requirement do not establish the sort of “concrete and particularized” injury sufficient to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements….

[Permitting the House’s suit] would disturb long-settled and well-established practices by which the political branches mediate interpretive disputes about the meaning of federal law, and it would encourage political factions within Congress to advance political agendas by embroiling the courts in innumerable political disputes that are appropriately resolved using those long-established practices….Allowing suit in this case undermines, rather than advances, [Members’ institutional] interests—inevitably subjecting Congress to judicial second-guessing never contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution and compounding opportunities for legislative obstruction in ways that could greatly increase congressional dysfunction.

Also compare Pelosi’s language when talking about remedies available to the House with regards to Trump: “The House has no adequate or available administrative remedy, and/or any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile,” with her claims that House Republicans had all sorts of options available to them to stop President Obama’s unconstitutional payments, short of going to court:

Concluding that there is standing in this case is…completely unnecessary given alternative and more appropriate tools available to legislators to object to executive branch actions that they view as inconsistent with governing law….

To start, legislators may always challenge executive action by enacting corrective legislation that either prohibits the disputed executive action or clarifies the limits or conditions on such action….Further, Congress has other means to challenge disputed interpretive policies, including many that do not require the concurrence of both houses. For example, Congress can hold oversight hearings, initiate legislative proceedings, engage in investigations, and, of course, appeal to the public.

Put Principle over Politics

I find Trump’s border security declaration troubling for the same reason I found the Obamacare payments troubling: they usurp Congress’ rightful constitutional authority. I took some solace in knowing that several congressional Republicans—not enough, but several—voted against the emergency declaration, while many others who voted with the president nevertheless expressed strong misgivings about the move, as well they should.

Compare that to congressional Democrats, not a single one of whom aired so much as a peep about Barack Obama “stealing from appropriated funds,” to use Pelosi’s own words regarding the Obamacare lawsuit. Would that more elected officials—both Republicans and Democrats—put constitutional first principles above partisan affiliations and political gain.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Real Threat to Seniors: Single Payer

No sooner had the president’s budget arrived on Capitol Hill last Monday than the demagoguery began. Within hours of the budget’s release, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) tweeted that “One party wants to expand Medicare and Medicaid and the other wants to cut them.” The facts, however, show a different contrast—one party attempting to keep a promise to seniors, and another abandoning that promise to fund other priorities.

First, the budget would not “cut” Medicare. As multiple administration officials explained during congressional hearings on the budget, Medicare spending would continue to rise every year under the president’s proposals. Only in a government town like Washington could lawmakers say with a straight face that a reduction in projected spending increases constitutes a “cut.”

Third, the budget proposals would yield tangible benefits to seniors through lower Medicare cost-sharing. A proposed rule released in July found that one of these changes would lower beneficiary co-payments by $150 million in one year. If enacted in full, seniors would see billions of dollars in savings over the ten-year budget window.

Fourth, and most importantly, legislation Schatz supports wouldn’t “expand” Medicare and Medicaid, it would eliminate them. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer bill, which Schatz has co-sponsored, would, in addition to ending Medicaid, liquidate the Medicare trust funds, using the proceeds to finance the new government-run program. As I noted last year, that makes Sanders’ bill, as well as similar legislation introduced in the House last month, not “Medicare for All” but “Medicare for None.”

That raid on the Medicare trust funds represents not just an accounting gimmick, but a statement of Democrats’ priorities—or, rather, the lack of them. Medicare has long-term funding problems, which the president’s budget attempts to address. But in using the Medicare trust funds as a piggy bank to finance a single-payer system—the full cost of which Democrats have no idea how to fund—the party shows how, in trying to provide all things to all people, it will abandon the most vulnerable.

Perhaps the best rebuttal to “Medicare for None” came from, of all people, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). In a speech on the House floor in September 2009, Hoyer said:

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, irrespective of their ability to pay for themselves, the Ross Perots of America, frankly, the Steny Hoyers of America, then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America.

Therein lies the true flaw in the left’s logic. Whereas the president’s budget would work to protect Medicare for vulnerable seniors, Schatz, Sanders, and their supporters would liquidate the Medicare trust fund to finance “free” health care for Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. The choice between the two paths seems as obvious as it is clear.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Do House Republicans Support Socialized Medicine?

Health care, and specifically pre-existing conditions, remain in the news. The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has lined up two votes — one last week and one this week — authorizing the House to intervene in Texas’ lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claims that the intervention will “protect” Americans with pre-existing conditions.

In reality, the pre-existing condition provisions represent Obamacare’s major flaw. According to the Heritage Foundation, those provisions have served as the prime driver of premium increases associated with the law. Since the law went into effect, premiums have indeed skyrocketed. Rates for individual health insurance more than doubled from 2013 through 2017, and rose another 30-plus percent last year to boot.

As a result of those skyrocketing premiums, more than 2.5 million people dropped their Obamacare coverage from March 2017 through March 2018. These people now have no coverage if and when they develop a pre-existing condition themselves.

A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans care far more about rising premiums than about being denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Given the public’s focus on rising health care costs, Republicans should easily rebut Pelosi’s attacks with alternative policies that address the pre-existing condition problem while allowing people relief from skyrocketing insurance rates.

Unfortunately, that’s not what the Republican leadership in the House did. Last Thursday, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, offered a procedural motion that amounted to a Republican endorsement of Obamacare. Brady’s motion instructed House committees to draft legislation that “guarantees no American citizen can be charged higher premiums or cost sharing as the result of a previous illness or health status, thus ensuring affordable health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.”

If adopted — which thankfully it was not — this motion would only have entrenched Obamacare further. The pre-existing condition provisions represent the heart of the law, precisely because they have raised premiums so greatly. Those premium increases necessitated the mandates on individuals to buy, and employers to offer, health insurance. They also required the subsidies to make that more-expensive coverage “affordable” — and the tax increases and Medicare reductions needed to fund those subsidies.

More to the point, what would one call a health care proposal that treats everyone equally, and ensures that no one pays more or less than the next person? If this concept sounds like “socialized medicine” to you, you’d have company in thinking so. None other than Kevin Brady denounced Obamacare as “socialized medicine” at an August 2009 town hall at Memorial Hermann Hospital.

All of this raises obvious questions: Why did someone who for years opposed Obamacare as “socialized medicine” offer a proposal that would ratify and entrench that system further?

Republicans like Brady can claim they want to “repeal-and-replace” Obamacare from now until the cows come home, but if they want to retain the status quo on pre-existing conditions then as a practical matter they really want to uphold the law. Conservatives might wonder whether it’s time to “repeal-and-replace” Republicans with actual conservatives.

This post was originally published in the Houston Chronicle.

Bill Clinton’s Right: Pre-Existing Condition Vote IS “The Craziest Thing in the World”

The new House Democratic majority is bringing to the floor a resolution on Wednesday seeking to intervene in Texas’ Obamacare lawsuit. The House already voted to approve the legal intervention, as part of the rules package approved on the first day of the new Congress Thursday, but Democrats are making the House vote on the subject again, solely as a political stunt.

I have previously discussed what the media won’t tell you about the pre-existing condition provisions—that approval of these Obamacare “protections” drops precipitously when people are asked if they support the provisions even if they would cause premiums to go up. I have also outlined how a Gallup poll released just last month shows how all groups of Americans—including Democrats and senior citizens—care more about rising premiums than about losing their coverage due to a pre-existing condition.

Bill Clinton Got This One Right

The current system works fine if you’re eligible for Medicaid, if you’re a lower income working person, if you’re already on Medicare, or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your health care. But the people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies. Why? Because they’re not organized, they don’t have any bargaining power with insurance companies, and they’re getting whacked. So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care, and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.

Why did people “who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half”? Because of the pre-existing condition provisions in Obamacare.

Clinton knew of which he spoke. Premiums more than doubled from 2013 to 2017 for Obamacare-compliant individual coverage, only to rise another 30 percent in 2018. A Heritage Foundation paper just last March concluded that the pre-existing condition provisions—which allow anyone to sign up for coverage at the same rate, even after he or she develops a costly medical condition—represented the largest driver of premium increases due to Obamacare.

The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the law would reduce the labor supply by the equivalent of 2.5 million workers. Because so many people cannot afford their Obamacare coverage without a subsidy now that the law has caused premiums to skyrocket, millions of Americans are working fewer hours and earning less income precisely to ensure they maintain access to those subsidies. Obamacare has effectively raised their taxes by taking away their subsidies if they earn additional income, so they have decided not to work as hard.

Why Do Republicans Support This ‘Crazy’ Scheme?

Given this dynamic—skyrocketing premiums, millions dropping coverage, taxes on success—you would think that Republicans would oppose the status quo on pre-existing conditions, and all the damage it has wrought. But no.

Guarantees no American citizen can be charged higher premiums or cost sharing as the result of a previous illness or health status, thus ensuring affordable health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: As a matter of policy, any proposal that retains the status quo on pre-existing conditions by definition cannot repeal Obamacare. In essence, this Republican proposal amounted to a plan to “replace” Obamacare with the Affordable Care Act.

Even more to the point: What’s a good definition for a plan that charges everyone the exact same amount for health coverage? How about “I’ll take ‘Socialized Medicine’ for $800, Alex”?

There are better, and more effective, ways to handle the problem of pre-existing conditions than Obamacare. I’ve outlined several of them in these pages of late. But if Republicans insist on ratifying Obama’s scheme of socialized medicine, then they are—to use Bill Clinton’s own words—doing “the craziest thing in the world.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Exclusive: Inside the Trump Administration’s Debate over Expanding Obamacare

Last August, I responded to a New York Times article indicating that some within the Trump administration wanted to give states additional flexibility to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Since then, those proposals have advanced, such that staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) believe that they have official sign-off from the president to put those proposals into place.

My conversations with half a dozen sources on Capitol Hill and across the administration in recent weeks suggest that the proposal continues to move through the regulatory process. However, my sources also described significant policy pitfalls that could spark a buzz-saw of opposition from both the left and the right.

The Times reported that some within the administration—including CMS Administrator Seema Verma and White House Domestic Policy Council Chairman Andrew Bremberg—have embraced the proposal. But if the plan overcomes what the Times characterized as a “furious” internal debate, it may face an even tougher reception outside the White House.

How It Would Work

After the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional for states as part of its 2012 ruling upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate, the Obama administration issued guidance interpreting that ruling. While the court made expansion optional for states, the Obama administration made it an “all-or-nothing” proposition for them.

Under the 2012 guidance—which remains in effect—if states want to receive the enhanced 90 percent federal match associated with expansion, they must cover the entire expansion population—all able-bodied adults with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty level (just under $35,000 for a family of four). If states expand only to some portion of the eligible population, they would only receive their regular Medicaid match of 50-76 percent, not the enhanced 90 percent match.

The Internal Debate

The August Times article indicated that, after considering partial expansion, the administration postponed any decision until after November’s midterm elections. Since that time, multiple sources disclosed to me a further meeting that took place on the topic in the Oval Office late last year. While the meeting was originally intended to provide an update for the president, CMS staff left that meeting thinking they had received the president’s sign-off to implement partial expansion.

Just before Christmas, during a meeting on an unrelated matter, a CMS staffer sounded me out on the proposal. The individual said CMS was looking for ways to help give states additional flexibility, particularly states hamstrung by initiatives forcing them to expand Medicaid. However, based on my other reporting, I believe that the conversation also represented an attempt to determine the level of conservative opposition to the public announcement of a decision CMS believes the president has already made.

Why Liberals Will Object

During my meeting, I asked the CMS staffer about the fiscal impacts of partial expansion. The staffer admitted that, as I had noted in my August article, exchange plans generally have higher costs than Medicaid coverage. Therefore, moving individuals from Medicaid to exchange coverage—and the federal government paying 100 percent of subsidy costs for exchange coverage, as opposed to 90 percent of Medicaid costs—will raise federal costs for every beneficiary who shifts coverage under partial expansion.

The Medicare actuary believes that the higher cost-sharing associated with exchange coverage will lead 30 percent of the target population—that is, individuals with incomes from 100-138 percent of poverty—to drop their exchange plan. Either beneficiaries will not be able to afford the premiums and cost-sharing, or they will not consider the coverage worth the money. And because 30 percent of the target population will drop coverage, the partial expansion change will save money in a given state—despite the fact that exchange coverage costs more than Medicaid on a per-beneficiary basis.

Why Conservatives Will Object

I immediately asked the CMS staffer an obvious follow-up question: Did the actuary consider whether partial expansion, by shifting the costs of expansion from the states to the federal government, would encourage more states to expand Medicaid? The staffer demurred, saying the actuary’s analysis focused on only one hypothetical state.

However, the CMS staffer did not tell me the entire story. Subsequent to my “official” meeting with that staffer, other sources privately confirmed that the actuary does believe that roughly 30 percent of the target population will drop coverage.

But these sources and others added that both the Medicare actuary and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agree that, notwithstanding the savings from current expansion states—savings associated with individuals dropping exchange coverage, as explained above—the partial expansion proposal will cost the federal government overall, because it will encourage more states to expand Medicaid.

For instance, the Council of Economic Advisers believes that spending on non-expansion states who use partial expansion as a reason to extend Medicaid to the able-bodied will have three times the deficit impact as the savings associated with states shifting from full to partial expansion.

Because the spending on new partial expansion states will overcome any potential savings from states shifting from full to partial expansion, the proposal, if adopted, would appreciably increase the deficit. While neither CBO nor the Medicare actuary have conducted an updated analysis since the election, multiple sources cited an approximate cost to the federal government on the order of $100-120 billion over the next decade.

One source indicated that the Medicare actuary’s analysis early last summer arrived at an overall deficit increase of $111 billion. The results of November’s elections—in which three non-expansion states voted to accept expansion due to ballot initiatives—might have reduced the cost of the administration’s proposal slightly, but likely did not change the estimate of a sizable deficit increase.

A net cost of upwards of $100 billion, notwithstanding potential coverage losses from individuals dropping exchange coverage in current expansion states, can only mean one thing. CBO and the Medicare actuary both believe that, by lowering the cost for states to expand, partial expansion will prompt major non-expansion states—such as Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina—to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Who Will Support This Proposal?

Based on the description of the scoring dynamic my sources described, partial expansion, if it goes forward, seems to have no natural political constituency. Red-state governors will support it, no doubt, for it allows them to offload much of their state costs associated with Medicaid expansion onto the federal government’s debt-laden dime. Once CMS approves one state’s partial expansion, the agency will likely have a line of Republican governors out its door looking to implement waivers of their own.

But it seems unlikely that Democratic-led states will follow suit. Indeed, the news that partial expansion would cause about 30 percent of the target population to drop their new exchange coverage could well prompt recriminations, investigations, and denunciations from Democrats in Congress and elsewhere. Because at least 3.1 million expansion beneficiaries live in states with Republican governors, liberals likely would object to the sizable number of these enrollees who could decide to drop coverage under partial expansion.

Conversely, conservatives will likely object to the high net cost associated with the proposal, notwithstanding the potential coverage losses in states that have already expanded. Some within the administration view Medicaid expansion, when coupled with proposals like work requirements, as a “conservative” policy. Other administration officials view expansion in all states as something approaching a fait accompli, and view partial expansion and similar proposals as a way to make the best of a bad policy outcome.

But Medicaid expansion by its very nature encourages states to discriminate against the most vulnerable in society, because it gives states a higher match for covering able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities. In addition to objecting to a way partial expansion would increase government spending by approximately $100 billion, some conservatives would also raise fundamental objections to any policy changes that would encourage states to embrace Obamacare—and add even more able-bodied adults to the welfare rolls in the process.

Particularly given the Democratic takeover of the House last week, the multi-pronged opposition to this plan could prove its undoing. Democrats will have multiple venues available—from oversight through letters and subpoenae, to congressional hearings, to use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn any administration decisions outright—to express their opposition to this proposal.

A “strange bedfellows” coalition of liberals and conservatives outraged over the policy, but for entirely different reasons, could nix it outright. While some officials may not realize it at present, the administration may not only make a decision that conservatives will object to on policy grounds, they may end up in a political quagmire in the process.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.