Democrats Raid Medicare to Pay for Obamacare (Again!)

As Ronald Reagan would say, “There they go again.” A decade after Democrats raided Medicare by more than half a trillion dollars to fund Obamacare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her Democratic colleagues recently introduced new Obamacare legislation that would raid Medicare by nearly another half-trillion dollars.

Sadly, the House plans to vote on this legislative package before the Independence Day holiday. Lowering spending in one unsustainable entitlement to fund another represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility. For Democrats, however, it looks like par for the course.

Obamacare on Steroids

Democrats have titled their bill the Obamacare “enhancement” act — and for good reason, because it would effectively put the law on quite the figurative steroids. The bill would stymie recent efforts by the Trump administration to offer more insurance options to consumers, such as short-term, limited-duration insurance and association health plans.

Instead, it would make skyrocketing premiums “affordable” by dedicating more taxpayer dollars towards Obamacare exchange subsidies, while also directing $10 billion per year to insurance companies via a new — and permanent — federal bailout fund.

The legislation would also balloon Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion to able-bodied Americans. It would require states to keep individuals on the rolls for 12 months, allowing affluent individuals to remain in this “low-income” program. The income cap on coverage for children would also be eliminated, permitting states to cover children of millionaires while receiving federal dollars for doing so if they choose.

At a time evidence already suggests significant waste and fraud takes place among individuals receiving Medicaid coverage, the Pelosi legislation would add to the ever-increasing budget woes of numerous states by forcing them to keep ineligible individuals on the rolls.

Socialist-Style Price Controls

How would Democrats fund all this new spending? From Medicare.

The Obamacare “enhancement” legislation includes drug pricing provisions that the House of Representatives passed last December. The provisions would require drug companies to “negotiate” prices with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),  which would effectively dictate prices to drug companies based on benchmarks laid out in the bill. Companies that do not “negotiate” would face excise taxes that could cause the manufacturer to lose money on every drug it sells in the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office confirmed back in December that these “negotiation” provisions would lead to the development of fewer drugs, as companies invest less in research and development. The CBO also said, however, that the blunt price controls would reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending. So Democrats used these price controls to fund their recent Obamacare expansion bill.

Raiding Medicare (Again)

According to CBO, the vast majority of the savings from drug pricing — a total of $448.2 billion over ten years, to be exact — used to fund the Obamacare bill comes from Medicare. That the Democrats are effectively raiding Medicare to expand entitlements for younger Americans makes the Obamacare “enhancement” legislation all the more odious and irresponsible, though, at this point, we really shouldn’t be surprised.

We’ve seen this act before. Indeed, the Obama administration spent years trying to justify the raid on Medicare. Kathleen Sebelius, then the HHS secretary, testified before Congress that provisions in the law would “both” extend Medicare’s solvency and pay for Obamacare. This is a position that defies both logic as well as common sense.

As it stands, Medicare has already become functionally insolvent. The year before Obamacare’s passage, the program’s trustees projected the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would run out of money to pay all its bills in 2017 — three years ago. The Obamacare double-counting gimmicks that Sebelius testified about may appear to have extended the program’s solvency, but if only on paper. But the true cost of these things cannot remain hidden forever. According to current projections, even the funds from these phony solutions will run out by 2026.

Doing the Wrong Thing About Medicare’s Insolvency

Yet what would Pelosi and House Democrats do about Medicare’s looming insolvency? Not just nothing — worse than nothing. Rather than using the savings from their socialistic price controls to make Medicare solvent, they would take that money and throw it at health insurers to prop up Obamacare. As shocking as it may seem to some, this behavior echoes Pelosi’s 2011 interview with CNBC, when she bragged about how Democrats “took half a trillion dollars out of Medicare” to pay for Obamacare.

The Obamacare “enhancement” demonstrates how Pelosi and her fellow Democrats don’t care about fiscal responsibility or protecting America’s seniors. Instead, they view Medicare just as they did in 2010: A slush fund to raid on a whim as part of their effort to expand government-run health care at any cost.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Bigger Problem with SCOTUS’ Obamacare Bailout Ruling

I’ll start with the bad news: The Supreme Court granted insurers nearly $12 billion in Obamacare bailout funds. And now the worse news: It allowed the executive to stick Congress with the bill for unconstitutional actions lawmakers never authorized.

The ruling, issued on Monday after the Court heard oral arguments in December, made the case sound simple: Obamacare created an obligation on the federal government to pay insurers’ risk corridor claims. Congress refused to appropriate the money. Therefore insurers can go to court and obtain the $12 billion in question from the Judgment Fund, which has a permanent, unlimited appropriation to pay legal claims against the government.

But the reality doesn’t match the ruling’s cut-and-dried approach. Unilateral actions by the executive paved the way for risk corridors’ massive losses, a fact neither insurers nor liberal Obamacare supporters like to admit.

The Bailout’s Origins

In many ways, the Supreme Court case has its roots in guidance released by the Obama administration in November 2013. At that point, millions of people had received plan cancellation notices, but couldn’t buy health insurance plans while healthcare.gov remained in meltdown. President Obama faced withering and justified criticism for his “Lie of the Year”—the promise that “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tried to stanch the political bleeding. Instead of sending cancellation notices, states and insurers could allow individuals to retain plans purchased after Obamacare’s March 2010 enactment, but before the major insurance regulations went into effect on January 1, 2014.

Coming at a very late date, HHS’s unilateral action threatened to create more chaos for insurers. The carriers had priced their policies assuming millions of individuals with pre-Obamacare policies would lose their existing plans and sign up for exchange coverage. Instead, these largely healthy individuals would remain outside of Obamacare, as millions of sicker individuals flooded onto exchanges to obtain the richer Obamacare coverage.

How did HHS propose to offset insurers’ potential losses from this late change to their enrollee profile? The same November 2013 guidance allowing pre-Obamacare policies to remain in place proposed risk corridors as the solution:

Though this transitional policy was not anticipated by health insurance issuers when setting rates for 2014, the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue. We intend to explore ways to modify the risk corridor program final rules to provide additional assistance.

In theory, risk corridors required plans with outsized profits on Obamacare policies to subsidize insurers with outsized losses. But because many insurers kept their pre-Obamacare policies in place, many more insurers suffered losses than gains. The program suffered approximately $12 billion in losses during its three years (2014-16), losses which prompted insurers’ suit, to recover the billions they consider themselves owed.

Unconstitutional Actions

But as law professor Nicholas Bagley (an Obamacare supporter) and others have pointed out, HHS’s November 2013 guidance came with a big catch: It violated the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In essence, the Obama administration had stated that it would not enforce the law—the new insurance regulations coming into effect, which had led insurers to send the cancellation notices in the first place—because it found doing so politically inconvenient. (Sadly, the Trump administration has continued the unconstitutional behavior, by similarly allowing the plans to remain in effect.)

Those unconstitutional actions imposed major financial losses on insurers, an assertion that comes not just from the HHS guidance quoted above, but from the insurers themselves. An amicus brief submitted in the Supreme Court case by Americans for Prosperity noted that the insurer plaintiffs themselves admitted the administration’s unilateral actions represented the root cause of much of their financial losses:

As one Petitioner notes, this ‘unexpected policy change had marked and predictable effects.’ It lowered enrollment and since ‘the announcement came after premiums had been set[,]’ Petitioners were stuck with the prices they set, forced to ‘[b]ear greater risk than they accounted for[.]’ Petitioners argue that HHS recognized ‘that its unexpected policy shift could subject insurers on the exchanges to unanticipated higher average claims costs … [b]ut,’ the agency allayed their fears by providing reassurance that the risk corridors program would cover any losses. The Petitioners go through a lengthy history of HHS’s actions, pinning much of the blame on HHS’s ‘rosy scenario’ of how things would work out. [Internal citations omitted.]

Sticking Taxpayers with the Tab

Insurers could have responded in a different manner to the HHS guidance. They could have cancelled all their pre-Obamacare policies anyway, or they could have challenged the guidance in court. Some took the former action, because some states forced carriers to cancel all pre-Obamacare plans—but none took the latter course. In the main, insurers decided to take their chances, roll the dice, and not take a confrontational tack with the Obama administration, largely hoping they would receive the risk corridor bailout HHS alluded to in its guidance.

But Congress can, and should, have a say in the matter. A policy enacted unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, by HHS resulted in a financial impact (in the form of risk corridors) to the tune of billions of dollars.

Yes, Congress could have passed more stringent language blocking any appropriation for a risk corridor bailout. But following that logic to its conclusion would have effectively turned the Constitution on its head: The executive can make a unilateral, and unconstitutional, change, and both Congress and taxpayers have to pay the bill for it—unless and until Congress passes legislation by a veto-proof majority to undo the financial consequences of an action the executive never had authority to take in the first place.

A Costly ‘Bait-and-Switch’

Insurers decried the risk corridor funding shortfall as a “bait-and-switch” by Congress: Lawmakers authorized the payments as part of Obamacare, but never ponied up an appropriation for an obligation Congress created.

Risk corridors did suffer from a “bait-and-switch,” but it came from the Obama administration, not Congress. HHS changed the rules of the game, causing insurers major losses on their Obamacare plans—and sticking taxpayers with much of that tab via risk corridors.

But neither the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling, nor Justice Alito’s dissent, addressed the Obama administration’s “bait-and-switch.” As a result, the court created a bad precedent that empowers the executive, further diminishes the role of Congress, and places taxpayers at risk for more unilateral bailouts in the future.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

It Shouldn’t Take a Pandemic to Deregulate American Health Care

Over the past several weeks, the media has spent a great deal of time focusing on delays in rolling out and scaling up coronavirus testing across the country. But the understandable frustration over testing delays should not discount the other changes occurring within the federal government to help the virus response.

On Tuesday, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced its approval of two waivers related to the coronavirus outbreak. One allowed Medicare providers to treat more conditions via telehealth, so more seniors can avoid exposure to the virus by having medical exams at home rather than traveling to a doctor’s office. The other gave Florida’s Medicaid program additional flexibility — such as the ability to reimburse claims made by doctors who participate in other state Medicaid or Medicare programs, even if they have not gone through the process of enrolling in Florida’s Medicaid program.

These changes represent real progress against the virus. But they also raise the broader question of why it required an imminent threat to public health to effect common-sense regulatory changes — and why some of these changes may last only for the duration of the coronavirus outbreak.

The Emergency Declaration Includes

The regulatory flexibility announced on Tuesday came mere days after President Trump signed a proclamation authorizing the changes. In his remarks in the Rose Garden Friday, the president indicated what kind of changes the declaration would give to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

  • “The ability to waive laws to enable telehealth,” which “gives remote doctors’ visits and hospital check-ins;”
  • “The power to waive certain federal license requirements so that doctors from other states can provide services [in] states with the greatest need;”
  • “The ability to waive requirements that critical-access hospitals limit the number of beds to 25 and the length of stay to 96 hours;”
  • “The ability to waive the requirements of a three-day hospital stay prior to admission to a nursing home;”
  • “The authority to waive rules that hinder hospitals’ ability to bring additional physicians on board or obtain needed office space;” and
  • “The authority to waive rules that severely restrict where hospitals can care for patients within the hospital itself, ensuring that the emergency capacity can be quickly established.”

The emergency authorities given to HHS under Section 1135 of the Social Security Act include all these flexibilities and several others — for instance, the power to waive conditions of participation and certification requirements for providers, modify statutory deadlines and timetables, waive out-of-network requirements for Medicare Advantage plans, and waive penalties for certain comparatively minor HIPAA violations, such as not distributing privacy notices.

In his remarks Friday, Trump summarized the effect of these changes: Hospitals and medical providers “can do what they have to do” to treat virus patients. “They know what they have to do. Now they won’t have any problem getting it done.”

Reform Onerous Regulatory Burdens For Good

These changes, while both necessary and welcome, fail to answer the broader question of why some of these regulations existed in the first place. For instance, why does a doctor who lives just north of the Florida-Georgia line have to go through one set of bureaucratic hoops to treat his Georgia Medicaid patients and another set of hoops to treat Medicaid patients who happen to live a few miles south in Florida?

In addition to federal laws and regulations that bog down the practice of medicine, states’ varying and often conflicting requirements create a patchwork of regulations that makes life miserable for doctors, and can prohibit them from practicing in multiple states. Worse yet, scope-of-practice laws often prevent people like nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists from using their full complement of skills because physician groups seeking to maintain their monopoly status lobby state legislatures to enact harmful regulatory burdens.

The Mercatus Center has conducted volumes of research showing that these types of state-imposed laws — whether measures limiting the scope of practice or requiring a certificate of need from a government board before hospitals can construct new facilities — do not improve quality of care, and often harm it. In sum, these laws work less to protect patients than they do to protect incumbent doctors and hospitals looking to eliminate potential competitors.

Lawmakers at both the state and federal levels should examine these unnecessary regulatory burdens with an intent toward rolling them back permanently. The hospital industry has already asked for at least $1 billion as part of the next “stimulus” bill. At minimum, Congress should insist on regulatory reform in exchange for any additional federal dollars. Regulatory reform would both improve the system for patients and ensure Congress gets the most bang for its proverbial buck when providing taxpayer funds to the health-care sector.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

How Single Payer Would Make Outbreaks Like Coronavirus Worse

The past several weeks have seen two trends with important implications for health policy: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s burst of momentum following strong political showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire has drawn greater attention to his proposal for single-payer health care, as China struggles to control a coronavirus outbreak that first emerged at the end of last year.

The two events are linked by more than just time. The coronavirus outbreak provides a compelling argument against Sanders’s so-called “Medicare for All” program, which would upend the health-care system’s ability to respond to infectious disease outbreaks.

In an Outbreak, Could You Obtain Care?

For starters, supporters of Sanders’s plan have admitted that under single payer, not all patients seeking care will obtain it. In 2018, People’s Policy Project President Matt Bruenig claimed that while demand for care might rise under single payer, “aggregate health service utilization is ultimately dependent on the capacity to provide services, meaning utilization could hit a hard limit.”

By eliminating virtually all patient payments for their own care, single payer would increase demand for care—demand Bruenig concedes the system likely could not meet, even under normal circumstances. Consider that an outbreak centered more than 6,000 miles from the Pacific coast has already led to a run on respiratory face masks in the United States. During a widespread outbreak on our shores, an influx of both sick and worried-but-well patients could swamp hospitals already facing higher demand for “free” care.

Bureaucrats’ Questionable Spending Priorities

While Sanders’s legislation attempts to provide emergency surge capacity for the health-care system, experience suggests federal officials may not spend this money wisely. Section 601 of the House and Senate single-payer bills include provisions for a “reserve fund” designed to “respond to the costs of treating an epidemic, pandemic, natural disaster, or other such health emergency.” However, neither of the bills include a specific amount for that fund, leaving all decisions for the national health care budget in the hands of the Department of Health and Human Services.

And federal officials demonstrated a questionable sense of policy priorities in the years leading up to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Of the nearly $3 billion from Obamacare’s Prevention and Public Health Fund given to the Centers for Disease Control in the years 2010-2014, only about 6 percent went towards building epidemiology and laboratory capacity. Instead, CDC spent $517.3 million funding grants focused on objectives like “improving neighborhood grocery stores” and “promoting better sidewalks and street lighting.”

Socialized Medicine Brought to Its Knees By…the Flu?

Including a system of global budgets as part of a transition to single payer would leave hospitals with little financial flexibility to cope with a sudden surge of patients. Sanders’s Senate version of single-payer legislation does not include such a payment mechanism, but the House single-payer bill does. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other liberal think-tanks believe the concept, which provides hospitals lump-sum payments to cover the facilities’ entire operating budget, can help reduce health-care costs.

But in its May 2019 report on single payer, the Congressional Budget Office noted that consistently slow growth of global budget payments in Britain’s National Health Service has “created severe financial strains on the health care system.” And how: Rising hospital bed occupancy rates have created longer wait times in emergency rooms, with patients stuck on gurneys for hours. In one example of its annual “winter crisis,” two years ago the NHS postponed 55,000 surgeries due to capacity constraints, with one ER physician apologizing for “Third World conditions of the department due to overcrowding.”

A British health system barely able to cope with a predictable occurrence like a winter flu outbreak seems guaranteed to crumble in the face of a major pandemic. Voters lured by the siren song of socialism should bear that in mind as they ponder news of the coronavirus and Sanders’ “Medicare for All.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

President’s Executive Order Shows Two Contrasting Visions of Health Care

As Washington remains consumed by impeachment fever, President Trump returned to the issue of health care. In an executive order released Thursday, and a speech at The Villages in Florida where he spoke on the topic, the president attempted to provide a vision that contrasts with the left’s push for single-payer socialized medicine.

This executive order focused largely on the current Medicare program, as opposed to the existing private insurance marketplace. By promoting new options and focusing on reducing costs, however, the president’s actions stand in opposition to the one-size-fits-all model of the proposed health care takeover.

The Administration Wants To Explore These Proposals

One fact worth repeating about Thursday’s action: As with prior executive orders, it will in and of itself not change policy. The more substantive changes will come in regulatory proposals issued by government agencies (most notably the Department of Health and Human Services) in response to the executive order. While only the regulations can flesh out all of the policy details, the language of the order provides some sense of the proposals the administration wants to explore.

Modernized Benefits: The executive order promotes “innovative … benefit structures” for Medicare Advantage, the program in which an estimated 24 million beneficiaries receive Medicare subsidies via a network of private insurers. It discusses “reduc[ing] barriers to obtaining Medicare Medical Savings Accounts,” a health savings account-like mechanism that gives beneficiaries incentives to serve as smart consumers of health care. To accomplish that last objective, the order references broader access to cost and quality data, “improving [seniors’] ability to make decisions about their health care that work best for them.”

Expanded Access: The order seeks to increase access to telehealth as one way to improve seniors’ ability to obtain care, particularly in rural areas. It also looks to combat state-imposed restrictions that can limit care options, and can lead to narrow physician and provider networks for Medicare Advantage plans.

More Providers: The order discusses eliminating regulatory burdens on doctors and other medical providers, a continuation of prior initiatives by the administration. It also references allowing non-physician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, to practice to the full scope of their medical licenses and receive comparable pay for their work.

Entitlement Reform: Last, but certainly not least, the order proposes allowing seniors to opt out of the Medicare program. This proposal would not allow individuals to opt out of Medicare taxes, but it would undo current regulations that require seniors to opt into the Medicare program when they apply for Social Security.

As I had previously explained, this proposal stands as a common-sense solution to our entitlement shortfalls: After all, why should we force someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to accept Medicare benefits if they are perfectly content to use other forms of health coverage?

Democrats’ Health Care Vision Is Medicare for None

Of course, many on the socialist left have made their vision plain for quite some time: They want the government to run the entire health-care system. Ironically enough, however, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer legislation would abolish the current Medicare program in the process:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)—

(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)

As I first noted nearly two years ago, this language makes Sanders’ proposal not “Medicare for All,” but “Medicare for None.” It speaks to the radical nature of the socialist agenda that they cannot come clean with the American people about the implications of their legislation, such that even analysts at liberal think-tanks have accused them of using dishonest means to sell single-payer.

Just as important, “Medicare for None” would take away choices for seniors and hundreds of millions of other Americans. As of next year, an estimated 24 million seniors will enroll in Medicare Advantage plans to obtain their Medicare benefits. As I outline in my book, Medicare Advantage often provides better benefits to seniors, and at a lower cost to both beneficiaries and the federal government. Yet Sanders and his socialist allies want to abolish this popular coverage, to consolidate power and control in a government-run health system.

The actions the administration announced on Thursday represent the latest in a series of steps designed to offer an alternative to the command-and-control vision promoted by the left. The American people don’t deserve socialized medicine, but they don’t deserve the broken status quo either. Only true patient-centered reforms can create a health-care environment that works for seniors and the American people as a whole.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Democrats’ Single-Payer Health Care Bill Raises Serious Questions

On Tuesday, the House’s Democratic majority will hold its first formal proceedings on single payer legislation. The House Rules Committee hearing will give supporters an opportunity to move past simplistic rhetoric and answer specific questions about H.R. 1384, the House single payer bill, such as:

Section 102(a) makes “every individual who is a resident of the United States” eligible for benefits, regardless of their citizenship status. But in September 1993, Hillary Clinton testified before Congress that she opposed “extend[ing]” benefits to “those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens,” because “too many people come [to the United States] for medical care as it is.” Do you agree with Secretary Clinton that single payer will encourage “illegal aliens” to immigrate to the United States for “free” health care?

Section 102(b) prevents individuals from traveling to the United States “for the sole purpose of obtaining” benefits. Does this provision mean that foreign nationals can receive taxpayer-funded health care so long as they state at least one other purpose—for instance, visiting a tourist site or two—for their travels?

Section 104(a) prohibits any participating provider from “den[ying] the benefits of the program” to any individual for any of a series of reasons, including “termination of pregnancy.” What if the nation’s more than 600 Catholic hospitals—which collectively treat more than one in seven American patients—refuse to join the government program because this anti-conscience provision forces them to perform abortions and other procedures in violation of their deeply-held religious beliefs? How will the government program make up for this lost capacity in the health care system?

Section 201(a) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to compile a list of “medically necessary or appropriate” services that the single payer program will cover. Does anything in the bill prohibit the Secretary from including euthanasia—now legal in at least eight states—on that list of covered benefits?

Section 401(b) requires HHS to compile an “adequate national database,” which among other things must include information on employees’ hours, wages, and job titles. Will America’s millions of health care workers appreciate having the federal government track their jobs and income? Why does the bill contain not a word about employees’ privacy in this “adequate national database?”

Section 611 creates a system of global budgets to fund hospitals’ entire operating costs through one quarterly payment. But what if this lump-sum proves insufficient? Will hospitals have to curtail operations at the end of each quarter if they exceed the budget government bureaucrats provide to them?

Section 614(b)(2) prohibits payments to providers from being used for any profit or net revenue, essentially forcing for-profit hospital, nursing home, hospice, and other providers to convert to not-for-profit status. Coming on top of the bill’s virtual abolition of private insurers, how much will this collective destruction of shareholder value hurt average Americans’ 401(k) balances?

Section 614(c)(4) prohibits hospital providers from using federal operating funds to finance “a capital project funded by charitable donations” without prior approval. Does this restriction—preventing hospitals from opening new wings funded by private dollars—demonstrate how single payer will ration access to care, by limiting the available supply?

Section 614(f) bars HHS from “utiliz[ing] any quality metrics or standards for the purposes of establishing provider payment methodologies.” Does this prohibition on tying any provider payments to quality metrics serve as confirmation of the low-quality care a single payer system will give to patients?

Section 616 states that, if drug and device manufacturers will not agree to an “appropriate” price for their products—as defined by the government, of course—the HHS Secretary will license their patents away to other companies. But the average pharmaceutical costs approximately $2.6 billion to bring to market. How many fewer drugs will come to market in the future due to this arbitrary restriction on innovation?

Section 701(b)(2)(B) sets future years’ appropriations for the program based in part on “other factors determined appropriate by the [HHS] Secretary.” But this month, Nancy Pelosi filed suit against President Trump’s border emergency declaration, after she claimed that the declaration “undermines the separation of powers and Congress’s [sic] power of the purse.” How does allowing an unelected executive branch official to determine trillions of dollars in appropriations uphold Congress’ “power of the purse?”

Section 901(a)(1)(A) states that “no benefits shall be available under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act”—i.e., Medicare—two years after enactment. How does abolishing the current Medicare program square with the bill’s supposed title of “Medicare for All?”

If single payer supporters can answer all these queries at Tuesday’s hearing, many observers will only have one other question: Why anyone thought the legislation a good idea to begin with.

This post was originally published at Fox News.

Lowlights of Democrats’ New Single-Payer Bill

Some might think that, having embraced socialism and taking away the health coverage of millions of Americans, the Democratic Party couldn’t move further to the left. Think again.

House Democrats introduced their single-payer bill on Wednesday, and claimed that it’s a “significantly different” bill compared to versions introduced in prior Congresses. It definitely meets that definition—because, believe it or not, it’s gotten significantly worse.

What Remains

Abolition of Medicare—and Most Other Insurance Coverage: As I noted last year, the bill would still eliminate the current Medicare program, by prohibiting Title XVIII of the Social Security Act from paying for any service (Section 901(a)(1)(A)) and liquidating the current Medicare trust funds (Section 701(d)). Likewise, the bill would eliminate the existing insurance coverage of all but the 2.2 million who receive care from the Indian Health Service and the 9.3 million enrolled veterans receiving care from the Veterans Administration.

Taxpayer Funding of Abortion: As before, Section 701(b)(3) of the bill contains provisions prohibiting “any other provision of law…restricting the use of federal funds for any reproductive health service” from applying to the single-payer system. This language would put the single-payer system outside the scope of the Hyde Amendment, thereby permitting taxpayer funding for all abortions.

Lack of Accountability: As with the prior bill, the legislation would give massive amounts of power to bureaucrats within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). For instance, the legislation would establish new regional directors of the single-payer system—none of whom would be subject to Senate confirmation.

What Lawmakers Added

More Spending: Section 204 of the new bill federalizes the provision of long-term supports and services as part of the single-payer benefit package. Prior versions of the bill had retained those services as part of the Medicaid program, implemented by states with matching funds from the federal government.

In addition, the revised bill eliminated language in Section 202(b) of the Sanders legislation, which permitted co-payments for prescription drugs to encourage the use of generics. With the co-payments (capped at an annual maximum of $200 in the Sanders bill from last Congress) eliminated, the bill envisions the federal government providing all health services without cost-sharing. This change, coupled with the federalization of long-term supports and services, will result in increased spending—as more people demand “free” health care.

Faster Elimination of Private Coverage: Rather than envisioning a four-year transition to the single-payer system, the revised bill would eliminate all private health insurance within a two-year period. Over and above the myriad philosophical concerns associated with single-payer health care, this accelerated transition period raises obvious questions about whether the new system could get up and running so quickly. After all, Obamacare had an implementation period of nearly four years—yet healthcare.gov failed miserably during its initial launch phase.

In theory, moving away from a fee-for-service method of paying medical providers would eliminate their incentive to perform more procedures—a worthy goal. But in practice, global budgets could also lead to de facto rationing, as hospitals that exceed their budgets might have to stop providing care to patients—just as under-funding within Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) has led to chronic hospital overcrowding.

Compensation Caps: Section 611(b)(5) of the new bill would limit “compensation costs for any employee or any contractor or any subcontractor employee of an institutional provider receiving global budgets,” by applying existing pay restrictions on government contractors to hospitals and facilities in the single-payer program. These restrictions might lead some to wonder whether hospitals could truly be considered independent entities, or merely an arm of the state.

Effective Abolition of For-Profit Medicine: Section 614(a) of the revised bill states that “payments to providers…may not take into account…or be used by a provider for” marketing; “the profit or net revenue of the provider, or increasing the profit or net revenue of the provider;” any type of incentive payment—“including any value-based payment;” and political contributions prohibited by government contractors.

Liberals would argue that eliminating the profit motive will encourage doctors to provide better care, by focusing on patients rather than ways to enrich themselves. But the profit motive also encourages individuals to invest in health care—as opposed to other sectors of the economy—by allowing them to recover a return on their investment.

Effective Elimination of Patents: Section 616(c)(1) of the bill states that “if the manufacturer of a covered pharmaceutical, medical supply, medical technology, or medically necessary assistive equipment refuses to negotiation a reasonable price, the Secretary shall waive or void any government-granted exclusivities with respect to such drug or product,” and shall allow other companies to manufacture the product. By allowing the federal government to march in on a whim and seize a company’s intellectual property, the bill would discourage individuals from investing in such intellectual property in the first place.

“Reasonable” Prices and Rationing: As noted above, Section 616 of the bill requires HHS to determine when the prices of drugs and medical devices are “not reasonable,” by taking into account among other things “the therapeutic value of the drug or product, including cost-effectiveness and comparative effectiveness.” This provision could lead to the federal government denying patients access to drugs deemed too expensive, as occurs currently within Britain’s National Health Service.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Liberals’ Situational Ethics on Constitutional Violations

A president requests billions of dollars to fulfill his main campaign promise. Congress turns him down, but the president finds a way to go around them and get his money anyway.

Donald Trump and his border emergency? Sure. But this description also applies to Barack Obama’s treatment of Obamacare. Examined from this context, the health care history raises questions about whether liberals’ outrage over Trump’s emergency declaration stems from his extralegal actions—or their underlying opposition to his border policies.

The Obama administration knew full well it lacked a lawful appropriation for the insurer payments. In 2013, it requested billions of dollars from Congress for such spending. But Congress refused to appropriate the money. Republicans, who by then controlled the House of Representatives, had no interest in giving dollars to prop up Obamacare, and even Democratic appropriators seemingly had other priorities to fund rather than insurer payments.

Facing a refusal from Congress to appropriate the cost-sharing subsidies, the Obama administration went ahead and spent the funds anyway. Administration officials concocted a theory that even though an express appropriation for the payments did not exist in law, the health care law implied an appropriation of funds. They paid the cost-sharing subsidies to insurers in conjunction with Obamacare’s premium subsidies, even though the two programs are authorized in different sections of the law, and should operate via two different cabinet departments.

Granted, the Obama administration used much more surreptitious means to accomplish its unconstitutional ends. Unlike Trump, who announced his emergency declaration to much fanfare, his predecessor did not draw attention to his extralegal maneuvering. It took House Republicans seven months to authorize a suit objecting to Obama’s actions. But the only two federal courts to rule on the matter found that the law did not include an appropriation for the cost-sharing payments, meaning that Obama violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause by spending funds without authorization.

In two separate legal briefs, the then-House minority leader claimed Obamacare did appropriate funds for the cost-sharing payments to insurers—a claim that federal courts rejected. But her briefs went even further, claiming that Congress had no standing to object to the executive’s encroachment on its spending power.

Pelosi’s briefs in the Obamacare case present numerous objections to Congress’ suit against the executive. She claimed that “allowing suit in this case undermines, rather than advances, [the House’s institutional] interests,” and would “subject Congress to judicial second-guessing” and allow for “legislative obstruction.” She argued that the House of Representatives had no standing to pursue claims against the executive on its own, without the Senate’s concurrence. And she pointed out that “Congress has numerous tools at its disposal to resolve routine disputes,” for instance “corrective legislation that…prohibits the disputed executive action.”

Pelosi claimed last week that Republicans’ decision to endorse Trump’s emergency declaration will set a precedent they will come to regret. She knows of which she speaks. While researching the issue in recent months, I found that Pelosi’s briefs from the Obamacare case mysteriously disappeared from her website (although thankfully are still archived online.) Quite possibly, Pelosi’s staff decided to remove the briefs from her website upon retaking the majority, because they recognize the inconvenient precedent they set—and which Pelosi will now have to explain away in both the legal and political realms.

Call this a hunch, but I doubt that…the Democratic lawmakers would content themselves with the remedies they have laid forth in their brief about Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies. Faced with a President spending billions of dollars on a deportation force never appropriated by Congress, would Nancy Pelosi merely content herself with conducting hearings and ‘appeal[ing] to the public,’ as her brief argues in the Obamacare context? Hardly.

That November 2016 article proved prescient in highlighting the dangers of situational ethics—politicians putting immediate policy wins ahead of larger constitutional principles. More than two years later, Pelosi may soon reap the whirlwind, when Trump’s Justice Department uses her Obamacare briefs to argue that the House of Representatives has no standing to challenge his emergency declaration.

Congressional Republicans should learn from Pelosi’s example, stand fast to their principles, and call Trump’s action for what it is: A usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse, a breach of the separation of powers, and a violation of the principles of limited government that conservatives hold dear.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Sordid History of the FDA’s Menthol Decision

Late last week, The New York Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will issue a regulation proposing a ban on menthol flavoring in cigarettes, potentially this week. This represents merely the latest development in a long and winding history of the mint-flavored additive lasting nearly a decade.

The Times report quoted FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb saying “it was a mistake for the agency to back away on menthol” regulation. Depending upon one’s perspective, the “menthol loophole” either represents a reasonable example of legislative compromise, or policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches valuing African-American lives less dearly than the lives of other Americans.

A Troubled Legislative History

Beginning 3 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.

That language created two policy problems. First, as I noted in my summary of the bill at the time, because the bill banned other cigarette flavors manufactured overseas, while permitting menthol-flavored cigarettes manufactured domestically, the law would likely result in World Trade Organization (WTO) complaints for unfair trade practices. Indeed, Indonesia, which manufactures clove cigarettes, filed just such a complaint following the law’s passage—and won its case at the WTO.

The Times alluded to the other complication presented by the “menthol loophole” in its article this week: “According to the N.A.A.C.P.’s Youth Against Menthol campaign, about 85 percent of African-American smokers aged 12 and up smoke menthol cigarettes, compared with 29 percent of white smokers, which the organization calls a result of decades of culturally tailored tobacco company promotion.”

That “decades of culturally tailored tobacco company promotion” also included contributions to organizations like the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Industry documents released as part of the 1998 master settlement agreement demonstrated that “the tobacco industry established relationships with virtually every African-American leadership organization”—both to increase tobacco use, and to head off tobacco control efforts.

The FDA Looked the Other Way

Despite the condemnation from the HHS secretaries for its double standards against African-Americans, the bill passed as written in 2009. In an irony of ironies, the first African-American president signed it into law in June that year.

While it did not ban menthol outright, the legislation required a study on its effects, and gave the FDA the authority to ban the additive. Despite occasional rumors that FDA might outlaw menthol—and appeals from the African-American community for a ban—the Obama administration did not take action on the matter.

As a small government conservative, I question the value of establishing and maintaining an FDA bureaucracy to regulate an inherently unhealthful product. I by no means condone the decades of deception the tobacco industry used to sell their products.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Is Donald Trump “Sabotaging” Obamacare?

Is Donald Trump “sabotaging” Obamacare? And are he and his administration violating the law to do so?

Democrats intend to make this issue a prime focus of their political messaging ahead of the November elections. And several developments over the month of August — a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a New York Times op-ed by two legal scholars, and a lawsuit filed by several cities — all include specific points and charges related to that theme.

1. The GAO Report

The most recent data point comes from the GAO, which at the behest of several congressional Democrats analyzed the administration’s outreach efforts during the most recent open enrollment period last fall. Those efforts culminated in a report GAO released Thursday.

The report made a persuasive case that the administration’s decision to reduce and re-prioritize funding for enrollment navigators utilized flawed data and methods. While the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) based navigators’ 2018 funding on their effectiveness in enrolling individuals in coverage in prior years, GAO noted that HHS lacked solid data on navigators’ enrollment on which to base 2018 funding, and that enrollment was but one of navigators’ stated goals in prior years. HHS agreed with GAO’s recommendation that it should provide clearer goals and performance metrics for navigators to meet.

GAO also recommended that the administration reinstitute an overall enrollment target, as one way to determine the adequate distribution of resources during open enrollment. However, a cynic might note that Obamacare advocates, including the Democratic lawmakers who requested the report, may want the Trump administration to publicize an enrollment target primarily so they can attack HHS if the department does not achieve its goals.

Even though reporters and liberals like Andy Slavitt cried foul last year when HHS announced planned maintenance time for healthcare.gov in advance, actual downtime for the site dropped precipitously in 2018 compared to 2017. Which could lead one to ask who is sabotaging whom.

2. The New York Times Article

In The New York Times piece, law professors Nicholas Bagley and Abbe Gluck provide an overview of the lawsuit filed against the Trump Administration (about which more below). As someone who has cited Bagley’s work in the past, I find the article unpersuasive, even disappointing.

Take for instance some of the article’s specific allegations:

Here’s one: “To make it harder for people to enroll in Obamacare plans, for example, the administration shortened the open enrollment period on the health care exchanges from three months to six weeks.”

This charge would have evaporated entirely had Bagley specified which Administration first proposed shortening the open enrollment period to six weeks. The Obama Administration did just that.

This rule also establishes dates for the individual market annual open enrollment period for future benefit years. For 2017 and 2018, we will maintain the same open enrollment period we adopted for 2016—that is, November 1 of the year preceding the benefit year through January 31 of the benefit year, and for 2019 and later benefit years, we are establishing an open enrollment period of November 1 through December 15 of the year preceding the benefit year.

The Trump administration merely took the shorter open enrollment period that the Obama team proposed for 2019 and accelerated it by one year. If shortening the enrollment period would make it so much “harder for people to enroll in Obamacare plans,” as Bagley and Gluck claim, then why did the Obama Administration propose this change?

Another allegation: “To sow chaos in the insurance markets, Mr. Trump toyed for nine months with the idea of eliminating a crucial funding stream for Obamacare known as cost-sharing payments. After he cut off those funds, he boasted that Obamacare was ‘being dismantled.’”

This charge seems particularly specious — because Bagley himself has admitted that Obamacare lacks a constitutional appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers. Bagley previously mentioned that he took no small amount of grief from the left for conceding that President Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority. For him to turn around and now claim that Trump violated his constitutional authority by ending unconstitutional payments represents a disingenuous argument.

Here and elsewhere, Bagley might argue that Trump’s rhetoric — talk of Obamacare “being dismantled,” for instance — suggests corrupt intent. I will gladly stipulate that presidential claims Obamacare is “dead” are both inaccurate and unhelpful. But regardless of what the President says, if the President does what Bagley himself thinks necessary to comport with the Constitution, how on earth can Bagley criticize him for violating his oath of office?

A third allegation:

This month, the Trump administration dealt what may be its biggest blow yet to the insurance markets. In a new rule, it announced that insurers will have more latitude to sell ‘short-term’ health plans that are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s rules. These plans … had previously been limited to three months.

Under Mr. Trump’s new rule, however, such plans can last for 364 days and can be renewed for up to three years. … In effect, these rules are creating a cheap form of ‘junk’ coverage that does not have to meet the higher standards of Obamacare. This sort of splintering of the insurance markets is not allowed under the Affordable Care Act as Congress drafted it.

This claim also fails on multiple levels. First, if Congress wanted to prohibit “short-term” health plans as part of Obamacare, it could have done so. Congress chose first to allow these plans to continue to exist, and second to exempt these plans from all of Obamacare’s regulatory regime. If Bagley and Gluck have an objection to the splintering of insurance markets, then they should take it up with Congress.

Second, the so-called “new rule” Bagley and Gluck refer to only reverts back to a definition of short-term coverage that existed under the Obama Administration. This definition existed for nearly two decades, from when Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) through 2016. The Obama administration published a rule intended to eliminate much of the market for this type of coverage — but it did so only in the fall of that year, more than two years after Obamacare’s major coverage provisions took effect.

As with the shortening of the open enrollment period discussed above, if Bagley and Gluck want to scream “Sabotage!” regarding the Trump administration’s actions, they also must point the finger at Barack Obama for similar actions. That they did not suggests the partisan, and ultimately flawed, nature of their analysis.

3. The Lawsuit

The 128-page complaint filed by the city plaintiffs earlier this month makes some of the same points as the New York Times op-ed. It also continues the same pattern of blaming the Trump administration for actions previously taken by the Obama administration.

The lawsuit criticizes numerous elements of the administration’s April rule setting out the payment parameters for the 2019 Exchange year. For instance, it criticizes the removal of language requiring Exchanges to provide a direct notification to individuals before discontinuing their eligibility for subsidies, if individuals fail to reconcile the subsidies they received in prior years with the amount they qualified for based on their income. (Estimated subsidies, which are based on projected income for a year, can vary significantly from the actual subsidy levels one qualifies for, based on changes in income due to a promotion, change in life status, etc.)

As part of this charge, the lawsuit includes an important nugget: The relevant regulation “was amended in 2016 to specify that an Exchange may not deny [subsidies] under this provision ‘unless direct notification is first sent to the tax filer.’” As with the New York Times op-ed outlined above, those claiming “sabotage” are doing so because the Trump administration decided to revert to a prior regulatory definition used by the Obama administration for the first several years of Obamacare implementation.

The lawsuit similarly complains that the Trump administration is “making it harder to compare insurance plans” by eliminating support for “standardized options” from the Exchange. Here again, the complaint notes that “prior rules supported ‘standardized options,’” while mentioning only in a footnote that the rules implementing the “standardized options” took effect for the 2017 plan year. In other words, the Obama administration did not establish “standardized options” for the 2014, 2015, or 2016 plan years. Were they “sabotaging” Obamacare by failing to do so?

The suit continues with these types of claims, which collectively amount to legalistic whining that the Trump administration has not implemented Obamacare in a manner the (liberal) plaintiffs would support. It even includes this noteworthy assertion:

Maryland has been cleared by state legislators to petition CMS to ‘establish a reinsurance program that would create a pot of money for insurers to cover the most expensive claims,’ but a health economist ‘said he would be shocked if the Trump administration approved such a request, given its efforts to weaken Obamacare’: ‘It just seems very unlikely to me that Trump would approve this. … Maryland is easily saying we want to help prop up Obamacare, which the Trump administration doesn’t want to have anything to do with.’

Fact: The Trump administration just approved Maryland’s insurance waiver this week. So much for that “sabotage.”

A review of its “prayer for relief” — the plaintiffs’ request for actions the court should take — shows the ridiculously sweeping nature of the lawsuit’s claims. Among other things, the plaintiffs want the court to order the defendants to “comply with their constitutional obligation to take care to faithfully execute the ACA,” including by doing the following:

  • “Expand, rather than suppress, the number of individuals and families obtaining health insurance through ACA exchanges;
  • “Reduce, rather than increase, premiums for health insurance in the ACA exchanges;
  • “Promote, rather than diminish, the availability of comprehensive, reasonably-priced health insurance for individuals and families with preexisting conditions;
  • “Encourage, rather than discourage, individuals and families to obtain health insurance that provides the coverage that Congress, in the ACA, determined is necessary to protect American families against the physical and economic devastation that results from lesser insurance, with limits on coverage that leaves them unable to cover the costs of an accident or unexpected illness…
  • “Order Defendants to fully fund advertising under the ACA;
  • “Enjoin Defendants from producing and disseminating advertisements that aim to undermine the ACA;
  • “Order Defendants to fully fund Navigators under the ACA;
  • “Enjoin Defendants from incentivizing Navigators to advertise non-ACA compliant plans;
  • “Order Defendants to lengthen the open enrollment period;
  • “Order Defendants to resume participation in enrollment events and other outreach activities under the ACA…
  • “Order Defendants to process states’ waiver applications under the ACA so as to faithfully implement the Act.”

In other words, the lawsuit asks a court to micro-manage every possible element of implementation of a 2,700-page law — tell HHS what it must say, what it must do, how much it must spend, and on and on. It would create de facto entitlements, by stating that HHS could never reduce funding for advertising and outreach, or lower spending on navigators, or reject states’ waiver applications — potentially even if those applications violate the law itself. And it asks for impossible actions — because HHS cannot unilaterally “expand, rather than suppress” the number of people with coverage, just as it cannot unilaterally “reduce, rather than increase, premiums.”

Despite its questionable claims, and the highly questionable remedies it seeks, the lawsuit may yet accomplish some of its goals. The complaint spends much of its time alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that HHS did not “meaningfully” or “adequately” consider comments from individuals who objected to the regulatory changes in question. While I have not examined the relevant regulatory dockets in any level of detail, the (pardon the pun) trumped-up nature of elements of the complaint makes me skeptical of such assertions. That said, the administration has suffered several setbacks in court over complaints regarding the regulatory process, so the lawsuit may force HHS to ensure it has its proverbial “i”s dotted and “t”s crossed before proceeding with further changes.

Words Versus Actions

On many levels, the “sabotage” allegations try to use the president’s own words (and tweets) against him. Other lawsuits have done likewise, with varying degrees of success. As I noted above, the president’s rhetoric often does not reflect the actual reality that Obamacare remains much more entrenched than conservatives like myself would like.

But for all their complaints about the administration’s “sabotage,” liberals have no one to blame but themselves for the current situation. Obamacare gave a tremendous amount of authority to the federal bureaucracy to implement its myriad edicts. They should not be surprised when someone who disagrees with them uses that vast power to accomplish what they view as malign ends. Perhaps next time they should think again before proceeding down a road that gives government such significant authority. They won’t, but they should.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.