How Andy Slavitt Sabotaged Obamacare

Over the weekend, former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) acting administrator and Obamacare defender Andy Slavitt took to Twitter to denounce what he viewed as the Trump administration’s “aggressive and needless sabotage” of the health care law:

Unfortunately for Slavitt, the facts suggest otherwise. The Trump administration took actions to comply with a federal court order that vacated rules promulgated by the Obama administration—including rules CMS issued when Slavitt ran the agency. If Slavitt wants to denounce the supposed “sabotage” of Obamacare, he need look no further than the nearest mirror.

What’s the Issue?

This legal dispute involves risk adjustment payments, one of the three “Rs” Obamacare created. Unlike the risk corridor and reinsurance programs, which lasted only from 2014 through 2016, Obamacare made the risk adjustment program permanent.

In general, risk adjustment transfers funds from insurers with healthier-than-average enrollment to insurers with sicker-than-average enrollment. Without risk adjustment, plans would have perverse incentives to avoid enrolling sick people, due to the Obamacare regulations that require insurers to accept all applicants, and prohibit them from charging higher premiums due to health status.

Since the Obamacare exchanges began operations in 2014, many newer and smaller insurers say that the federal risk adjustment formula unfairly advantages incumbent carriers—in many cases, local Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. The small carriers complain that larger insurers do a better job of documenting their enrollees’ health conditions (e.g., diabetes, etc.), entitling them to larger risk adjustment payments.

A July 2016 analysis concluded that “for most co-ops, these recently announced risk adjustment payments have made a bad situation worse, and for a subset, they may prove to be the proverbial last straw.” Indeed, most Obamacare co-ops failed, and the risk adjustment methodology proved one reason. Two co-ops—Minuteman Health in Massachusetts (now in receivership) and New Mexico Health Connections—sued to challenge the risk adjustment formula.

What Happened in the Lawsuits?

On January 30, a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of the federal government with respect to Minuteman Health’s case. Judge Dennis Saylor ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner when setting the risk adjustment formula.

However, a few weeks later, on February 28, another federal district court in New Mexico granted partial summary judgement in favor of New Mexico Health Connections, ruling that one element of the risk adjustment formula—the use of statewide average premium (discussed further below)—violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious. Judge James Browning vacated that portion of the risk adjustment formula for the years 2014 through 2018, and remanded the matter back to HHS and CMS for further proceedings.

If the Trump administration wanted to use the risk adjustment ruling to “sabotage” Obamacare, as people like Slavitt claim, it would have halted the program immediately after Browning issued his order in February. Instead, the administration on March 28 filed a motion to have Browning reconsider his decision in light of the contrary ruling in the Minuteman Health case.

The administration also asked Browning to lift his order vacating the risk adjustment formula, and just remand the matter to CMS/HHS instead. In that case, the rule would remain in effect, but the administration would have to alter it to comply with Browning’s ruling. However, at a June 21 hearing, Browning seemed disinclined to accept the government’s request—which likely led to the CMS announcement this weekend.

Who Issued ‘Arbitrary and Capricious’ Rules?

The Obama administration did, in all cases. Browning’s ruling vacated a portion of the risk adjustment formula for plan years 2014 through 2018 (i.e., the current one). Even though President Trump took office on January 20, 2017, the outgoing Obama administration rushed out rules for the 2018 plan year on December 22, 2016, with the rules taking effect just prior to Obama leaving office.

However, Browning believed the statute does not require budget neutrality—it does not prohibit it, nor does it require it. Therefore, the administration needed to provide a “policy rationale” for its budget neutrality assumption. For instance, HHS could have argued that, because Obamacare did not include a separate appropriation for the risk adjustment program, implementing risk adjustment in a budget neutral manner would prevent the diversion of taxpayer resources from other programs.

But as Browning noted, “the Court must rely upon the rationale the agency articulated in its internal proceedings and not upon post hoc reasoning.” HHS did not explain the reasoning behind budget neutrality in its final rules for the 2014 plan year, nor for several years thereafter.

While both the 2011 white paper and 2014 rules (the final version of which HHS released in March 2013) preceded the July 2014 start of Slavitt’s tenure in senior management at CMS, the agency released rules for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 plan years on his watch. If Slavitt believes “sabotage” occurred as a result of Browning’s court ruling, he should accept his share of the responsibility for it, by issuing rules that a federal judge struck down as “arbitrary and capricious.”

Ironically, as one observer noted, the federal government “argued that the court’s ruling as it applies to the 2018 benefit year should be set aside because the agency responded directly to comments regarding its rationale for budget neutrality in the final 2018 payment rule.” However, Browning held that “subsequent final rules” did “not elaborate further on [HHS’] budget neutrality rationale,” and struck down the 2018 rule along with the rules for 2014 through 2017.

Browning’s decision to strike down the 2018 rule demonstrates Slavitt’s “sabotage.” HHS released that rule months after Minuteman Health and New Mexico Health Connections filed their lawsuits, and thus had adequate time to adjust the rule in response to their claims. Regardless, Browning thought the agency did not elaborate upon or justify its policy reasoning regarding budget neutrality in the risk adjustment program—a direct swipe at Slavitt’s inability to manage the regulatory process inside his agency.

What Would Andy Slavitt Do Instead?

On Friday night, Slavitt claimed that an interim final rule could “clarify and resolve everything:”

However, on Sunday, Slavitt tweeted a link to a New York Times article entitled “A Fatal Flaw as Trump Tries to Remake Health Care: Shortcuts.” That article cited several court cases “that the Administration has lost [that] have a common theme: Federal judges have found that the Administration cut corners in trying to advance its political priorities.” It continues:

Two federal courts blocked Trump Administration rules that would have allowed employers who provide health insurance to employees to omit contraceptive coverage if the employers had moral or religious objections. Two federal judges, in separate cases, said the Administration had violated the law by adopting the rules without a public comment period, which the Trump Administration had declared ‘impracticable and contrary to the public interest.’

Those rules regarding the contraception mandate that the Trump administration adopted “without a public comment,” and which were struck down as unlawful, were both interim final rules—the same type of rule Slavitt now wants to use to change the risk adjustment formula. (Interim final rules do require the agency to take comments, but go into effect on the date of their release—thus notice-and-comment occurs retroactively.)

Nicholas Bagley, an Obamacare supporter, explained at the time of their release why he thought the contraception rules would get stricken (as they were) for violating the notice-and-comment requirement. It’s certainly possible that the administration could use Browning’s ruling as a reason to justify forgoing notice-and-comment, and releasing an interim final rule

But it also makes sense that, given the series of legal setbacks the administration has suffered in recent weeks—and the Times article highlighted—officials at CMS and HHS would take a more cautious approach to issuing regulations, to ensure their actions withstand legal scrutiny.

More to the point, it’s disingenuous of Slavitt to tweet an article criticizing the Trump administration for using interim final rules to enact policies he dislikes, then accuse the administration of “sabotage” for not using that same expedited process for policies he likes. It’s even more disingenuous for Slavitt given that the legal dilemma the Trump administration faces regarding risk adjustment comes entirely from a mess they inherited from the Obama administration—and Slavitt himself.

On Sunday, Slavitt cited a conservative article that in his view “called out Trump’s motivation for ending risk adjustment and raise [sic] premiums on millions: Punishing a former President.” Maybe the next time Slavitt makes allegations about supposed “sabotage” by the Trump administration, he should get his facts straight—CMS’s announcement didn’t “end” the risk adjustment program; only Congress can do that—rather than making unfounded against the current president.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Does the Heritage Health Plan Include Taxpayer Funding of Abortion?

When lawmakers write legislation, little details matter—a lot. In the case of a health plan that the Heritage Foundation and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) are reportedly preparing to release in the coming days, a few words indicate the plan has not considered critically important details—like how Senate procedure intertwines with abortion policy—necessary to any substantive policy endeavor.

A few short words in a summary of the Heritage plan leave the real possibility that the plan, if enacted as described, could lead to taxpayer funding of abortion coverage. Either Heritage and Santorum—both known opponents of abortion—have undertaken dramatic changes in their pro-life positions over the past few months, or they have failed to think through the full import of the policies they will release very shortly.

However, multiple individuals participating in the Heritage meetings told me that the concepts and policies Spiro’s document discusses align with Heritage discussions. Spiro may have created that document based on verbal descriptions given to him of the Heritage plan (just as the New York Times’ list of questions Robert Mueller wants to ask President Trump likely came via Trump’s attorneys and not Mueller). But regardless of who created it, people in the Heritage group told me it accurately outlined the policy proposals under discussion.

What Cost-Sharing Reductions Do

The summary describes many policies, but one in particular stands out: Under “Short-term stabilization/premium relief,” the plan “Adopts the [Lamar] Alexander and [Susan] Collins appropriation for CSRs [cost-sharing reductions] and state reinsurance/high risk pool programs for 2019 and 2020.”

On one level, this development should not come as a surprise. Party leaders often incorporate recalcitrant members’ pet projects (or, in the old days, earmarks) into a bill to obtain their votes: “See, we included the language that you wanted—you have to vote for our bill now!” Given that Collins as of last week had not even heard about the Heritage-led effort, one might think she would need some incentive to support the measure, which attaching her “stability” language might provide.

About the Hyde Amendment and Byrd Rule

The reference to CSRs takes on more importance because of the way Congress would consider Heritage’s plan. As with the Graham-Cassidy bill and other “repeal-and-replace” bills considered last year, the Senate would enact them using expedited budget reconciliation procedures.

Those procedures theoretically allow all 51 Senate Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster and pass a reconciliation bill on a party-line vote. However, as I outlined last year, the reconciliation process comes with procedural restrictions (i.e., the “Byrd rule”) to prevent senators from attaching “extraneous” and non-budgetary matter to a bill that cannot be filibustered.

“Hyde amendment” restrictions—which prevent federal funding of abortion coverage, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother—represent a textbook example of the “Byrd rule,” because they have a fiscal impact “merely incidental” to the policy changes proposed. Former Senate Parliamentarian Bob Dove said as much about abortion restrictions Congress considered in 1995:

The Congressional Budget Office determined that it was going to save money. But it was my view that the provision was not there in order to save money. It was there to implement social policy. Therefore I ruled that it was not in order and it was stricken.

After pushing for a vote for months, Collins suddenly backed off and didn’t force the issue on the Senate floor. She knew she didn’t have the votes—everyone knew she didn’t have the votes—because Democrats wouldn’t support a measure that restricted taxpayer funding of abortion coverage. Exactly nothing has changed that dynamic since Congress considered the issue in March.

Why We Can’t Fund CSRs

Republicans recognize the problems the abortion funding issue creates, and the Graham-Cassidy bill attempted to solve them by providing subsidies via a block grant to states. Graham-Cassidy funneled the block grant through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), largely because the SCHIP statute includes the following language: “Funds provided to a state under this title shall only be used to carry out the purposes of this title, and any health insurance coverage provided with such funds may include coverage of abortion only if necessary to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

Because SCHIP already contains full Hyde protections on taxpayer funding of abortion, Graham-Cassidy ran the block grant program through SCHIP. Put another way, Graham-Cassidy borrowed existing Hyde amendment protections because any new protections would get in a budget reconciliation bill. It did the same thing for a “stability” fund for reinsurance or other mechanisms intended to lower premiums by subsidizing insurers, also referred to in Spiro’s document.

Creating a pot of money elsewhere in law—for instance, through the SCHIP statute, which does contain Hyde protections—and using that money to compensate insurers for reducing cost-sharing would prove just as unrealistic. The CSR payments reimburse insurers for discrete, specific discounts provided to discrete, specific low-income individuals.

If the subsidy pool gave money to all insurers equally, regardless of the number of low-income enrollees they reduced cost-sharing for, then insurers would have a ready-built incentive to avoid attracting poor people, because enrolling low-income individuals would saddle them with an unfunded (or only partially funded) mandate. If the subsidy pool gave money to insurers based on their specific obligations under the Obamacare cost-sharing reduction requirements, then the parliamentarian would likely view this language as an attempt to circumvent the Byrd rule restrictions and strike it down.

Not Ready for Prime Time

Four participants in the Heritage meetings told me the group has discussed appropriating funds for CSR payments to insurers as part of the plan. Not a single individual said the Senate’s “Byrd rule” restrictions—which make enacting pro-life protections for such CSR payments all-but-impossible—came up when discussing an appropriation for cost-sharing payments to insurers.

That silence signals one or more potential problems: A lack of regard for pro-life policy; an ignorance of Senate procedure, and its potential ramifications on the policies being considered; or a willingness to fudge details—allowing people to believe what they want to believe. Regardless, it speaks to the unformed nature of the proposal, despite meetings that have continued since the last time “repeal-and-replace” collapsed” nearly eight months ago.

Earlier this month, Santorum claimed in an interview that while the original “Graham-Cassidy was a rush…this time we have the opportunity to get the policy better.” But any serious attempt to “get the policy better” wouldn’t have major lingering questions about tens of billions of dollars in “stability” funding, and whether such funds would subsidize abortion coverage, mere days before its public release. In this case, eight months of deliberations may not lead to a deliberative and coherent policy product.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

“Stability” Bill Will Not Reduce Premiums in 2019 Compared to 2018

A PDF version of this document is available online here.

Backers of Obamacare “stability” legislation claim it will lower premiums. However, most studies suggest that even after Congress spends tens of billions of dollars, premiums will still rise in 2019 compared to 2018. If the “stability” bill won’t deliver on its promise of lower rates, why enact such controversial legislation…?

CLAIM: “Oliver Wyman projected premium decreases…40% lower premiums…”

THE FACTS:
1.     Half of supposed premium decrease depends on states enacting their own reinsurance programs.

2.     Oliver Wyman’s own report admits most states will not get reinsurance programs enacted in time for 2019 open enrollment—less than eight months away.

3.     10% of supposed premium decrease comes from appropriation of cost-sharing reductions (CSRs).

4.     In all but six states in 2018, individuals can purchase plans with premiums unaffected by cancellation of CSR payments. Therefore, most unsubsidized enrollees will not see any premium reduction in 2019 if Congress appropriates CSR funds—because they never saw a premium increase to begin with.

5.     Does not consider impact of Association Health Plans (AHPs) or short-term plans. If either AHPs or short-term plans achieve sizable enrollment, they could siphon off healthy individuals from the Exchanges—raising premiums for those who remain.

REALITY:     Eliminating the effects of waivers most states won’t receive by year-end, and CSR payments that didn’t affect most unsubsidized enrollees to begin with, Oliver Wyman believes premiums in 2019 will decline only by about 10%. If health costs rise substantially, or short-term plans become popular, those modest premium decreases will disappear—and if both occur, individuals will likely face double-digit premium increases in 2019, even after the “stability” measure.

CLAIM: “CBO projected premium reductions…2019: Average 10% premium reduction…”

THE FACTS:
1.     Both CBO and the Trump Administration believe the elimination of the individual mandate penalty will raise premiums by roughly 10%—completely offsetting the effects of the “stability” bill next year.

2.     CBO has yet to analyze whether and how short-term plans and AHPs will raise Exchange premiums.

3.     While the Trump Administration thinks short-term plans will raise Exchange premiums only slightly—because a small number of people (100,000-200,000) will enroll in them—higher take-up of short-term plans could raise Exchange premiums substantially. The Urban Institute believes that 4.3 million individuals will enroll in short-term plans—and that this high enrollment in short-term plans (where they are offered) will raise Exchange premiums by 18.3 percent.

REALITY: At best CBO believes that the “stability” bill will mitigate the effects of eliminating the mandate penalty next year. But that makes premium increases for 2019 inevitable, and double-digit premium increases quite possible—even after the “stability” bill takes effect.

Republicans Omit Obamacare Bailout from Omnibus — DO NOT CONGRATULATE

Congressional leaders finally released the massive, 2,232-page omnibus spending bill late Wednesday, a measure they want Congress to pass within 24 hours. The version released Wednesday night omits language of an Obamacare “stability” package that Republican lawmakers released separately on Monday.

But, to borrow a phrase echoing throughout the Capitol since a Washington Post story appeared Tuesday night, “DO NOT CONGRATULATE” Republicans for leaving the bailout provisions out of the draft. On both process and on substance, congressional leaders did not cover themselves in glory. Far from it.

Republicans Bad on Substance…

A cynic would question why Republican leaders found this particular issue non-negotiable. After all, Republicans ran for four straight election cycles—in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016—on repealing Obamacare, only to turn around and propose more than $60 billion in spending to prop it up. From Democrats’ perspective, since Republicans did a complete 180 on repealing Obamacare, why not expect the GOP to perform a similar U-turn on taxpayer funding of abortion?

…And Just as Bad on Process

In general, the process surrounding the omnibus—as with most appropriations legislation, and most major legislation in general—stinks. After completing a secretive drafting process among a small group of staff behind closed doors—the swamp personified—leaders now will turn to ramming the legislation through Congress.

Facing a potential government shutdown at midnight on Friday, they will rush through the massive bill spending trillions of dollars in a matter of hours, well before members of Congress or their staff will have time to read, let alone digest and understand, its contents.

One specific issue stands out: As I previously wrote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to grant Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) a separate vote on bailing out Obamacare. He apparently will attempt to do so despite the fact that:

  1. Other Republican senators never agreed to give Collins a vote. McConnell spoke only for himself in his colloquy with Collins last December.
  2. Collins demonstrably moved the goalposts on the size of her bailout. McConnell agreed to support $5 billion in reinsurance funds in December, while now she has demanded more than six times as much, or more than $30 billion.
  3. McConnell literally shut down the federal government rather than grant Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) a vote on his amendment to an appropriations bill just last month—and Paul’s colleagues publicly trashed his attempts to obtain a vote as a “stunt” and “utterly pointless.”

To most individuals outside Washington, Republicans moving to bail out Obamacare, and attempting to pass 2,200-plus page bills in mere hours, signifies a degree of insanity. Unfortunately, however, Congress seems to engage in these types of activities (at least) every year, raising the specter of the trite saying that defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

This week’s spectacle should raise one obvious question: How many more of these sorry affairs will it take before conservatives summon the will to end it, once and for all?

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Mitch McConnell’s Amendment Dilemma

Mitch McConnell has a problem entirely of his own making. The Senate majority leader promised a vote on Obamacare “stability” legislation to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Collins wants a vote on the package as a Senate floor amendment to the omnibus appropriations legislation (that is, if and when congressional leaders emerge from their smoke-filled rooms and actually release an omnibus package for Congress to vote on).

Except that not six weeks ago, McConnell literally let the federal government shut down rather than grant his fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul a floor vote on his amendment to appropriations legislation.

It’s a fun choice McConnell gets to make—and he’s running out of time to do it.

Shutdown Showdown

Lest anyone forget what transpired a few short weeks ago, Paul asked for a clean vote on his amendment to budget and spending legislation, to preserve strict spending caps enacted as part of the Budget Control Act. (When it passed in 2011, McConnell said the Budget Control Act spending caps would slow down the “big government freight train”—a freight train that he now apparently wants to put into hyperdrive.)

McConnell and the Senate leadership refused to give Paul an up-or-down vote on his amendment. As Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) put it, “Why reward bad behavior?” Because under Senate rules Paul could speak for an extended period of time, and because Senate leadership did not allow enough time for a full floor debate on the legislation—apparently thinking it appropriate for the Senate to consider and pass in mere hours a 652-page bill allocating trillions of dollars—the federal government briefly shut down.

Susan Collins’ Precious Bailout

Enter Collins, who along with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has been pushing for a bailout of Obamacare insurers for months now. Collins claims she has a commitment from McConnell to support an insurer “stability” package. Alexander said he would demand a vote, asking for senators “to be accountable” for their positions on the issue, because he thinks bailing out Obamacare will lower premiums for 2019 (it won’t).

However, as I noted just last week, Collins has moved the goalposts on the bailout package significantly. Whereas she initially requested “only” $5 billion in reinsurance funds, according to her December colloquy with McConnell, the new bill she and Alexander introduced this week contains more than $30 billion in spending on reinsurance—a sixfold increase. Because Collins has demonstrably walked away from her side of whatever bargain McConnell made with her, Senate leadership should have no qualms about doing the same.

Different Treatment?

However, the McConnell office appears inclined to give Collins her way, with multiple reports saying that McConnell was “open” to such an amendment vote to the appropriations bill. Compare that to the reactions Paul received from his colleagues last month, when he wanted an amendment vote to an appropriations bill. Congressmen called it an “utterly pointless” “stunt” that “doesn’t make any d-mn sense.” One unnamed Senate Republican aide called it “the stupidest thing to happen to Congress in three weeks….This is even stupider than the kid who didn’t recognize Justin Timberlake at the Super Bowl.”

Conservatives should watch with intense interest how the Senate floor debate plays out. If McConnell moves heaven and earth to get Collins a vote on her precious bailout, after moving heaven and earth to deny Paul a vote on retaining spending caps that McConnell himself used to support, they should neither quickly forgive, nor easily forget, the double standards created by Senate leadership.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Legislative Bulletin: Updated Summary of Obamacare “Stability” Legislation

On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and others introduced their latest version of an Obamacare “stability” bill. In general, the bill would appropriate more than $60 billion in funds to insurance companies, propping up and entrenching Obamacare rather than repealing it.

Also on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the updated legislation. In CBO’s estimate, the bill would increase the deficit by $19.1 billion, while marginally increasing the number of insured Americans (by fewer than 500,000 per year).


Stability Fund
: Provides $500 million in funding for fiscal year 2018, and $10 billion in funding for each of fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021, for invisible high-risk pools and reinsurance payments. The $500 million this year would provide administrative assistance to states to establish such programs, with the $10 billion in each of the following three years maintaining them.

Grants the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the authority to allocate the funds to states—which some conservatives may be concerned gives federal bureaucrats authority to spend $30.5 billion wherever they choose.

Includes a provision requiring a federal fallback for 2019 (and only 2019) in states that choose not to establish their own reinsurance or invisible high-risk program. Moreover, these federal fallback dollars must be used “for market stabilization payments to issuers.” Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision—which, like the rest of the $30 billion in “stability funds,” did not appear in the original Alexander-Murray legislation—undermines state flexibility, by effectively forcing states to bail out insurers, whether they want to or not.

Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments: The bill appropriates roughly $30-35 billion in cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers, which subsidizes their provision of discounts on deductibles and co-payments to certain low-income individuals enrolled on insurance exchanges.

Last October, President Trump announced he would halt the payments to insurers, concluding the administration did not have authority to do so under the Constitution. As a result, the bill includes an explicit appropriation, totaling roughly $3-4 billion for the final quarter of 2017, and $9-10 billion for each of years 2019, 2020, and 2021, based on CBO spending estimates. This language represents a change from the original Alexander-Murray bill, which appropriated payments for 2018 and 2019 only.

For 2018, the bill appropriates CSRs only for 1) states choosing the Basic Health plan option (which gives states a percentage of Obamacare subsidies as a block grant to cover low-income individuals) and 2) insurers for which HHS determines, in conjunction with state insurance commissioners, that the insurer assumed the payment of CSRs when setting rates for the 2018 plan year. This language represents a change from the original Alexander-Murray bill, which set up a complicated system of rebates that would have allowed insurers potentially to pocket billions of dollars by retaining “extra” CSR payments for 2018.

Some conservatives may be concerned that, because insurers understood for well over a year that a new administration could terminate these payments in 2017, the agreement would effectively subsidize their flawed assumptions. Some conservatives may be concerned that action to continue the flow of payments would solidify the principle that Obamacare, and therefore insurers, are “too big to fail,” which could only encourage further risky behavior by insurers in the future.

Hyde Amendment: With respect to the issue of taxpayer dollars subsidizing federal insurance plans covering abortion, the bill does not apply the Hyde Amendment protections retrospectively to the 2017 CSR payments, or to the (current) 2018 plan year. With respect to 2019 through 2021, the bill prohibits federal funding of abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. However, the bill does allow states to use state-only dollars to fund other abortions, as many state Medicaid managed care plans do currently.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, with respect to coverage of abortions in state Medicaid plans:

  • 32 states and the District of Columbia follow the federal Hyde Amendment standard, funding abortion only in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother;
  • One state provides abortion only in the case of life endangerment; and
  • 17 states provide coverage for most abortions—five voluntarily, and 12 by court order.

State Waiver Processes: The bill would streamline the process for approving state innovation waivers, authorized by Section 1332 of Obamacare. Those waivers allow states to receive their state’s exchange funding as a block grant, and exempt themselves from the individual mandate, employer mandate, and some (but not all) of Obamacare’s insurance regulations.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Extend the waivers’ duration, from five years to six, with unlimited renewals possible;
  • Prohibit HHS from terminating waivers during their duration (including any renewal periods), unless “the state materially failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the waiver”;
  • Require HHS to release guidance to states within 60 days of enactment regarding waivers, including model language for waivers—a change from the 30 days included in the original Alexander-Murray bill;
  • Shorten the time for HHS to consider waivers from 180 days to 120—a change from 90 days in the original Alexander-Murray bill;
  • Allow a 45-day review for 1) waivers currently pending; 2) waivers for areas “the Secretary determines are at risk for excessive premium increases or having no health plans offered in the applicable health insurance market for the current or following plan year”; 3) waivers that are “the same or substantially similar” to waivers previously approved for another state; and 4) waivers related to invisible high-risk pools or reinsurance, as discussed above. These waivers would initially apply for no more than three years, with an extension possible for a full six-year term;
  • Allow governors to apply for waivers based on their certification of authority, rather than requiring states to pass a law authorizing state actions under the waiver—a move that some conservatives may be concerned could allow state chief executives to act unilaterally, including by exiting a successful waiver on a governor’s order.

State Waiver Substance: On the substance of innovation waivers, the bill would rescind regulatory guidance the Obama administration issued in December 2015. Among other actions, that guidance prevented states from using savings from an Obamacare/exchange waiver to offset higher costs to Medicaid, and vice versa.

While supporting the concept of greater flexibility for states, some conservatives may note that, as this guidance was not enacted pursuant to notice-and-comment, the Trump administration can revoke it at any time—indeed, should have revoked it last year. Additionally, the bill amends, but does not repeal, the “guardrails” for state innovation waivers. Under current law, Section 1332 waivers must:

  • “Provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as” Obamacare coverage;
  • “Provide coverage and cost-sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable” as Obamacare coverage;
  • “Provide coverage to at least a comparable number of [a state’s] residents” as under Obamacare; and
  • “Not increase the federal deficit.”

Some conservatives have previously criticized these provisions as insufficiently flexible to allow for conservative health reforms like Health Savings Accounts and other consumer-driven options.

The bill allows states to provide coverage “of comparable affordability, including for low-income individuals, individuals with serious health needs, and other vulnerable populations” rather than the current language in the second bullet above. It also clarifies that deficit and budget neutrality will operate over the lifetime of the waiver, and that state innovation waivers under Obamacare “shall not be construed to affect any waiver processes or standards” under the Medicare or Medicaid statutes for purposes of determining the Obamacare waiver’s deficit neutrality.

The bill also makes adjustments to the “pass-through” language allowing states to receive their exchange funding via a block grant. For instance, the bill adds language allowing states to receive any funding for the Basic Health Program—a program states can establish for households with incomes of between 138-200 percent of the federal poverty level—via the block grant.

Some conservatives may view the “comparable affordability” change as a distinction without a difference, as it still explicitly links affordability to Obamacare’s rich benefit package. Some conservatives may therefore view the purported “concessions” on the December 2015 guidance, and on “comparable affordability” as inconsequential in nature, and insignificant given the significant concessions to liberals included elsewhere in the proposed legislative package.

Catastrophic Plans: The bill would allow all individuals to purchase “catastrophic” health plans, beginning in 2019. The legislation would also require insurers to keep those plans in a single risk pool with other Obamacare plans—a change from current law.

Catastrophic plans—currently only available to individuals under 30, individuals without an “affordable” health plan in their area, or individuals subject to a hardship exemption from the individual mandate—provide no coverage below Obamacare’s limit on out-of-pocket spending, but for “coverage of at least three primary care visits.” Catastrophic plans are also currently subject to Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirements.

Outreach Funding: The bill requires HHS to obligate $105.8 million in exchange user fees to states for “enrollment and outreach activities” for the 2019 and 2020 plan years—a change from the original legislation, which focused on the 2018 and 2019 plan years. Currently, the federal exchange (healthcare.gov) assesses a user fee of 3.5 percent of premiums on insurers, who ultimately pass these fees on to consumers.

In a rule released in December 2016, the outgoing Obama administration admitted that the exchange is “gaining economies of scale from functions with fixed costs,” in part because maintaining the exchange costs less per year than creating one did in 2013-14. However, the Obama administration rejected any attempt to lower those fees, instead deciding to spend them on outreach efforts. The agreement would re-direct portions of the fees to states for enrollment outreach.

Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision would create a new entitlement for states to outreach dollars. Moreover, some conservatives may object to this re-direction of funds that ultimately come from consumers towards more government spending. Some conservatives may support taking steps to reduce the user fees—thus lowering premiums, the purported intention of this “stabilization” measure—rather than re-directing them toward more government spending, as the agreement proposes.

The bill also requires a series of biweekly reports from HHS on metrics like call center volume, website visits, etc., during the 2019 and 2020 open enrollment periods, followed by after-action reports regarding outreach and advertising. Some conservatives may view these myriad requirements first as micro-management of the executive, and second as buying into the liberal narrative that the Trump administration is “sabotaging” Obamacare, by requiring minute oversight of the executive’s implementation of the law.

Cross-State Purchasing: Requires HHS to issue regulations (in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners) within one year regarding health care choice compacts under Obamacare. Such compacts would allow individuals to purchase coverage across state lines.

However, because states can already establish health care compacts amongst themselves, and because Obamacare’s regulatory mandates would still apply to any such coverage purchased through said compacts, some conservatives may view such language as insufficient and not adding to consumers’ affordable coverage options.

Consumer Notification: Requires states that allow the sale of short-term, limited duration health coverage to disclose to consumers that such plans differ from “Obamacare-approved” qualified health plans. Note that this provision does not codify the administration’s proposed regulations regarding short-term health coverage; a future Democratic administration could (and likely will) easily re-write such regulations again to eliminate the sale of short-term plans, as the Obama administration did in 2016.

CBO Analysis of the Legislation

As noted above, CBO believes the legislation would increase the deficit by $19.1 billion, while increasing the number of insured Americans marginally. In general, while CBO believed that changes to Obamacare’s state waivers program would increase the number of states applying for waivers, they would not have a net budgetary impact.

However, the bill does include one particular change to Obamacare Section 1332 waivers allowing existing waiver recipients to request recalculation of their funding formula. According to CBO, only Minnesota qualifies under the statutory definition, and could receive $359 million in additional funding between 2018 and 2022. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision represents a legislative earmark that by definition can only affect one state.

With respect to the invisible high-risk pools and reinsurance, CBO believes the provisions would raise spending by a net of $26.5 billion, offset by higher revenues of $7 billion. The budget office estimated that the entire country would be covered by the federal fallback option in 2019, because “it would be difficult for other states [that do not have waivers currently] to establish a state-based program in time to affect premiums.”

For 2020 and 2021, CBO believes that 60 and 80 percent of the country, respectively, would be covered by state waivers; “the remainder of the population in those years would be without a federally-funded reinsurance program or invisible high-risk pool.” The $7 billion in offsetting savings referenced in CBO’s score comes from lower premiums, and thus lower spending on federal premium subsidies. In 2019, CBO believes “about 60 percent of the federal cost for the default federal reinsurance program would be offset by other sources of savings.”

CBO believes that, under the bill, premiums would be 10 percent lower in 2019, and 20 percent lower in 2020 and 2021, compared to current law. Some conservatives may note that lower premiums relative to current law does not equate to lower premiums relative to 2018 levels. Particularly because CBO expects elimination of the individual mandate tax will raise premiums by 10 percent in 2019, many conservatives may doubt that premiums will go down in absolute terms, notwithstanding the sizable spending on insurer subsidies under the bill.

CBO noted that premium changes would largely affect unsubsidized individuals—i.e., families with incomes more than four times the federal poverty level ($100,400 for a family of four in 2018)—a small portion of whom would sign up for coverage as a result of the reductions. However, “in states that did not apply for a waiver, premiums would be the same under current law as under the legislation starting in 2020.”

Moreover, even in states with a reinsurance waiver, CBO believes that insurers will “tend to set premiums conservatively to hedge against uncertainty” regarding the reinsurance programs—meaning that CBO “expect[s] that total premiums would not be reduced by the entire amount of available federal funding.”

As noted in prior posts, CBO is required by law to assume full funding of entitlement spending, including cost-sharing reductions. Therefore, the official score of the bill included no net budget impact for the CSR appropriation. However, Alexander received a supplemental letter from CBO indicating that, compared to a scenario where the federal government did not make CSR payments, appropriating funds for CSRs would result in a notional deficit reduction of $29 billion.

The notional deficit reduction arises because, in the absence of CSR payments, insurers would “load” the cost of reducing cost-sharing on to health insurance premiums—thus raising premium subsidies for those who qualify for them. CBO believes these higher subsidies would entice more families with incomes between two and four times the federal poverty definition ($50,200-$100,400 for a family of four in 2018) to sign up for coverage. Compared to a “no-CSR” baseline, appropriating funds for CSRs, as the bill would do, would reduce spending on premium subsidies, but it would also increase the number of uninsured by 500,000-1,000,000, as some families receiving lower subsidies would drop coverage.

Lastly, the expanded sale of catastrophic plans, coupled with provisions including those plans in a single risk pool, would slightly improve the health of the overall population purchasing Obamacare coverage. While individuals cannot receive federal premium subsidies for catastrophic coverage, enticing more healthy individuals to sign up for coverage will improve the exchanges’ overall risk pool slightly, lowering federal spending on those who do qualify for exchange subsidies by $849 million.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Susan Collins Moves the Goalposts on an Obamacare Bailout

The 19th century showman P.T. Barnum famously claimed that, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Apparently, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander think that Barnum’s dictum applies to their Senate colleagues. Both have undertaken a “bait-and-switch” game, constantly upping the ante on their request for an Obamacare “stability” bill — and raising questions about their credibility and integrity as legislators in the process.

Flash back to last December, when Congress considered provisions repealing the individual mandate as part of the tax reform bill. At that time, Collins engaged in a colloquy with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he would support legislation funding Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions, as well as Collins’ own reinsurance proposal.

I thank the majority leader for his response. Second, it is critical that we provide States with the support they need to create State-based high-risk pools for their individual health insurance markets. In September, I introduced the bipartisan Lower Premiums Through Reinsurance Act of 2017, a bill that would allow States to protect people with preexisting conditions while lowering premiums through the use of these high-risk pools….

I believe that passage of legislation to create and provide $5 billion in funding for high-risk pools annually over 2 years, together with the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act, is critical for helping to offset the impact on individual market premiums in 2019 and 2020 due to repeal of the individual mandate. [Emphasis mine.]

Collins viewed McConnell’s commitment as so iron-clad that she put a transcript of the colloquy up on her website. Unfortunately, however, Collins didn’t find her side of the bargain as an iron-clad commitment.

One week after that exchange on the Senate floor, Alexander wrote an op-ed on a potential “stability” package. That op-ed claimed that Collins’ reinsurance bill included “$10 billion for invisible high-risk pools or reinsurance funds.” However, the text of the Collins bill itself would appropriate “$2,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 and 2019” — that is, $4.5 billion and not $10 billion. I noted that discrepancy at the time, writing that, “Alexander seems to be engaged in a bidding war with himself about the greatest amount of taxpayers’ money he can shovel insurers’ way.”

It turns out I was (slightly) mistaken. Alexander wasn’t in a bidding war with himself over giving the greatest amount of taxpayer funds to insurers — he is in a bidding war with Collins. Just this week, both Collins and Alexander issued press releases touting a (flawed and overhyped) premium study by Oliver Wyman. The press releases claimed that “Oliver Wyman released an analysis today showing that the passage of a proposal based on … the Collins-Nelson Lower Premiums through Reinsurance Act will lower premiums … by more than 40 percent.” [Emphasis mine.]

But the release went on to note that, “Oliver Wyman based its analysis on a proposal that would fund [cost-sharing reductions] … and provide $10 billion annually for invisible risk pool/reinsurance funding in 2019, 2020, and 2021.” Not $2.25 billion for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, as the actual Collins-Nelson bill would provide — but more than four times as much annually, for a 50 percent longer duration.

Not even Common Core math can explain the gaping chasm between the funding amounts in the two bills. Does Alexander really want to make a straight-faced claim that an estimate assuming $30 billion in funding is “based on” a bill providing only $5 billion in funding? And if so, then why should a Senator who fails a math test even a first-grader could comprehend chair the committee with jurisdiction over federal educational policy?

Collins and Alexander went to all this trouble because they want to have their cake and eat it too. Collins expects McConnell to abide by his commitment from December — she reportedly cursed out a senior White House aide when the “stability” package failed to pass late last year. But she has no place criticizing McConnell or others for not keeping their word when she has proved unable to keep hers, by upping the ante on her asks for a “stability” bill — and putting out misleading press releases to hide the fact that she ever asked for “only” $5 billion in taxpayer funds.

Collins has no place attacking the White House, or anyone else, for “reneging on the deal.” She reneged on the deal herself — by not sticking to her original commitments, and then putting out misleading press releases to cover her tracks. The White House, and McConnell, should never have made an agreement on a “stability” bill with Collins in the first place. But if they did, the unscrupulous way in which she has handled herself since then should have nullified it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

“Stability” Bill Supporters’ Flawed Premium Study

One week after a flawed premium study tried to make the case that premiums would nearly double over the next three years, another study claims that a “stability” bill in Congress would lower premiums by “more than 40 percent.” Or so claimed Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander.

As with many things Alexander claims, however, there’s more to this story than meets the eye. In reality, the study itself admits that most of the supposed premium “reduction” for 2019 likely will not materialize — and most if not all of the remainder would be offset by the effects of repealing the individual mandate while keeping Obamacare’s onerous regulatory regime.

However, in the very next paragraph, Oliver Wyman called its own assumptions unrealistic, conceding that most states will not have time to enact their own reinsurance proposals for 2019:

In our modeling, we are presuming that states will take advantage of these pass-through savings in 2019. In reality, states that have not already begun working on a waiver will be challenged to get a 1332 waiver filed and approved under the current regulatory regime in time to impact 2019 premiums.

Oliver Wyman went on to point out that applying for such waivers currently requires states to pass their own laws, undergo a 30-day public comment period at the state level, and then navigate a federal approval process that can last nearly eight months. While Collins and Alexander might argue in reply that one potential element of “stability” legislation could speed the waiver approval process, it remains far from certain that all states 1) even have an interest in this type of reinsurance proposal, 2) have the authority they need to establish such a program, and 3) could get federal approval in time to affect the plan year that starts with open enrollment on November 1 — under eight months from now.

If states don’t request a 1332 reinsurance waiver to supplement the federal insurance dollars, or can’t get one approved in time for the 2019 plan year, a likely scenario for many states — what does Oliver Wyman think would happen? “We estimate that premium [sic] would decline by more than 20 percent” — 10 percent from funding of cost-sharing reductions, and 10 percent coming from reinsurance.

But keep in mind that President Trump cancelled the cost-sharing reductions just last October, and Congress repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate, while keeping its costly regulations — a combination of decisions which, all else equal, will raise premiums. In other words, even after dumping tens of billions into bailouts for insurers, premiums could well end up right about where they were last year — and, after taking medical inflation into account, even increase.

Why would Oliver Wyman, let alone Collins and Alexander, put out such shoddy work? Politico got at the issue Tuesday morning: “Oliver Wyman often does analysis for insurers.” Which might explain why the actuaries there put out a headline premium number that by their own admission relies on unrealistic and fanciful assumptions. The analysts seem to have searched for the largest possible premium reduction number they could find, and then made up assumptions to match.

It also explains the statement by Collins and Alexander. If Oliver Wyman takes money from health insurers on a regular basis, as Politico noted, so too does Alexander. So much so that Alexander — who called reinsurance the “Great Obamacare Heist” not eighteen months ago, and pledged to get taxpayers’ billions back from health insurers — now instead wants to shovel more of your hard-earned dollars to insurers’ corporate welfare payments.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Ten Conservative Concerns with an Obamacare “Stability” Bill

A PDF version of this document is available online here.

1.     Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Coverage.             As Republicans themselves correctly argued back in 2010, any provision preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortion coverage must occur in legislation itself—executive orders are by their nature insufficient. Therefore, any “stability” bill must have protections above and beyond current law to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not fund abortion coverage.

2.     Potential Budget Gimmick.       Press reports indicate that House Republican leaders have considered adjusting the budgetary baseline to fund a “stability” package. Congress should not attempt to violate existing law and create artificial “savings” to fund a reinsurance program.

3.     Insurers Still Owe the Treasury Billions.    The Government Accountability Office concluded in 2016 that the Obama Administration violated the law by prioritizing payments to insurers over payments to the U.S. Treasury. The Trump Administration and House Republicans should focus first on reclaiming the billions insurers haven’t repaid, rather than giving them more taxpayer cash in a “stability” package.

4.     Doesn’t Repeal Obamacare Now.        Instead of repealing the onerous regulations that caused health insurance rates to more than double from 2013-17, a “stability” bill would lower premiums by giving insurers additional subsidies—throwing money at a problem rather than fixing it.

5.     Undermines Obamacare Repeal Later.   House Republican leaders reportedly support a bill (H.R. 4666) by Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA). That bill appropriates “stability” funds to insurers for three years (2019 through 2021), eliminating any incentive for the next Congress to consider “repeal-and-replace” legislation.

6.     Budgetary Cliff Opens Door to Perpetual Bailouts.    Whereas Obamacare’s reinsurance program phased out over three years—with funding of $10 billion in 2014, $6 billion in 2015, and $4 billion in 2016—H.R. 4666 contains $10 billion in funding for each of three years. This funding cliff would create a push for additional “stability” funding thereafter—turning the Costello bill into a perpetual bailout machine.

7.     Bails Out Insurers’ Bad Decisions.    During the period 2015-17, most insurers assumed they would continue to receive cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, despite growing legal challenges over their constitutionality. Before even considering appropriating CSR funds, Congress should first investigate insurers’ bad business decisions to assume unconstitutional payments would continue in perpetuity.

8.     Bails Out Insurance Commissioners’ Bad Decisions.    Likewise, in the summer and fall of 2016, virtually all state insurance commissioners failed to consider whether the incoming Administration would unilaterally withdraw CSR payments—which the Trump Administration did last year. Before making CSR payments, Congress first should investigate insurance commissioners’ gross negligence.

9.     Doesn’t Hold Obama Officials Accountable.        In 2016, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees released a 158-page report highlighting abuses over the unconstitutional appropriation of CSRs by the Obama Administration. Since then, neither committee has acted—contempt citations, criminal referrals, or other similar actions—to uphold Congress’ constitutional prerogatives.

10.  Could Undermine Second Amendment Rights.  Last week, health insurer Aetna made a sizable contribution to fund this month’s gun control march in Washington. Some may question why insurers need billions of dollars in taxpayer cash if they can contribute to liberal organizations, and whether some of this “stability” package will end up in the hands of groups opposed to Americans’ fundamental liberties.

Republicans Were Against Reinsurance Before They Were For It

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) made comments in a January radio interview supporting a “bipartisan opportunity” to fund Obamacare’s Exchanges, specifically through mechanisms like reinsurance.

How quickly the speaker forgets — or wants others to forget. Obamacare already had a reinsurance program, one that ran from 2014 through 2016. During that time, non-partisan government auditors concluded that, while implementing that reinsurance program, the Obama administration violated the law, diverting billions of dollars to insurers that should have gone to the United States Treasury. After blasting the Obama administration’s actions as the “Great Obamacare Heist,” and saying taxpayers deserved their money back, Republican leaders have for the past eighteen months done … exactly nothing to make good on their promise.

Section 1341 of Obamacare imposed a series of “assessments” (some have called them taxes) to accomplish two objectives. Section 1341 required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to collect $5 billion, to reimburse the Treasury for the cost of another Obamacare program that operated from 2010 through 2013. The assessments also intended to provide a total of $20 billion — $10 billion in 2014, $6 billion in 2015, and $4 billion in 2016 — in reinsurance funds to health insurers subsidizing their high-cost patients.

Unfortunately, however, the “assessments” on employers offering group health coverage did not achieve the desired revenue targets. The plain text of the law indicates that, under such circumstances, HHS must repay the Treasury before it paid health insurers. But the Obama Administration did no such thing — it paid all of the available funds to insurers, while giving taxpayers (i.e., the Treasury) nothing.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service and other outside experts agreed that the Obama administration flouted the law to give taxpayers the shaft. In September 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) agreed: “We conclude that HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute’s directive to deposit amounts from collections under the transitional reinsurance program in the Treasury and instead make deposits to the Treasury only if its collections reach the amounts for reinsurance payments specified in section 1341. This prioritization of collections for payment to issuers over payments to the Treasury is not authorized.”

At the time GAO issued its ruling, Republicans denounced the Obama Administration’s actions, and pledged to fight for taxpayers’ interests: Multiple Chairmen — including the current Chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Budget, HELP, and Finance Committees — said in a statement that, as a matter of “fairness and respect for the rule of law clearly anchored in the Constitution,” the Obama “Administration need to put an end to the Great Obamacare Heist immediately.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said that “the Administration should end this illegal scheme immediately.”

A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee said that, “We expect the Administration to comply with the independent watchdog’s opinion, halt the billions of dollars in illegal Obamacare payments to insurers, and pay back the American taxpayers what they are owed.”

Since all this (self-)righteous indignation back in the fall of 2016 — six weeks before the presidential election — what exactly have Republicans done to follow through on all their rhetoric?

In a word, nothing. No legislative actions, no hearings, no letters to the Trump Administration — nothing. Some experts have suggested that the Trump administration could file suit against insurers, seeking to reclaim taxpayers’ cash, but the administration has yet to do so.

In September 2016, outside analysts explained why the Obama administration prioritized insurers’ needs over taxpayers’ — and the rule of law: “I don’t think the Administration wants to do anything to upset insurers right now.” That same description just as easily applies to Republican congressional leaders today, making their promise to end the “Great Obamacare Heist” yet another one that has thus far gone unfulfilled — that is, if they ever intended to make good on their rhetoric in the first place.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.