Three Obstacles to Senate Democrats’ Health Care Vision

If Democrats win a “clean sweep” in the 2020 elections—win back the White House and the Senate, while retaining control of the House—what will their health care vision look like? Surprisingly for those watching Democratic presidential debates, single payer does not feature prominently for some members of Congress—at least not explicitly, or immediately. But that doesn’t make the proposals any more plausible.

Ezra Klein at Vox spent some time talking with prominent Senate Democrats, to take their temperature on what they would do should the political trifecta provide them an opportunity to legislate in 2021. Apart from the typical “Voxplanations” in the article—really, did Klein have to make not one but two factual errors in his article’s first sentence?—the philosophy and policies the Senate Democrats laid out don’t stand up to serious scrutiny, on multiple levels.

Problem 1: Politics

The first problem comes in the form of a dilemma articulated by none other than Ezra Klein, just a few weeks ago. Just before the last Democratic debate in July, Klein wrote that liberals should not dismiss with a patronizing shrug Americans’ reluctance to give up their current health coverage:

If the private insurance market is such a nightmare, why is the public so loath to abandon it? Why have past reformers so often been punished for trying to take away what people have and replace it with something better?…

Risk aversion [in health policy] is real, and it’s dangerous. Health reformers don’t tiptoe around it because they wouldn’t prefer to imagine bigger, more ambitious plans. They tiptoe around it because they have seen its power to destroy even modest plans. There may be a better strategy than that. I hope there is. But it starts with taking the public’s fear of dramatic change seriously, not trying to deny its power.

Democrats’ “go big or go home” theory lies in direct contrast to the inherent unease Klein identified in the zeitgeist not four weeks ago.

Problem 2: Policy

Klein and the Senate Democrats attempt to square the circle by talking about choice and keeping a role for private insurance. The problem comes because at bottom, many if not most Democrats don’t truly believe in that principle. Their own statements belie their claims, and the policy Democrats end up crafting would doubtless follow suit.

Does this sound like someone who 1) would maintain private insurance, if she could get away with abolishing it, and 2) will write legislation that puts the private system on a truly level playing field with the government-run plan? If you believe either of those premises, I’ve got some land to sell you.

In my forthcoming book and elsewhere, I have outlined some of the inherent biases that Democratic proposals would give to government-run coverage over private insurance: Billions in taxpayer funding; a network of physicians and hospitals coerced into participating in government insurance, and paid far less than private insurance can pay medical providers; automatic enrollment into the government-run plan; and many more. Why else would the founder of the “public option” say that “it’s not a Trojan horse” for single payer—“it’s just right there!”

Problem 3: Process

Because Democrats will not have a 60-vote margin to overcome a Republican filibuster even if they retake the majority in 2020, Klein argues they can enact the bulk of their agenda through the budget reconciliation process. He claims that “if Democrats confine themselves to lowering the Medicare age, adding a [government-run plan], and negotiating drug prices, there’s reason to believe it might pass parliamentary muster.”

Of course Klein would say that—because he never worked in the Senate. It also appears he never read my primer on the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” which governs reconciliation procedures in the Senate. Had he done either, he probably wouldn’t have made that overly simplistic, and likely incorrect, statement.

Take negotiating drug prices. The Congressional Budget Office first stated in 2007—and reaffirmed this May—its opinion that on its own, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would not lead to any additional savings.

That said, Democrats this year have introduced legislation with a “stick” designed to force drug companies to the “negotiating” table. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) introduced a bill (H.R. 1046) requiring federal officials to license the patents of companies that refuse to “negotiate” with Medicare.

While threatening to confiscate their patents might allow federal bureaucrats to coerce additional price concessions from drug companies, and thus scorable budgetary savings, the provisions of the Doggett bill bring their own procedural problems. Patents lie within the scope of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, not the committees with jurisdiction over health care issues (Senate Finance, House Ways and Means, and House Energy and Commerce).

While Doggett tried to draft his bill to avoid touching those committees’ jurisdiction, he did not, and likely could not, avoid it entirely. For instance, language on lines 4-7 of page six of the Doggett bill allows drug companies whose patents get licensed to “seek recovery against the United States in the…Court of Federal Claims”—a clear reference to matter within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committees. If Democrats include this provision in a reconciliation bill, the parliamentarian almost certainly advise that this provision exceeds the scope of the health care committees, which could kill the reconciliation bill entirely.

But if Democrats don’t include a provision allowing drug manufacturers whose patents get licensed the opportunity to receive fair compensation, the drug companies would likely challenge the bill’s constitutionality. They would claim the drug “negotiation” language violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on “takings,” and omitting the language to let them apply for just compensation in court would give them a much more compelling case. Therein lies the “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” dilemma reconciliation often presents: including provisions could kill the entire legislation, but excluding them could make portions of the legislation unworkable.

Remember: Republicans had to take stricter verification provisions out of their “repeal-and-replace” legislation in March 2017—as I had predicted—due to the “Byrd rule.” (The provisions went outside the scope of the committees of jurisdiction, and touched on Title II of the Social Security Act—both verboten under budget reconciliation.)

If Republicans had to give up on provisions designed to ensure illegal immigrants couldn’t receive taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies due to Senate procedure, Democrats similarly will have to give up provisions they care about should they use budget reconciliation for health care. While it’s premature to speculate, I wouldn’t count myself surprised if they have to give up on drug “negotiation” entirely.

1994 Redux?

Klein’s claims of a “consensus” aside, Democrats could face a reprise of their debacle in 1993-94—or, frankly, of Republicans’ efforts in 2017. During both health care debates, a lack of agreement among the majority party in Congress—single payer versus “managed competition” in 1993-94, and “repeal versus replace” in 2017—meant that each majority party ended up spinning its wheels.

To achieve “consensus” on health care, the left hand of the Democratic Party must banish the far-left hand. But even Democrats have admitted that the rhetoric in the presidential debates is having the opposite effect—which makes Klein’s talk of success in 2021 wishful thinking more than a realistic prediction.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Five Factors That Could Interfere with Graham-Cassidy’s State Health Care Waivers

Some conservative writers—including others who write for this publication—have opined that the legislation written by Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) offers states the ability to innovate and reform their health care systems. Most conservatives, including this one, consider state flexibility an admirable goal.

Certainly reforming Medicaid—through a block grant or per capita cap, coupled with additional flexibility to allow states to manage their programs more freely—would go a long way towards improving care, and reducing health care costs.

1. Subsidizing Moral Hazard

The language on the top of page 15 explicitly links waivers to funding from the new system of block grants the bill creates. Any waiver will only apply to 1) coverage provided by an insurer receiving block grant funding and 2) coverage “provided to an individual who is receiving a direct benefit (including reduced premium costs or reduced out-of-pocket costs)” under the block grant.

This requirement that each and every person subjected to a non-Obamacare-compliant plan must receive a “direct benefit” subsidized by federal taxpayers has several potential perverse consequences. By definition, it encourages moral hazard. Because individuals will know that if they are subjected to health underwriting, or an otherwise noncompliant plan, they must receive federal subsidies, it will encourage them not to buy health insurance until they need it.

It means that either states will have to extend taxpayer-subsidized benefits to highly affluent individuals (allowing them to buy noncompliant plans), or have to permit only low- and middle-income families to buy noncompliant plans (to restrict the subsidies to low-income families). Both scenarios seem politically problematic to the point of being untenable.

When considering the two considerations above—will the bill lower premiums, and will it work?—this provision alone seems destined to preclude either from occurring. The moral hazard could increase premiums, not lower them, driving more healthy people out of the marketplace by telling them they will receive subsidies if and when they become sick and need coverage. The requirement that every person subjected to a waiver must receive subsidized benefits appears potentially destabilizing to insurance markets, while also creating political problems and administrative complexity.

2. Encouraging Lawsuits

The provision on page 12 requiring states applying for waivers to describe “how the state intends to maintain access to adequate and affordable health insurance coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions” presents two concerns. First, a future Democratic administration could use rulemaking to define “adequate and affordable health insurance coverage” so narrowly—prohibiting co-payments or cost-sharing of more than $5, for instance—that no state could maintain access to “adequate and affordable” coverage, thereby eliminating their ability to apply for and receive a waiver.

Second, courts have ruled that Medicaid waiver applications are subject to judicial review, a standard that would presumably apply to the Graham-Cassidy waivers as well. While a Congressional Research Service report notes that courts have traditionally given deference to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on waiver applications, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994 did in fact strike down a California waiver application that CMS had previously approved.

If a state receives a waiver, it seems highly likely that individuals affected, with the strong encouragement of liberal activists, will seek relief in court, and point to the page 12 language to argue that the court should strike down the waiver for not providing “adequate and affordable coverage” to people with pre-existing conditions. At minimum, the ensuing legal uncertainty could place states’ waiver programs in limbo for months or even years. And only one judge, or one circuit court, that views the pre-existing condition language as applying to more than states’ waiver application could undermine the program.

Congress could theoretically include language in Graham-Cassidy precluding judicial review of administrative decisions regarding waivers, as Democrats did 13 separate times in Obamacare. But on this particular bill, such a provision likely would not pass muster with the “Byrd rule” that applies to budget reconciliation measures.

Specifically, language prohibiting judicial review would have no (or a minimal) budgetary impact, and would represent matter outside the committees with jurisdiction over the reconciliation bill (Senate Judiciary versus Senate Finance and HELP Committees), both points of order that would see the provision stricken absent 60 Senate votes (which the bill does not have) to retain it.

Given the ongoing political controversy surrounding pre-existing conditions, some moderates may view the inclusion of this phrase as critical to their support for the bill. But its inclusion could ultimately undermine the entire waiver process and one of conservatives’ prime goals from the “repeal-and-replace” process, namely relief from Washington-imposed regulatory burdens.

3. Encourages Activist Judges and Bureaucrats

4. Allows States to Waive Only Some Regulations

While states may waive some Obamacare regulations, they can’t waive others, an internal inconsistency that belies the promise of “flexibility.” For instance, states cannot waive the under-26 mandate if they so choose. Moreover, language on page 15 prohibiting a waiver of “any requirement under a federal statute enacted before January 1, 2009” precludes states from waiving regulations that preceded Obamacare, such as those related to mental health parity.

If the sponsors believe in state flexibility, they should allow states to waive all federal insurance regulations, even ones, such as the under-26 mandate or mental health parity, they may personally support. Or better yet, they should move to repeal the regulations entirely, and let states decide which ones they want to re-enact on the state level.

5. No Funding Equals No Waivers

Because the bill explicitly ties waivers to federal funding, as noted above, the “cliff” whereby block grant funding ends in 2027 effectively ends waiver programs then as well. Such a scenario would put conservative policy-makers in the perverse position of asking Washington to increase federal spending, because any regulatory relief under Obamacare would otherwise cease.

Meaning of Federalism

The potential concerns above demonstrate how Graham-Cassidy may not provide full flexibility to states. Whether through cumbersome administrative requirements, a future Democratic administration, court rulings, or key omissions, states could find that as written, the bill’s promise of flexibility might turn into a mirage.

Given that, it’s worth remembering the true definition of federalism in the first place. Federalism should not represent states getting permission from Washington to take certain actions (and only certain actions). It should represent the people delegating some authority to the federal government, and some to the states. A bill that looked to do that—to remove the Obamacare regulatory apparatus entirely, and allow states to decide whether and what portions of the law they wish to reimpose—would help to restore the principles of federalism, and a true balance between Washington and the states.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

The Implications of Trump and Schumer’s Argument over Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments

Leaders in both parties engaged in rhetorical bluster over the weekend regarding Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions. Those payments to insurers for lowering deductibles and co-payments—ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge last May—remain in political limbo, and a subject of no small controversy.

But the rhetorical exchanges yielded inconvenient truths, both for Democratic leaders demanding the Trump administration continue the payments, and for the president himself, who has threatened to stop them.

Schumer: If the Payments Are Constitutional, Trump Can’t Withhold Them

Schumer therefore implicitly admitted—as elsewhere—that the payments are not only illegal, but unconstitutional. Obamacare lacks an explicit appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments. That’s the reason Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled the Obama administration’s actions in making said payments unconstitutional last year. (The ruling is currently stayed pending appeals.)

As one summary of the case noted, Train v. City of New York established the principle that “the President cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.” Yet Schumer, in asking the Trump administration to continue making payments to a program that Congress never funded in the first place, wants the executive unilaterally—and unconstitutionally—to frustrate the expressed will of the legislative branch, thereby diminishing Schumer’s own authority as a lawmaker.

It’s highly likely Schumer, a lawyer who spent several years serving on both the House and Senate judiciary committees, knows full well the nature of unconstitutional actions, begun by the last administration, that he wants the current one to continue. But if he wants to have any credibility on the rule of law—whether criticizing the Trump administration’s other “abuses,” or standing up for the independence of the Russia investigation—he would be wise to 1) admit that the Obama administration violated the Constitution in making the payments to begin with and 2) hold the last administration just as accountable as he wants to hold the current president.

Trump: Upholding the Constitution Is a Choice

But for the president, as for Schumer, the question of the cost-sharing reduction payments should come down to a binary choice: Does a lawful appropriation for CSRs exist, or not? If a lawful appropriation exists, then the president must make the payments, consistent with Train v. City of New York outlined above. If a lawful appropriation does not exist, then the president must not make the payments, consistent with both Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution—“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”—his duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and his oath of office.

This conservative believes President Trump should have cancelled the CSR payments within days of taking office, not because it would have been popular—it likely would not have been—but because the rule of law demands it. Likewise, President Trump should have long since undone billions of dollars in reinsurance payments to insurers that the Government Accountability Office found illegal, and cancelled the “grandmothered” plans President Obama allowed some individuals to keep in 2014—violating his constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be fully executed” in the process.

Making a clean break with the numerous legal and constitutional violations the Obama administration perpetrated to keep Obamacare afloat early in his administration would have demonstrated President Trump’s desire to escape the executive unilateralism of his predecessor.

Government of Laws, Or of Men?

That Barack Obama, a constitutional law professor, bequeathed such legal gamesmanship and a culture of inherently arbitrary actions to both parties stands as one element of his legacy. As the debate this weekend demonstrated, that legacy has affected—and infected—our constitutional discourse, and not for the better.

This post was originally published in The Federalist.

Elena Kagan and the Individual Mandate, Continued

Solicitor General Kagan responded to a series of questions posed by Sen. Sessions and all Judiciary Committee Republicans yesterday, writing a letter in which she states that she did not have a role in formulating the Administration’s response to the lawsuits challenging the health care law.  On a related note, the New York Times has an editorial this morning on the Kagan nomination that criticizes Republicans for raising the issue of the individual mandate, and the seemingly infinite power granted to Congress under the commerce clause should it be found constitutional, during her confirmation hearings.  The editorial alleged Republicans are making “a huge ideological fuss” about the issue, evidenced by the fact that Sen. Coburn raised the “seemingly silly hypothetical” about Congress’ constitutional ability to order individuals to eat three fruits and three vegetables a day. (Video of that exchange can be found here.)

However, the real point of the exchange was that such an “eat your vegetables” law, while silly, would NOT be a hypothetical if the Supreme Court asserts that not buying health insurance constitutes economic activity – thereby granting Congress the power to force individuals to perform all sorts of “seemingly silly” tasks so long as they have some form of economic impact.  Congress has never required individuals affirmatively to purchase a good or product, and requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance on the grounds that NOT doing so constitutes “economic activity” raises legitimate questions about the other ways in which Congress can intrude on individuals’ lives.  Even noted liberals like Jonathan Turley have acknowledged that challenges to the individual mandate “should not be dismissed as baseless political maneuvering,” due to the expansive authority such a mandate, if deemed constitutional, would grant to the federal government.

It’s also worth pointing out – as this space has done previously, and the Times’ own Robert Pear noted over the weekend – that the Administration has now decided to invoke the taxation power as one way to justify the individual mandate, contradicting the President’s own strenuous assertions last September “absolutely reject[ing]” that the individual mandate represents a new tax on the middle class.  The fact that even liberals have acknowledged the expansive powers lurking behind the individual mandate, and that the Obama Administration felt compelled to engage in a significant flip-flop over whether the mandate is a tax to defend its legitimacy, suggests that this issue should not be treated as glibly as the Times would believe – and that there are legitimate questions surrounding both the lawsuits and Republican questions of Ms. Kagan regarding her involvement in them.

An Individual Mandate — To Eat Your Vegetables?

During their questioning of Elena Kagan yesterday afternoon, Sens. Cornyn and Coburn both touched on the Commerce Clause issues surrounding the individual health insurance mandate and the limits (or lack thereof) on federal power.  In response to Sen. Cornyn’s questioning about the scope of the Commerce Clause, Ms. Kagan said that “the current state of the law is to grant broad deference to Congress in this area, to assume that Congress knows what’s necessary in terms of the regulation of the country’s economy, but to have some limits.”  However, the limits she went on to describe were centered around “activity…not itself economic in nature.”  Left unstated in this exchange was whether NOT buying health insurance constitutes economic activity, as the health care law, and the Justice Department’s defense of it, assert.

Dr. Coburn followed up on this point, asking whether Congress could pass a law forcing individuals to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day.  Ms. Kagan replied that such a measure would be a “dumb law,” but did not answer as to whether or not the Constitution gives Congress power to create and enforce such a mandate.  In fact, she implied that Congress MAY have such a power, noting that “We can come up with, sort of, you know, just ridiculous sounding laws, and the – and the – and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves.”

Dr. Coburn went on, pointing out Ms. Kagan that a finding that “eating three fruits and three vegetables a day would cut health care costs 20 percent, now – now we’re into commerce.  And since the government pays 65 percent of all the health care costs, why – why isn’t that constitutional?”  Once again, Ms. Kagan declined to say a law would be unconstitutional, and instead asserted that “deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters affecting interstate commerce.”

It’s worth asking: If Ms. Kagan is unwilling to admit that Congress cannot regulate the diet of all Americans, is there any area where she believes the federal government CANNOT invoke the Commerce Clause to intrude upon every facet of Americans’ daily lives?

Elena Kagan and the Individual Mandate

As the questioning of Elena Kagan gets underway this morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, many commentators have focused on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care law – a critical policy issue in its own right, and also a window into Ms. Kagan’s views on the limits (or lack thereof) of federal power.  A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday pointed out that if Ms. Kagan believes individuals can be forced to buy health insurance – and a specific type of “government-approved” health insurance at that – there is little the federal government cannot compel individuals to do.  George Will made a similar point in his Sunday column, when he raised some hypothetical questions for Ms. Kagan that could logically follow from an individual mandate to purchase health insurance:

— If Congress decides that interstate commerce is substantially affected by the costs of obesity, may Congress require obese people to purchase participation in programs such as Weight Watchers? If not, why not?

— The government having decided that Chrysler’s survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide that “Cash for Clunkers” is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?

— If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?

— Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?

Conversely, a Politico op-ed this morning claims that if the Court strikes down the individual mandate, future courts could use that decision to invalidate existing civil rights legislation or other acts of Congress.  However, this claim is simply not convincing.  The civil rights laws all involve entering into commerce –businesses that choose to enter into commerce must comply with the laws and may not discriminate by refusing to serve certain customers.  Conversely, the individual mandate claims the federal government’s authority to force individuals into commerce to begin with.   In short, the individual mandate is a claim for unprecedented federal power – which the non-partisan Congressional Research Service acknowledged by stating the individual mandate raises a “novel issue whether Congress may use the [commerce] clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.”  Because the individual mandate presents a “novel” case, the Court could strike it down without disturbing any of the precedents on which the civil rights and other previous federal laws rest.