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.