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

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

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

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

How It Would Work

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

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

The Internal Debate

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

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

Why Liberals Will Object

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

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

Why Conservatives Will Object

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Will Support This Proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Republicans’ Mixed Messages on Federalism

Care to take a guess how many Republican senators are willing to take a stand over federalism? Would you believe just two?

On Monday night, when the Senate considered legislation sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) about “gag clauses” in pharmaceutical contracts, only Utah’s Mike Lee and Kentucky’s Rand Paul voted no. Lee and Paul do not believe the federal government has any business providing for blanket regulation of the health-care sector.

Gag Clauses, Explained

I have experienced the distorted ways the drug pricing system currently operates. When looking to refill a prescription for one of my antihistamines, my insurance benefit quoted me a charge of $170 for a 90- to 100-day supply. But when I went online to GoodRX.com, I found online coupons that could provide me the same product, in the same quantities, for a mere $70-80, depending on the pharmacy I chose.

I found even greater discounts by purchasing in bulk. I ended up buying a nearly one year’s supply of my maintenance medication for $210—little more than the price for a 90-100 day supply originally quoted to me by my insurer. Had I used my insurance card, and refilled the prescription repeatedly, I would have paid approximately $300 more over the course of a year. Because my Obamacare insurance is junk, I have little chance of reaching my deductible this year, short of getting hit by a bus, so it made perfect sense for me to pay with cash instead.

In theory, anyone can go to GoodRX.com (with which I have no relationship except as a satisfied consumer), or other similar websites, to find the cash price of prescription drugs and compare them to the prices quoted by their insurers. But in practice, few try to shop around for prescription drugs.

Why Federalism Matters

In general, conservatives would support efforts to increase transparency within the health-care marketplace, and prohibiting “gag clauses” would do just that. However, some conservatives would also note that the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1947 devolves the business of regulating insurance, including health insurance, to the states, and that the states could take the lead on whether or not to eliminate “gag clauses” in insurance contracts. Indeed, a majority of states—26 in total—have already done so, including no fewer than 15 state laws passed just this year.

Lee’s office reached out to me several weeks ago for technical assistance in drafting an amendment designed to limit the scope of federal legislation on “gag clauses” to those types of insurance where the federal government already has a regulatory nexus. Lee ultimately offered such an amendment, which prohibited “gag clauses” only for self-insured employer plans—regulated by the federal government under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Unfortunately, only 11 senators—all Republicans—voted for this amendment, which would have prevented yet another intrusion by the federal government on states’ affairs. Of those 11, only Lee and Paul voted against final passage of the bill, due to the federalism concerns.

More Federalism Violations Ahead?

One of the prime sponsors of the discussion draft? None other than Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), the author of legislation introduced last year that he claimed would “give states significant latitude over how [health care] dollars are used to best take care of the unique…needs of the patients in each state.”

The contradiction between Cassidy’s rhetoric then and his actions now raise obvious questions: How can states get “significant latitude over” their health care systems if Washington-based politicians like Cassidy are constantly butting in with new requirements, like the “surprise medical bill” regulation? Or, to put it another way, why does Cassidy think states are smart enough to manage nearly $1.2 trillion in Obamacare funding, but too stupid to figure out how to solve problems like drug price “gag clauses” and “surprise bills?”

Politics Versus Principle

The widely inconsistent behavior of people like Cassidy raises the possibility that, to some, federalism represents less of a political principle to follow than a political toy to manipulate. When Washington lawmakers want to punt a difficult decision—like how to “repeal” Obamacare while “replacing” it with an alternative that covers just as many people—they can hide behind federalism to defer action to the states.

Reagan had another axiom that applies in this case: That there is no limit to what a person can do if that person does not mind who gets the credit. Lawmakers in literally dozens of states have acted on “gag clauses,” but that matters little to Collins, who wants the federal government to swoop in and take the credit—and erode state autonomy in the process.

It may seem novel to most of official Washington, but if lawmakers claim to believe in federalism, they should stick to that belief, even when it proves inconvenient.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

24 New Federal Requirements Added to the Graham-Cassidy Bill

Last week, I outlined how a white paper Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) released essentially advocated for Obamacare on steroids. That plan would keep the law’s most expensive (and onerous) federal insurance requirements, while calling for more taxpayer dollars to make that expensive coverage more “affordable.”

Unfortunately, Cassidy also would extend this highly regulatory approach beyond mere white papers and into legislation. A recently disclosed copy of a revised Graham-Cassidy bill—originally developed by Cassidy and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last fall—imposes two dozen new requirements on states. These requirements would undermine the bill’s supposed goal of “state flexibility,” and could lead to a regime more onerous and expensive than Obamacare itself.

18 New ‘Adequate and Affordable’ Coverage Rules

Specifically, that coverage must:

  • Include four categories of basic services defined in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) statute:
    • Inpatient and outpatient hospital services;
    • Physicians’ surgical and medical services;
    • Laboratory and X-ray services, and
    • Well-baby and well-child care, including age-appropriate immunizations;
  • Include three categories of additional services also defined in the SCHIP statute:
    • Coverage of prescription drugs;
    • Vision services; and
    • Hearing services;
  • Include two other categories of services as defined by Obamacare:
    • Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; and
    • Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices;
  • Comply with actuarial value standards set by the SCHIP statute:
    • Cover at least 70 percent of estimated health expenses for the average consumer; and
  • Comply with requirements included in eight separate sections of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by Obamacare:
    • Section 2701—Rating premiums only based on age (with older applicants charged no more than three times younger applicants), family size, geography, and tobacco use;
    • Section 2702—Required acceptance for every individual or employer who applies for coverage (i.e., guaranteed issue);
    • Section 2703—Guaranteed renewability of coverage;
    • Section 2704—Prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions;
    • Section 2705—Prohibition on discriminating against individuals based on health status;
    • Section 2708—Prohibition on excessive waiting periods;
    • Section 2711—Prohibition on annual or lifetime limits; and
    • Section 2713—Requiring first-dollar coverage of preventive services without cost-sharing (i.e., deductibles and co-payments).

As noted above, “adequate and affordable health insurance coverage” would include many of Obamacare’s insurance requirements, and in at least one way would exceed them. Whereas Section 1302(d) of Obamacare requires selling insurance with an actuarial value—that is, the percentage of medical expenses paid for the average individual—of at least 60 percent, the revised Graham-Cassidy would require “adequate and affordable” coverage with an actuarial value of at least 70 percent.

If asked, Graham and Cassidy might state that these requirements would only apply to a certain subset of the population. After all, the revised bill text indicates that each state “shall ensure access to adequate and affordable health insurance coverage (as defined in clause (ii))”—the clause referring to the 18 separate requirements listed above—“for [high-risk individuals].” The bill lists the brackets in the original, which might indicate that Cassidy’s office intends to apply these 18 separate coverage requirements only to plans that high-risk persons purchase.

Thankfully, the new draft removes the “population adjustment factor” allowing CMS to rewrite the block grant formula unilaterally. But even as it took away CMS’ power to alter the funding formula, new language on page 15 of the revised draft allows CMS to cancel states’ block grant funds for “substantial noncompliance.” That provision, coupled with the revised bill’s lack of definition regarding “affordable” coverage and “high-risk individual” provides a future Democratic administration with two clear ways to hijack the block grant program.

For instance, a new administration could define “high-risk individual” so broadly that it would apply to virtually all Americans, subjecting them to the 18 costly coverage requirements. A new administration could also define “affordable” in such a manner—for instance, premiums may not exceed 5 percent of an individual’s income—that states would have to subsidize insurance with sizable amounts of state funds, in addition to the federal dollars included in the block grant. Any state failing to comply with these edicts could see its entire block grant yanked for “substantial noncompliance” with the bureaucratically imposed guidelines.

It seems paradoxical to assert that a bill can be both too prescriptive, imposing far too many requirements on states that undermine the supposed goal of “state flexibility,” and too vague, giving vast amounts of authority to federal bureaucrats. Yet somehow the section on “adequate and affordable health coverage” manages to do both.

Two New Required Uses of Block-Grant Funds

Supporters of the bill would argue that these supposed “guardrails” will prevent states from subsidizing Medicaid coverage, or creating some other government-run health program. But as I noted last week, Obamacare has its own “guardrails” regarding state waivers, which undermine any attempt to deregulate insurance markets.

By adding these new “guardrails,” Graham-Cassidy would essentially replicate Obamacare, albeit with slightly different policy objectives: “The Cassidy plan would give states the ‘flexibility’ to do what Bill Cassidy wants them to do, and only what Bill Cassidy wants them to do. That isn’t flexibility at all.”

Block Grant Reductions with Multiple Risk Pools

On Page 31, the bill includes new language requiring a reduction in block-grant funds, by a percentage not specified, for states electing to create multiple risk pools. Under current law, Section 1312(c) of Obamacare requires insurers to place all individual insurance market enrollees—whether they purchase coverage through the exchange or not—in a single risk pool.

If a state elects to choose multiple risk pools and uses a “substantial portion” of its block grant to subsidize insurance with an actuarial value of under 50 percent, then the state would see an unspecified reduction in its block grant. This language contains many of the flaws of the other provisions described above: It nowhere defines what comprises a “substantial portion” of the block grant, and penalizes states that may choose to create multiple risk pools and subsidize only catastrophic insurance coverage, thus belying Graham-Cassidy’s promise of “state flexibility.”

3 New Requirements for State Waivers

The revised Graham-Cassidy text moves and alters language regarding state waivers of Obamacare’s federal insurance requirements, and in so doing makes three substantive changes. (The original language started in the middle of page 143 of the bill; the new language begins on the top of page 42 of the revised bill.)

First, and perhaps most disturbingly, the revised bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to waive Obamacare’s insurance requirements for a state only if “such state establishes an equivalent requirement applicable to such coverage in such state.” Taken literally, this provision could mean that states could “opt-out” of Obamacare’s federal requirements if and only if they enshrine those exact same requirements in state law—rendering any supposed “flexibility” under Graham-Cassidy completely nonexistent.

Graham and Cassidy may not have meant to craft language with such a literal interpretation. They may mean to say, for instance, that a state can waive out of Obamacare’s age-rating requirements (which prohibit insurers from charging older people more than three times what they charge younger people) if they establish a more permissive regime—for instance, five-to-one age rating—on the state level.

But taken literally, that’s not what the current bill text says. That vague language raises serious questions about the authors’ intent, and why they chose such unclear, and arguably sloppy, bill language.

Second, the section imposes two new requirements on states selecting multiple risk pools. As noted above, those states would have to comply with the 18 new requirements regarding “adequate and affordable” health coverage, and states creating multiple risk pools could see their block grant reduced as a result.

In addition, however, states must also guarantee that insurers offering coverage in one risk pool offer coverage in all of them. Moreover, premiums charged “by a health insurance issuer for the same health coverage offered in different risk pools in the state [may] not vary by more than 3 to 1.”

The first requirement echoes the Consumer Freedom Amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) last year. That amendment allowed insurers to offer plans that did not comply with Obamacare’s requirements, so long as they continued to offer one Obamacare-compliant plan. The second requirement would effectively limit the extent to which insurers could charge individuals more on the basis of pre-existing conditions or health status.

Two Dozen (More) Reasons for State Concern

Both individually and collectively, these two dozen new requirements inserted into the most recent version of Graham-Cassidy present problems for conservatives. The myriad requirements would sharply limit the bill’s ability to deliver lower premiums to consumers—one major goal of “repeal-and-replace” legislation.

More broadly, though, the revised bill drifts further away from any semblance of conservative objectives. While Graham-Cassidy purports to provide more flexibility to states, the revised bill would instead ensnare them in numerous requirements that would impede any attempt at innovation.

Like the proverbial Lilliputians who attempted to tie down Gulliver, the new bill looks to rob states of their ability to manage their own insurance markets and lower premiums for residents, one federal requirement at a time.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Bill Cassidy’s New Health Plan Is Obamacare on Steroids

On Tuesday, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) released a policy white paper with ideas he claimed would “make health care affordable again.” By and large, however, the plan would do no such thing.

Some of the plan’s ideas—promoting consumer transparency in health care, for instance, promoting primary care, and cracking down on monopolistic practices that impede competition—have merit, although people can quibble with the extent to which Washington can, or should, solve those problems.

Fake Flexibility

Cassidy bases his plan on a state-based block-grant funding model, similar to the legislation he and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) developed last fall. Cassidy cites various state experimental programs to argue that a block-grant approach would allow more room for innovation.

However, the last sentence of the proposal undermines the rest of the discussion: “Flexibility to states would not jeopardize protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions.” That phrase implies that Cassidy believes, as the Graham-Cassidy bill indicated, that Obamacare’s federal insurance requirements regarding pre-existing conditions should remain in place.

That sentence belies the idea that states would get true flexibility to construct their insurance markets however they like. Instead, the Cassidy plan would represent a variation on Obamacare, whose state waiver program essentially lets them add more requirements and more government to their insurance markets, but not take requirements away. Put another way, the Cassidy plan would give states the “flexibility” to do what Bill Cassidy wants them to do, and only what Bill Cassidy wants them to do. That isn’t flexibility at all.

Costly Requirements Remain in Place

For instance, loosening Obamacare’s essential health benefits while keeping the pre-existing condition requirements will encourage insurers to stop covering treatments like chemotherapy. Because they must continue to accept all sick patients, and charge them the same rates as healthy ones, insurers will try to limit their losses by not covering cancer drugs, thereby discouraging cancer patients from applying for coverage.

The combination of these two policy dilemmas could result in the worst of all possible worlds, from both a political and policy standpoint: A plan that does not reduce premiums appreciably—because it keeps the most costly federal insurance requirements intact—yet still encourages insurers to discriminate against the sick.

Throwing Money at the Problem

Rather than trying to solve the problems Obamacare’s federal insurance requirements have caused, as I previously suggested, Cassidy’s plan goes to great lengths to avoid them. He endorses the health insurance “stability” (read: bailout) measure proposed by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) earlier this year. Rather than lowering premiums by removing the federal insurance requirements, that plan would lower premiums—albeit only temporarily—by throwing more taxpayer funds at insurers.

Moreover, the need for more federal funding belies Cassidy’s claim that his plan would “make health care affordable again.” States should not need any more funding to encourage insurance enrollment, particularly if they receive sufficient flexibility from federal requirements to bring down premiums. Cassidy knows that any flexibility will prove illusory. As with a “stability” package, he proposes making coverage more “affordable” by throwing other people’s money at the problem.

Neither Repeal Nor Reform

I wrote last April, well before lawmakers ever contemplated the Graham-Cassidy measure, that “Republicans have a choice: They can either retain the ban on pre-existing condition discrimination—and the regulations and subsidies that go with it—or they can fulfill their promise to repeal Obamacare.” Judging from the ideas in his policy paper, Cassidy has made his choice: He supports Obamacare.

But more of the same—more spending to finance the same costly insurance because of the same costly federal insurance requirements—doesn’t constitute a repeal of Obamacare. It doesn’t even come close. Would that Cassidy, and his colleagues in Congress, actually thought about keeping their word and enacting the repeal they promised.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

New Precedent Allows Congress to Dismantle (Some of) Obamacare

What does a ruling about automobile financing have to do with Obamacare? As it turns out, plenty.

This week the Senate acted to repeal a piece of regulatory guidance the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued back in March 2013. As a Politico report Wednesday noted, that precedent allows Congress to nullify other regulatory actions the federal government took years ago—including those on Obamacare.

1996 Law Allows for Expedited Process

Until this week, Congress has generally enacted CRA resolutions of disapproval following a change in administration, when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. In 2001, Republicans passed, and President George W. Bush signed, a resolution of disapproval negating an ergonomics rule promulgated in the waning days of the Clinton administration. Last year, the Republican Congress passed and President Trump signed 14 resolutions of disapproval undoing Obama administration actions.

Action on CRA resolutions of disapproval undoing Obama administration actions had largely ended last year. The CRA provides that Congress can consider resolutions of disapproval under expedited procedures only within 60 legislative days of the rule’s “submission or publication date.” Because the Obama administration’s final regulatory actions occurred early in 2017, the 60 legislative-day clock ran out last year—or so it appeared.

However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Paul Larkin has argued for many years, the CRA contains a big catch. According to the law, the expedited procedures apply for the 60 legislative days following “the later of the date on which” Congress receives a required report on the regulatory action, or the action is published in the Federal Register. If an administration never officially submitted a report to Congress, the 60 legislative-day clock never began, and the current Congress can still pass a resolution of disapproval under the CRA-expedited procedures.

Because the Obama administration did not consider the CFPB document a “rule,” it never submitted it to Congress, as required by the CRA. The 60 legislative-day clock never expired, because the Obama administration never started it by submitting the document to Congress. That meant the Senate could, and did, pass a resolution of disapproval negating the CFPB guidance this week, more than five years after CFPB first issued it.

Now Congress can do the same thing regarding Obamacare.

This Opens Lots of Doors for Obamacare Regs

To be sure, Congress cannot pass resolutions of disapproval regarding Obamacare rules that the Obama administration officially submitted years ago, which is most of them. But in some cases, the last administration may not have formally submitted sub-regulatory guidance, giving Congress an opening to repeal at least part of Obamacare’s regulatory structure.

I wrote early last year that the Trump administration should unilaterally revoke that guidance, but unfortunately, it has not done so yet. However, if the Obama administration never submitted that guidance to Congress, then Congress—using the precedent set this week—can pass a resolution of disapproval negating it. Alternatively, Congress can consider starting action on a resolution of disapproval, to get the Trump administration off the proverbial dime in revoking the guidance themselves.

The CRA precedent set this week also serves as a cautionary tale for the Trump administration, a warning to act thoroughly with its own regulatory actions. For instance, the guidance to state Medicaid programs issued earlier this year regarding work requirements likely meets the definition of a “rule” for CRA purposes. If the Trump administration never submits that action to Congress, a future Democratic administration and Democratic Congress could—and if given the chance, certainly would—act to undo the guidance, and thus the Medicaid work requirements.

But even as the Trump administration should act to cement its own regulatory legacy, Congress can act to negate portions of Obamacare through resolutions of disapproval. I know from experience that staff in Congress, and during the transition, compiled lists of rules that they can use CRA to target. During my time on Capitol Hill following Obamacare’s passage, staff kept a spreadsheet containing all the rules and notices the law generated—the source of the “Red Tape Tower” that used to appear around the Capitol.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Graham-Cassidy and Conservative Health Reform

In its February budget submission to Congress, the Trump administration endorsed legislation “modeled after” the bill Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced last year, which would devolve much of Obamacare’s entitlement spending to the states.

The budget claims this legislation “would allow states to use the block grant for a variety of approaches in order to help their citizens.” But based on the most recent public version, the Graham-Cassidy bill needs significant changes to deliver true flexibility to states.

The administration endorsed Graham-Cassidy because it believes the legislation would give states flexibility to embrace a “variety of approaches” to health care and health insurance. But would the most recent version of the bill allow Idaho to implement its reforms without federal intrusion? In a word, no.

In at least two respects, Idaho’s plan violates the many federal requirements that would remain intact under Graham-Cassidy. Idaho’s proposal to allow annual limits of over $1,000,000, and its proposal to allow surcharges of up to 50 percent for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage, both contravene the Washington-imposed regulatory apparatus Graham-Cassidy retains.

This raises an obvious question: If the only state-based insurance reform plan proposed to date violates Graham-Cassidy, then how much “flexibility” does the legislation really provide? To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, conservatives have not spent the past eight years fighting to roll back a Washington-based, regulatory leviathan imposed by a Democratic Congress, only to see that leviathan reimposed by a Republican one.

To its credit, the Trump administration has worked to roll back Obamacare’s regulatory regime. Consistent with its promise in the budget to generate “relie[f] from many of [Obamacare’s] insurance rules and pricing restrictions,” the administration has proposed rules allowing greater access to short-term insurance coverage and association health plans, both of which are exempt from some or all of the Obamacare statutory restrictions.

But make no mistake: While these actions will give some individuals freedom from Obamacare’s restrictions, they will not give states the control they deserve over their own insurance markets. To give the states the freedom that the Trump administration promised, Congress must repeal the federally imposed regulatory superstructure Obamacare created. Only by doing so will Washington give states the true flexibility to explore alternative visions of health care for their citizens—Graham-Cassidy’s stated goal.

If Congress does not act to give states freedom, a future Democratic administration will reimpose each and every health care regulation the Trump administration loosened—and many more besides. The Center for American Progress made as much crystal-clear recently, when in releasing the Left’s next plan for (more) government-run health care, it proposed legislation that would “leave little to no discretion to the Administration [of the day] on policy matters.”

To the Left, Obamacare isn’t about power so much as control. As President Reagan famously stated, the “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital” think they can “plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” To liberals’ unquenchable desire to arrogate more power in Washington, conservatives must respond with freedom—freedom for states, and ultimately to businesses and individuals, to buy the coverage they want, and innovate in ways that can lower health spending.

The Graham-Cassidy bill has other flaws. It retains most of Obamacare’s spending (albeit disbursed to the states through the block grant) and all of its major tax increases. But at its core, the debate over health care remains one of control: Whether Washington will try to micromanage 50 states and more than 300 million people, or whether states and citizens can lead the way. We stand with the people—and hope that, after eight years of promises, the Republican Congress finally does likewise.

This post, co-written with former Sen. Jim DeMint, was originally published at The Federalist.

Republicans, Stop Avoiding Obamacare’s Problems and Start Fixing Them

With Congress having barely staved off attempts at a massive bailout of health insurers and Obamacare, the obvious question in health policy becomes: What should Congress do now?

Unfortunately, Republicans seem insistent on doing anything but solving the ultimate problem. As I have written on more occasions than I care to count, Obamacare’s regulatory scheme—particularly its requirements for pre-existing conditions—explain why premiums more than doubled from 2013 to 2017. That onerous regime necessitated requiring individuals to purchase, and employers to offer, health coverage; subsidies to make the (newly expensive) coverage more “affordable”; and tax increases and Medicare reductions to fund the subsidies.

One other option discussed of late would avoid addressing the problem entirely, by codifying the Trump administration’s proposed changes to short-term health plans. On one hand, this approach would provide a benefit, as short-term plans remain exempt from all the new requirements Obamacare imposes.

But the health care law’s regulatory regime created not one, but two, related problems. First, it raised premiums for most forms of insurance. But just as importantly, it did so via a massive federal intrusion into a realm—health insurance—where states had virtual free rein for nearly seven decades. Following passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1947, the federal government exercised minimal control of states’ individual health insurance markets, until Obamacare.

To see the effects of Obamacare on state markets, take the case of Idaho. The state wants to permit the sale of insurance plans that meet some, but not all, of the law’s regulatory requirements. But unfortunately, because the federal statute supersedes a state’s wishes, the Trump administration recently told Idaho it cannot offer policies that do not comply with federal law.

However, the idea that a Republican Congress would codify the rules on short-term plans, while keeping in place the onerous federally imposed regime that micro-manages all 50 states’ health insurance markets, defies any commitment to the principles of federalism. At least one state has publicly called short-term plans an insufficient option for its residents. Others very likely agree. If they believe in federalism, why would lawmakers in Washington purposefully deny Idahoans the freedom to make their own choices?

Last month’s White House budget claimed the Graham-Cassidy health care legislation would “support states as they transition to more sustainable health care programs that provide appropriate choices for their citizens.” But a bill keeping Obamacare’s regulatory regime in place, while allowing short-term plans as a “lifeboat” for those who wish it, would do the exact opposite. Such legislation might give freedom to some individuals, but it would not give any freedom to states to manage their own health insurance markets as they see fit, or to “provide appropriate choices for their citizens.”

I wrote last April that Republicans faced a binary choice: They could keep the status quo on pre-existing conditions, or they could repeal Obamacare—but they cannot do both. Instead of throwing money at the problem, or using political dodges like short-term plans to avoid it, they should get about actually fixing the underlying problem. Or come clean with the American people, and admit that they never wanted to repeal Obamacare in the first place.

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.

What You Need to Know about the Proposed Short-Term Plans Rule

On Tuesday morning, the Trump administration issued a proposed rule regarding short-term health insurance plans. The action represents the second prong of the Trump administration’s strategy, outlined in last October’s executive order, to offer regulatory relief to insurance markets. The Department of Labor acted on the first prong, issuing a proposed rule expanding access to association health plans, in January.

As I noted in October, the Obama administration issued a rule in October 2016 designed to limit short-term plans. The Public Health Service Act specifically exempts “short-term, limited-duration insurance” from the definition of “individual health insurance coverage,” exempting such plans from all of Obamacare’s new, federally imposed regulatory regime (though they are regulated by states).

The Trump Administration’s Proposal

The Trump administration’s proposed rule would revise the disclosure slightly (in part to reflect the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, set to take effect in January 2019), and restore the prior definition of short-term coverage to “less than 12 months.”

The proposed rule also requests comment on the ways to facilitate streamlined renewal of short-term plans. As I noted in an article last year, limiting individuals’ ability to renew policies harmed people who develop illnesses while on short-term plans:

Jimmy Kimmel forgot to mention it, but prohibiting coverage renewals harms individuals with pre-existing conditions, because it forbids customers who develop a pre-existing condition while on short-term plans from continuing their coverage. In discouraging these short-term plans, the Obama administration preferred individuals going without coverage entirely over seeing anyone purchase a policy lacking the full panoply of ‘government-approved’ benefits.

The Trump administration can and should rescind this coercive rule and its perverse consequences immediately.

Effective Dates and Impact

The administration estimates that the proposed rule would lead only about 100,000-200,000 individuals to switch from individual coverage to short-term plans, only about 10 percent of whom would have qualified for Obamacare insurance subsidies on exchanges. The administration also estimates the rule would raise spending on premium subsidies by $96-168 million annually. Because the individuals shifting to short-term coverage would be younger and healthier than average, they would slightly increase premiums, and thus premium subsidies, on the insurance exchanges.

However, these comparatively modest estimates on both the coverage and cost fronts suggest that short-term plans may have less of an impact than conservatives had hoped—or liberals have feared. Time will tell if the predictions prove an over-estimate or under-estimate; perhaps more definitive actions to allow for the guaranteed renewal of short-term coverage will increase their popularity.

What Should Be the Next Steps?

Now that it has proposed this rule, the administration should take regulatory action on another front, by stopping a movement in Idaho to offer non-compliant health plans. Last month, the state’s insurance department offered guidance to insurers about new coverage offerings. The new plans could:

  • Impose limits on pre-existing conditions for individuals without continuous coverage;
  • Limit benefits provided to $1 million annually;
  • Not offer maternity care in all cases (although each carrier must sell one plan with maternity coverage); and
  • Charge older individuals up to five times as much as younger individuals when calculating premium rates.

But the Idaho guidance hints at one big problem. It instructs insurers selling the plans in question to disclose to consumers that “This policy is not fully compliant with federal health insurance requirements.”

Therefore, as a matter of law, I cannot support the Idaho effort, not because I support or want to sustain Obamacare—I don’t—but because I support and want to sustain the rule of law, which is more important than any single piece of legislation. Unfortunately in this instance, federal law supersedes state law, which means the federal law must prevail.

I wrote in January 2017 that the Trump administration had an obligation to enforce the individual mandate. Likewise here, the administration has an obligation to enforce the Obamacare statute, and either redirect Idaho’s efforts to bring them into compliance with the law—perhaps through a Section 1332 innovation waiver, although that waiver may not bring the state sufficient flexibility—or quash them. The administration has a constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and it should not follow the Obama administration’s example of picking and choosing which laws it wishes to enforce.

Better yet, Congress can and should repeal the regulations that represent the beating heart of Obamacare. They have a roadmap to do so, even with a slim Senate majority. Such action would allow Idaho, and 49 other states, to innovate to their heart’s content to provide more affordable coverage to their residents—an outcome consistent with the rule of law, and federalism, that conservatives could embrace whole-heartedly.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Medicaid Reforms Can Stave Off Louisiana’s Fiscal Cliff

As the old saying goes, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Unfortunately, Gov. John Bel Edwards keeps digging Louisiana’s fiscal hole deeper, looking for tax increases to “solve” the state’s fiscal shortfall. He should instead examine the massive Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, the spending on which will only add to Louisiana’s budgetary woes.

Only two years ago, Gov. Edwards took office pledging that expanding Medicaid to able-bodied adults—that is, adults of working age without dependents—would see “only” 300,000 individuals added to the government health care rolls. Then, within weeks of taking office, Gov. Edwards revised his numbers upward, claiming that expansion could cover up to 450,000 individuals. But by November 2017—less than eighteen months after the expansion took effect in Louisiana—the state had already exceeded the maximum number of individuals ever projected to enroll in the program.

Louisiana’s explosion in Medicaid enrollment should not come as a surprise, as dozens of other states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare face the same problem. According to a November 2016 study by the Foundation for Government Accountability, in 24 states that expanded Medicaid, enrollment exceeded maximum projections by an average of 110%.

Unfortunately, this enrollment explosion puts Louisiana’s budget situation in even greater peril. State officials admitted in 2016 that enrollment exceeding 300,000 would reduce the supposed “savings” from Medicaid expansion. As enrollment has now exceeded the even higher projection of 450,000, costs will continue to rise.

Other states that expanded Medicaid before Louisiana have faced similar problems, with rising spending on Medicaid crowding out other important budgetary priorities. One Democratic legislator from New Mexico noted that “The most vulnerable of our citizens—the children, our senior citizens, our veterans, individuals with disabilities—I get concerned that those could be areas that get hit” because of Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid expansion could indeed hurt vulnerable citizens, because it prioritizes the needs of able-bodied adults. Even as Louisiana expanded Medicaid to the able-bodied, the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals advertises a seven year—yes, seven year—wait for individuals with developmental disabilities to be evaluated for personal care services. Any state’s policy that prioritizes coverage of able-bodied adults, yet makes the most vulnerable individuals wait for years and years to receive care, needs a major re-assessment.

As a new Pelican Institute paper makes clear, Louisiana should start phasing out the Medicaid expansion to the able-bodied—both to right the fiscal ship and to right the state’s wrong priorities. The state should freeze enrollment in expansion, allowing those currently participating in the program to remain so long as they stay eligible, while transitioning people into employer-sponsored insurance or other coverage as they lose Medicaid eligibility. One study found that this policy, if implemented nationwide, could save states between $56-64 billion, while generating additional savings for federal taxpayers.

As the state winds down its expansion, lawmakers should work with federal policy-makers to develop a comprehensive waiver program to reform Medicaid in Louisiana. Such a waiver program could include work requirements, to accelerate the transition from welfare to work. But it should also include improvements in care management—providing better care to beneficiaries, and home-based care where possible. Reforming Medicaid could encompass other important elements, including incentives for wellness and healthy behaviors, better coordination with employer-based insurance where applicable, and improved program integrity to crack down on Medicaid fraud.

Louisiana has suffered enough from the near-constant turmoil of annual budget crises. Instead of digging deeper with more taxes and spending, lawmakers should put down their spades, and freeze enrollment in Medicaid expansion. Once they have done so, the state can work to build the reformed and modernized Medicaid program Louisiana desperately needs.

This post was originally published in The Advocate.