Bipartisan Health Bill Is Losing Support
December 14 2017 - 3:23PM
Dow Jones News
By Stephanie Armour
The seemingly imminent repeal of the Affordable Care Act's
insurance requirement, which could happen next week as part of the
final passage of Republicans' broad tax overhaul, has focused
attention on Congress' potential next moves on health care,
including a bipartisan plan to shore up the insurance markets.
But that plan, sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.)
and Patty Murray (D., Wash.), is losing support as more health
analysts say it could raise costs for many consumers. The bill
would restore payments to insurers, allowing them to cut premiums,
but in doing so it would reduce the tax credits that are pegged in
part to the premium costs of certain plans.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and other
Democrats also say they will no longer back the bipartisan plan if
Republicans push ahead with plans to undo the ACA's individual
mandate requirement, which they see as a violation of the
Alexander-Murray deal.
The bipartisan bill emerged as an issue during debate on the tax
overhaul. Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) supported the Senate
version of the tax plan, including its repeal of the ACA mandate,
after saying she obtained a commitment from Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) to pass the Alexander-Murray bill.
Ms. Collins declined to comment for this article. But a
spokesperson said the bill would lower premiums and enable more
people to get subsidies that also help them with out-of-pocket
medical expenses. The senator has said she remains confident the
Alexander-Murray bill will pass by year's end.
The Alexander-Murray legislation would temporarily restore
federal "cost-sharing reduction" payments to insurers, which were
halted in October by President Donald Trump. Those payments paid
insurers for providing mandatory subsidies to some low-income
consumers, and the halt in funding prompted many to raise premiums
next year.
But in a twist, subsidized consumers will generally be paying
less in 2018. That's because federal tax credits they receive to
help with premiums are based in part on the prices of popular,
mid-cost insurance plans -- so if those premiums go up, so will the
tax credits.
Some consumers will even end up obtaining plans at no cost to
them.
The bipartisan bill could ultimately undo this effect, some
analysts said.
"Passing Alexander-Murray would reverse all that for 2019, which
is negative in my view," said Matthew Fielder, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank. "All things
considered, I come down against Alexander-Murray on net at this
stage."
Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family
Foundation, agreed that many consumers haven't been hurt by the
cutoff of payments to insurers, and some are better off. "So the
case for Alexander-Murray in terms of protecting consumers is much
weaker than it was a few months ago," he said. He said there were
benefits to the bill, however, including the symbolism of forging a
bipartisan path on health care in a very divided Congress.
However, many analysts agree that restoring the federal payments
would benefit the roughly seven million people who earn too much
for the tax credits. But in some cases even those people have been
able to shop around and get plans with lower or similar premiums,
analysts said.
"On one hand, the lack of CSR payments has improved
affordability for subsidized consumers," said Caroline Pearson, a
senior vice president at health consulting firm Avalere Health. "On
the flip side, non-subsidized consumers have real sticker
shock."
Mr. Alexander argues that the bipartisan plan would greatly
benefit consumers. This month he cited an Avalere study that found
passing the Alexander-Murray plan by the end of the month would
lower premiums on the individual market.
Despite assurances from Senate leaders that the Alexander-Murray
bill would pass, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) has told other
congressional leaders he was not part of any such deal. Many
Republicans oppose restoring the cost-sharing subsidy payments,
describing them as a bailout of insurers, a characterization
rejected by insurers themselves since they are required by law to
offer subsidies.
Ending the federal payments would save about $118 billion in
federal funding by 2026, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, while costing the government an estimated $247 billion more
over the same time because of the heftier tax credits and swelling
ACA enrollment that is projected with more generous tax
credits.
Some Democrats say the Alexander-Murray bill, which took weeks
of negotiation to assemble, was intended as a stand-alone deal, and
that the GOP move to repeal the ACA insurance requirement at the
same time violates its spirit.
"There's no question that Alexander-Murray is an ineffective
response to the health-care sabotage included in the tax bill," Ms.
Murray's office said in a statement.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
December 14, 2017 15:08 ET (20:08 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.