Blog Home

Author Archive




Implementing Health Reform: Minimum Essential Coverage And The Multi-State Plan


November 24th, 2014

Two earlier posts this past weekend analyzed the massive Department of Health and Human Services 2016 Benefit and Payment Parameter Proposed Rule, released on November 21.  Also on November 21, the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury released a final rule on Minimum Essential Coverage and Other Rules Regarding the Shared Responsibility Payment for Individuals, while the Office of Personnel Management released proposed modifications to the multi-state plan (MSP) program rule.  This post explores these rules.

Minimum Essential Coverage

The ACA requires Americans to either maintain “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) or pay a tax.  There are a number of exceptions to the requirement, however, and the concept of MEC can become quite complicated.  The final rule published by the IRS provides guidance as to the meaning of MEC and the rules governing some of the exceptions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: 2016 Benefit And Payment Parameters Proposed Rule, Insurance Provisions


November 23rd, 2014

On November 21, 2014, the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services released its proposed Benefits and Payment Parameters (BPP) RulePart I of this post examined the benefit provisions of this proposed rule. This post will analyze the parts of the rule that deal with the insurance market reforms; the reinsurance, risk adjustment, and risk corridor programs; health insurance rate review; and the individual and SHOP exchanges.

New Definitions Of ‘Plan’ And ‘State’

The regulation begins with a modified definition of the term “plan.”  The terms “plan” is important in the ACA regulations.  A plan has been defined, with respect to a health insurer, as the combination of a benefit package, metal tier, and service area.  The new definition adds to this combination cost-sharing structure and provider network, so that plans that differ in their cost-sharing structure (deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance) or provider networks are different plans, even if they are offered at the same metal tier.  This definition becomes important, for example, in determining whether a plan offered outside the exchange is the same as a qualified health plan (QHP) offered in the exchange and can thus participate in the risk corridor program.  The proposed regulations later propose that the unreasonable rate review regulation applies at the plan level.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: 2016 Benefit And Payment Parameters Proposed Rule, Consumer Provisions; Hardship Exemptions


November 22nd, 2014

On November 15, 2014, the marketplaces reopened for 2015.  Anecdotal reports indicate that in most places enrollment and reenrollment are running smoothly.  But the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is looking forward to 2016.  On November 21 CMS published its massive 2016 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (BPP) Proposed Rule  with accompanying fact sheet.  It also published the draft 2016 actuarial value calculator and draft actuarial value calculator methodology for 2016.  Finally, CMS published a guidance on hardship exemptions for certain individuals.

Not to be outdone, the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service released its final regulation on Minimum Essential Coverage and other Rules Regarding the Shared Responsibility Payment for Individuals, together with a Notice regarding Individual Shared Responsibility Payment Hardship Exemptions that May be Claimed on a Federal Income Tax Return Without Obtaining a Hardship Exemption Certificate from the Marketplace and a Revenue Procedure setting out indexed adjusted percentages of income that will be used for determining the level of contributions expected of individuals before premium tax credits become available, the affordability threshold for the shared responsibility payments unaffordability exemption, and the threshold for determining whether employer coverage is affordable for purposes of determining eligibility for tax credits.

Finally, the Office of Personnel Management released a lengthy proposed rule proposing modifications in the multi-state plan program.  These rules, proposed rules, and guidances will be addressed in a series of posts over the next several days.  This post will address primarily the consumer-facing provisions of the BPP proposed rule, focusing on changes in benefits.  A second post will follow, discussing the provisions of the rule more relevant to insurers, such as proposed changes in the reinsurance, risk adjustment, and risk corridor rules.  A final post will discuss the IRS rule, which is primarily a finalization of proposals and guidances already made public, and the OPM multi-state plan rule.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Setting The Stage For 2015 Open Enrollment


November 16th, 2014

On November 15, 2014, the Affordable Care Act marketplaces reopened for 2015 enrollment, the second year of ACA coverage.  On November 14, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of Personnel Management released guidance and reports laying the groundwork for the second year.  This post covers these and notes briefly a couple of ACA court decisions that also came down on November 14.

Plan data release.  CMS released a number of data files containing information on plans available on the marketplaces for 2015 and their rates.  First, the release includes “landscape files” including plans available by county along with premium and cost-sharing data for selected scenarios and services for the 2015 plan year for the federally facilitated marketplace and federally facilitated SHOP.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: New HHS 2015 Marketplace Enrollment Estimates


November 11th, 2014

On November 10, 2014, the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) released an estimate of “How Many Individuals Might Have Marketplace Coverage After the 2015 Open Enrollment Period.”  ASPE estimates that 9.1 to 9.9 million will be enrolled, substantially lower than the 13 million enrollee estimate the Congressional Budget Office issued in the Spring of 2014.

Both the ASPE and CBO estimates see the marketplaces as eventually covering 24 to 25 million people.  But while CBO projected that the marketplaces would reach this number in 3 years, ASPE believes that a 4 to 5 year ramp-up period is more realistic based on the launch experience of other programs, like Medicaid and CHIP.

Examining the numbers.  The marketplaces enrolled 8.1 million individuals during the 2014 open enrollment period.  The ASPE brief states that 7.1 million were still enrolled as of October of 2014.  It is not clear whether or not this number includes 112,000 individuals that HHS recently announced have been dropped from the marketplaces because they failed adequately to document their immigration or citizenship status.  HHS has also announced that another 105,000 individuals will have their financial eligibility determined on data available to HHS (in most instances 2012 tax returns), because they failed to document the income levels they claimed on their applications.  These individuals will not lose coverage, but may receive smaller tax credits.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Defining Group Health Plans And More


November 9th, 2014

A primary goal of the Affordable Care Act is to extend individual health insurance coverage through the exchanges and the premium tax credits to Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.  But most working-age Americans and their families remain insured through employer-sponsored group coverage. While seeking to expand individual coverage, therefore, the ACA also attempts to preserve group coverage.

Employers and those who advise employers have, however, sought to break down the barrier between group and individual coverage. That is, they have tried to figure out how employers can subsidize individual coverage for their employees rather than provide group coverage.  If this were possible, employers could assist their employees to secure coverage while avoiding the burden of operating a group health plan.  Employees might be able to simultaneously receive the benefits of employer contributions and of premium tax credits.  It might even be possible for employers to shunt off their high-cost employees with poor health status to the exchanges, where they would be charged community-rated premiums, while keeping healthy employees in a group plan, which would likely receive a favorable rate based on claims experience.

In earlier guidances, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services clarified that employer health care arrangements, such as health reimbursement accounts and employer payment plans, are group health plans subject to the group market reforms of the ACA, including the prohibition of annual limits or the requirement to cover certain preventive services.  Such arrangements must therefore be integrated with a group health plan that meets these requirements, therefore, to comply with the law.  They cannot be integrated with individual policies and comply with the law.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Supreme Court Will Review Tax Credits In Federal Exchanges


November 7th, 2014

On November 7, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (review) in King v. Burwell, one of the cases involving the question of whether federally-facilitated marketplaces can grant premium tax credits.  The Fourth Circuit in King had upheld the Internal Revenue Service rule allowing FFMs to grant premium tax credits.  A panel of the District of Columbia Circuit had decided the same day that only state-operated exchanges could grant tax credits; however, that decision was vacated by the D.C. Circuit when it decided to rehear the case as a whole, so at the time the Supreme Court accepted certiorari, King was the only circuit court decision in effect, and that upholding the rule.

The challenge to the IRS rule is based on the wording of the provision of the ACA that authorizes premium tax credits, which refers to enrollment “in through an Exchange established by the State.”  The plaintiffs in King argue that this means that only state-operated exchanges can grant premium tax credits.

The government responds that this is an incorrect reading of the statute, which recognizes FFMs as the state-established exchange in states that elect not to establish a state exchange.  This is certainly the way that the members of Congress who wrote the legislation and the states that elected not to operate their own exchange understood the legislation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tax Filing And The ACA: Helping Americans Meet The Challenge


November 7th, 2014

Tim Jost’s post of September 21, 2014 expressed concern about the problems that Americans who are uninsured or who have received or qualify for premium tax credits will face in filing their taxes for 2014.  Those who are not otherwise insured and who wish to claim an exemption from the shared responsibility penalty will have to file tax form 8965.  Those who received advance premium tax credits during 2014 will have to file a form 8962, as will those who did not receive advance premium tax credits but who wish to claim premium tax credits on their tax return.  Tax filers who fail to reconcile their tax credits for 2014 cannot claim tax credits for subsequent years.

Individuals who did not have coverage at the beginning of 2014, but purchased coverage at some point in the year through the marketplaces, may need to file both forms.  For example, victims of domestic violence or spousal abandonment were granted a special enrollment period part of the way through 2014 and will have to file an 8965 for the months they were uninsured before they enrolled and an 8962 for months after they enrolled.

This post offers suggestions as to how the Internal Revenue Service and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the two agencies that oversee the shared responsibility and premium tax credit programs, might mitigate the problems that tax filers may face in filing their taxes for 2014.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: ‘Minimum Value’ Plans Must Have Hospital And Physician Coverage


November 4th, 2014

“Minimum value” is an important concept under the Affordable Care Act.  An employee who is offered employer-sponsored health plan that is affordable (that is, does not cost the employee more than 9.5 percent of the employee’s modified adjusted gross household income) and offers minimum value (MV), is not eligible for premium tax credits or cost-sharing reduction payments.  A large employer that fails to offer its full-time employees an affordable health plan that provides MV is subject to a penalty of $3,000 for each full-time employee who receives premium tax credits through the exchanges.

Yet MV is not clearly defined in the ACA.  The ACA provides that a plan does not offer MV if the “plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs.”  It is not clear what is meant, however, by “benefits provided under the plan.”  It does not seem to mean that a plan must be the equivalent of a 60 percent actuarial value bronze plan in the individual and insured small-group market, because individual and insured small-group plans must cover the ten essential health benefits, and large-group plans are not required to do so.

MV cannot mean, however, that an employer can simply pay for 60 percent of the cost of whatever benefits the employer chooses to offer, no matter how minimal those benefits may be.  MV is quite obviously something more than “minimum essential coverage,” the “skinny benefit plans” which employers may offer to avoid the separate $2,000 for-every-full-time employee penalty.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: The Qualified Health Plan Federal Exchange Participation Agreement And More


October 21st, 2014

CMS continues to put the pieces into place that are needed for the launch of the 2015 coverage year.  On October 16, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released at its REGTAP.info website the certification agreement and privacy and security agreement that qualified health plan (QHP) insurers must sign with CMS to access the federally facilitated exchange (FFE), the federally facilitated SHOP (FF-SHOP), and CMS Data Services Hub.  The agreement focuses primarily on obligations that the QHP insurer undertakes to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure secure communications with CMS, although it also addresses the effective date and termination of the agreement and a few other issues.  Most of the terms of the agreement are unremarkable, and this post will only comment on a few.

QHP insurers undertake under the agreement to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure secure communications with CMS in conformity with applicable laws, regulations, and standards.  They must also ensure that their contractors and downstream entities comply with these requirements.  QHP insurers agree to report any personally identifiable information incidents or breaches to CMS within 72 to 96 hours.  This is a far cry from the one-hour breach reporting requirement proposed by CMS last year but never finalized, but perhaps recognizes the difficult of identifying and assessing a security breach.

The agreement expressly recognizes that QHP insurers have developed their products based on the assumption that advance premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments will be available through the marketplace and that QHP insurers could have cause to terminate the agreement if this assumption ceases to be valid.  This could be interpreted as a reference to the Halbig/King litigation which currently threatens the availability of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments through the FFE, but could also have been included in recognition of the likely Republican takeover of the Senate and the possibility that the Republicans may accomplish through budget reconciliation or otherwise their longstanding goal of repealing the ACA.  As the agreement is renewable from year to year, this clause may contemplate contingencies in the indefinite as well as the near future

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Renewing Coverage For 2015


October 16th, 2014

On October 15, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced, with a month to go before the 2015 open enrollment begins on November 15, that it is beginning to send out notices to enrollees in the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM), explaining to them how to renew their coverage for 2015.

CMS is urging consumers to come back to the marketplace as it opens on November 15 to update their 2015 application and to make sure they are enrolled in the qualified health plan (QHP) that best meets their financial situation and health needs for 2015. The procedure outlined in the announcement is that set out in the FFM redetermination guidance issued in June. State-operated exchanges are also, presumably, beginning to inform their enrollees regarding their own 2015 redetermination processes.

Redetermination Notice

FFM Consumers will receive one of six notices. Consumers who visited the marketplace in 2014 and were determined eligible for coverage but who did not enroll, are being sent a notice urging them to return to the marketplace and enroll when the open enrollment period begins. Consumers who enrolled for 2014 but have not been receiving tax credits either because they were not eligible, did not apply, or were determined eligible for tax credits but declined assistance, are urged to return to the marketplace and reenroll in coverage.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Reference Pricing And Network Adequacy


October 12th, 2014

On October 10, 2014, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services issued a frequently asked question (FAQ) regarding the use of reference-based pricing in non-grandfathered large group employer plans.  Although the issue the FAQ addresses specifically is the use of reference pricing, the FAQ is remarkable insofar as it is the first departmental guidance that I am aware of that addresses the use of networks by self-insured ERISA plans.

Network adequacy is an issue that has long been addressed in the nongroup and insured group market in many states by state insurance law.  The ACA also requires qualified health plans, and arguably any individual and small group plan subject to the essential health benefits requirements, to have adequate provider networks.  Special rules implementing ACA section 2719A of the ACA limit cost-sharing for out-of-network coverage for emergency services.

The departments also stated in an earlier FAQ that cost sharing cannot be applied by any non-grandfathered health plan for preventive services provided by out-of-network providers if the services are not available in network.   But I am unaware of the departments otherwise attempting previously to regulate group health plan network requirements, at least under the ACA.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Judge Rules Against Premium Tax Credits In ACA Federal Exchanges (Updated)


September 30th, 2014

On September 30, 2014, Judge Ronald White of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma decided in Pruitt v. Burwell and Lew that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize the federally exchanges to issue premium tax credits.  He held that the Internal Revenue Service rule that provided the contrary is invalid.  Judge White’s decision followed the opinion of the majority of a panel of the District of Columbia circuit’s decision in Halbig v. Burwell, although the judgment in that case has been vacated pending a rehearing of the case by the full D.C. Circuit.  His decision was contrary to the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the IRS rule in King v. Burwell.  The district courts in both Halbig and King had upheld the IRS rule.

The Pruitt case has a long and circuitous history.  It was originally filed by Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt in 2011 as an individual mandate challenge.  After the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012, Attorney General Pruitt amended his complaint to instead challenge the ability of the federally facilitated exchanges to issue premium tax credits.  In an earlier ruling, Judge White refused to allow Oklahoma to sue on its own behalf as a state (a ruling that Judge White did not change in this decision), but concluded that it might have standing to proceed as a large employer.

In his September 30 ruling, Judge White concluded that Oklahoma did in fact have standing to sue as a large employer.  Under the ACA’s employer responsibility provisions, a large employer that does not offer its employees affordable and adequate coverage can be subject to a tax penalty if one or more of its employees receives premium tax credits through the exchange.  If the federally facilitated exchange, which is the ACA exchange in Oklahoma, is unable to grant premium tax credits, Oklahoma, which is a large employer, cannot be subject to a penalty if it fails to offer coverage to its employees.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Excepted Benefits Final Rule


September 29th, 2014

Congress adopted Title I of the Affordable Care Act to increase access to health coverage for individuals by reforming employer group health coverage and health insurance offered to individuals and groups, requiring large employers to offer their employees affordable minimum health coverage or pay a penalty, imposing a penalty on individuals who can afford health coverage but fail to obtain it, and offering advance premium tax credits through the exchanges to individuals who cannot otherwise afford to purchase health coverage.

Coverage has long been available both through groups and for individuals that provides some health-related benefits but is neither a group health plan nor insured health coverage, as those terms are defined in the ACA.  These benefits were originally labeled by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 as “excepted benefits,” because they are excepted from the forms of benefits regulated initially by HIPAA and now by the ACA.

On September 26, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“the agencies”) issued regulations expanding access to excepted benefits through insured and self-insured groups.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Complicated ACA Tax Forms Could Cause Problems


September 21st, 2014

In a few months, millions of Americans will be filing either form 8962 to reconcile the advance premium tax credit they received with the tax credit they were actually due, or form 8965 because they owe a tax under the shared responsibility (individual mandate) provision of the Affordable Care Act or claim an exemption from that requirement.

By the close of open enrollment in April, 6.7 million Americans had chosen a qualified health plan with premium tax credits,  and many more have since enrolled in a QHP through a special enrollment period and received tax credits.  Each of them will need to file a form 8962.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 30 million Americans are potentially subject to the shared responsibility requirement, and that 23 million of them may qualify for an exemption.  The 7 million individuals who owe the penalty will have to file a form 8965, as will most of the 23 million who claim an exemption.

On September 15, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service released draft instructions for form 8965.  On September 17, 2014, the IRS released draft instructions for form 8962.  It is difficult to overstate how complicated these instructions are.  The tax credit and individual responsibility provisions of the ACA were complicated to begin with, but have become ever more complex as new exceptions and special rules have been created as implementation of the legislation has proceeded.  Many of the mostly low income Americans who will be completing these forms are marginally literate, at least in English, and have been accustomed to filing very simple tax forms like the 1040-EZ (which cannot be used by an individual claiming a tax credit) or perhaps not to filing taxes at all.  They are likely to be confused, frustrated, even angry, and certainly bewildered, completing these forms.  It is to be hoped that most of them will be assisted by well-trained tax preparers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Resolving Income-Related Data Inconsistencies (Updated)


September 16th, 2014

On September 15, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a second deadline in its efforts to resolve data inconsistencies remaining from the 2014 open enrollment period.  This second deadline is for the submission of documentation to resolve income inconsistencies for exchange enrollees.  The first deadline was announced in August, when CMS sent final letters to about 310,000 federal marketplace (exchange) enrollees whose enrollments raised citizenship or legal-immigrant status issues, informing them that they must provide verification documents by September 5 or be terminated from coverage as of September 30.

CMS received hundreds of thousands of documents in response to the August request, reducing the number of individuals with citizenship and immigration data-matching issues from 966,000 as of May 31 to 115,000 as of September 14.  These individuals will be terminated as of September 30, 2014, but under the revised bulletin 11, they will be reinstated retroactively if they subsequently produce the documents needed to verify their citizenship or legal alien status. They may also purchase insurance outside the exchange.  Insurers are legally required to offer coverage to individuals who reside in their service area, regardless of citizenship or alien status.

Under the procedure announced on September 15, CMS is sending final notices to individuals enrolled through the federally facilitated exchange who still have income-related data-matching issues, informing them that they must send required information to verify their income as of September 30, 2014 or their premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments will be modified to reflect information reflected in data sources otherwise available to CMS.  For example, if an enrollee’s 2012 tax return reported income higher than that reported by the enrollee on his or her application for advance premium tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, and the enrollee failed to provide verification of the claimed income, the enrollee’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments would be modified as of November 1 in accordance with the income reflected in the tax return.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Medicaid Eligibility, 2015 Navigator Grants, And FAQs (Updated)


September 8th, 2014

The decision of the full D.C. Circuit to review the panel decision in Halbig v. Burwell en banc was clearly the big Affordable Care Act (ACA) court decision of the first week in September, but a September 2 decision of the federal district court of the Middle District of Tennessee, Gordon v. Wilson, is also worthy of note.

The Medicaid law has long required state Medicaid programs to determine eligibility for Medicaid with “reasonable promptness,” defined by the regulations to mean within 90 days for applicants with disabilities and 45 days for everyone else. Applicants whose applications are not determined reasonably promptly are entitled by the Medicaid law and by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution to a fair hearing.

Medicaid Eligibility and Tennessee

Tennessee, like all states, was required by the ACA to begin calculating Medicaid eligibility for most recipients using modified adjusted gross income, or MAGI as of January 1, 2014. Tennessee attempted to establish a new computer system for doing this, but when it was not ready by January 1, Tennessee asked the federal exchange to determine Medicaid eligibility until it could get its system operational.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: DC Circuit Vacates Halbig Judgement, Grants Rehearing


September 5th, 2014

On September 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a request by the government for a rehearing en banc (by the full court) in Halbig v. Burwell.  A divided three judge panel in the Halbig case had held on July 22, 2014 that an Internal Revenue Service rule allowing federally facilitated exchanges to grant premium tax credits was invalid. The D.C. Circuit’s decision to hear the case en banc vacated the panel’s judgement.

On the same day the Halbig panel decision was released, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, had unanimously upheld the rule.  The conflicting decisions resulted in dueling petitions for review.  The plaintiffs in the King case petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, asking the Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit decision and hold the IRS rule invalid.  The government, on the other hand, petitioned the D.C. Circuit for a rehearing en banc.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Exchange Eligibility Redeterminations Final Rule


September 3rd, 2014

On September 2, 2014, as Americans returned to their labors following the Labor Day holiday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its Annual Eligibility Redeterminations for Exchange Participation and Insurance Affordability Programs final rule, the last rule that had to be in place for the 2015 open enrollment period. HHS also released a fact sheet describing the rule and forms for insurers to use when discontinuing or renewing an insurance product.

The rule finalizes a proposed rule issued in June, which I also analyzed on Health Affairs Blog. The proposed rule was accompanied by a guidance describing how the federally facilitated marketplaces (FFMs) intended to handle the 2015 redetermination process. That guidance is unchanged by the final rule.

Indeed, virtually nothing in the proposed rule is changed by the final rule. The preface to the rule offers some additional explanation of the reenrollment and redetermination process in response to the 36 comments received on the proposed rule, but virtually no changes were made other than minor wording changes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Transcending Obamacare? Analyzing Avik Roy’s ACA Replacement Plan


September 2nd, 2014

Avik Roy’s proposal, “Transcending Obamacare,” is the latest and most thoroughly developed conservative alternative for reforming the American health care system in the wake of the Affordable Care Act. It is a serious proposal, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

Roy’s proposal is a curious combination of conservative nostrums (limiting recoveries for victims of malpractice), progressive goals (eliminating health status underwriting, providing subsidies for low-income Americans), and common sense proposals (enacting a uniform annual deductible for Medicare).

Most importantly, however, Roy proposes that conservatives move on from a single-minded focus on repealing the ACA toward building upon the ACA to accomplish their policy goals. He supports repealing certain features of the ACA—including the individual and employer mandate—but would retain others, such as community rating and exchanges. As polling repeatedly shows that many Americans are not happy with the ACA, but that a strong majority would rather amend than repeal it, and as it is very possible that we will have a Congress next year less supportive of the ACA than the current one, Roy’s proposal is important.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.