Time reported that Trump promised TrumpCare would protect people with pre-existing medical conditions.  “Pre-existing conditions are in the bill,” Trump said on “Face the Nation” Sunday. “And I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying, pre-existing is not covered. Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said has to be.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan argued that people with pre-existing conditions would be “better off” under the GOP bill.  But the most recent version of the legislation would leave them with higher costs and unpredictable coverage.  The Republican-drafted law would keep in place a federal regulation barring insurers from setting their rates based on the health of an individual enrollee, but it would allow states to opt out.

A number of nationwide patient organizations have spoken out against the change, saying it would gut protections for people who have serious medical conditions such as heart disease and epilepsy.

Premiums in high-risk pools were often 150% or even 200% higher than in the rest of the market. States had to raise significant funds to support the high-risk pools; in 2011, net losses for 25 state high-risk pools were over $1.2 billion for just 225,000 nationwide enrollees. Many states had long wait lists for coverage and funds often ran out, leaving patients unserved.

Ultimately, if the Republican plan were passed, the health care market for people with pre-existing conditions in 2020 would have a lot in common with the health care market in 2010. If you’re older and have had health problems in the past, your care would likely be worse — despite what Trump and Ryan have said.

Jonathan Chait had a great article for NY Magazine explaining the popular support for ObamaCare now that the Republicans have proposed a replacement.

A new ABC News poll shows that the public opposes not only the Republican plan but the entire concept of repealing and replacing Obamacare. By landslide margins, the public wants Trump and Congress to keep and improve the law rather than try to replace it. And his threats to make the law implode if Democrats don’t agree to his terms are even more unpopular — 79 percent of the country wants him to make the law work, and only 13 percent wants him to make it fail:


Republicans are letting states opt out of the law’s requirements that insurers cover minimum health-care treatments and not discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Americans hate that idea, too:


The The Urban Institute estimates millions of Americans will lose Medicaid coverage if Republicans Block Grant Medicaid. Block Granting Medicaid is one of the ways Republicans want to pay for tax cuts for their wealthy donors.

What will happen to the millions of future older Americans who are in danger of losing Nursing Home care through Medicaid.  Kaiser Family Foundation shows:8617-02-figure-1.png

“… According to 2012 estimates, among people age 65 and over, an estimated 70 percent will use LTSS, and people age 85 and over – the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population – are four times more likely to need LTSS compared to people age 65 to 84.6,7 Approximately seven in ten people age 90 and above have a disability, and among people between the ages of 40 and 50, almost one in ten, on average, will have a disability that may require LTSS. …”II

The other sets of facts show Medicaid represents the majority of Long Term Care”.







McKnights reported that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are directing nursing homes to submit of payroll based journaling data well ahead of the May 15 deadline in order to catch errors. Providers will have until that date to submit data for the fiscal quarter lasting from Jan. 1 to March 31, 2017.

CMS staff told attendees of the Skilled Nursing Facility Open Door Forum call to not hold out until the deadline in order to see if there are “errors and issues” and leave time for corrections if needed.

While providers’ compliance with the program has not been added to their Five-Star rating yet, CMS officials noted the addition of a badge to the Nursing Home Compare website that will show whether or not a facility has submitted staffing data. A green badge indicates that the facility is already participating in the PBJ program; gray means a facility isn’t participating yet.

The badge also includes a note that the staffing reporting program will “be on Nursing Home Compare by early 2018.”

Healthcare Finance News reported that The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is recommending 5 percent payment cuts to home health agencies and inpatient rehabilitation facilities and no increases next year for long-term care hospitals, hospices, ambulatory surgical centers and skilled nursing facilities.

The bipartisan, 17-member commission recommends freezing skilled nursing facility payment rates for two years while the payment system is revised.

MedPAC said in its report to Congress that payment changes would ideally bring all types of post-acute care into a unified payment system.

“For years, the commission has noted that PAC (post-acute care) payment systems do not encourage efficient care and are not equitable across different patient stays,” the report said.


They also recommended requiring ambulatory surgical centers to submit cost data, eliminating therapy visits as a factor in payment, and expanding the inpatient rehabilitation facility outlier pool for high-cost enrollees.

In 2015, fee-for-service program spending on post-acute care services totaled $60 billion, according to the report.

Implementing its recommendations would reduce fee-for-service program spending by over $30 billion over the next 10 years, the report said.

If Congress had implemented the commission’s 2008 recommendations for skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies, spending would have been reduced by about $11 billion between 2009 and 2016, it said.


In 2016, MA enrollment increased by 5 percent to 17.5 million beneficiaries or 31 percent of all Medicare enrollees. The average beneficiary was able to choose from 18 Medicare Advantage plans in 2017.

Margaret Hartmann wrote an excellent article in New Yorker Magazine about the search for a scapegoat for Trumpcare now that the Congressional Budget Office states that 24 million people will lose health coverage by 2026 under the Republican health-care. More and more Republicans are coming out against the current version of the legislation — and pointing fingers at each other.  The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that at least a dozen Senate Republicans, “including some who had previously kept a low profile in the health debate,” have expressed serious doubts about the legislation making its way through the House. The report poured cold water on the theory that passage in the House would build enough momentum to get the AHCA though the Senate.

The most obvious target is the man behind the bill; Breitbart’s escalating attacks on House Speaker Paul Ryan have added fuel to suspicions that chief strategist Steve Bannon hasn’t given up on his goal of ending Ryan’s career.

Breitbart is far from the only conservative outlet bashing “Ryancare.” Newsmax chief executive Christopher Ruddy even published a piece urging President Trump to abandon the current bill.

According to the Huffington Post, Republicans may already be giving up on getting AHCA passed in the Senate.

“The focus of House leadership has been more about getting a bill out of the House that is unchanged and in keeping with the Better Way plan, instead of truly seeing to potential roadblocks that exist in the House and Senate,” said a Republican House member.

“The question people should be looking at is whether Republican senators like Tom Cotton and Rand Paul are actually interested in repealing Obamacare, or whether they’re sabotaging this to preserve the Medicaid expansion in their states,” said the aide. “These senators masquerading with conservative objections are too afraid to admit they want to keep Obamacare.”

Of course, as President Trump has stated several times, the Republicans’ preferred “Plan B” is to keep blaming Senate Democrats. As the Huffington Post notes, there’s a major flaw in that strategy:

If Trump and some Republicans now think their best course of action is to do nothing and continue blaming problems with the health-care system on Democrats, then perhaps the best cover they can offer their members is to move a GOP bill out of the House, watch it die in the Senate, and then spend the next two years blaming Senate Democrats in states that Trump won.

In that scenario, voters fail to recognize that Republicans have the power to pass this bill without a single Democratic vote, and the ire over Obamacare doesn’t dissipate even though voters have seen the GOP alternative.

Will voters remember that Trump promised an Obamacare replacement “that’s going to be better health care for more people at a lesser cost,” then failed to put much energy into crafting that plan? Maybe, but blaming other people for his mistakes happens to be one of his strong suits.

Bob Doherty, senior vice president for government affairs at the American College of Physicians, the trade group for internists and the second-largest association of doctors in America, is taking a different approach on Twitter, blasting the bill as the worst measure he’s seen in nearly 40 years of advocacy work.

Doherty warns of “thousands of preventable deaths” if the bill passes (which checks out), as 28 million people lose coverage. He also makes the point that the long-term health consequences of the bill could be even more severe, as older people who lose insurance coverage due to skyrocketing premiums “will put off getting care until diseases are at more advanced, less treatable, & costly stage.”

In 38 years advocating for doctors, patients I’ve never seen a bill that will do more harm to health than bill being voted on Thursday

It will take coverage from millions of most vulnerable: the poor,sick & old. It will raise premiums & deductibles by thousands of $.

It will make the opioid epidemic worse by ending requirement that Medicaid cover substance use treatment.

It cuts Medicaid funding by 25%; states will have no choice but to cut coverage & benefits and/or raise taxes, cut provider pay.

It cuts funding to @CDC to prevent spread of infectious diseases like flu and Zika.

Proposed work requirement for Medicaid punishes those who can’t work because they are sick, have mental health conditions, are caregivers

Or because there are no jobs.

It will cause people to forgo doctor visits, and prevention /screening tests and not keep up with medications.

They will put off getting care until diseases are at more advanced, less treatable & more costly stage.

Lives are at stake: loss of coverage associated with thousands of preventable deaths.

This bill has to be stopped. Call Congress today. 2022243121. Urge them to vote against . Don’t wait. Vote is on Thursday.

Trumpcare Facts:

The plan would hit older and rural Americans hardest because it wouldn’t provide a larger tax credit to people with more expensive plans.

The plan would reduce Medicaid spending by $880 billion, though Trump repeatedly promised no cuts to the program when battling his primary opponents.

Tucker Carlson raised this point with President Trump during a Fox News interview. “I know that, I know,” the president said, as the host cited Bloomberg’s finding that Trump-supporting counties would be hammered. “It’s very preliminary.”

“This isn’t consistent with the message of the last election,” Carlson said. “No, a lot of things aren’t consistent,” Trump acknowledged.

Eugene Robinson wrote a great article for PennLive about the myth of Republicans as the party of fiscal responsibility. The Republican Congress is pushing Trumpcare before the Congressional Budget Office has had a chance to estimate how much the measure will cost.

“It’s time to put an end to the myth that Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility. Saving taxpayer dollars takes a back seat to the ideological imperative of blaming and shaming the poor.”

“When you ask Republicans what they’re going to cut, they mention foreign aid — which totals about $35 billion, or slightly less than 1 percent of federal spending.

They threaten to eviscerate smaller agencies by cutting $6 billion here or $8 billion there — but at the same time, they applaud Trump’s pledge to increase the $600 billion defense budget by an incredible 10 percent.

They’re going to end up spending more — perhaps lots more — and collecting less in tax revenue. And this is the party that claims to care about deficits and debt?

But wait, Republicans say, we’re going to “save” the big entitlement programs by trimming benefits. Yeah, sure. I’m not holding my breath.

The problem is that Medicare and Social Security serve middle-class and upper-crust taxpayers, including many who share the GOP’s punish-the-poor belief system. If you think these ACA-focused town halls are hostile, just you wait.

The fact is that among recent administrations, at least, Democratic presidents have been the relative skinflints. Bill Clinton, you will recall, actually balanced the budget — and yes, he had help from Republicans in Congress.

Barack Obama spent heavily at first to save the economy, which was teetering on the edge of a dreadful abyss, but he ended up slashing the deficit in half and presiding over years of uninterrupted economic growth.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, fought hugely expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without accounting for them in his budgets.

He also convinced Congress to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs, which was compassionate but costly.

Trump promises to be even more of a big spender. Among other things, he promises a trillion-dollar program to renew the nation’s infrastructure. Imagine the Republican howling if Obama had suggested such a thing.

The GOP will surely persist in its sanctimony about balanced budgets, but no one should pay any attention. Republicans, we see what you’re doing.”

According to a report in Politico, the number of GOP governors who have “expressed strong support” for their party’s plan is exactly zero, while 15 have voiced varying concerns.  Republican governors object to Medicaid federal allotments to the states limited by a per capita cap. Unfortunately, Trumpcare has the spending cuts without the flexibility.

 As Health Affairs notes, AHCA may actually be more prescriptive than the status quo, micromanaging several types of beneficiaries the authors do not want to receive coverage (e.g., lottery winners, the undocumented, those with home equity over a certain amount), without some general grant of flexibility.

The sought-after flexibility isn’t there:

The combination of federal funding reductions and the retention of the program’s comprehensive legal requirements would, in effect, create a perfect storm for states. While it is possible that some of these requirements could be eased by the Trump Administration using its section 1115 waiver authority, section 1115 is actually a limited research and demonstration statute, not a tool for wholesale statutory re-design simply to create new state flexibility. Furthermore, certain Medicaid provisions, such as premium and cost-sharing rules, are by and large excluded from the scope of 1115.

The GOP governors have noticed this disrespect from the authors of AHCA:

“Flexibility” has become a buzzword among governors critical of the bill. Baker, Snyder, Arizona’s Doug Ducey, Tennessee’s Bill Haslam, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Nevada’s Brian Sandoval say there is work to be done on the bill to ensure it grants the states the flexibility they need.

“The plan that was released doesn’t reflect what the governors want, which is flexibility,” Ducey told a local radio station in Phoenix. “I want flexibility at the state level to improve our health care system, to make these reforms. This is still prescriptive from Washington, D.C.”

Meanwhile, the Republican governors of Ohio, Nevada, Michigan, and Arkansas jointly declared their opposition to the bill, in a letter to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Like the Senate moderates, John Kasich and company want to preserve the increased level of federal funding that Obamacare provides Medicaid recipients — and, if cutbacks are needed, to limit eligibility rather than reducing reimbursements.

In other words: The governors don’t want Paul Ryan to take away the free money that’s keeping their low-income residents insured and their hospitals paid.

While governors, obviously, won’t get a vote on the AHCA, Republican senators from expansion states are subject to similar pressures. And on Friday afternoon, Nevada’s Dean Heller said he stands with his governor.