In the last week, House Republicans have unveiled a set of changes to the American Health Care Act , the plan they propose to replace Obamacare. We’ve highlighted recent additions in green, and drawn a line through the rule replaced.

Most of the changes will appeal to the party’s right flank, including the Freedom Caucus – which has voiced concern that the bill does not go far enough to undo Obamacare – but there are also concessions to more moderate Republicans, many of them in the Senate. A vote is expected in the House on Thursday.

More details below:

# #1 Benefit requirements New change States will be required to define a minimum package of benefits for insurance plans for people who buy their own coverage. Previously The federal government defines a minimum package of benefits that all health plans must include. Who‘s happy with this change A group of conservative lawmakers from the House Freedom Caucus

The Affordable Care Act said that products called health insurance had to include a basic set of benefits, including hospital care, prescription drugs and maternity care. Those provisions have been criticized for driving up the cost of insurance and making the market too inflexible.

The change would require states to define their own package of “essential health benefits,” so that people who shop will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay their premiums. That means that the benefits in a standard plan are likely to vary by state. Before Obamacare, fewer than 10 states required insurers to cover maternity care, for example.

Several legal experts have identified trouble spots in the drafting of the provision that could cause conflicts with other parts of the law. Various other insurance regulations depend on the federal benefit package, including a rule preventing insurers from imposing annual limits on how much care they will cover. Experts also say that, because of the way the provision was written, it may, in fact, fail to eliminate the federal benefit rules for most purposes.

# #2 More state money New change States will get $100 billion over a decade to help stabilize their insurance markets; $15 billion to pay for drug addiction treatment, mental health and pregnancy care; and $15 billion for payments to insurers with high-cost customers. Previously States will get $100 billion over a decade to help stabilize their insurance markets. Who‘s happy with this change handful of lawmakers.

Because of changes to the minimum benefit packages, some lawmakers raised concerns that insurance would not cover mental health and maternity services in every state. An amendment added $15 billion in additional funding to states was designed to help fill any resulting gaps.

A further amendment added another $15 billion, to create a program called “invisible risk sharing.” The legislation is fairly vague about how the program would work, but authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to set up another program to reimburse health insurers for very sick patients with the funds.

# #3 Medicaid work requirements New change States can make some Medicaid recipients prove they are working or looking for work. Previously States could apply for waivers to impose work requirements, but they might not get approved. Who‘s happy with this change Conservatives, particularly members of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative House group that met with President Trump last week

Under Obamacare, Medicaid was available for Americans with low incomes whether they were employed or not. The Obama administration refused to allow work requirements, saying they were not consistent with the goals of Medicaid. Several Republican governors would like to give states the right to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients who have no young children and are not old or disabled. The Republicans’ proposal would allow states to decide for themselves between the two systems.

# #4 Medicaid block grants New change States have an option to receive lump-sum Medicaid payments. Previously States received a flat per-beneficiary payment for Medicaid patients. Who‘s happy with this change Conservatives, particularly members of the Republican Study Committee

The Republicans’ initial plan would have changed the structure of the 52-year-old program, switching from a system in which the federal government paid a share of every medical bill to one in which states would receive a flat fee each year for each person signed up for the program. The amendment would give states a second option: Instead of that per capita payment, they could get a lump sum payment for children and adults under 65 who don’t have disabilities, along with more control over who can sign up and what benefits different kinds of Medicaid recipients could receive. This change will please conservatives in Congress, who hope to limit the growth of the program and increase state flexibility. Members of the Republican Study Committee and the House Freedom Caucus had asked for it.

The amendment makes other changes to Medicaid: It would prevent any additional states from expanding the program to cover more poor, childless adults. It would take away extra funding from states that cover adults over a certain income threshold.

# #5 Tax credits New change Most people buying their own insurance get a flat tax credit based on age, but the Senate might increase funding for Americans between 50 and 64. Previously Most people buying their own insurance got a flat tax credit based on age. Who‘s happy with this change Moderates, particularly those from rural districts

Like Obamacare, the Republicans’ proposal would help people who don’t get insurance through work or the government buy their own coverage with tax credits. But the structure of the Republicans’ tax credits is really different, handing them out on a flat basis according to age, for everyone earning up to around $75,000 a year. The bill would also allow insurers to charge older customers much higher prices than they can under Obamacare.

The result: Older Americans with low incomes in high-cost areas would lose very big. This is a group that tended to vote for President Trump. This reality worried some moderate G.O.P. politicians, particularly those from rural districts, where prices for health insurance are the highest.

The amendment doesn’t do anything to help that population in particular, but it adds a provision that would allow everyone to deduct more health care expenses from taxes. The change is intended as a placeholder, expected to cost about $85 billion over a decade, that could be turned by the Senate into targeted tax assistance for older insurance buyers, according to a Republican aide. What the Senate would do with the money is still unclear. But $85 billion would go only part of the way toward filling the gap between subsidies offered under this bill and the Affordable Care Act for older insurance shoppers.

# #6 Obamacare taxes New change Most Obamacare taxes phase out this year. Previously Obamacare taxes would have phased out in 2018. Who‘s happy with this change Tax cutters

The Democrats who wrote the Affordable Care Act helped pay the costs of expanding insurance coverage by imposing a variety of taxes. The Republican plan would eliminate taxes on health insurance, prescription drugs, tanning salons and investment income, among others. The original bill would have left the taxes in place until next year. The first amendment would make them disappear faster.

But a second amendment, introduced Thursday, would restore one of the taxes for six years. Wages of more than $200,000 will still be subject to a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax until 2023, if the change is adopted.

One tax that remains, a tax on expensive employer health plans, would be postponed until 2026. The original bill let it kick in in 2025.

# #7 Medicaid formula changes New change Medicaid allotments for older and disabled beneficiaries grow faster than the rate of medical inflation Previously Medicaid allotments for elderly and disabled beneficiaries grow at the rate of medical inflation Who‘s happy with this change Governors

The per capita payments to states are set to grow under the legislation each year, according to the medical portion of the consumer price index. But Medicaid costs for disabled patients and for those in nursing homes tend to be high and sometimes grow more quickly than that index. The change would give states a bigger annual increase for every beneficiary in either category.

# #8 The ‘Yankee Swap ’ New change Local New York politics play a small part in the Republican health bill. Previously Local New York politics play no part in the Republican health bill. Who‘s happy with this change A few upstate New York congressmen

New York has among the highest per-enrollee Medicaid spending of any state, and some county governments pay for a share of the state’s Medicaid expenses. County governments would like to have the state assume the full costs of that program. A revision, introduced by Representative Chris Collins of New York’s 27th District, which includes a large part of rural, western New York, would do just that, barring Medicaid funds from being used by small local governments under specific conditions tailored precisely to counties outside of New York City.

Those county governments don’t like the current system because they have to pay their share out of property taxes. The change would instead require state government to pick up the bill. The result: Either the state will have to find more money, or Medicaid funding could be cut substantially. If this sounds like a weird parochial concern you might not expect in a piece of major federal policy legislation, that’s because it is. But its inclusion signals congressional leaders’ concerns about securing enough votes for passage. Some similar local policy giveaways were part of the Affordable Care Act. Many had memorable nicknames. On Twitter, possible names for this maneuver have begun circulating.

# #9 Health Savings Accounts New change If your tax credit is worth more than your premium, you lose the difference Previously If your tax credit was larger than your premium, you could save the difference Who‘s happy with this change Anti-abortion conservatives, deficit hawks