Updated August 1, 2018

On August 1st, HHS (Health and Human Services) announced a rule change that impacts short term health insurance, or what is sometimes being referred to as, “Trumpcare plans”. Effective October 1st, 2018, short term health plans will now be allowed to have a full one year policy term, instead of being limited to three months. We have outlined in multiple articles within this site, as well as within our Trumpcare update below, the pros and cons of short term health plans. They’re not for everyone, and they are not as tightly regulated as other insurance products. While this expansion from 3 month to 12 month policy terms will help ease some of the regulatory burden on consumers who have been relying on short term health insurance to reduce their healthcare costs, it will also incentivize some of the less than ethical operators in the business to ramp up their practices. This is why we continually encourage individuals to only speak to, or share any personal information with, reputable, licensed health insurance professionals. Especially when it comes to short term plans, or ACA alternatives. We believe that in terms of risk vs. reward, there’s a lot of risk purchasing a plan from a small company that no one has ever heard of. Larger well established companies providing short term health insurance coverage, like United Healthcare, we feel are a much more safe and secure choice for short term health insurance.

Short term health insurance is portrayed by almost all news media outlets as being “junk insurance”. This is simply not accurate or fair, but it makes for great click-bait. The problem, is that news outlets don’t have the ability or time to give you all of the facts and details about all insurance products. So our advice, is to research things in detail before making any decision or judgement.

At HealthNetwork, the parent company of this website, we have always been focused on providing consumers with factual information on all types of health insurance coverage. It is a fact that short term plans do not provide as good of coverage as ACA plans. It is factual in the exact same way as stating that 2 + 2 = 4. That said, short term plans for some individuals and families, are the only option that is within their budget. We believe that under the right circumstances, short term health insurance, can be a great fit for millions of individuals and families. That said, we want to help you determine if you are, or are not, one of those individuals.

Our reason for operating this website, as well as many others including ShortTermHealthInsurance.com, is to provide you the consumer with access to the facts. We want to help you bypass the scams, and the call centers that will robo-dial you 50 times a day and sell your personal information to anyone willing to purchase it. We are focused entirely on making the experience of researching and enrolling in the health insurance plan that is right for you, as pleasant as possible. We have been obnoxiously consumer focused, and a thorn in the side of the unethical operators in healthcare, since we launched. Over the last five years, we have been a helpful ally for more than 75 million consumer households within the United States.

You can use the Shop Now button on this page, or found at this link, to safely price and compare short term health insurance plans from major insurance carriers like United Healthcare.

Updated July 21st, 2018

Open enrollment ended officially, in all states, in January. If you missed the deadline for enrollment you will not be able to enroll in an “Obamacare Plan”, until open-enrollment starts back again in October. That is, unless you have a “qualifying life event”, which would enable yo to enroll in a plan outside of open-enrollment. Some examples of qualifying life events are getting married, getting divorced, having a child, moving, losing your job and a variety of other common life events. If you feel that you might qualify, we encourage you to explore your options under an ACA plan. If you do not qualify, or if you can not afford a major medical plan (ACA/Obamacare) one alternative that might be an option, could be a short term health insurance plan.

First and foremost, short term health insurance is not insurance coverage that is similar to ACA / Obamacare plans. In fact, short term health plans offer less coverage than ACA plans by default. For example, short term plans do not offer unlimited coverage caps like ACA plans do. Short term plans will often have a cap of $1 million or $2 million in total coverage. That said, this is not typically an issue for anyone who has a short term policy simply because it is unlikely that an individual will use that amount of coverage in a single year. These type of plans are not “guaranteed issue”, meaning that insurance carriers can reject anyone with a serious pre-existing condition from obtaining one. This is unlike Obamacare plans, which do not allow for “pre-x” exclusions, or limits on total coverage caps. This results in short term health insurance plans being on average, about half the cost of an ACA plan.

While that might sound great, keep in mind that if you have diabetes, or you plan on having a child while you are covered under a short term plan, you will likely be rejected from obtaining coverage. If you have serious health issues, or you plan on having a child, you really should be trying to enroll in an ACA compliant plan. If you have basic requirements for your healthcare, like regular checkups, and you want to have a safety net in place in the event something terrible happens, then a short term health insurance plan could be a great option. You know best what your needs are, so don’t make a decision based entirely on price, or what an unknown and unvetted insurance agent might tell you. Additionally, if you connect with a reputable health insurance professional, it is highly unlikely that they will provide you with false information regarding each plans benefits, and what ultimately is going to be best for your situation. We only work with large reputable companies who simply have too much to risk by allowing agents to operate in an unethical manner. So rest assured that if you connect with someone through this website, or a site we link out to, they have been highly vetted, and most likely are with a large organization like United Healthcare or National General Insurance.

Something else that is unique with short term plans, is that they are typically sold within one month to three month policy blocks. This means you will purchase coverage for a period of three months instead of a single year. You might be wondering why this is, and the short and less complicated answer, is government regulation. Having to sign up again in three months might sound like an inconvenience, but here’s one easy way to mitigate that issue. When you sign up with your short term health insurance carrier, you can ask if they will allow you to have an auto-renewal that extends your coverage for up to one year.

Now something else you might be wondering, is if this means that you have to pay for three months of coverage up front. The answer is no. You can make payments on a monthly basis. Now if you need a short term health policy for the entire year, you might also be wondering if it makes more sense to not ask for an auto-renewal.

Your logic being that prices could actually go down, and your policy could be cheaper in the future.

So here’s our take on this. First and foremost, short term policies will not be going down in price, they’ll simply go up, like all other health insurance coverage policies. All short term plans plan rates have always increased on an annual basis. So from that perspective, you’re better off with an auto-renewal. Lastly, the other reason we advise people to do auto-renewals, is because you can cancel your short term policy at any time. If you find something better and less costly somewhere else in six months, as unlikely as that is, no worries, you can cancel your short term policy whenever you like. Life is complicated and in most individuals busy lives, it is very easy to lose track of a renewal date. So why risk having your policy cancelled or having to purchase another policy at a higher cost later on?

If you do not currently have any kind of coverage at all, that’s a dangerous scenario to be in. Medical debt is the #1 reason why Americans end up filing bankruptcy. If you can’t afford and ACA plan, or you missed open-enrollment, and you do not have a pre-existing condition, a short term health insurance plan from a major provider like United Healthcare or NationalGeneral could be a great fit. The best thing you can do is to research your options, and if you have any questions at all, seek out guidance from a reputable licensed professional.

Here’s a link to ShortTermHealthInsurance.com, which can provide you with pricing information, as well as connect you to licensed professionals who can answer any of the questions you might have.

(Previous Update from January 14, 2018)

Open Enrollment Has Ended In Most States – Here Is An Important Update On Trumpcare Plans

Unless you live in CA, DC, MA, NY or in WA, as of 1/12/2018, you no longer have the ability to enroll in an Obamacare or what is also known as an ACA compliant plan, unless you have a qualifying life event. Currently there are a number of insurance companies as well as marketing companies, promoting “trumpcare plans”. It is important that you understand that officially, there is no such thing as a “Trumpcare Plan”. What insurance companies and marketers are referring to when they use the term “Trumpcare”, are health insurance plans that are an alternative to plans that comply with the regulations established by the ACA, or what is called Obamacare.

Here is an important update on Trumpcare plans, and what individuals who still need to sign up for health insurance coverage need to know. 2018 Update On Trumpcare

Updated December 15, 2017

Obamacare Open Enrollment Deadline is Today

If you’re currently without health insurance or still want to switch your plan, your last chance to do so is today.

There are a few counties in states and states that have opted to extend the deadline to enroll for their residents. For the rest of the country, you must enroll in a health insurance plan by 11:59 p.m. local time. If you don’t enroll today though, you will be locked out until November 2018.

Phone lines will be busy today so if you want or need to speak to a licensed health insurance agent, you should do so right away. Otherwise, if you’re comfortable enrolling online, click the Shop Now button upon and get started.

Updated October 31, 2017

2018 Health Insurance Open Enrollment Period Starts Now

Since President Trump took office in January, Republicans have tried several times to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare). The ACA remains the law of the land, however, after the last effort failed earlier this fall to garner any traction among rightwing lawmakers. Because the ACA is still law, open enrollment 2018 is still set to begin and end as per the Trump administration’s newer and shorter timeframe. This year, you’ll have from November 1 through December 15 to sign up for health insurance in the private market, which includes any non-government and non-job based health insurance option.

The annual open enrollment period creates confusion for millions of people each year, and it’s likely to be even more confusing for 2018 since some states have different deadlines. These states, part of the 12 (including the District of Columbia) that created their own state-based insurance marketplaces under Obamacare, have opted to extend the open enrollment deadline to give customers more time, regardless of what the federal government is doing. If you live in one of the following states, here’s when the deadline is for open enrollment 2018.

Location Open Enrollment Deadline California January 31 Connecticut December 22 Colorado January 12 District of Columbia January 31 Massachusetts January 23 Minnesota January 14 New York January 31 Rhode Island December 31 Washington January 15

Three additional states – Idaho, Maryland and Vermont – have state-based exchanges as well. Maryland and Vermont will follow the federal open enrollment schedule ending on December 15. In Idaho, residents have until the federal deadline of December 15 to submit an application but an additional week (until December 22) to pick a health plan as long as they’ve applied by the original deadline. Regardless of your resident state, open enrollment for health insurance across the country starts on November 1st.

Updated October 12th, 2017

President Trump Signs Executive Order Aimed At Increasing Access To Alternatives To Obamacare

President Trump hasn’t been shy about letting everyone know that he thinks Obamacare is a failure. While it is true that Obamacare premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years, particularly this year, there’s also no question that President Trump and his administrations refusal to commit to funding the cost sharing reduction subsidies, CSR’s, have only made things worse. In fact, insurance carriers have been releasing two sets of figures that are reflective of how much premiums are increasing within each state. Florida is seeing an increase of either 13.7% or 44.7% as a state average. What’s driving the 31% difference between the two figures? Uncertainty. Insurance carriers filed two rates because they still do not know what the President is going to do.

A lot of the news surrounding the just signed executive order, is making it out to sound like this is simply an attempt to place the final nail in Obamacare’s coffin, as so many Republicans have campaigned on. There’s just one problem with that, none of what has been proposed so far can actually do anything long term.

It’s a bandaid for this season, it’s a way to show that the administration did “something” to help lower costs for this year. The way in which consumers who don’t have a full subsidy, who are impacted the most by premiums skyrocketing, many will be able to obtain cheaper healthcare by going around the ACA, and enrolling in a short term health insurance plan. Part of the executive order signed today, is a directive that will be applied to loosening restrictions on the sale of those plans. They were previously limited to 3 months policy terms, instead of being a 12 month or year round product.

It is too early to know if any of these measures will actually have any kind of impact regarding premium pricing and reducing costs. We’re certain to have more details and a more comprehensive update on the executive order signed by the President published sometime next week.

Here’s the official text, direct from the WhiteHouse. EXECUTIVE ORDER – – – – – – – PROMOTING HEALTHCARE CHOICE AND COMPETITION ACROSS THE UNITED STATES “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. (a) It shall be the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), however, has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using www.healthcare.gov in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013. The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017. (b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). (i) Large employers often are able to obtain better terms on health insurance for their employees than small employers because of their larger pools of insurable individuals across which they can spread risk and administrative costs. Expanding access to AHPs can help small businesses overcome this competitive disadvantage by allowing them to group together to self-insure or purchase large group health insurance. Expanding access to AHPs will also allow more small businesses to avoid many of the PPACA’s costly requirements. Expanding access to AHPs would provide more affordable health insurance options to many Americans, including hourly wage earners, farmers, and the employees of small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel economic growth. (ii) STLDI is exempt from the onerous and expensive insurance mandates and regulations included in title I of the PPACA. This can make it an appealing and affordable alternative to government-run exchanges for many people without coverage available to them through their workplaces. The previous administration took steps to restrict access to this market by reducing the allowable coverage period from less than 12 months to less than 3 months and by preventing any extensions selected by the policyholder beyond 3 months of total coverage. (iii) HRAs are tax-advantaged, account-based arrangements that employers can establish for employees to give employees more flexibility and choices regarding their healthcare. Expanding the flexibility and use of HRAs would provide many Americans, including employees who work at small businesses, with more options for financing their healthcare. (c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competition in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should: (i) expand the availability of and access to alternatives to expensive, mandate-laden PPACA insurance, including AHPs, STLDI, and HRAs; (ii) re-inject competition into healthcare markets by lowering barriers to entry, limiting excessive consolidation, and preventing abuses of market power; and (iii) improve access to and the quality of information that Americans need to make informed healthcare decisions, including data about healthcare prices and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, providers, or payers. Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expanding the conditions that satisfy the commonality‑of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an “employer” under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry. Sec. 3. Expanded Availability of Short-Term, Limited‑Duration Insurance. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand the availability of STLDI. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretaries should consider allowing such insurance to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer. Sec. 4. Expanded Availability and Permitted Use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, to increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage. Sec. 5. Public Comment. The Secretaries shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under sections 2 through 4 of this order. Sec. 6. Reports. Within 180 days of the date of this order, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor and the Federal Trade Commission, shall provide a report to the President that: (a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and (b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order. Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.” DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, October 12, 2017.

Why The Graham-Cassidy Bill Is Impossible For Republicans To Pass

Updated September 26th, 2017

In their last-ditch effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) this year, the Republican lawmakers have put forth a new proposal that’s gained some traction in the Senate. Senators Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Dean Heller of Nevada and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin introduced a new plan on September 13th. Dubbed the “GCHJ” bill, this legislation was endorsed by President Trump on September 20th.

Elimination of Individual Mandate

One of the differences between the GCHJ and the ACA is that the individual mandate, the IRS penalty assessed on those who do not purchase health insurance, is not only eliminated but is repealed retroactively to 2016. Many experts believe that the elimination of the mandate with nothing to encourage health individuals to purchase health insurance could lead to higher insurance premiums because insurance companies would view the pools as limited to high-risk customers.

The Commonwealth Fund reported that between 15 and 18 million people could become uninsured as soon as 2019. This is not necessarily due to the inability to afford insurance, but because healthy people will no longer be required to pay for healthcare and may choose not to spend money on those premiums.

Elimination of Insurance Subsidies

The GCHJ also eliminates insurance subsidies under the ACA that allow insurance companies to offset out-of-pocket expenses and premium costs for low-income families. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a powerful insurance lobby, together with Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that they did not support the GCHJ. One of the reasons for their lack of support was that the elimination of subsidies increased uncertainty in the insurance marketplace. Although there is funding included in the bill to keep the market stable, some believe that the individual market could collapse before 2020 in some states.

Pre-Existing Condition Provisions

Like the ACA, the GCHJ requires insurance companies to offer coverage that is affordable to people with pre-existing conditions. However, the bill allows states to apply for a waiver so that insurance companies in those states can charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions if they can prove that doing so significantly decreases premiums for everyone else. Experts say that this practice eliminates important protections for members of the insurance marketplace who suffer from chronic illnesses like diabetes, cancer or heart conditions.

Changes to Medicaid

The biggest change between the ACA and the GCHJ is that beginning in 2020, Medicaid expansion, which allowed millions of poor Americans to get coverage under the ACA, would be eliminated. In its place, the federal government would issue block grants to each state using a complicated formula loosely based on how many people in that state fell between 50 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

This new funding approach could result in significant financial losses for at least four states that make up 37 percent of all federal Medicaid funding: New York, Massachusetts, California and Maryland. Estimates for lost funding for these states have ranged from $5 billion in Massachusetts to $27 billion in California. Elimination of the Medicaid expansion is estimated to leave 26 million without insurance by 2026. The law also allows states to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work.

Challenges to Block Grant Program

Not only is the formula for the GCHJ Medicaid block grant program complicated, but states will also be required to draft legislation and may need to create agencies as well as administrative guidelines for using the federal funding. All of this will need to be done while states wait for the federal government to set their own rules. It will be challenging to put all of that in place by 2020.

States that expanded Medicaid under the ACA stand to lose a significant amount of funding while states that chose not to expand may see funding increase. Some states may see no change in their federal funding but will have more autonomy in how the funds are spent. Drafters of the bill believe that block grants allow states to take control of healthcare spending and that each state has a better idea of what its residents need than a “bureaucrat” at the federal level.

Catastrophic Plans

Under the ACA, only adults up to age 30 can purchase catastrophic plans in the marketplace. These are plans that cover serious health conditions like cancer, heart disease or significant injuries (and little else). The GCHJ plan allows all adults to purchase such plans, which often come with much lower premiums than those that cover a full bevy of benefits, including the 10 essential health benefits required under Obamacare major medical policies.

In addition, the GCHJ bill eliminates the requirement that all insurance policies cover those 10 essential health benefits, which includes maternity and mental health care, among other key services. Analyses suggest that eliminating the essential health benefits provision could lead many people with substance abuse problems to lose coverage for critical treatments.

Deadline For Passage

Republicans do not have much time to get the bill passed. Under Senate rules, the bill must be passed by September 30 with a simple majority in order to avoid a Democratic filibuster. The Congressional Budget Office has said that it will take several weeks to review the bill to determine what impact it may have on coverages and costs. Therefore, the bill could be passed without a review by the CBO.

Many also worry that the Republicans are desperate to pass the bill to make good on campaign promises, which may make them less likely to review the bill thoroughly before they take a vote and pass it. Currently, only Senator Rand Paul has stated he is opposed to the measure and would prefer a bipartisan effort to replace the ACA. Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and AARP have all come out against the bill, stating that they, too, prefer a bipartisan effort to fix what’s wrong with the current healthcare system.

Bill Expiration

One significant problem that the bill faces is the third phase, which will occur in 2027. At that time, all appropriations and funding expires. Congress will be required to pass new legislation and create a new healthcare program plus a funding source. States that choose to expand under the GCHJ could face significant shortfalls when that occurs.

Many report that this bill is not significantly different than bills presented earlier in the year. Although one of those bills passed the House of Representatives, it failed to garner votes in the Senate. A Senate measure designed to replace it failed. It’s difficult to determine how much support this bill has among Republicans, but it has earned the support of President Trump, who chastised Senator Paul for his negative comments about the bill.

Congress Is Making Moves To Prevent Insurance Premiums From Spiking With Or Without The President

Updated August 17th, 2017

It seems that many members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are growing concerned about the health insurance ecosystem and the governments inability to get any significant legislation passed. So much so, that they’re actually making efforts to work together, with or without the Trump Administrations blessing. Go ahead and take a moment, pigs might have taken flight outside your window.

We’ve been asking for nearly a year now for Republicans and Democrats to work together on a true bipartisan solution for healthcare reform. We understand that it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but too bad it’s time to take your medicine and do what’s best for the American people. There are not just millions of lives impacted by the ACA, but quite literally hundreds of millions, essentially almost the entire nation is impacted by the ACA. It doesn’t matter if you receive Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance through the ACA, or coverage through an employer sponsored plan, the Affordable Care Act, or what is also know as Obamacare, it is all connected.

If there’s one issue where the politics shouldn’t matter, it’s healthcare. It’s the physical cornerstone to every Americans life, and according to national polling results, both before and after the election, health insurance costs are without question the main concern for Americans. Costs are perceived to be spiraling out of control, and consumers are demanding a solution to this problem. Earlier this week, the CBO released a report indicating that if the CSR payments (cost-sharing reduction) are not made in August, and moving forward, many of the few remaining insurance carriers will likely move out of the market entirely, literally leaving tens of millions without any option for coverage under Obamacare. Or alternatively, for the carriers who decide to remain and provide coverage, they will be forced to increase premiums immediately. That increase in monthly premiums is estimated to be between 20% and 25% nationally. Even more shocking is that within that CBO analysis, it is concluded that the deficit will actually increase as a result of CSR’s not being paid. Spending money up front now, actually costs the country a lot less money in the end.

However, there are some smaller regional insurance carriers who have already stated, that without the CSR payments they would be forced to submit out of necessity, in order to stay solvent and remain in business, premium increases of more than 50%. This would be a complete a total disaster for Americans who are already hurting because of healthcare costs. It goes without saying that the political damage Republicans would face, could be catastrophic for the 2018 midterm elections and beyond.

In light of how bad relations are currently with the Trump administration and Democrats, and now reflective of recent tragic events and how relations are starting to become fractured with President Trump and some Republicans, Congress is taking steps independently to secure the healthcare marketplace, and ensure that Americans are not going to be facing any greater burden with increased premium costs that otherwise could have been avoided.

While it was just announced that President Trump will in fact pay the CSR’s for the month of August to insurance carriers, the administration has yet to make official a decision on what its plans are indefinitely, so uncertainty remains. That is not something that insurance carriers will accept, uncertainty. If uncertainty remains, carriers who are already on the fence will either increase rates or leave the marketplace, both of which are outcomes that are harmful to Americans.

Congress is now taking measures so that when they return from break in September, they will circumvent the Trump Administration and their decision to pay, or not pay the CSR’s that are contractually due to insurance carriers. To be candid, what was already a mess, hasn’t gotten better exactly. That said, the silver lining here and why we’re going into such detail, is that the panic that’s coming from both sides of the political isle, is resulting in a far better outlook than just one week ago. CRS’s being paid, as they should, will keep the marketplace stabilized and prevent premiums from spiking.

Insurance premiums should not be expected to increase upwards of 20% or more nationally, should Congress follow through with what they’re proposing. Of course it certainly doesn’t hurt to call or mail your local or state representative with a friendly reminder.

As always check back for updates, or sign up for notifications when news breaks about healthcare reform. In closing we do feel you should feel more hopeful for a better future and better options with respect to your healthcare.

Trumpcare Is Derailed – Obamacare Lives! Don’t We All Agree Obamacare Is Actually Failing Though?

Updated July 29th, 2017

When you ask Americans their opinion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is also called Obamacare, you may be met with immediate criticism, especially if the people you’re asking lean to the right politically.

Obamacare has been a constant target of conservatives criticism since it was signed into law seven years ago. Its detractors’ reactions to the ACA range from moderate distrust to outright expletive-peppered rage.

President Donald Trump rode a wave of hatred aimed at Obamacare right to the White House. He promised that his first act as president would be to repeal Obamacare and put something new in place. But as much as people say they hate Obamacare, Trump cannot get the support he needs in a GOP-dominated Congress to repeal the health care law. Is Obamacare really failing? Some don’t think it is. If it has failed, then why has it been so hard for Trump and a Republican Congress to pass a healthcare reform bill that they can agree on?

Why the Hate for Obamacare?

There are several legitimate reasons why so many people hate Obamacare. For one thing, Obama himself made a promise that his own law had to break when he said that people could keep their doctor and their plan if they wanted to. The law was passed after many closed-door sessions, and Republicans pounced on the cancellation letters that many people got from their insurance companies as a way to tarnish public opinion of the law.

Obamacare took away policies people had for years and replaced them with high-premium, high-deductible policies that made healthcare too expensive for people who did not qualify for government subsidies. As an example, a 61-year-old woman in Ohio was forced to purchase a plan from Anthem (the only health insurance carrier in her market on the federal exchange) for $340 per month, which included a $7,100 annual deductible. This means that no health insurance coverage would be offered until the deductible was met, and she was still responsible for the monthly premiums. For working Americans who don’t qualify for tax subsidies to help pay insurance premiums, these incredibly high healthcare costs are common.

Why would this woman from Ohio even buy a policy like that in the first place? Because Obamacare has something called the individual mandate, which applies a penalty to your income tax if you don’t have health insurance in place. The idea that the government forces citizens to buy health insurance and then penalizes people who don’t have the type of insurance the government mandates made Obamacare extremely unpopular, particularly among conservatives who value personal freedom.

Many Americans who had employer-sponsored health insurance and Americans with significant financial means have issues with the tax subsidies for the working poor. Some people find it offensive that their tax dollars are being used to help pay for health insurance for the poor, while they are stuck paying their full health insurance bill.

But is Obamacare Failing?

As we have seen, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to be upset with Obamacare. But the assertion by the Republican Party that Obamacare is currently failing, may be an overstatement. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Obamacare is directly responsible for the national uninsured rate dropping from almost 16 percent in 2012 to 9 percent in 2015.

Obamacare included Medicaid expansion for the states that chose to participate, and in those states the rate of uncompensated care delivered by public hospitals fell sharply. There is also evidence that Obamacare allowed more people to see a doctor than in any previous year. More of the working poor had health coverage, and their doctors were welcoming that coverage with open arms.

Perhaps the most significant indication that Obamacare is effective comes with a look at the overall cost of healthcare in the United States. For 2014, the federal government projected that Obamacare would bring healthcare spending in the United States down to 18 percent of the gross domestic product. The reality is that health care spending was brought down to just above 17 percent of the GDP, and future projections had Obamacare bringing healthcare costs down even more heading into 2020.

Why Does the GOP Want to Repeal Obamacare?

President Trump has referred to Obamacare as “a disaster” and something that he feels needs to be repealed. But the replacement plan the GOP offered was not appealing enough to Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Millions of Americans would have likely lost their health insurance or dropped it voluntarily if Obamacare were repealed and the GOP’s plan were put in place. For many Republican congressional representatives, losing healthcare for their constituents means losing votes. It is widely believed that healthcare reform, and the outrageous costs which go across the entire healthcare ecosystem, including prescription drug prices and a lack of pricing transparency with doctors networks and hospitals, was the very issue that pushed the election in favor of President Trump.

During the Presidential campaign, Americans who were polled on his various proposed policies were most in agreement on healthcare reform, than on the border wall, corporate tax reform or changes to environmental regulations.

The war of words between the realities of Obamacare and the perception of the GOP came to a head early Friday morning, July 28, when the Senate voted against a “skinny repeal” bill that would have stripped the ACA of its mandates and taxes on medical devices. Despite a staunch stance against Obamacare by leading Republicans, there were still not enough votes to repeal and replace the current law with something of the GOP’s own making.

Senator John McCain of Arizona led the charge in calling for his peers to come together in a bipartisan effort to reform healthcare. How Congress will proceed remains to be seen.

Updated July 28th, 2017

Skinny Repeal Is Rejected By The Senate Thanks To John McCain

After seven years of political maneuvering to get a GOP-backed bill to supplant the Affordable Care Act, the Senate narrowly voted against a Republican “skinny repeal bill” early on Friday, July 28th. The move comes as somewhat of a surprise to lawmakers and their constituents, as well as a shock to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had been pushing GOP reform efforts for weeks. With a failure to push the skinny bill through, Republicans will be forced to drop their reform plans, at least for the time being. Procedurally, lawmakers must now go back to the legislative drawing board.

The bill garnered zero Democratic support, and ultimately the “nay” votes from three Republican senators is what ultimately sank the Republican healthcare reform plan that became known as “skinny repeal”. Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona all voted against the bill. McCain, who returned to Congress just days after brain surgery and a cancer diagnosis, felt strongly that the bill may have been passed as-is by the House, something that could have been disastrous to the American economy, not to mention the healthcare system.

It was anticipated that Republicans would pass the skinny bill as a “Trojan Horse” attempt to push through other legislation during a conference committee. On its own, the skinny repeal bill would have simply eliminated the individual and employer mandates, and eliminated the tax on medical devices under the ACA.

Once the bill had been passed, it was likely to move to conference, where an appointed team of House and Senate members, helmed by Republicans, would have created a collective report on healthcare measures that would eventually become the official bill. Early on Thursday, July 27, McCain and other Republican senators were concerned that this tactic could backfire. Without assurances from the House that it would agree to conference, some senators feared that the skinny repeal bill would have become law after the House adopted it without conference.

Debates and conversations lasted well into Thursday night. In dramatic, early-morning vote on Friday, the Senate voted against proceeding with the bill by a narrow margin. Senators McCain, Collins and Murkowski cast the key votes that demolished hope of moving forward with skinny repeal.

For the time being, healthcare reform efforts have been halted. McCain had warned his peers in the Senate earlier this week that they needed to return to the procedures that get laws passed on a bipartisan effort. The Arizona senator believes that the mantel of bipartisanship will need to be taken up by both sides of the congressional aisle if reform efforts are to be successful – a sentiment that many now seem to share. What lies ahead for the Republican-led Congress remains to be seen, but healthcare, at least for now, appears to be off the table.

Updated July 26th, 2017 @ 4:15 p.m.

Trumpcare “Repeal Only” Plan Does Not Pass Senate Vote

Senate members just voted against (45 to 55) a Trumpcare amendment that would have made “repeal only” without a replacement plan a reality in two years. This was considered to be the “Republican” favored update to the AHCA, which is also known as Trumpcare.

Seven Republicans Voted Against This Legislation

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) Tennessee

Sen. Shelly Capito (R) West Virginia

Sen. Susan Collins (R) Maine

Sen. Dean Heller (R) Nevada

Sen. John McCain (R) Arizona

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) Alaska

Sen. Rob Portman (R) Ohio

This would have allowed for the “repeal of Obamacare” to proceed without having a replacement actually ready to go, in place. In effect there would be a two year period in which the government and the health insurance industry would have the ability to create an alternative to Obamacare. Critics of this approach, of which there are many, have stated that moving forward with the repeal without a replacement, or more importantly a bi-partisian consensus on what that alternative to Obamacare should be, will only further destabilize the health insurance market, increase premiums and cause harm to the American people.

Interestingly, what was just rejected by members of the Republican led Senate was actually voted through in 2015, only to be vetoed by President Obama. In 2015 it was simply a symbolic vote, just for the purposes of political theatre. This time it was for real, and it seems that even though Senate Republicans who are facing tremendous pressure to pass this legislation through, couldn’t take the risk of passing legislation that is viewed by the overwhelming majority, as a step in the wrong direction.

We may be getting closer to a truly bi-partisian (if only by default) attempt to improve on the significant problems with Obamacare. More updates coming soon.

Updated July 26th, 2017 @ 10:40 a.m.

First Trumpcare Plan After Senate Votes to Debate Healthcare Fails 57 – 43

Yesterday afternoon, Republican Senators fulfilled their promise to their constituents and the President when they narrowly voted to begin healthcare debate and discussion in an effort to repeal and replace Obamacare.

A short time after VP Pence cast his tie-breaking vote, Senators from both sides of the aisle took to the floor to begin debating what an Obamacare repeal-only plan would look like and do to the country, what a repeal and replace with the AHCA would look like and do to the country and what a repeal and replace with the BCRA would look like and do to the country.

After several hours of debate, the Senate took up a vote on the BCRA, their attempt at healthcare reform, but with a few additional amendments. The first amendment was proposed by Senator Ted Cruz a couple of weeks ago and would allow insurance carriers to offer plans on the marketplace that did not cover pre-existing conditions, and would therefore be cheaper, so long as they offered at least one plan that did cover pre-existing conditions. The second amendment was proposed by Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell and would strip away the individual and employer mandates. The last major amendment added $100 million to the pool of funds for states to support people who would lose Medicaid under the BCRA.

Unfortunately for the GOP, there were seven Republicans not on board with this proposal and the vote failed to reach the necessary 60 votes it needed to pass.

The Senate is currently debating the AHCA and will also discuss a repeal-only plan. There are votes scheduled for 11:30 a.m. EST and 3:30 p.m. EST on various amendments in an effort to find some kind of common ground.

Updated July 25th, 2017 @3:30 p.m.

Trumpcare Lives: Senate Republicans Narrowly Vote to Proceed with Healthcare Debate

After an intense few weeks of back-and-forth over healthcare reform, GOP lawmakers in the Senate have voted to proceed with debate on a bill. On Tuesday, July 25, voting came down to the wire as Senator John McCain, recently diagnosed with a brain tumor, traveled back to Washington, D.C., to support the motion to proceed. He wasn’t alone.

Previously outspoken senators like Rand Paul of Kentucky and Dean Heller of Nevada gave the go-ahead as well, while holdouts Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine stayed true to their fight against the bill that, as it is currently written, would leave millions without health insurance next year. No Democrat supported the motion to proceed. The vote passed after Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote, allowing the motion to proceed.

In the hours leading up the vote on the motion to proceed, it wasn’t clear whether Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had enough support to even make it to debate, let alone pass a healthcare reform bill. As many as nine senators had previously said they couldn’t support the Senate bill or the House bill as written. McConnell and the White House, spurred on by comments from President Trump himself, have spent weeks whipping votes out of thin air – and it appears to have worked, if only narrowly.

Now, the Senate will bring a version of healthcare reform to debate, but what’s happening next isn’t actually clear, not even to the senators who said “yea” to the motion to proceed. Rand Paul, a staunch opponent of Obamacare, wants to see the Affordable Care Act repealed completely – a “clean repeal” – rather than the repeal-and-replace attempt that’s been struggling to survive under various amendments over the past few weeks.

Senate rules dictate that debate should happen over the American Health Care Act, the bill that the House passed in May. Procedurally, the upper chamber has 20 hours to debate the bill, 10 for Republicans and 10 for Democrats. Within the 20-hour limit, there are sub-limits on how debate can happen. Debates over amendments can’t take more than two hours while senators have just one hour to debate an amendment to an amendment.

After debate, the bill and its amendments would go through the voting process, which is complex since each portion of a bill requires differing numbers of votes. Since Republicans are using a budgetary procedure to pass healthcare reform, they will need to vote on measures that fall under budgetary rules. Already, the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that two features of the Senate bill fall outside of budget reconciliation guidelines, making them ineligible for simple majority votes.

What the Senate will be voting on remains to be seen, the details of which will be released once debate gets underway. This story is developing.

Updated July 25th, 2017 @ 2:53 p.m.

Obamacare-Repeal Vote Count Update

Republicans have 48 “yes” votes and 2 “No votes. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have voted “No”.

No Democrats have voted yet and Senators John McCain (R- AZ) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) have not voted yet either.

Updated July 25th, 2017

Obamacare-Repeal-Only Bill Will Go to Vote Today

Despite the very poor CBO score that an Obamacare-repeal-only plan would result in 17 million more people being uninsured in 2018 than if Obamacare remained in place, President Trump insisted that the Senate take up the issue right away or else delay their August break to spend more time on healthcare reform. Therefore – the vote is happening today, July 25th.

An affirmative vote to repeal Obamacare without having a replacement plan ready to go doesn’t mean that Obamacare is gone tomorrow. It actually only means that a majority of the Senate is agreeing to discuss and debate how to repeal Obamacare now.

It also doesn’t mean that healthcare will go back to a pre-Obamacare state – the plan was always to stretch out the roll-back of Obamacare over a long-term timeline of a year or two, which would give Senators time to find a better alternative that can actually have the support of a majority of Congress.

We’ll keep you posted on the vote and what has become the soap opera saga of healthcare in America.

Updated July 21st, 2017

Trumpcare (BCRA) Revised Again By Republican Lead Senate – CBO Says 15 Million Will Be Uninsured in 2018

On July 20th, 2017 the Senate snuck through yet another amendment to their healthcare reform proposal and the CBO announced later that same day, that it was still not as good as Obamacare.

Published quietly on their website, the second amended version of the BCRA proposed the changes to the overall healthcare bill listed below. Before you read the summary of the changes though, here’s the conclusion – the CBO still believes that these amendments would result in 15 million more people being uninsured by 2018 than if Obamacare remained in place and that number would rise to 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026, which was on par with their original draft of the BCRA.

In addition to the changes listed below, the Senate also tossed aside everything that was contained within Ted Cruz’s version as well.

Highlights From The July 20th, 2017 Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) Draft:

If a person was given a tax credit because of the income that they estimated for the year and it it determined that they were given more tax credits than they should have received, they would have to pay the difference back in full starting in 2018.

Tax credits would be given to people making up to 350% of the federal poverty level.

The benchmark plan used to determine tax credits would have an actuarial value of 58% instead of 70%, which is what was established under Obamacare.

People can use tax credits to pay for catastrophic plans, which was prohibited under Obamacare.

If a health plan covered abortions, it would be excluded from being considered a qualified health plan, unless the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother or the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.

Starting in 2020, people would go from a subsidy-based-on-income reimbursement to a tax credit based on age and income level. People who make less than 150% of the FPL, regardless of age, would pay the least for premiums, meaning they would get the highest tax credit. The money that a person earned above 150% of the FPL and they older they were, the less tax credit assistance they would receive. Therefore, Person A, who is 50 years old and earns 200% of the FPL would pay more than Person B, who is 25 years old and also earns 200% of the FPL. The more money Person A and Person B makes, the less financial help they get to pay for their premiums.

The small business tax credit given to companies with less than 50 full-time employees, who offer group health coverage, would be gone in 2020.

The individual mandate and employee mandate would be gone retroactively to the year 2016, meaning that anyone who did not get health insurance in 2016 or 2017 will not have to pay a penalty.

CMS would be given $15 billion for the years 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion for years 2020 and 2021 to disburse to insurance carriers as grants to be used to address a lack of health insurance options in certain states.

This same grant money would be available to states who wanted to create a Long-Term Stability and Innovation Program, which would be used to lower premium costs for high-risk individuals who need health insurance, to work with insurance carriers to create programs to stabilize the market and bring down premium costs or to provide financial assistance to people who need help paying their our-of-pocket costs.

The Cadillac Tax on high-cost employer plans would be delayed until 2026.

People could use their health savings accounts (HSA) to pay for over-the-counter medications and not just prescribed medications or insulin.

A number of taxes imposed by Obamacare would be repealed.

HSA funds can be used to pay for the medical bills of the account holder’s children, so long as they are under the age of 27, and to pay for premiums for a high deductible health plan starting in 2018. There are a number of other rule changes to HSA’s proposed as well.

After 2019, the ACA Medicaid expansion rules would be optional for states (it already was optional after a court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require states to expand Medicaid) and will allow states the option to expand the eligibility requirements to be in the Medicaid program starting in 2020. It would repeal the provision in Obamacare that extends Medicaid to non-elderly individuals making between 133% to 138% of the FPL.

Federal funding to Medicaid programs to states that chose to expand the eligibility requirements will begin to roll back in 2020.

States would be able to re-determine the Medicaid eligibility of a person every 6 months and they would be allowed to impose a work requirement on non-disabled, non-elderly, or women who are not pregnant.

Starting in 2020, Federal Medicaid funding would be issued on a per capita basis.

Nearly $5 billion a year would be set aside to support states fighting opioid and substance abuse issues.

The new age ratio premium rate would go from 3:1 under Obamacare to 5:1 under Trumpcare, meaning that an older person could not be charged more than 5x for a health plan than a younger person. States would have the option to change that ratio if they wanted.

If a person is without continuous creditable coverage for more than 63 consecutive days, they will be prohibited from buying health insurance for another 6 months. If a person is able to enroll in a plan due to a Special Enrollment Period or an Open Enrollment Period, they can submit their application for coverage, but the coverage wouldn’t start until 6 months later.

Updated July 20th, 2017

CBO Says “Repeal And Replace Later” Will Leave 10% Of Americans Uninsured

After Senator Mitch McConnell admitted defeat once again and it was clear that the Senate’s amended version of an Obamacare replacement plan – the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) – was not going to move forward. The new game plan was to get an Obamacare repeal on the books now, but not have the actual affects of the repeal go into effect for a year, which would give the Republican lead Senate more time to work on a replacement plan that would actually be better than Obamacare.

Everyone now concedes, including the President, that healthcare is hard and it’s just not something you can rush. Many Senators as well as the President, had hoped that by fulfilling their campaign promises of repealing Obamacare, their supporters would be happy and by enforcing a longer timeline for the rollback of the requirements of Obamacare, law makers would have more time to confer, discuss, debate and collaborate on an adequate replacement because people would actually be without the protections of Obamacare.

This is of course without making an attempt at a truly bi-partisan effort from Republicans and Democrats to collaboratively draft a bill that will work for everyone.

Unfortunately, the CBO’s score of a repeal-now replace later plan may make that idea more unpopular than any other plan offered.

CBO Analysis of Repeal Now Replace Later Plan

On July 19th, the CBO released their score of what is called the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act, or the repeal now and replace later plan. The CBO estimated that premiums would be 25% higher in 2018 if Obamacare was repealed than if it remained in place and that the increase would continue to climb until 2026 when premiums would be double what they would have been under Obamacare.

Worse yet, the CBO said that 17 million more people would find themselves uninsured in 2018 than if Obamacare remained in place and that number would grow to 32 million more in total. Much of the reason that the uninsured numbers are so high is because the CBO predicts that nearly half of the population would be living in an area that had zero carrier coverage options because many carriers would leave the market due to the skyrocketing premium prices.

There are approximately 325.5 million people living in the U.S. right now. If 32 million were uninsured under an Obamacare repeal only plan, that would mean that more than 10% of the country was left vulnerable to outrageous medical bills, unconscionable out-of-pocket prescription medication costs and the real fear that a person could be denied medical care or the type of medical care that they need because they don’t have insurance and can’t pay for the cost of care.

Republicans and Democrats have to work together otherwise they will remain stuck in this same position they are in now where nothing gets accomplished. That’s a path that leads to ultimately having to answer to tens of millions of angry voters.

Angry voters might not seem like anything new, but here’s what is actually different this time around. If the country reaches an all time high in general disgust with partisan politics, and the consensus is that either side of the aisle won’t behave like adults and find a way to compromise, it is an open invitation for every non-professional politician to jump into every election there is.

Updated July 18th, 2017

The Trumpcare Train Comes To A Grinding Stop – Will President Trump Work With Democrats On A Compromise?

So the latest is that there’s no longer enough support, with or without John McCain, to move the BCRA forward. A vote has indefinitely been put off, and some are saying Trumpcare is dead in the water. We think the BCRA is dead in the water, and any of the spin-offs brought forward by Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham are as well. Repeal and delay won’t work, it won’t improve outcomes for Americans, it won’t lower costs, and the administration can’t simply blame Democrats for the bill not moving forward, because they haven’t been allowed to participate in this legislative process at all. You can’t actually use Democrats as the scape goat when you can’t get buy-in from every Republican in the Senate.

President Trump in his frustration has indicated that if Repeal and Delay isn’t an option, then just allowing Obamacare to fail is. That strategy might include not making the CSR payments to insurance carriers. If that happens, carriers will pull out of the marketplace and Obamacare will definitely fail, and quickly. Millions of people will lose their health insurance coverage, and the Democrats will seize on this opportunity to flip voters for the midterm election in 2018 and the general election in 2020.

Healthcare Reform And Actually Affordable Healthcare Is What Americans Care About The Most

Make no mistake about it, the definitive issue that tipped the election in President Trump’s favor is healthcare reform. Health insurance premiums are at levels that are simply not affordable for most Americans, especially when you take into consideration how “skimpy” plan selection is already. When you go further down the rabbit hole and take into account that most Americans are left without much of a choice but to accept a plan with very high deductibles, and that the Obamacare experience for anyone with an average health and wellness profile is somewhat similar to just being a “cash pay” customer, it simply reinforces the fact that the current trajectory for Obamacare is not on a sustainable path.

That said, what Republicans have learned within the last 24 hours, is that the American people are not willing to accept a new version of healthcare reform that makes things worse. Across the board, regardless if it is the AARP, The American Medical Association, AHIP (insurance carrier association) and many other organizations within healthcare ecosystem, they have all agreed the AHCA, which is the House version of Trumpcare, and the BCRA, the Republican lead Senate version of Trumpcare, is not an improvement on what we have already. According to polls being conducted from organizations on the left, right and center, what’s been proposed within “Trumpcare” so far, is not what the American people who elected President Trump want.

We don’t fault President Trump for trying to get healthcare reform moving without help or input from Democrats. Maybe it’s more accurate to say we are not surprised, because we’re not- it’s politics. Our position is that any real healthcare reform, that has any hope of remaining in place long term and quickly stabilizing the health insurance marketplace, will need to be a bipartisan effort. If politicians deliver healthcare reform that doesn’t drive down costs, and improve the overall experience for Americans, there’s going to be tens of millions of angry voters waiting for their chance to express their frustration at the ballot box.

Even if that weren’t a real political risk for the Trump administration, let’s not forget about the reality of how the health insurance industry works. It moves incredibly slowly, and it loathes “unknowns” and it is just too complicated a business for there to be a continual politicized battle over healthcare reform. Insurance carriers will not want to jump back into the health insurance marketplace unless there is certainty that there’s not going to be a political upheaval that will attempt to repeal whatever gets passed in two or four years. If the administration as well as Democrats think that the major insurance carriers have no choice but to participate, they’re wrong. United Healthcare has been out of the exchange for some time, they decided very early on that the business just isn’t worth it at this point. That decision hasn’t hurt them in the slightest. In fact, today they reported a record $50 billion in quarterly revenue. Their growth has been fueled not by Obamacare, or the individual market business, but by medicare, group health sales (employer plans) and Optum, their pharmacy benefits management company.

Insurance carriers and just about every stake holder who is impacted by healthcare reform, and that’s every American, even those who get insurance through an employer, are hoping that there will be a real effort made by Republicans and Democrats to compromise on Trumpcare. There’s very little time left for the administration to mobilize and get things moving. Open enrollment starts on November 1st, 2017 and technically speaking, insurance carriers were supposed to have submitted their plans and pricing already.

Political Backbone Required To Stand Up To The Freedom Caucus

One of the biggest issues facing any real opportunity to improve on things, is without question, the Freedom Caucus. They’ve thrown a wrench into this legislative process the entire time, even going so far as to threaten to financially support anyone who opposes any Republican in the Senate or Congress, who doesn’t align with their goals for healthcare reform. President Trump can no longer afford to listen to anything that the Freedom Caucus has to say on this issue, and he already knows this. They’ve requested that changes be made to the AHCA and the BCRA that are without question political suicide.

Elected officials who wish to defund Medicaid, give massive tax breaks on investment income to billionaires, and not keep any consumer protections in place, while simultaneously not making any real effort to actually reduce premiums on major medical coverage, are simply setting a trap for the administration to fall into. President Trump campaigned on being a deal maker who will be able to get Democrats and Republicans to lock themselves in a meeting room for however long it will take, until there’s meaningful healthcare reform drafted that will actually improve the quality of life, and improve on where Obamacare is failing. The Freedom Caucus and similarly funded political groups only have one group of Americans that they actually work on behalf of, that is the top 1/10th of 1% of the country, the wealthiest individuals and political donors in the United States.

We (HealthNetwork) have our finger on the pulse because we reach more than 15 million health insurance shopping households on an annual basis. We hear directly from Americans on a daily basis that healthcare reform is the #1 issue they’re concerned about. Considering that for a family of four, the average “Gold Plan” that has a reasonable deductible ($5,000 for the family) will run $1,200 a month or more, we get it. Right now Americans have little choice but to accept outrageously expensive high quality health insurance plans, or stripped down plans that even with a subsidy, are still unaffordable.

There’s just no real opportunity to actually bring something to market, and get participation from all major insurance carriers, unless both sides of the aisle, meaning Democrats and Republicans, come to an agreement. They’re going to have no choice but to do so either, because the more extreme left or right leaning members of both parties, are thrilled with the political fallout so far. The more fractured each party becomes, the larger the wedge between voters who typically identify with the Republican or Democratic party, the more political power those on the fringe have to say, “See, this is why you need us. This is why we need a revolution and a new party.”

We don’t need a revolution, we need calmer heads to prevail. If only every time a politician or political talking head “waxed poetic” about principle, liberty and the power of a truly free marketplace, $1 went into a risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions, we’d be able to fund it within a few months. If only… Well while the more extreme members of both parties grandstand and attempt to convince their constituents that they’re fighting the good fight, and reminding them to please donate to their next campaign fund, millions of American people are suffering.

Place A Higher Priority On The American People

Healthcare shouldn’t be politicized, and every elected official on both sides should have no issue placing more importance on the American people, than on party politics, and winning some battle of which no winner can actually ever emerge, nor that any American who is struggling to afford health insurance coverage, actually cares about.

Lives are at stake, the clock is ticking, and as we rapidly approach this next highly critical open-enrollment period, it is time to get “stuff” done, finally.

Updated July 17th, 2017

Trumpcare Vote On Hold Until John McCain Is Back

Trumpcare got some bad news over the weekend, and no, it has got nothing to do with the overwhelmingly negative reception it has received with Americans. Changes and tweaks to the bill are expected, and some of them should help address some of the complaints that individuals have expressed. That said, what is most likely not up for modification are the cuts to Medicaid. Regardless we’re getting ahead of ourselves, reason being, is because John McCain recently had surgery he’s currently recovering from and he could be unable to cast his essential vote for a week, or possibly longer.

Now that doesn’t mean that’s all the news there is to share with you. No, in another development, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Bill Cassidy have introduced their own version of healthcare reform, that we’re figuratively calling “GrassidyCare”. It’s another iteration of the AHCA and the BCRA, with some slight tweaks.

Introducing “Grassidycare”

To add another layer to this already muddy discussion, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced his own version of a healthcare reform bill on Thursday, July 13th. The bill, created with the assistance of Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and support from former Senator Rick Santorum, would reallocate federal funding for the Affordable Care Act to states in a block grant system similar to that created by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

Graham believes that his bill offers a fair compromise between opposing ideologies within the GOP, and he’s hoping to garner Democratic support in the process. The senator insists that his effort is not meant to undermine GOP leadership but rather support reform in general. It’s expected that Graham and Cassidy’s bill will be included as an amendment to the BCRA next week.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Graham laid out why he believes his bill would be better than what’s being discussed in the Senate right now. For starters, his proposal would keep some features of Obamacare intact at the federal level, including taxes on the wealthy and guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Those taxes would pay for the block grants that Graham and Cassidy say will empower individual states to create healthcare systems that work for them.

Graham’s bill assumes approximately $500 billion in federal Obamacare money to be distributed to the states, but he’s awaiting confirmation from the Congressional Budget Office on his proposal. According to Graham, states would be rewarded for developing efficient and effective healthcare systems. The better a state is at offering quality, affordable coverage, the more money it would have to funnel back into its healthcare system.

Under this proposal, governors would wield the power in determining each state’s path forward for healthcare reform. Some states, most likely conservative ones, would opt to repeal and replace Obamacare. Others, notably left-leaning states like Vermont, might choose to adopt a single-payer system. Regardless of which path a state chooses, Graham made it clear that his proposal preserves ACA protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

The proposal laid out by Graham and Cassidy also eliminates the medical device tax, which could cut revenue by about $220 billion. The individual mandate requiring everyone to hold health insurance would also be eliminated, as would the requirement for large employers to offer insurance to full-time workers.

It’s unclear at this point how much support Graham and Cassidy have for their proposal, but it could serve as a starting point for discussion with Republican holdouts and Democrats if the Better Care Act fails to move forward on McConnell’s timeline.

Updated July 14th, 2017

Ted Cruz’s Big Idea: The Consumer Freedom Amendment

In late June, the Senate released its amended version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the House bill designed to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The new bill, named the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) was immediately met with criticism not only from Democrats but from Republicans as well. In an effort to move the bill forward, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas proposed the “Consumer Freedom Amendment” a proposal developed with Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Conservatives hail the proposal as a fair compromise while moderates and those on the left dismiss the idea – or outright decry it – as a way to effectively eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

The Consumer Freedom Amendment is now being presented as an alternative to past legislative attempts by both the House and the Senate. This is also of course sharing the spotlight not only with the just revised Senate version of Trumpcare, but with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Sen. Bill Cassidy’s (R-Louisiana) attempt at healthcare reform. Apparently drafting healthcare reform legislation is “the new hotness” in Washington, so don’t be surprised if other elected officials bring forward additional proposals.

The Consumer Freedom Amendment

Under the Consumer Freedom Amendment, insurers would be allowed to sell any kind of health plan that they wanted as long as they also sold at least one ACA-compliant policy. This means that insurers could create cheaper plans with less coverage for people who wanted bare-bones policies. Under current law, ACA-compliant plans have to cover 10 essential health benefits:

Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care)

Prescription drug coverage

Pregnancy, maternity and newborn care

Mental health services, including substance abuse treatment

Emergency services

Hospitalization

Rehabilitative care and devices

Laboratory services

Preventive and wellness services

Pediatric care, including vision and dental services

Basic plans wouldn’t have to cover any of these services, making them much more affordable but also less robust. Young, healthy people are more likely to buy these plans since they tend to visit doctors less often and use far fewer medical services than older people, those with pre-existing conditions, or families.

AHCA Elimination of Essential Benefits

The AHCA passed by the House in May eliminated the mandate that all insurance policies include the 10 essential health benefits, transferring the power to the states, which could determine what their policies must cover. Insurers could sell cheaper, bare-bones policies for lower premiums. The BCRA proposed by the Senate allows states to apply for a waiver in order to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit. The bill also allows states to define the terms of the exemption but would require a federal review.

Benefits of Cruz Amendment

In an effort to appease conservative Republicans who felt that the Senate bill was too similar to Obamacare, Cruz and Lee, who both said they could not support the BCRA as written, created the Consumer Freedom Amendment. By allowing insurance companies to sell policies that do not include the 10 essential health benefits, Senators Cruz and Lee believe that consumers will be provided more choice in the insurance marketplace. Insurance companies would be able to sell insurance policies at a lower cost because they do not include all the benefits covered under the ACA. Many older Americans feel they should not have to pay for policies that include maternity or newborn care. Younger Americans could choose policies that don’t cover medical devices or rehabilitative care as they are less likely to need such coverage. The amendment would require at least one ACA-compliant plan in the marketplace, so those who want to purchase coverage that includes the 10 essential benefits could continue to do so.

Risk of Extremely High Premiums for the Sick

Some experts say that the Consumer Freedom Amendment could create a significant problem for people with pre-existing conditions. They believe that if a lower-premium plan with fewer benefits is available, healthy people will choose that plan to keep costs lower. Because people with medical problems know that they may need extra medical services due to a pre-existing condition or age, they’ll need to choose the higher-cost plan that covers all 10 essential benefits.

With healthy people choosing only cheaper, bare-bones policies and sick people choosing costlier, robust plans, it would effectively create a high-risk pool. Insurers would have to raise rates for people with ACA-compliant plans to offset the higher cost of care for that pool of beneficiaries. Eventually, people with pre-existing conditions could be forced out of the individual market altogether due to unaffordable premiums.

Lack of Support From GOP And Democrats

Some members of the GOP say that the amendment comes too close to eliminating the pre-existing protection benefits of the ACA, something the majority of Republicans want to keep in the law. Because many of the essential health benefits are designed to protect those with pre-existing conditions, there are concerns that allowing insurance companies to offer plans with less coverage could lead those with pre-existing conditions to be priced out of the insurance market. There are estimates that the amendment could cost the bill 20 to 30 votes, essentially killing it in the Senate.

Why Consumers Will Want The Essential Health Benefits To Remain

Although it would seem easy to simply eliminate the essential health benefit requirement and allow people to choose the type of health insurance they want, research indicates that the requirements for coverage were beneficial under the ACA. Prior to the passage of the law, 62 percent of marketplace plans did not cover maternity while 34 percent did not cover substance abuse treatment.

In addition, the savings for removing some of the coverage may not amount to a significantly lower premium. Removing maternity coverage, for example, could result in a savings of between $8 and $14, but should a woman who elects not to have the coverage become pregnant, her out-of-pocket costs could be between $30,000 and $50,000. To make things worse, women without maternity coverage may avoid prenatal care, which could lead to complex medical issues and higher long-term medical costs over the child’s lifetime.

The Cadillac Plan Problem

Those who see benefits to the Cruz amendment say that there is no indication that only sick people will choose the “Cadillac plans.” In fact, they point to statistics for automobile and homeowner’s insurance that show many people purchase more insurance than they need in order to protect themselves and their families during a catastrophe. Supporters of the amendment say that this will more than likely occur with health insurance plans as well and that it already does happen with employer-provided health insurance. People who get insurance from their employer choose higher-level plans to get the most coverage possible and avoid out-of-pocket costs. Although there will be consumers who opt for plans with less coverage to save money, this could be the exception rather than the rule.

Senator Cruz initially announced that he would be unable to vote for the Senate bill as written. However, he and other senators also say that they are viewing the bill as a draft and are working together to amend the bill to make it more attractive to moderate Republicans. They would also like to create a bill that will attract some Democratic members of the Senate, although this is an unlikely scenario given the bill’s rocky standing at the moment.

Updated July 13th, 2017

Senate Releases Latest Version of Trumpcare (BCRA) – It’s An Improvement That Will Remain Unpopular With Many

Senate Republicans have released the latest version of Trumpcare and we’re pleased to say that it is in fact a major improvement. There will be plenty of detractors, and the current buzz on the Hill and in the industry is that there will be more revisions to come, but at its core, this is the basis for the Republican lead Senate’s Final Version of Trumpcare.

No Big Tax Breaks For Billionaires

The bill is no longer a financial windfall for some of the most politically active billionaires seeking to save their investment income streams from having to pay the 3.8% Obamacare tax. It’s safe to assume that no American enjoys paying taxes. That said, the previous versions of the bill provided some of the most wealthy with incredible tax breaks at the expense of the entire health insurance marketplace and anyone receiving benefits from Medicaid.

While this certainly won’t be appreciated by some deep-pocketed billionaires, it’s time for the GOP to take a stand against the more extreme members of the Republican party, and more specifically their political campaign backers who have made completely unreasonable requests for Senate members drafting new healthcare reform laws. If anything is going to get passed, it has to directly benefit a much larger percentage of the population, not just the top 1/10th of 1% of the country. Tax reform is where these extremely wealthy individuals should be focusing their efforts to influence legislation that benefits them financially.

Individual Mandate & The Employer Mandate Are Gone

Speaking of tax breaks, the new legislation removes the individual mandate (tax penalty) for anyone who doesn’t have health insurance coverage. It also gets rid of the mandate (tax penalty) on employers with a minimum number of employees who do not provide health insurance coverage.

This starts retroactively in 2016, which is a brilliant strategic move that will make gaining support from the public, or at least anyone who would be paying the tax penalty on their annual filing for not having health insurance during 2016 and part of 2017.

CSR’s Will Continue To Be Paid

The cost sharing reduction payments will continue to be made through 2020 in an effort to help stabilize the health insurance marketplace.

There will be a pool of funds made available to insurance carriers to help offset the costs of premiums for 2018 through 2021. Starting in 2018 and running through 2019, $15,000,000,000 (fifteen billion dollars) will allocated on an annual basis and then for 2020 and 2021 that total lowers to $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars).

These funds will be used to cover individuals with complicated and costly health conditions. The reason for this is because under the latest version of the BRCA, insurance carriers would be allowed to offer plans with much less comprehensive coverage. This would also allow them to sell plans that don’t comply with the minimum standards that Obamacare has in place currently. It would also mean that with respect to some of the plans being offered, they would have the ability to deny coverage for anyone with a pre-existing condition.

If you do have a pre-existing condition, you would then be left with the option to purchase one of the higher risk pool plans that will cover individuals with higher medical costs. There have been a number of entities within the health insurance and medical community who have criticized this approach. Their concern is that creating a risk pool for the “sick” will create an even more unstable health insurance marketplace. We’ll have a more detailed analysis this afternoon regarding this part of the law.

Medicaid Expansion Roll Back Remains In Place

Medicaid will begin a roll-back of the expansion it started under Obamacare starting in 2021. By 2024 Medicaid will be back at its Pre-Obamacare levels. Starting in 2020 states will be able to decide if they want Medicaid funding to be based on a block grant, or “per capita” basis. It also allows states to place a restriction on unemployed people from receiving Medicaid benefits unless they are pregnant, disabled or elderly.

$45 Billion Set Aside For Opioid Crisis

A pool of funds will be made available for the funding of substance abuse and treatment programs. This has been a big sticking point for many states who are searching for money to combat this growing crisis.

Health Savings Accounts

President Trump has always been a big proponent of Health Savings Accounts. Under this amendment of the BCRA, HSA can be used to pay for your health insurance premiums. Previously, the rules were that HSA funds, which are pre-taxed dollars, could only be used to pay for out-of-pocket expenses.

Tax Credits

Under the BCRA, subsidies will be gone and replaced with tax credits that are provided to people based on their age and income level. Under Obamacare, you could only use financial assistance to pay for a Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze level plan, but under the BCRA, you can now use the tax credits to also pay for Catastrophic plans or Lower-Premium Health Insurance Plans, which are ones that have a high deductible but allow the person to visit their primary care physician three times a year and have restrictions on how much you have to pay out-of-pocket a year.

Senate Republicans Take Another Shot At Trumpcare – New Draft Expected Later Today

Here Are 9 Senators Who The New Senate Healthcare Bill Needs To Win Over

Republican lawmakers may be forced back to the healthcare reform drawing board whether they like it or not thanks to increasingly vocal dissent among GOP senators. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reluctantly delayed a Senate vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA) until after the July Fourth recess because he didn’t have enough votes to secure its passage. Unfortunately for reform proponents, nothing seems to have changed over the break. In fact, some senators appear to have been bolstered by the recess, making it unlikely that the BCRA will ever pass, especially in its current form.

You might think that after seven full years of talking trash about Obamacare – and to be clear, the current law has not achieved all it set out to do and has failed in many ways – Republicans would have a solid, well-thought-out plan of attack to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a law of their own design. Here we are, nearly six months since President Trump took office, and healthcare reform remains as much of a hotly contested mystery as it was in January.

Now, as many as nine Republican senators, including a handful of moderates and far-right conservatives, are vocally opposed to the BCRA. McConnell can afford to lose just two votes since Republicans hold a slight majority in the Senate (with Vice President Mike Pence as a tiebreaker). Who are these GOP holdouts, and what do they want?

Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia): Representing a state that’s been devastated by the nationwide opioid crisis, Capito has been a strong opponent of the Senate bill. She also has no qualms about : Representing a state that’s been devastated by the nationwide opioid crisis, Capito has been a strong opponent of the Senate bill. She also has no qualms about being the vote that kills it according to an interview with Politico. Capito will not support a reform proposal that significantly rolls back Medicaid funding or ends expansion since about 30 percent of West Virginia families depend on the program for insurance. She also wants to see more federal effort where opioid treatment is concerned.

Susan Collins (Maine): Collins has been a strong opponent of the Senate healthcare bill, but her : Collins has been a strong opponent of the Senate healthcare bill, but her objections appear to be broad . In a recent interview, she said that she could only support the GOP effort after a “complete overhaul” of the existing proposal. Collins also wants to work with Democrats on healthcare reform, noting that legislation is stronger with bipartisan support.

Ted Cruz (Texas): Former presidential candidate Cruz introduced an amendment to the Senate bill last week after July 4th. Called the “Consumer Freedom Act,” the amendment would allow insurers to : Former presidential candidate Cruz introduced an amendment to the Senate bill last week after July 4th. Called the “Consumer Freedom Act,” the amendment would allow insurers to sell any health plan they wanted as long as they also offered at least one plan that complied with Obamacare guidelines. The CBO is slated to crunch the numbers on this amendment this week, but the response has been mixed at best. Conservatives are hailing the proposal as a fair compromise between people who want to keep the ACA essential benefits provision – and the protections that come with it – intact and those who want more freedom in choosing a less comprehensive health plan. Democrats and moderate Republicans, however, believe that Cruz’s proposal could price people with pre-existing conditions out of the individual market altogether.

Dean Heller (Nevada): Heller was the first GOP senator to speak out against the BCRA : Heller was the first GOP senator to speak out against the BCRA from a moderate perspective . He represents a state that embraced Medicaid expansion, and he’s not willing to end this particular ACA provision. Heller also stated that the Senate bill does nothing to lower premiums, something he can’t support in the bill’s current form.

Ron Johnson (Wisconsin): Johnson has taken heat from both Democrats and Republicans for his : Johnson has taken heat from both Democrats and Republicans for his stance on healthcare reform , but the senator isn’t backing down anytime soon. This may be because he was just reelected last fall and won’t be running again, making him immune to pressure from constituents and GOP leadership to fall in line with Republican reform efforts. As a rightwing conservative, Johnson wants the Senate bill to go further in repealing Obamacare provisions. He does not support moderate compromises.

Mike Lee (Utah): Lee is one of the senators : Lee is one of the senators pushing for a harder conservative stance with reform. He supports Sen. Cruz’s consumer freedom amendment, which he helped draft, and would like to see the Senate bill adopt more rightwing ideas, including strengthening health savings accounts.

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska): It’s not clear whether Murkowski will support the Senate bill when or if it ever reaches the floor for a vote. Murkowski has been noncommittal, but it’s assumed that her objections to the bill as a moderate Republican will keep her from voting “yes.” At the end of June, she and Sen. Collins planned to : It’s not clear whether Murkowski will support the Senate bill when or if it ever reaches the floor for a vote. Murkowski has been noncommittal, but it’s assumed that her objections to the bill as a moderate Republican will keep her from voting “yes.” At the end of June, she and Sen. Collins planned to introduce an amendment to the bill that would scrap the provision that defunds Planned Parenthood for one year.

Rand Paul (Kentucky): Paul is no fan of big government, a position that he’s not afraid to elaborate on when asked. So it should come as no surprise that the Kentucky senator objects to the BCRA, which he refers to as “Obamacare Lite.” Paul wants to : Paul is no fan of big government, a position that he’s not afraid to elaborate on when asked. So it should come as no surprise that the Kentucky senator objects to the BCRA, which he refers to as “Obamacare Lite.” Paul wants to scrap the individual mandate , for starters. He has proposed repealing the law entirely in a “clean repeal,” which would allow conservatives to vote for it while Congress works on a separate bill to replace the ACA. He objects to several other features of the BCRA, including bailouts for insurance companies, which he calls “very un-Republican.”

Rob Portman (Ohio): Like Sen. Capito, Portman : Like Sen. Capito, Portman objects to the Senate bill’s approach to Medicaid , specifically its provision to end expansion and drastically reduce funding over the next two decades. Reining in Medicaid is a typically conservative stance, but in states like Ohio, where the opioid crisis has struck hard, GOP leaders are hesitant to kick people off of their only feasible option for coverage.

Of course, these are just the nine GOP senators who publicly oppose the Senate bill, but that’s not to say that others aren’t holding on to an unpublicized “no” vote. Still, nine is more than enough to kill the BCRA – three would be enough to kill it given that no Democrats support the bill either.

As Republican senators continue to squabble over healthcare reform, American consumers continue to wait for information about what the individual insurance market will look like in 2018. Major insurers have already fled the Obamacare exchanges due to uncertainty, and Republican infighting isn’t helping. Some GOP lawmakers seem to be shifting toward the idea of working with Democrats on a reform bill that appeals to more people in a wider pool of political ideologies. Unless lawmakers from both sides of the aisle can work together on repeal, healthcare reform could evolve into an ugly cycle depending on which party holds power.

After the updated bill is released later today we will provide our own analysis regarding it. Specifically what the changes would mean for consumers, and its likelihood of being able to get passed by the Senate.

Updated July 12th, 2017

Alaska Is Not Counting On Trumpcare – Announces Launch Of Their Own Insurance Carrier

You might not live in Alaska, but some very specific actions the state is taking could have some significant ramifications for anyone who is hoping that the Senate’s version of Trumpcare, the BCRA, will solve the problems that exist within the current health insurance marketplace.

Alaska was just granted a waiver by CMS that will in effect create their own insurance carrier. This very quickly allows them to address the issues that the state is currently facing under the proposed Trumpcare bill brought forward by the Senate, the BCRA.

Alaskan Insurance Exchange

The State of Alaska has faced a 203 percent increase in premium prices since the start of Obamacare and is left with only one insurance carrier – Premera Blue Cross – as they head into the 2018 open enrollment period. In order to create a more stabile market and in an effort to bring down premium prices and drive carriers back into the marketplace, the State of Alaska applied for and was granted a 1332 State Innovation Waiver by CMS and the Department of Treasury. According to the Obamacare law, states weren’t allowed to apply for this waiver until after January 1, 2017.

The 1332 State Innovation Waiver allows the State of Alaska to essentially create an insurance plan and become a carrier that will cover and pay for medical claims for Alaskans that have one of 33 specifically identified medical conditions. Alaska and CMS hopes that by covering these costly medical claims internally, insurance carriers will be able to come back into the state and offer coverage to a healthier pool of people, which will drive down the costs of premiums. In total, the State of Alaska predicts that insurance premiums will come down by 20% in 2018.

Another benefit of this program is that by bringing down the costs of premiums, the cost of the benchmark silver plan, which is used to determine the amount of subsidies and tax credits that people are offered by the government, will also decrease and the government would have to pay out less in financial help to Alaskans. Because the Obamacare law does not allow the 1332 State Innovation Waiver to have an affect on the federal deficit, the tax credit savings will go to the State of Alaska to help fund this state-operated coverage.

The 33 medical conditions that the State of Alaska will cover are:

HIV and AIDS Sepsis shock Metastatic cancer Lung, brain, pediatric acute lymphoid, leukemia and other severe cancers Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas and other cancers and tumors Mucopolysaccharidosis (a metabolic disorder) Lipidoses and glycogenosis Amyloidosis, porphyria and other metabolic disorders End-stage liver disease Chronic hepatits Acute liver failure or disease and neonatal hepatitis Intestinal obstruction Chronic pancreatitis Inflammatory bowel disease Rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders Hemophilia Hemolytic anemia including in newborns Sickle cell anemia Thalassemia major Coagulation defects and other hematological disorders Anorexia and bulimia nervosa Paraplegia Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other anterior horn cell diseases Quadriplegic cerebral palsy Cerebral palsy (not quadriplegic palsy) Myasthenia gravis/ myoneural disorders including Guillain-Barre syndrome and inflammatory and topic neuropathy Multiple sclerosis Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, sponocerebellar disease and other neurodegenerative disorders Cystic fibrosis End stage renal disease Premature newborns Stem cell and bone marrow transplants including complications from the procedures Amputation of limb including complications from the surgery

Could this be a model of the future for certain states?

We are going to have to wait and see exactly how things play out, but now that a state has put this option into play, it could be a game changing moment for healthcare reform. Why didn’t they just do this years ago?

States were prevented from doing so until January 1st, 2017 according to the laws and regulations under Obamacare.

If you are wondering if the timing of this, approximately 24 hours before the latest version of the BCRA is revealed on Thursday is connected, you’re correct. If Obamacare is repealed, this option, for a state to in effect become its own insurance carrier, goes away.

We will have another update within a few hours.

Updated July 5th, 2017

Latest With Trumpcare – Could We Be Headed For Repeal And Delay in 2017?

Republicans are shifting their strategy once more when it comes to healthcare reform – at least if the president and a select group of senators have their way. On Friday, June 30th, President Trump declared that senators needed to pass their healthcare bill or ditch it altogether in favor of the “repeal and delay” approach they abandoned months ago. The president isn’t alone in his sentiments. A group of frustrated conservatives in the upper chamber, led by Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to adopt a repeal-and-delay approach.

This isn’t the first time that a delayed replacement plan has been suggested. Early into the president’s term, Republican lawmakers had considered repealing the Affordable Care Act and giving themselves time to create a plan to replace it. That idea was scrapped almost immediately, however, in face of little support and a lot of criticism from both ends of the political 