ACA 2.0

Last March I wrote an analysis of H.R.1868, the House Democrats bill that comprises the core of the larger H.R.1884 "ACA 2.0" bill. H.R.1884 includes a suite of about a dozen provisions to protect, repair and strengthen the ACA, but the House Dems also broke the larger piece of legislation down into a dozen smaller bills as well.

Some of these "mini-ACA 2.0" bills only make minor improvements to the law, or make improvements in ways which are important but would take a few years to see obvious results. Others, however, make huge improvements and would be immediately obvious, and of those, the single most dramatic and important one is H.R.1868.

The official title is the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2019", but I just call both it and H.R.1884 (the "Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019") by the much simpler and more accurate moniker "ACA 2.0".

Last March I wrote an analysis of H.R.1868, the House Democrats bill that comprises the core of the larger H.R.1884 "ACA 2.0" bill. H.R.1884 includes a suite of about a dozen provisions to protect, repair and strengthen the ACA, but the House Dems also broke the larger piece of legislation down into a dozen smaller bills as well.

Some of these "mini-ACA 2.0" bills only make minor improvements to the law, or make improvements in ways which are important but would take a few years to see obvious results. Others, however, make huge improvements and would be immediately obvious, and of those, the single most dramatic and important one is H.R.1868.

The official title is the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2019", but I just call both it and H.R.1884 (the "Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019") by the much simpler and more accurate moniker "ACA 2.0".

Last May, New Jersey Democratic legislators were pushing through over a dozen bills which would effectively lock in nearly all of the ACA's "Blue Leg Protections", as I refer to them, at the state level. The main reason for this, of course, is to replicate federal ACA protections for enrollees just in case the U.S. Supreme Court does ultimately strike down the Affordable Care Act (or at least strikes down the consumer protection parts of it).

Well, I kind of lost track of the status of those bills over the summer and fall, but apparently most of them passed through both the New Jersey state House and Senate because just moments ago, NJ Governor Phil Murphy issued the following press release:

Maine Governor Janet Mills had already announced her intentions regarding moving Maine to a state-based ACA exchange last fall, but now she and state legislative leaders are making it official with the rollout of a new bill...but they're including several other important improvements as well, and I'm mostly cheering all of these, although the logic is a bit confusing on a couple of points:

Mills, Jackson & Gideon Announce Bill to Improve Health Insurance for Maine People and Small Businesses

Augusta, MAINE – Governor Janet Mills, Senate President Troy Jackson, and Speaker of the House Sara Gideon today announced legislation to improve private health insurance for Maine people and small businesses. LD 2007, The Made for Maine Health Coverage Act, would make some of the most common medical visits free or less costly, simplify shopping for a plan, leverage federal funds to help make premiums more affordable for small businesses, and put Maine in the driver’s seat to ensure that all Maine people have clear choices for their coverage.

Back in March I wrote an analysis of H.R.1868, the House Democrats bill which comprises the core of the larger H.R.1884 "ACA 2.0" bill. H.R.1884 includes a suite of about a dozen provisions to protect, repair and strengthen the ACA, but the House Dems also broke the larger piece of legislation down into a dozen smaller bills as well.

Some of these "mini-ACA 2.0" bills only make minor improvements to the law, or in ways which are important but would take a few years to see obvious results. Others, however, make huge improvements and would be immediately obvious, and of those, the single most dramatic and important one is H.R.1868.

The official title is the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2019", but I just call both it and H.R.1884 (the "Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019") by the much simpler and more accurate moniker "ACA 2.0".

Back in March I wrote an analysis of H.R.1868, the House Democrats bill which comprises the core of the larger H.R.1884 "ACA 2.0" bill. H.R.1884 includes a suite of about a dozen provisions to protect, repair and strengthen the ACA, but the House Dems also broke the larger piece of legislation down into a dozen smaller bills as well.

Some of these "mini-ACA 2.0" bills only make minor improvements to the law, or in ways which are important but would take a few years to see obvious results. Others, however, make huge improvements and would be immediately obvious, and of those, the single most dramatic and important one is H.R.1868.

The official title is the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2019", but I just call both it and H.R.1884 (the "Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019") by the much simpler and more accurate moniker "ACA 2.0".

I haven't been very kind to Trump's CMS Administrator Seema Verma over the past three years, with very good reason. She's spent her entire time as head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid pushing for states to impose draconian work requirements for Medicaid, trying to weaken or even eliminate ACA protections, promoting substandard #ShortAssPlans and mocking the very programs she's supposed to be in charge of. She's overseen troubling "memory holing" of critical information on both HealthCare.Gov as well as the Medicare & Medicaid websites,

For several years now, I've been pleading with the powers that be in Congress to pass two major healthcare reform bills:

About a year and a half ago, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced a bill which would cut down on ACA premiums considerably for younger enrollees by beefing up the subsidy formula for the so-called "Young Invincible" population: Adults between 18 - 34 years old. Last week, she re-introduced the bill along with U.S. Representative Don McEachin (D-VA).

While the bill, titled the "Advancing Youth Enrollment Act", wouldn't have nearly as much impact on premiums or enrollment as the more expansive ACA 2.0 bills I've been promoting (H.R. 1868 & 1884 in the House; S.1213 in the Senate), anything which reduces premiums for more people without reducing patient protections or coverage standards is always a good thing in my book, so I'm happy to give Baldwin's bill another shout-out:

The Advancing Youth Enrollment Act lowers health care costs while maintaining critical ACA protections

Back in late June, right after the first Democratic Primary Candidate Presidential Debate, I posted an analysis & table to break out exactly where each of the then-20 (!) candidates stood when it comes to the Next Big Thing in U.S. healthcare policy. I posted a couple of updates as the summer and early fall progressed.

At the time, my main point was that regardless of their official campaign rhetoric, the truth was that nearly all of the candidates were open to multiple paths towards expanding healthcare coverage...both in terms of the number of people covered, the scope of that coverage and the cost of coverage to the enrollees, with a greater portion of the total cost being borne by the federal government.