Emergency Nursing Association Opposes Senate Legislation to Repeal ACA Without Significant Improvements

Share

Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, said they would not vote for a repeal without an alternative health care plan or cuts to Medicaid. "Surely we would get other Republicans to join us" for a bipartisan piece of legislation", he added.

Yet a new analysis published Monday warns that amount will not be almost enough. The health industry and health-care stakeholders, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, American Health Insurance Plans and AARP - to name just a few - made clear that they oppose the BCRA. Republicans might have trouble coming up with more money to extend those benefits. Will the Senate and House attempt a simple repeal on the ACA with nothing to replace it but a vague promise of something better up the road? "It could get you less than that".

"Any cost-shifting that would be done through this type of legislation could have a really negative impact on people in this state", he said, "in particular, older adults who rely on Medicaid for long-term care, whether that be nursing home or home- and community-based care services". A larger group of people - a group that is poor or almost poor but would not have qualified for Medicaid previously - were able to join the program. However, federal policymakers should not be under the illusion that simply expanding the use of Medicaid managed care will yield the levels of savings now being considered by Congress as part of the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And millions more will retain insurance but with greater financial burden due to substantially reduced premium support in the Republican bills.

Second, how much funding will be cut from Medicaid, and who will those cuts hurt?

According to the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health care, the US needs to improve in a variety of ways, including safety, costs, efficiency and equity. Republicans are calling it a "wraparound", combining federal benefits with private insurance to make it more affordable.

More news: Jerusalem crisis could have 'catastrophic costs — United Nations envoy
More news: Intel Corporation (INTC) Upgraded at BidaskClub
More news: Inter open to offers as United circle

But to hear first-term Republican Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida - a former US ambassador to the Vatican - bipartisanship is hard to come by.

While it's unclear what the GOP healthcare bill will look like when debate is finished, it's clear what the bill has appeared to be the entire time: a risky plan hurting some of the most vulnerable populations in this country.

According to the CBO, taking the repeal-only route would mean 17 million more uninsured within a year and 32 million more in a decade. He says in some states, there are one or in some cases, no carriers available. That, in turn, would drive up spending again, because under the GOP plan, the federal government will continue paying for a portion of individual consumers' premiums to help them buy private insurance. It was even more hard a few years ago before the Affordable Care Act. "Our lives depend on it, and our senators promised to protect us - now we promise to make sure their constituents know how they voted". This is far below the share back in 1960, when households paid directly for about two-thirds of the care they received.

"He is obviously working this from a political standpoint; what I don't see is him working it from a policy standpoint - fashioning that compromise for all Republicans", said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Avalere Health, a consulting firm.

Share