Gary Palmer fights racism, discrimination and “woke agenda” of HHS and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Gary Palmer has refiled the Prevent Racism in Medicare Act (PRIMA) a bill he describes as necessary to “prohibit healthcare providers from being forced to adhere to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) racially discriminatory policies.” “All Americans should be treated the same by their doctors, regardless of race, and the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements should not be impacted one way or the other,” said Palmer. “This rule by HHS incentivizes Critical Race Theory if your doctor wants to be reimbursed at a higher rate. Dividing Americans along racial lines in the doctor’s office will continuing eroding confidence in our institutions. My bill will prevent this destructive ideology from being implemented and ensure no patient is discriminated against.” According to a one-pager provided by Palmer’s office, “The Biden Administration’s woke agenda is limiting healthcare access for senior citizens. The CY2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule includes a provision that would provide a financial incentive for doctors to create and implement a so-called anti-racism plan that could actually incentivize discrimination. This rule will further undermine patient confidence in our health care system by incentivizing a form of discrimination that gives preferential treatment based on misguided racial guidelines.” Palmer’s office says that “Congressman Palmer addressed this issue at the April 27th Energy & Commerce Hearing, asking Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra about the recently enacted rule. Under oath, Secretary Becerra claimed the rule did not exist and blamed the confusion on ‘misinformation.’ The rule can be found here (pg 65969 of the register, or pg 974 of the PDF browser) and clearly lays out guidelines for an ‘Anti-Racism Plan’ to ensure that clinics are ‘aligned with a commitment to antiracism and an understanding of race as a political and social construct, not a physiological one.” Co-sponsors include Texas Representative Michael Cloud, Wisconsin Representative Tom Tiffany, and Arizona’s Representative Andy Biggs. PRIMA One Pager
Mo Brooks calls for Anthony Fauci’s termination in midst of controversial email release
Dr. Anthony Fauci, arguably America’s most well-recognized health official in the battle against COVID-19, assumed a central role in political controversy following a newly released slough of last year’s emails, giving rise to concerns about COVID-19’s origin and the controversial scientific research U.S taxpayers have funded. Yesterday, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) joined several of his colleagues in a news conference to discuss auditing the correspondence and financial statements of Dr. Fauci. Fauci is no stranger to the spotlight, as the immunologist was one of the world’s most frequently-cited scientists across all scientific journals from 1983 to 2002, in addition to the world’s 10th most-cited HIV/AIDS researcher from 1996-2006. He has advised seven Presidents and was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George H.W. Bush in 2008 for his efforts on an AIDS relief program. Serving as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, Fauci is perhaps more widely recognized for leading the nation’s COVID-19 response as a White House coronavirus advisor during the Trump Administration. He continues to lead the nation’s pandemic response during his current role as chief medical advisor in the Biden Administration. However, Fauci’s consistently shifting narratives throughout the pandemic, in addition to frequent opposition towards President Donald Trump’s leadership, resulted in a sizable number of public critics, many of which included Trump White House officials. Peter Navarro, a Harvard-trained economist and China hawk who served as a top trade and economic policy advisor to President Trump, publicly criticized Dr. Fauci in a USA Today op-ed, outlining the many instances Fauci was mistaken during the pandemic. USA Today promptly attached a remorseful precursor to the article; an apologetic note addressed to readers for publishing any criticism of Fauci. One of the most notable examples Navarro specifies is the predictive memos he sent in January and February 2020, which grimly anticipated COVID-19 to be a deadly and impactful global pandemic. Senior officials shrugged off these warnings, including Fauci, due to Navarro’s hawkish views on China. “The lack of immune protection or an existing cure or vaccine would leave Americans defenseless in the case of a full-blown coronavirus outbreak on US soil,” Navarro’s January 29 memo to the National Security Council states. “The lack of protection elevates the risk of the coronavirus evolving into a full-blown pandemic, imperiling the lives of millions of Americans.” Weeks after Navarro’s warning was sent out, Fauci assured the media just how worried the American people should be about the pandemic when he expressed, “The danger of getting coronavirus now is just minusculely low,” Fauci stated. “As of today, on the 17th of February, the risk is really relatively low.” Since then, public criticism of Fauci continues to escalate as 3,000 pages of his emails from March and April 2020 were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) following a lawsuit filed by taxpayer watchdog group, the White Coast Waste Project. “Taxpayers have a right to know what the NIH knew about how its money was being spent at the Wuhan animal lab, and what NIH knew about a potential lab leak in late 2019 and early 2020,” stated Justin Goodman, vice president of advocacy and public policy at the White Coat Waste Project. “Transparency and accountability at home and abroad are critical in the quest to identify the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to prevent another outbreak.” Fauci’s obtained emails point to the fact that he was indeed warned of the possibility that COVID-19 was engineered, a theory he remained adamantly opposed to throughout the pandemic. Kristian Andersen, the head of a viral genomics lab at Scripps Research in La Jolla, CA, emailed Fauci in February 2020 entertaining the possibility of COVID-19’s lab-based origin, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” This week, Anderson addressed his involvement in these recently released emails, assuring that his newfound research discourages any lab-based scenarios while also claiming it is scientifically impossible to determine the origins of the pandemic, “As we stated in our article last March, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove specific hypotheses of SARS-CoV-2 origin.” Additionally, these emails raise questions surrounding the type of research U.S. taxpayers are funding. Under Fauci’s four-decade-long leadership, the NAIAD resides within the National Institute of Health (NIH), which allocates 80% of its federal funds to scientific research, including grants to foreign organizations. Fauci swore under oath that no taxpayer funds were used to fund research in Wuhan. However, in a later congressional hearing, he stated that the NIH earmarked $600,000 to study coronaviruses in Wuhan. NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins confirmed that $3.7 million in federal funds were sent to EcoHealth Alliance, a global nonprofit, of which $600,000 went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Fauci’s emails show a message received from the President of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, thanking him for rejecting any lab-leak theories in April 2020. Daszak wrote to Fauci, “I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Daszak adds, “Your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins.” These concerns have led Congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), to call for Fauci’s dismissal from his role as NIAID director. Yesterday, Congressman Mo Brooks joined GOP lawmakers in a press conference to announce his support of the Fire Fauci Act. The bill would bring Dr. Fauci’s taxpayer salary to $0 and will require the Senate to confirm another individual to fill his position. “Dr. Fauci is consistent in just one thing and that is inconsistency,” Brooks said. “Why
Alabama community health centers receive $4M in critical opioid treatment grants
Community health centers across the state are receiving federal grants to support increased treatment and prevention for opioid and substance abuse. Sen. Richard Shelby made the announcement Thursday that 15 centers would receive a total of $4,038,000 in federal grant funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “It is of the utmost importance that we work to fund the fight against the national opioid crisis,” said Shelby. “Nearly every county in Alabama is affected by this growing problem. These HHS grants will allow community health centers across the state to provide treatment to patients with opioid and substance abuse and support addiction prevention programs, helping our communities tackle this widespread epidemic.” These grants will impact community health centers in the following areas of the state: Bayou La Batre, Birmingham, Centreville, Gadsden, Huntsville, Mobile, Montgomery, Parrish, Selma, Scottsboro, Troy, and Tuscaloosa. On September 19, HHS awarded nearly $352 million to 1,232 community health centers across the nation, including the 15 in Alabama, through the Expanding Access to Quality Substance Use Disorder and Mental Health Services (SUD-MH) awards. The SUD-MH awards support health centers in implementing and advancing evidence-based strategies that best meet the substance use disorder and mental health needs of the populations they serve. The following 15 community health centers in Alabama will receive $4,038,000 in grant funding: Bayou La Batre Area Health Development Board, Inc., Bayou La Batre – $285,000 Christ Health Center, Inc., Birmingham – $285,000 Alabama Regional Medical Services, Birmingham – $285,000 Aletheia House, Inc., Birmingham – $201,750 Cahaba Medical Care Foundation, Centreville – $296,000 Quality of Life Services, Inc., Gadsden – $293,000 Central North Alabama Health, Huntsville – $285,000 Health Services, Inc., Montgomery – $285,000 Franklin Primary Health Center, Inc., Mobile – $285,000 Mobile County Health Department, Mobile – $285,000 Capstone Rural Health Center, Parrish – $287,250 Rural Health Medical Program, Inc., Selma – $285,000 Northeast Alabama Health Services, Inc., Scottsboro – $110,000 S.E. Alabama Rural Health Associates, Troy – $285,000 Whatley Health Services, Inc., Tuscaloosa – $285,000
Donald Trump, GOP to huddle as outrage builds over border policy
Calls are mounting on Capitol Hill for the Trump administration to end the separation of families at the southern border ahead of a visit from President Donald Trump to discuss legislation. Trump’s meeting late Tuesday afternoon with House Republicans comes as lawmakers in both parties are up in arms over the administration’s “zero tolerance” approach to illegal border crossings. Under the policy, all unlawful crossings are referred for prosecution — a process that moves adults to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and sends many children to facilities run by the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous administration, such families were usually referred for civil deportation proceedings, not requiring separation. Nearly 2,000 children were separated from their families over a six-week period in April and May. The fight is erupting as the House is already embroiled in an election-year struggle over immigration legislation that threatens to hurt Republicans in November. Democrats have seized on the family separation issue, swarming detention centers in Texas to highlight the policy. They are demanding that the administration act to keep migrant families together. Republicans are increasingly joining Democrats in that call. Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton called for an immediate end to the “ugly and inhumane practice,” adding, “It’s never acceptable to use kids as bargaining chips in political process.” Kansas GOP Sen. Pat Roberts said he is “against using parental separation as a deterrent to illegal immigration.” “The time is now for the White House to end the cruel, tragic separations of families,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said in a statement. The Trump administration insists the family separations are required under the law. But after signaling Monday that it would oppose any fix aimed solely at addressing the plight of children separated from their parents under the crackdown, the White House said Tuesday that it is reviewing emergency legislation being introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to keep migrant families together. Asked if the White House supports the Cruz measure, Mercedes Schlapp, director of strategic communications, told reporters “we’re looking into the legislative text on the Cruz bill.” The senator’s bill would add more federal immigration judges, authorize new temporary shelters to house migrant families, speed the processing of asylum cases and require that families that cross the border illegally be kept together, absent criminal conduct or threats to the welfare of any children. At a White House briefing Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen declared, “Congress alone can fix it.” That line has been echoed by others in the administration, including Trump, who has falsely blamed a law passed by Democrats for the “zero tolerance” approach to prosecutions of families crossing the border. Two immigration bills under consideration in the House could address the separations, but the outlook for passage is dim. Conservatives say the compromise legislation that GOP leaders helped negotiate with moderates is inadequate. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said he’s skeptical that even a full-throated endorsement from Trump will be enough to get the compromise bill through the House. The compromise bill shifts away from the nation’s longtime preference for family immigration to a new system that prioritizes entry based on merits and skills. It beefs up border security, clamps down on illegal entries and reinforces other immigration laws. To address the rise of families being separated at the border, the measure proposes keeping children in detention with their parents, undoing 2-decade-old rules that limit the time minors can be held in custody. Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., another Freedom Caucus member, said he expects the GOP compromise bill to be defeated if it reaches the floor. “There’s not enough votes because it doesn’t solve the problem,” he said. Faced with the prospect of gridlock in the House, senators appear willing to take matters into their own hands. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican leader, said Senate Republicans are working on language to address the family separations that could receive a floor vote, potentially as part of a spending bill package. “I don’t think the answer to family separation is to not enforce the law. I think the answer to family separation is: Don’t separate families while you’re enforcing the law,” Cornyn told reporters. “It’s all within our power, and people have to overcome their desire to preserve an issue to campaign on.” Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he wants to do away with a legal settlement that requires the government to release children from custody and to their parents, adult relatives or other caretakers, in order of preference. GOP senators including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine also said they’ve been discussing family separation legislation. Graham told reporters the measure would keep migrant families together, provide additional judges so detained families would face shorter waiting periods, and supply facilities for the families to stay. He said he did not know how much the proposal would cost. The administration, meanwhile, is hoping to force Democrats to vote for the bills or bear some of the political cost in November’s midterm elections. Democrats brushed aside that pressure. “As everyone who has looked at this agrees, this was done by the president, not Democrats. He can fix it tomorrow if he wants to, and if he doesn’t want to, he should own up to the fact that he’s doing it,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. Senate Democrats have rallied behind an immigration bill from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Her bill would prohibit the separation of migrant children from their parents, with exceptions for findings of child abuse or trafficking. If separations occur, Homeland Security would have to provide clear guidelines for how parents can contact their kids. One House Republican in a swing district, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado, said he’s willing to endorse the Feinstein bill if that’s what it takes. “I reached out to Sen. Feinstein’s office
Donald Trump to deny funds to clinics that refer for abortion
The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions, or sharing space with abortion providers. The Department of Health and Human Services will announce its proposal Friday, a senior White House official said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement. The policy has been derided as a “gag rule” by abortion rights supporters and medical groups, and it is likely to trigger lawsuits that could keep it from taking effect. However, it’s guaranteed to galvanize activists on both sides of the abortion debate ahead of the congressional midterm elections. The Reagan-era rule barred family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women. It never went into effect as written, although the Supreme Court ruled that it was an appropriate use of executive power. The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton, and a new rule went into effect that required “nondirective” counseling to include a range of options for women. According to a Trump administration summary, the new proposal will roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion could be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption. Abortion is a legal medical procedure, but federal family planning funds cannot be used to pay for abortion procedures. Abortion opponents say a taxpayer-funded family planning program should have no connection to abortion. Doctors’ groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship. “The notion that you would withhold information from a patient does not uphold or preserve their dignity,” said Jessica Marcella of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents family planning clinics. “I cannot imagine a scenario in which public health groups would allow this effort to go unchallenged.” She said requiring family planning clinics to be physically separate from facilities in which abortion is provided would disrupt services for women across the country. But Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said, “Abortion is not health care or birth control and many women want natural health care choices, rather than hormone-induced changes.” Abortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood, whose clinics are also major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care. Hawkins’ group is circulating a petition to urge lawmakers in Congress to support the Trump administration’s proposal. Known as Title X, the nation’s family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year through clinics, at a cost to taxpayers of about $260 million. Planned Parenthood clinics also qualify for Title X grants, but they must keep the family-planning money separate from funds used to pay for abortions. The Republican-led Congress has unsuccessfully tried to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood, and the Trump administration has vowed to religious and social conservatives that it would keep up the effort. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
White House: VA’s David Shulkin not a candidate for HHS secretary
Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, who is under investigation for taking a 10-day trip to Europe that mixed business with sightseeing, is not being considered for the top job at Health and Human Services, the White House said Wednesday. Shulkin has been cited in media reports as a leading contender to replace former HHS Secretary Tom Price, who resigned last month following an outcry over his use of costly private planes for official travel. The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that Shulkin was interviewed by the White House and had “made his case” for becoming HHS secretary. But a White House official said Shulkin did not have an interview and “was never under consideration for the position.” The official, who insisted on anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak on the record about a personnel matter, declined to discuss reasons behind who was being considered and why. A VA spokesman did not comment, referring questions about Cabinet-level positions to the White House. Shulkin is one of several Cabinet members who have faced questions about travel after Price resigned. The VA inspector general earlier this month opened an investigation into Shulkin’s taxpayer-funded trip with his wife to Denmark and England to discuss veterans’ health issues. Travel records released by VA show four days of the July trip were spent on personal activities, including attending a Wimbledon tennis match. The VA said Shulkin traveled on a commercial airline, and that his wife’s airfare and meals were paid for by taxpayers. Major veterans’ organizations had expressed concern about uncertainty at VA should Shulkin leave his job, citing major changes underway to improve care for millions of veterans. The VA has numerous job vacancies, including top posts in its health care division. Shulkin, a physician, served as VA’s undersecretary of health during the Obama administration since 2015. President Donald Trump tapped Shulkin in January to head the VA, the government’s second-largest agency. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Donald Trump’s health secretary Tom Price resigns amid travel woes
President Donald Trump’s health secretary resigned Friday, after his costly travel triggered investigations that overshadowed the administration’s agenda and angered his boss. Tom Price’s regrets and partial repayment couldn’t save his job. The Health and Human Services secretary became the first member of the president’s Cabinet to be pushed out in a turbulent young administration that has seen several high-ranking White House aides ousted. A former GOP congressman from the Atlanta suburbs, Price served just eight months. Publicly, Trump had said he was “not happy” with Price for repeatedly using private charter aircraft for official trips on the taxpayer’s dime, when cheaper commercial flights would have done in many cases. Privately, Trump has been telling associates in recent days that his health chief had become a distraction and was overshadowing his tax overhaul agenda and undermining his campaign promise to “drain the swamp” of corruption, according to three people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity. The flap prompted scrutiny of other Cabinet members’ travel, as the House Oversight and Government Reform committee launched a governmentwide investigation of top political appointees. Other department heads have been scrambling to explain their own travel. Price’s repayment of $51,887.31 for his own travel costs and his public expression of regrets did not placate the White House. The total travel cost, including the secretary’s entourage, was unclear. It could amount to several hundred thousand dollars. An orthopedic surgeon turned politician, Price rose to Budget Committee chairman in the House, where he was known as a fiscal conservative. When Price joined the administration, Trump touted him as a conservative policy expert who could write a new health care bill to replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. But Price became more of a supporting player in the GOP’s futile health care campaign, while Vice President Mike Pence took the lead, particularly in dealing with the Senate. The perception of Price jetting around while GOP lawmakers labored to repeal “Obamacare” —including a three-nation trip in May to Africa and Europe— raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill. Price flew on military aircraft overseas. Although much of Trump’s ire over the health care failure has been aimed at the Republican-controlled Congress, associates of the president said he also assigns some blame to Price, who he believes did not do a good job of selling the GOP plan. A Pence protege, Seema Verma, has been mentioned as a possible successor to Price. Verma already leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs health insurance programs that cover more than 130 million Americans. Another possible HHS candidate: FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who won some bipartisan support in his confirmation and is well known in policy, government and industry circles. Trump named Don J. Wright, a deputy assistant secretary of health, to serve as acting secretary. Price, 62, was seen in Congress as a foe of wasteful spending. As HHS secretary, he led a $1 trillion department whose future is the key to managing mounting federal budgetary deficits. As secretary, Price criticized the Medicaid health program for low-income people, saying it doesn’t deliver results commensurate with the hundreds of billions of dollars taxpayers spend on it. As a congressman, he favored Medicare privatization. But Price’s image as a budget hawk took a hit when reports of his official travel started bubbling up. Price used private charter flights on 10 trips with multiple segments, when in many cases cheaper commercial flights were available. His charter travel was first reported by the news site Politico. On a trip in June to Nashville, Tennessee, Price also had lunch with his son, who lives in that city, according to Politico. Another trip was from Dulles International Airport in the Washington suburbs to Philadelphia International Airport, a distance of 135 miles. The reports triggered a review by the HHS inspector general’s office, which is looking into whether Price’s travel violated federal travel regulations. Those rules generally require officials to minimize costs. The controversy over Price was a catalyst for Congress launching a bipartisan probe of travel by political appointees across the administration. The House oversight committee has requested travel records from the White House and 24 federal departments and agencies. Initially, Price’s office said the secretary’s busy scheduled forced him to use charters from time to time. But later Price’s response changed, and he said he’d heard the criticism and concern, and taken it to heart. His office said it would cooperate fully with investigators and he’d cease using charter flights while the inspector general investigated. Finally, he offered regrets and a repayment of his own costs, and said he’d stick to commercial flights. Trump on Friday called Price a “very fine person,” but added, “I certainly don’t like the optics.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Black Belt Community Foundation awarded $1.4 million Head Start grant
Thanks to a new federal Head Start grant, an estimated 307 children in Alabama’s Black Belt will be able to receive critical investment in their early educational development through high-quality program options. The $1.4 million grant was recently awarded to the Black Belt Community Foundation (BBCF) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the Head Start programs in Dallas, Choctaw, Marengo, and Wilcox counties in Alabama. “We are excited to be selected as a first-time Head Start grantee and we are eager to expand our education and community development efforts by providing high-quality Head Start services to children and families in the region,” said Felecia Lucky, BBCF President. “With our programs, we have served over 50,000 children and families. Like Head Start, our programs emphasize the importance of starting early and working closely with families to improve academic outcomes.” Founded in 2004 with the idea that those living and working in the Black Belt best knew the area’s challenges and opportunities, the BBCF actively puts needed resources into the region that make a lasting impact. Since its inception it has granted in excess of $3 million to nonprofit organizations throughout the 12-county region it serves to bolster programs primarily in the arts, community and economic development, education, and health and wellness. “This is outstanding news for children and families in the Black Belt region. It is so important that our children are supported at an early age with educational programs such as Head Start so that their learning capabilities can be cultivated throughout their formative years,” said Alabama 7th District U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell. “With this grant, the Black Belt Community Foundation will be able to bring valuable program offerings to children in the state that need this support the most.” The Community Foundation will be hosting information sessions in the upcoming weeks to introduce its programs to the community and prospective families and staff.
Alabama sees America’s highest premium spike under Obamacare
A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) details the premium changes Americans across the country have experienced under former President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation, Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. According to the report, which uses the data the Obama administration relied on, “average exchange premiums were 105 percent higher in the 39 states using Healthcare.gov in 2017 than average individual market premiums in 2013.” “Premiums for individual market coverage have increased significantly since the Affordable Care Act’s key provisions have taken effect,” the new report reads. The report also found the State of Alabama saw the nation’s highest premium increase since the implementation of Obamacare with an average 223 percent increase between 2013 and 2017 due to the new regulations. That’s more than double the national average. Alabama 2nd District U.S. Rep. Martha Roby said the statistics show why Republicans are working to offer Americans relief from the burdensome law. “The numbers are staggering. Insurance premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed due to the regulations and mandates imposed by Obamacare,” Roby said. “Providers have been forced out of the market, and Alabama consumers now only have one option for health insurance. Problems like these are why I worked to help build support for our three-step plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.” Earlier this month the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which is the first of a three-phase plan by Republicans in Congress and the Trump Administration to repeal and replace Obamacare and rebuild America’s health care system, based on a plan that is intended to lower premiums and other out-of-pocket costs that have come to weigh on patients.
Repeal in doubt, what Donald Trump alone can do on ‘Obamacare’
With prospects in doubt for repealing “Obamacare,” some Republicans say the Trump administration can rewrite regulations and take other actions to undo much of the health care law on its own. Some of those moves could disrupt life for millions of people, many in states that the new president carried. And then there’s the risk of court challenges. Remember the White House travel ban? “In a world where Obamacare is not going to be repealed and replaced, do you work to try to make it succeed, or do you take steps to undermine it in order to continue blaming President Obama and the Democrats for the dysfunction of the health care system?” asked Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who’s analyzed the administration’s leeway to make changes. “Right now we don’t know the answer, and we are getting conflicting signals from the administration.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that insurance markets would probably be stable “in most areas” under the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, or ACA. But President Donald Trump has said “it’s imploding, and soon will explode.” GOP congressional leaders, who had to pull their repeal bill, describe a multi-pronged attack on “Obamacare” that includes administration action. Democrats warn of “sabotage.” Enduring political turmoil is seen as contributing to insurers’ worries about returning to the health law’s markets next year. Here’s a look at the pros and cons of some actions Trump could order: STOP COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES In addition to subsidized insurance premiums, the ACA provides financial assistance for deductibles and copayments to consumers with modest incomes. House Republicans have challenged the constitutionality of aid payments, estimated at $7 billion this year. A U.S. district judge in Washington agreed, finding that the law does not explicitly authorize such expenditures. The case is on hold by mutual consent of the House and the Trump administration. Insurers, who are legally obligated to provide assistance to qualifying customers, continue to be reimbursed by the government. That could end unless the legal issue is resolved. Pro: For opponents of the ACA, stopping the cost-sharing payments would be the boldest step they could take short of outright repeal. Con: Insurers would bail out or jack up premiums to make up for the loss of government payments. A market “death spiral” could begin in short order. “There’s a tension here for the White House between avoiding a crisis in the insurance markets and facilitating the collapse of a program they bitterly oppose,” said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Officials won’t comment on pending litigation, but there doesn’t appear to be any policy change in the new administration. ___ TWEAK INSURANCE BENEFITS The ACA requires insurers to cover ten categories of “essential health benefits,” from prevention to prescriptions, maternity to mental health. While broad categories are written into law, key specifics are spelled out in regulations and guidance. The administration could propose changes. Pro: It could bring down premiums for consumers who are comfortable buying less-than-comprehensive policies. That might entice more people into the market. “Every American ought to be able to purchase the kind of coverage that they want,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price told Congress. Con: Patient advocacy groups battled for the ACA’s required benefits and they’ll fight changes seen as harmful. “Essential health benefits are critical to assure access to what most people think is basic care,” said Mara Youdelman of the National Health Law Program. “If the administration attempts to get around the four corners of the law, we would certainly explore options for litigation.” ___ REMAKE MEDICAID Alongside subsidized private insurance for people who don’t have job-based coverage, the ACA expanded Medicaid to serve millions more low-income adults. With the repeal effort stalled, some of the 19 states that have refused the expansion may come forward. That gives the Trump administration an opportunity to steer an important program in a different direction. Price and Seema Verma, Trump’s new head of Medicare and Medicaid, have told governors they are willing to consider a broad range of new Medicaid approaches, including work requirements. Verma also says she wants to improve health, not just treat disease. Pro: States may gain more authority over a program that consumes major resources. The whole country could learn from individual state experiments. More low-income people may gain coverage. Con: New requirements may discourage some from signing up. “The majority of people are working,” said Judy Solomon of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for the poor. “For those who aren’t, it’s because of illness or caring for someone.” ___ WINK ON INSURANCE PENALTY Tax penalties on people who remain uninsured are the most unpopular part of the Obama-era law. The Trump administration has already eased enforcement. The IRS scrapped a plan to hold up tax returns of people who fail to indicate if they have coverage. Pro: If the tax man looks the other way altogether, it could win points for a president elected on a populist message. Some of those paying the fine are young people trying to get traction in life. Con: Policy experts say the insurance penalty is essential for nudging healthy people into the market. And it remains the law. ___ Trump’s next move is uncertain. But a recent AP-NORC poll found that 6 in 10 Americans disapproved of his handling of health care. Blaming the Obama administration may not be a viable option much longer. “If somebody can’t pay for their cancer medicine, they don’t want to hear you fulminate about how had Obamacare is,” said Bagley. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
No LGBTQ category included in Census proposal for 2020 count
The U.S. Census Bureau is not proposing a separate count of LGBTQ Americans for its 2020 Census. The category had been sought by gay rights advocates. The bureau counts Americans according to race, gender and other characteristics. In its proposal to Congress, the people-counting agency is not asking for a separate category for LGBTQ Americans. The Census Bureau had no immediate comment. But gay rights advocates say it’s more evidence that Trump is going back on a campaign promise to protect the gay community. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services removed questions on sexuality from two of its surveys. The Trump administration also has cancelled an Obama administration directive that students should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
New Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price takes office
President Donald Trump‘s new health secretary took office Friday after becoming the latest Cabinet nominee to eke out a confirmation victory in the bitterly divided Senate. Vice President Mike Pence administered the oath of office to Tom Price, of Georgia, at the White House hours after the Senate confirmed him 52-47 in a party-line vote. That roll call came in the dead of night, thanks to Democrats’ tactic of forcing prolonged debates to broadcast their opposition to Trump and his team. Pence said Price, an orthopedic surgeon, is “uniquely qualified” for the job and playing a leading role in helping the Republican-controlled Congress achieve its top priority of repealing and replacing the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Pence called Price “the most principled expert on health care policy” in Congress. Price served seven terms in the House. As head of the Health and Human Services Department, Price will take center stage as the administration and congressional Republicans try delivering on their pledge to scrap President Barack Obama’s health care law and substitute their own programs. After years of trying, they finally command both the White House and Congress but have so far struggled to craft a plan with enough votes to win approval. Price is likely to play a lead role both in shaping health care legislation and issuing department regulations aimed at weakening Obama’s statute. “Having Dr. Tom Price at the helm of HHS gives us a committed ally in our work to repeal and replace Obamacare,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Friday. Democrats focused on the legislation Price once sponsored, including efforts to kill Obama’s law. He’s also sought to reshape Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage for seniors into a voucher-like program, cut Medicaid, which helps poor people afford care, and halt federal payments to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions. Sen Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., conceded that Price had experience but added, “It’s the kind of experience that should horrify you.” That battle won, Republicans were preparing to next win Senate confirmation for financier Steven Mnuchin to be Treasury secretary. He was expected to get the chamber’s approval Monday, along with Trump’s choice to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, physician David Shulkin. Republicans have lauded Mnuchin’s long career in the finance and banking worlds. As they did with Price, Democrats are attacking Mnuchin’s background, such as criticizing OneWest bank, which he led, for not protecting thousands of homeowners from unnecessary foreclosures. They also said he failed to disclose nearly $100 million in assets on forms he filed with the Senate. Price’s nomination is part of a larger clash in which Republicans want to quickly enact priorities long blocked by Obama. Democrats, with few tools as Congress’ minority, are making a show of resistance, stretching some floor debates to the maximum 30 hours Senate rules allow. The high stakes plus Trump’s belligerent style have fed the combativeness. They’ve also produced remarkable scenes, including Democratic boycotts of hearings, Republicans suspending committee rules to approve nominees and GOP senators voting to bar Warren from joining one debate. Democrats have accused Price of lying about his acquisition of discounted shares of an Australian biotech company and benefiting from insider information. They’ve also asserted he pushed legislation to help a medical implant maker whose stock he’d purchased. Price has said he’s done nothing wrong. It’s illegal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading. His close confirmation was the fourth consecutive Senate clash over a Cabinet nominee that closely followed party lines. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was confirmed 52-47, after Warren was punished for reading a 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King criticizing him. Betsy DeVos became Education secretary by 51-50, thanks to a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence. And Former Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson became secretary of state by 56-43. Those close tallies are a departure from most Cabinet votes, in which the Senate usually grants overwhelming approval in a show of deference to letting presidents choose their teams. Just four of 31 votes for then-President Barack Obama’s Cabinet vacancies drew at least 40 “no” votes, as did only two of 34 votes for Cabinet positions under President George W. Bush. During that period, the closest tally for health secretary before Price was the 65-31 roll call for Obama’s 2009 pick, Kathleen Sibelius. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
