Studies Estimate Cost and Coverage Impacts of Graham-Cassidy (the New Republican Repeal and Replace Plan For ObamaCare; AKA, the New TrumpCare)

The Cassidy-Graham bill has been estimated by studies to result in 32 million uninsured by 2027 and beyond and higher costs for many sick, poor, and seniors.

Although there is no official CBO report yet, a few studies have been done which show how the uninsured rate rise and how costs for the sick, poor, and seniors rise under the Cassidy-Graham bill.[1][2]

These studies are worth a read and are insightful, as they are based on past CBO reports and bill itself, but they aren’t the final say on the matter.

With that in mind, to summarize the findings of the studies (which you can read by clicking on the links below):

  • A Brookings Institute study showed that 21 million could be without coverage each year 2020 – 2026 and 32 million could be without coverage by 2027 (that is more than the last repeal and replace attempts the AHCA and BCRA).
  • The bill itself makes clear that lower-incomes would get less assistance due to the defunding of assistance programs (Medicaid expansion, tax credits, and out-of-pocket assistance). Thus, although there isn’t a specific study on this, one can reasonably conclude that those who don’t get lower-cost plans due to deregulation would pay more due to decreased assistance under this plan.
  • The lack of protections for seniors was estimated by the AARP to result in some 50 – 64 year olds paying $10,000 or more beyond what they pay now if the bill passes.
  • The bill also has some provisions that would effectively weaken preexisting conditions protections.[3]

Thus, we can assume that this bill, like the last few bills, will lower the deficit at the cost of a higher uninsured rate and higher costs for those who need help the most (much like past GOP repeal and replace plans, on which there are CBO reports).

“According to the AARP analysis, for a 60-year-old earning $25,000 a year, premiums and out-of-pocket costs could increase by as much as $16,174 a year. If that 60-year-old lives in a state that allows insurers to charge older individuals dramatically higher premiums, he or she would face an additional $4,124 increase in premiums.”

“Based on this analysis, we [the Brookings Institute] estimate that the Graham-Cassidy legislation would reduce the number of people with insurance coverage by around 21 million each year during the 2020 through 2026 period. [This Could rise to 32 million plus by 2027 and later].”

What is the Graham-Cassidy bill?: Graham-Cassidy is the latest “TrumpCare,” the latest repeal and replace plan for the Affordable Care Act. The Graham-Cassidy bill: focuses on state spending over federal spending, keeps taxes on the wealthy, repeals the individual and employer mandates, block-grants Medicaid, decreases regulations and assistance spending, defunds planned Parenthood, lets everyone buy into catastrophic coverage, and beefs up HSAs. You can learn more about it here.

Read the Graham-Cassidy bill: The following link contains a line-by-line breakdown of every provision in the Graham-Cassidy bill. You can find the full “Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (GCHJ) proposal” here (under the link “GCHJ Legislative Text” on Cassidy’s website).

NOTE: The proposal has generally been called Cassidy-Graham or Graham-Cassidy, while the proper name is Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (GCHJ). In all cases it is a reference to the “ObamaCare repeal and replace” bill released on September 13, 2017 by U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Dean Heller (R-NV), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). Contact your Senator and let them know what you think about their proposal.

Citations

  1. REPORT How will the Graham-Cassidy proposal affect the number of people with health insurance coverage? Matthew Fiedler and Loren Adler Friday, September 22, 2017
  2. Latest Senate Health Care Bill Revives Age Tax for Older Americans Insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs would soar and Medicaid funding would be slashed by Dena Bunis, AARP, September 20, 2017
  3. Sen. Cassidy’s misleading claim that preexisting-conditions ‘protection is absolutely the same’ By Glenn Kessler September 23

What do you think?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HARM WILKINSON on

I wish that people who have health care for life and received money from the Health Plan Companies were not in charge of determining what is good for me. I am a 65 year old retireee who had to return to work in order to pay my wife’s health insurance premiums. I have a chronic back injusry and sit in sometimes severe pain all day at a desk.
I am currently on Medicare, whcih I have worked all my life to pay into, and now they are saying it isn’t right and needs to be fixed. It is right and they need to leave it alone and extend it to cover the rest of our nation so we don’t continue to look like fools to the rest of the world.
Isn’t there something, anything, of more importance right now that continuing to focus on ONE thing for months and months when it is so obvious to eveyone else that we don’t want the ACA to go away, we would prefer that they FIS IT.

HARM WILKINSON on

Sorry for the gramatical and spelling errors in my previous post.