- The Progressive Pulse - http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org -

The more we learn, the worse the new Trumpcare proposal looks — especially for North Carolina

[1]Another day, another bevy of revelations about just how dreadful the so-called “Cassidy-Graham” healthcare proposal would be for the country if the U.S. Senate is irresponsible enough to push it through next week (click here [2] for a fine/fun summary from talk show host Jimmy Kimmel). The latest bad news comes from the fiscal policy wonks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This is from a post that just went up this morning entitled “Cassidy-Graham Would Hit State Budgets Hard, Restrict State Flexibility” [3]:

The bill would harm state budgets in several ways:

“First, it would eliminate the ACA’s Medicaid expansion [4] and marketplace subsidies in 2020 and replace them with an inadequate block grant, which would disappear entirely in 2027. The block grant would be too small to allow Medicaid expansion states to provide ACA-levels of health coverage without new, state-created sources of revenue. And if a recession hit, boosting the number of uninsured people, states wouldn’t get any increased funding to meet the increased need.

When the block grant disappeared in 2027, those already tough problems would get much worse. If states wanted to keep providing people with coverage, they’d have to cut funding for schools or other non-Medicaid services or raise taxes significantly. They’d likelier end up cutting Medicaid eligibility, benefits, or provider payments to compensate for the funding loss. The loss of funding, for instance, to replace the Medicaid expansion would cost Arizona about $4.6 billion in federal funds in 2027 alone. It would cost Senator Cassidy’s home state of Louisiana about $4.2 billion that year.

Second, the bill would cut and cap federal Medicaid funding in all states, forcing states to either cut Medicaid services or raise their own revenue to cover the loss of federal funding. These additional cuts would equal about $44 billion nationally in 2027 and grow steadily larger thereafter. States would be left holding the bag, forced to reduce services for their residents or raise taxes significantly. Under the cap, Senator Graham’s home state of South Carolina would lose about $597 million in federal Medicaid funding in 2027.

States can’t afford cuts of this size. Cassidy-Graham’s Medicaid funding cuts equal 16 percent of projected state budgets in 2027. That’s more than what states provide for higher education. States that expanded Medicaid would face especially harsh cuts, and all states’ budgets would be squeezed by shrinking federal funding.

Third, the bill would make it harder for states to raise their own share of the funds to sustain Medicaid — by sharply restricting state taxes on health care providers, which every state but Alaska uses to help finance Medicaid, as my colleague Jessica Schubel pointed out [5] yesterday. This provision would interfere with states’ ability to make their own decisions on Medicaid financing.”

The post goes on to highlight the observation of the bond rating agency Fitch Ratings that the bill “could have implications for states’ credit quality and for the credit quality of related public finance entities that depend on state funding. . . . In a time of already muted revenue growth, spending cuts could affect K-12 and higher education the most, as those are the other largest areas of state spending outside of Medicaid.”

In short, the bill is an utter disaster waiting to happen. Let’s hope senators come to their senses and reject it once and for all.