The AHCA is not yet dead. It was just resting for a bit before joining the choir invisible.
The New York Times reports that the White House and the House Freedom Caucus (the hard right flank of the House GOP) have been talking and thinking they have the contours of a deal.
The terms, described by Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the head of the Freedom Caucus, are something like this: States would have the option to jettison two major parts of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance regulations. They could decide to opt out of provisions that require insurers to cover a standard, minimum package of benefits, known as the essential health benefits. And they could decide to do away with a rule that requires insurance companies to charge the same price to everyone who is the same age, a provision called community rating…..
In simple terms, a carrier can’t deny a hemophiliac coverage but they can charge an actuarial fair premium of $90,000 per year. A carrier can’t deny a young woman who either is or intends to become pregnant. They just don’t have to cover the prenatal or labor and delivery costs.
It is effectively a slightly modified option 3 of Cassidy-Collins where states can return to the 2009 status quo if they so actively elect to do so. If we combine a single state choosing this route and sell across state lines, it would lead the entire country’s individual market back to 2009.
I may be reading too much into the conditional language but to me this is a SUPER (ugly) WAIVER provision. It modifies Section 1332 guard rails to basically meaninglessness. States could then choose to do whatever the hell that they want without concern for coverage requirements. Currently Section 1332 and other waivers in health policy have an equality clause where the states’ preferred options must be at least as good for beneficiaries. This rule would render that null. And I don’t think many/any states would actually take the Feds up on this option as the localized consequences are too immediate and real but if the goal was to design a bill that could get 12% support instead of 17% support, this would be it.
Update 1 This sounds about right to me:
I have no idea how the Tuesday Group stays on board. They were a sufficient blocking coalition under AHCA V1 once the flood gates were starting to open up. The politics of health reform are nasty in the best bills and this is a devolution of a very bad bill. The marginal members of a majority sitting in opposite party or break even districts are the first ones to get hit in a wave.