Margot Sanger-Katz from the NY Times flags an interesting pre King vs. Burwell Republican plan that is actually interesting in a non-sarcastic manner.
The Cassidy Obamacare “replace” plan is interesting: Keeps most of Obamacare, but devolves indiv. market to states. https://t.co/C55kRF0akW
— Margot Sanger-Katz (@sangerkatz) January 17, 2017
Section 101 is the three options a state has if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fabulist argument advanced in King. Option 1 would be to stay under PPACA and establish a state based exchange. Option 2 would be a complete withdrawal from PPACA with no subsidies. Option 3 would be to establish a HSA like equivilent of coverage with most of the regulator requirements, taxes and mandates of PPACA thrown out. This is actually interesting if the funding makes sense. The default assumption is a complete opt-out. States would have to to opt into either Option 1 or Option 3.
Section 102 talks about the state alternative with HSA. It wipes out mandates and federal regulation. Essential health benefits, minimal actuarial value coverage and other regulatory requirements of PPACA that define a qualified health plan also are junked in this section. 102-4-A authorizes an initial HSA grant and the rest of 102-4 describes the mechanics of that grant. 102-C establishes a public health block grant that is 2% of the eligible funds for the HSA.
Section 103 determines the size of the HSA subsidy. This is where the money matters. The HSA amount is age and geography adjusted which is very similar in function as the ACA benchmark Silver is determined by zip code and age of the recipient. Bingo — 103-1-B is good news.