Andy Slavitt at the start of the weekend outlined some of the areas of potential agreement between Senators Alexander and Murray on a healthcare stabilization deal.
It would:
-create certainty of CSR payments for 2019 reducing premiums
-expedite waivers w guardrails
-add hi deduct optionBut mostly..6/
— Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) September 29, 2017
He makes a very good set of points as he discusses the deal:
Republican moderate Senators would have something to vote for. Joint fingerprints are a good thing. 8/
— Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) September 29, 2017
Matt Fiedler of Brookings and formerly Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers offered a strong critique of my public shrugging of shoulders on CSR payment. I think his point 8 is his strongest point and it ties to the point that Andy Slavitt is making above:
Specifically, would show Congress will not let Admin. sabotage proceed completely unchecked, partially mitigating broader uncertainty /8
— Matt Fiedler (@MattAFiedler) September 28, 2017
I am paraphrasing, but both Matt and Andy are arguing that a bi-partisan deal means at least some federal Republicans will now have buy-in to the success and failures of the ACA. We saw how Medicaid expansion gave some Republican governors strong buy-in to protecting the Medicaid expansion as Governors Baker, Kasich and Sandoval all fought for their states and against the interests of the national party throughout the summer.
And I completely agree. I think a deal that modifies 1332 waivers, and opens up Copper or catastrophic plans to more people and changes the employee mandate thresholds so that it applies to fewer firms would be a great deal on the political grounds and a good deal on policy grounds. I just don’t think that CSR needs to be part of the deal.