An editorial in The American Journal of Public Health argues that the Senate should reject an Obamacare repeal and replace plan that would strip Medicaid expansion from more than half of the American population.
The bill, which would replace Obamacare with its own version of the Affordable Care Act, would cut $880 billion from Medicaid over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The GOP plan would replace Medicaid with a block grant that would pay states based on their enrollment and spending, and would then transfer the money to the federal government to cover the cost of coverage.
The ACA’s Medicaid Expansion was intended to help people pay for coverage and was a key component of the ACA.
It was also a major source of bipartisan support and funding to pay for Medicaid expansion.
The ACA provides coverage to more than 40 million Americans who currently qualify for Medicaid and nearly a quarter of them receive federal subsidies for their coverage.
The Senate bill would take away the Medicaid expansion and leave nearly a million more Americans without coverage.
Republicans have said that the Medicaid block grant will be used to cover a larger share of Medicaid costs than the Senate bill, but they are still trying to figure out how to pay Medicaid expansion costs.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R – NC) introduced a Senate version of an Obamacare replacement bill earlier this year that would have made Medicaid expansion more generous.
They argued that Medicaid expansion would save money by lowering costs and the bill would not harm Medicaid expansion enrollees.
While the Senate version would have increased the block grant for Medicaid by $880 million over the first decade, the House bill would have done so for $1.4 trillion over the same period.
This is because the House plan would have left Medicaid expansion at the current level of $880 per enrollee.
A block grant to Medicaid would have been a key factor in determining the success of the Senate plan, and if it had been rejected by the Senate, it would have given the House Republicans an opportunity to undo the Medicaid expansions.
In addition, the Senate’s Medicaid block grants would have grown at a rate of $2.1 trillion over 10 years, while the House’s would have stayed flat at $2 trillion over a similar period.
The Senate bill is not without flaws, however.
Republicans would have to pay more to expand Medicaid to compensate for the $880 Billion loss in Medicaid expansion spending, but it’s possible that this could be offset by other cuts to the ACA, such as those to the Medicare Advantage program.
This would mean that the $88 billion in Medicaid block spending would be the largest portion of the $1 trillion increase in the block grants over 10 year periods, and this would also reduce the amount of money that states would have the flexibility to allocate to their Medicaid programs.
Additionally, the $8 trillion in block grants under the Senate proposal would have allowed states to cut Medicaid spending by $2,600 per enrollees, compared to the $2 billion per enrollier in the House proposal.
This could allow states to save $2 to $3 billion per year by cutting Medicaid.