ACA replacement in the works, but it's not ready yet, Republican leaders say

Republican leaders say they are working on a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, but that it’s just not ready yet.

"When we go back next week, we are going to continue the hearings on replacement elements," says Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Lakeland).
"We are also going to be working on the reconciliation package, which is the full repeal that can only address tax-and-spend issues."

Congressional Republicans, who have voted more than 60 times to repeal the ACA since its inception, admit frustration that they came into 2017 without a replacement plan.

Members said they have been trying to give some deference to President Donald Trump and his vision for health care.
On the campaign trail, Trump told supporters that Obamacare would be repealed and replaced with something that would "cost less money."

Republicans are trying to figure out how to make that happen.

A senior deputy whip, Ross is part of the House leadership, a position that means part of his job will be to bring other Republicans along as the party continues to define what its Obamacare replacement will look like.

In an interview with Eyewitness News, the congressman laid out some of the key points in the drafting of a replacement, including high-risk pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions and the expansion of health savings accounts.

Ross also said the GOP plan will look toward giving states Medicaid block grants, but he also admits the GOP plan for repeal and replace may have to be carried out in piecemeal, and will need help from Democrats.

“We are going to need a lot of help from the president and his bully pulpit to get Democrats to come on board, especially in the Senate,” Ross said.

Critics of the GOP plan said some of its elements might not deliver the cost savings or coverage promised.

A 2015 report from The Commonwealth Fund found high-risk pools are, “not a realistic alternative to coverage requirements under the ACA,” adding that such pools “are prohibitively expensive to administer” and “prohibitively expensive for consumers to purchase.”

Questions have also been raised about the effectiveness of Medicaid block grants.

The idea of block-granting Medicaid, sending the money directly to the states to spend on their own, has been suggested since the 1980s. However, details of how much money each state would get based on population and inflation as well as if there would be specific requirements for each state to cover services have not been worked out.

Currently, 70 million people are covered by Medicaid, with 20 million covered as part of the expansion of Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act.

If a federal block grant became a reduction of funds, states would be faced with the prospect of reducing benefits or enrollment, imposing premiums or cutting costs in other ways--something many fear will lead to the most vulnerable being forced off plans.

“Nobody should lose health care unless they decide they don’t want it,” said Ross, who maintains that ensuring no disruptions in coverage is a primary consideration.

Ross said he expects the Republican plan to hit the House floor by April with a score from the Congressional Budget Office by the end of March.

Cox Media Group