Archive for the ‘health care reform’ Category
AHL’s TOP STORY: Health Care Costs Would Increase Because of Health Reform Law, GOP Report Finds
Certain companies on President Obama’s jobs council expect the federal health reform law to increase their health care costs and could provide incentive for them to drop coverage for their employees, according to a report released yesterday by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Wall Street Journal reports (Radnofsky, Wall Street Journal, 4/26).
The report — titled “Higher Costs, More Confusion, Less Coverage” — compiles public and private statements on the health reform law from business leaders on the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a 27-member advisory panel established in January 2011 (Adams, CQ HealthBeat, 4/26).
AHL’s TOP STORY: Congress Returns Today To Address Several Expiring Health Care Policies
Congressional lawmakers today return from the Easter recess to a slew of hearings intended to address several expiring health care policies, The Hill‘s “Healthwatch” reports.
Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up medical malpractice legislation that would limit non-economic damages at $250,000. The House last month passed a similar bill (HR 5), which included language to repeal the federal health reform law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board. The bill being debated Tuesday does not include the IPAB language, but it would allow the committee to find $39 billion in savings to meet requirements included in House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) House-approved fiscal year 2013 budget resolution.
BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Does the ‘New Math’ on Health Reform Add Up?
A report released on Tuesday by the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security suggests that the federal health reform law will add between $340 billion and $530 billion to the federal deficit. The report was authored by Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who served as an economic adviser under President George W. Bush.
BACK AND FORTH: White House, Blahous Debate Federal Health Reform Law’s Cost
The battle between critics of the federal health reform law and the Obama administration has not ceased while the country awaits the Supreme Court decision. This week, Republicans deviated from their usual attacks and focused on a new report by Charles Blahous, the Republican trustee for Medicare and Social Security.
AHL’s TOP STORY: House GOP Questions Diversion of $500M To Implement Health Reform Law
Two House Republicans in a letter to the Internal Revenue Service yesterday asked the agency to explain how it is using the $500 million it is set to receive for the implementation of the federal health reform law, The Hill‘s “Healthwatch” reports (Baker, “Healthwatch,” The Hill, 4/11).
The Obama administration over the past two years “quietly” has provided IRS with about $200 million, and plans to provide more than $300 million this year, for the implementation of the federal health reform law, according to data provided by a congressional aide.
AHL’s TOP STORY: Justice Thomas Defends Silence, Criticizes Other Justices for Questions During Health Reform Case Oral Arguments
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday defended his silence and criticized his fellow justices for speaking too much during the recent oral arguments in the case against the federal health reform law, The Hill‘s “Blog Briefing Room” reports.
Thomas has not asked a single question during oral arguments since 2006. No other justice has gone a single year without asking a question.
AHL’s TOP STORY: Holder Affirms Federal Courts’ Powers To Review Laws, Defends President’s Comments
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to a federal appeals judge yesterday affirmed the ability of federal courts to overturn federal law and defended recent comments by President Obama regarding the Supreme Court’s possible ruling on the federal health reform law, which prompted the request for the letter, the New York Times reports.
On Monday, Obama said it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the “unelected” justices to overturn the overhaul (Cushman, New York Times, 4/5). Those comments prompted federal appellate Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to ask the Department of Justice to write a letter explaining the president’s remarks (Perez, Wall Street Journal, 4/5).
AHL’s TOP STORY: Insurers Would Have Owed $2B in 2010 Under Overhaul’s Medical-Loss Ratio Rule, Report Finds
Private health insurers would have paid their customers about $2 billion in rebates had the medical-loss ratio rule under the federal health reform law gone into effect in 2010, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, National Journal reports (McCarthy, National Journal, 4/5).
The report found that about 23% of privately insured U.S. residents would have received rebates if the MLR rule had gone into effect in 2010. About 5.3 million people who receive coverage through the individual market would have received a total of about $1 billion in rebates. The other $1 billion would have been distributed among 10 million people with coverage in the small- and large-group markets.
BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Obama Stirs the Pot With Supreme Court Comments
President Obama on Tuesday pulled back on previous comments on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments over the constitutionality of the federal health reform law, after those remarks were rebuked by several Republican lawmakers. Conservative and liberal bloggers also were critical of the President’s statements.
AHL’s TOP STORY: Obama Clarifies Comments on SCOTUS Case in Wake of Republican Criticism
President Obama yesterday softened his stance on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments over the constitutionality of the federal health reform law after his remarks quickly drew strong criticism for several Republican lawmakers, The Hill‘s “Healthwatch” reports (Baker [1], “Healthwatch,” The Hill, 4/3).
In his first public comments about last week’s oral arguments, Obama on Monday said he is “confident that this law will be upheld because it should be upheld” and warned the justices that striking it down would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” (American Health Line, 4/3).
