This week the CEOs of major pharmaceutical firms will come to Capitol Hill to defend their products’ prices. The hearing before the Senate Finance Committee is expected to produce rhetorical fireworks, particularly given the national furor over rising drug prices.

This video features five dramatic moments from past congressional showdowns over health care.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

El jueves 12 de octubre por la noche, la Casa Blanca anunció que cortaría pagos clave a las aseguradoras. Trump firmó una destinada a brindar a las personas que compran su propio seguro un acceso más fácil a diferentes planes de salud, que han sido fuertemente regulados o desalentados bajo las reglas de ACA establecidas por la administración Obama.

“Esto está promoviendo la elección de la atención médica y la competencia en todos los Estados Unidos”, dijo Trump en la ceremonia de firma. “Esto va a ser algo en lo que millones y millones de personas se inscribirán, y van a estar muy felices”.

Los pagos de subsidios, conocidos como “reducciones de costos compartidos”, son pagos a las aseguradoras para reembolsarles por los descuentos que brindan a los asegurados con ingresos inferiores al 250% del nivel federal de pobreza, o alrededor de . Esos descuentos protegen a estos clientes de bajos y medianos ingresos de tener fuertes gastos de bolsillo, como deducibles o copagos. Estos subsidios han sido objeto de una demanda en curso.

Las reducciones de costos compartidos no son lo mismo que los subsidios a través de créditos impositivos, que ayudan a millones de personas a pagar sus primas. Estos no están afectados por la decisión de Trump.

Las acciones de Trump podrían tener un impacto inmediato en la inscripción para tener cobertura a través de ACA en 2018, cuyo período de inscripción comienza el 1 de noviembre. Aquí hay cinco cosas que debe saber.

1. La orden ejecutiva no genera ningún cambio inmediato.

Técnicamente, Trump ordenó a los departamentos de Trabajo, de Salud y Servicios Humanos, y del Tesoro, dentro de 60 días, “considerar proponer reglamentos o revisar guías, en la medida permitida por la ley” sobre varias opciones diferentes para expandir los tipos de planes que individuos y pequeñas empresas pueden comprar. Entre sus sugerencias están ampliar las reglas para permitir que más pequeños empleadores y otros grupos formen lo que se conoce como “planes de salud de asociaciones” y para vender seguros de bajo costo y de corto plazo. Sin embargo, no hay ninguna garantía de que cualquiera de estos planes se presentará y, en cualquier caso, el proceso para ponerlos a disposición podría demorar meses.

2. Los cambios en la reducción de costos compartidos SON inmediatos, pero podrían no afectar a tantas personas.

Los pagos a las aseguradoras por los descuentos de bolsillo que brindan a los asegurados de ingresos bajos no significa que esas personas ya no recibirán ayuda. La ley y los contratos de las compañías de seguros con el gobierno federal exigen que se otorguen esos descuentos.

Eso significa que las compañías de seguros tendrán que averiguar cómo recuperar el dinero que se les prometió. Podrían (y muchos ya lo están haciendo) aumentar las primas. Para la mayoría de las personas que obtienen los subsidios por separado para ayudar a pagar sus primas, esos aumentos serán solventados por el gobierno federal. Los que se verán más afectados son las aproximadamente que compran su propio seguro individual, pero ganan demasiado para obtener ayuda federal para pagar por su cobertura.

Las aseguradoras también podrían abandonar ACA por completo. Eso impactaría a todos en el mercado individual y podría dejar algunos condados sin aseguradora para el próximo año. Las aseguradoras también podrían demandar al gobierno, y la mayoría de los expertos creen que .

3. Esto podría afectar las opciones de seguros para el próximo año. Pero es complicado.

El impacto en las primas para el próximo año variará según el estado y la aseguradora. Por un lado, las aseguradoras tienen que les permite salir de los contratos para 2018 dado el cambio en los pagos federales, por lo que algunos podrían decidir salir del mercado. Eso podría dejar áreas con menos aseguradoras, o sin ninguna. En agosto, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO)Ìý dejaría a cerca del 5% de las personas que compran su propia cobertura a través de los mercados de ACA sin aseguradoras en 2018.

Para todos los demás, la medida daría como resultado primas más altas, dijo la CBO, agregando un promedio de alrededor del 20%. En algunos estados, los reguladores ya han permitido a las aseguradoras aumentar los precios en 2018 previendo esta acción de Trump de frenar los pagos.

Pero cómo se aplican esos aumentos . En , Idaho, Louisiana, Pennsylvania y Carolina del Sur, por ejemplo, los reguladores hicieron que las aseguradoras cargaran los costos solo en un tipo de plan: el de nivel plata. Esto se debe a que la mayoría de las personas que compran planes plata también obtienen un subsidio del gobierno federal para ayudar a pagar su prima, y esos subsidios aumentan junto con el costo de un plan de plata.

Sin embargo, los consumidores que obtienen un subsidio no verán mucho aumento en sus gastos de bolsillo para la cobertura. Los consumidores sin subsidios tendrán los costos adicionales si se quedan en un plan de plata. En esos estados, los consumidores pueden hacer mejor negocio en una franja de planes, incluidos planes de oro de alto nivel. Sin embargo, muchos estados permitieron a las aseguradoras repartir el aumento esperado en todos los niveles de los planes.

4. El Congreso podría actuar.

Se han renovado las negociaciones bipartidistas entre los senadores Lamar Alexander (republicano de Tennessee) y Patty Murray (demócrata de Washington) para crear una legislación que continúe con los subsidios para compartir costos y otorgue a los estados más flexibilidad para desarrollar y vender planes menos generosos de atención médica que los que actualmente se ofrecen en los mercados. La decisión de Trump de poner fin a los subsidios de participación en los costos puede reforzar esas discusiones.

En un comunicado, Murray llamó a la acción de Trump para retirar los subsidios de participación en los costos “imprudente”, pero dijo que continúa “siendo optimista sobre nuestras negociaciones y creemos que podemos llegar a un acuerdo rápidamente. Insto a los líderes republicanos en el Congreso a que esta vez hagan lo correcto para las familias apoyando nuestro trabajo”.

El presidente Trump instó el viernes a los demócratas a que trabajen con él para “llegar a un acuerdo” sobre la atención de salud. “Ahora bien, si los demócratas fueran inteligentes, lo que harían sería venir a negociar algo para que las personas realmente pudieran obtener el tipo de atención médica que merecen, siendo ciudadanos de nuestro gran país”, dijo el viernes por la tarde.

El viernes 6, el líder de la mayoría del Senado Chuck Schumer (demócrata de Nueva York) no parecía estar de humor para cerrar un trato.

“Los republicanos han estado haciendo todo lo posible durante los últimos diez meses para inyectar inestabilidad en nuestro sistema de atención médica y forzar el colapso a través del sabotaje”, dijo en un comunicado.

Una publicada el viernes 13 de octubre por la Kaiser Family Foundation muestra que el 71% del público prefiere que la administración Trump trate de hacer que la ley funcione en lugar de acelerar el reemplazo alentando su fracaso. La encuesta se llevó a cabo antes de que Trump hiciera su anuncio sobre los subsidios. (KHN es un programa editorial independiente de la fundación).

5. Algunos estados están demandando, pero el resultado es difícil de adivinar.

A pesar que todos los estados regulan sus propios mercados de seguros, los estados tienen opciones limitadas para lidiar con el último movimiento de Trump. Dieciséis estados y el Distrito de Columbia, encabezados por Nueva York y California, están demandando a la administración Trump para defender los subsidios para los costos compartidos. Pero no está claro si un tribunal federal podría decir que la administración Trump está obligada a continuar haciendo los pagos mientras el caso está pendiente.

Diane Webber contribuyó con este informe.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Late Thursday evening, the White House announced it would cease key payments to insurers. Earlier on Thursday, Trump signed an aimed at giving people who buy their own insurance easier access to different types of health plans that were limited under the ACA rules set by the Obama administration.

“This is promoting health care choice and competition all across the United States,” Trump said at the signing ceremony. “This is going to be something that millions and millions of people will be signing up for, and they’re going to be very happy.”

The subsidy payments, known as “cost-sharing reductions,” are payments to insurers to reimburse them for discounts they give policyholders with incomes under 250 percent of the federal poverty line, for an individual. Those discounts shield these lower-income customers from out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles or copayments. These subsidies have been the subject of a lawsuit that is ongoing.

The cost-sharing reductions are separate from the tax credit subsidies that help millions of people pay their premiums. Those are not affected by Trump’s decision.

Some of Trump’s actions could have an immediate effect on the enrollment for 2018 ACA coverage that starts Nov. 1. Here are five things you should know.

1. The executive order does not make any immediate changes.

Technically, Trump ordered the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury within 60 days to “consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law,” on several different options for expanding the types of plans individuals and small businesses could purchase. Among his suggestions to the department are broadening rules to allow more small employers and other groups to form what are known as “association health plans” and to sell low-cost, short-term insurance. There is no guarantee, however, that any of these plans will be forthcoming. In any case, the process to make them available could take months.

2. The cost-sharing reduction changes ARE immediate but might not affect the people you expect.

Cutting off payments to insurers for the out-of-pocket discounts they provide to moderate-income policyholders does not mean those people will no longer get help. The law, and insurance company contracts with the federal government, require those discounts be granted.

That means insurance companies will have to figure out how to recover the money they were promised. They could raise premiums (and many are raising them already). For the majority of people who get the separate subsidies to help pay their premiums, those increases will be borne by the federal government. Those who will be hit hardest are the who buy their own individual insurance but earn too much to get federal premium help.

Insurers could also simply drop out of the ACA entirely. That would affect everyone in the individual market and could leave some counties with no insurer for next year. Insurers could also sue the government, and most experts .

Facebook Live: Trump Ends Payments For Cost-Sharing Reductions. What’s Next?

3. This could affect your insurance choices for next year. But it’s complicated.

The impact on your plan choices and premiums for next year will vary by state and insurer. For one thing, that allows them to get out of the contracts for 2018, given the change in federal payments. So, some might decide to bail. That could leave areas with fewer — or no — insurers.ÌýThe Congressional Budget Office in August that stopping the payments would leave about 5 percent of people who purchase their own coverage through the ACA marketplaces with no insurers in 2018.

For everyone else, the move would result in higher premiums, the CBO said, adding an average of about 20 percent. In some states, regulators have already allowed insurers to price those increases into their 2018 rates inÌýanticipation that the payments would be halted by the Trump administration.

But how those increases are applied . In , Idaho, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, for example, regulators had insurers load the costs only onto one type of plan: silver-level coverage. That’s because most people who buy silver plans also get a subsidy from the federal government to help pay their premium, and those subsidies rise along with the cost of a silver plan.

Consumers getting a premium subsidy, however, won’t see much increase in their out-of-pocket payments for the coverage. Consumers without premium subsidies will bear the additional costs if they stay in a silver plan. In those states, consumers may find a better deal in a different metal-band of insurance, including higher-level gold plans.ÌýMany states, however, allowed insurers to spread the expected increase across all levels of plans.

4. Congress could act.

Bipartisan negotiations have been renewed between Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to create legislation that would continue the cost-sharing subsidies and give states more flexibility to develop and sell less generous health care plans than those currently offered on the exchanges. Trump’s move to end the cost-sharing subsidies may bolster those discussions.

In a statement, Murray called Trump’s action to withdraw cost-sharing subsidies “reckless” but said she continues “to be optimistic about our negotiations and believe we can reach a deal quickly — and I urge Republican leaders in Congress to do the right thing for families this timeÌýby supporting our work.”

Trump on Friday urged Democrats to work with him to “make a deal” on health care. “Now, if the Democrats were smart, what they’d do is come and negotiate something where people could really get the kind of healthcare that they deserve, being citizens of our great country,” he said Friday afternoon.

Earlier Friday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) did not sound as if he was in the mood to cut a deal.

“Republicans have been doing everything they can for the last ten months to inject instability into our health care system and to force collapse through sabotage,” he said in a statement. “Republicans in the House and Senate now own the health care system in this country from top to bottom, and their destructive actions, and the actions of the president, are going to fall on their backs. The American people see it, and they know full well which party is doing it.”

A by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that 71 percent of the public said they preferred that the Trump administration try to make the law work rather than to hasten replacement by encouraging its failure. The poll was conducted before Trump made his announcement about the subsidies. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

5. Some states are suing, but the outcome is hard to guess.

Even though all states regulate their own insurance markets, states have limited options for dealing with Trump’s latest move. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia, led by New York and California, are suing the Trump administration to defend the cost-sharing subsidies. But it is unclear whether a federal court could say that the Trump administration is obligated to continue making the payments while that case is pending.Ìý

Diane Webber contributed to this report.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The changes were hailed by religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was “a return to common sense, long-standing federal practice and peaceful coexistence between church and state.” But others, including the National Women’s Law Center, said they plan to file suit against the rules. The National Health Law Program said that the rules appeared “legally suspect.”

Here are some frequently asked questions and answers about the new rules.

Q: What is the new policy?

Trump administration they are significantly rolling back rules requiring many insurers to provide contraceptive coverage to women. Employers with a moral or religious objection to contraceptive services will be allowed to stop offering that coverage.

Under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration had requiring most plans to cover all contraception methods that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration with no out-of-pocket cost to women.ÌýThe provision does not cover plans that have a grandfathered status under the law.

That guarantee was whittled back through regulation and court actions to exempt some religious-based organizations, such as churches, and some privately held companies in which the owners have strong objections to contraception. Other nonprofit religious employers were offered an accommodation so that they didn’t contract or pay for the insurance coverage for their workers.

The rules unveiled Friday expand those exemptions to any nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies with firm religious opposition, as well as health plans provided to students at colleges with a religious affiliation. A second rule extends an exemption to organizations and privately held companies that have moral objections.

If an employer doesn’t have any moral or religious objections to contraception coverage, current ACA guidelines still apply. Federal policy for programs that offer free or subsidized coverage to low-income women also will not change.

The rules become effective as soon as they are published in the Federal Register, which is expected soon. View them online and .

Q:ÌýWho is covered by the ruling?

Exactly who will be affected is in dispute.

In a , the Department of Health and Human Services said that the rules “will not affect over 99.9 percent” of the 165 million women in the United States. The exemptions announced Friday, HHS said, “may impact only about 200 entities, the number that filed lawsuits based on religious or moral objections.”

Groups that favor the ACA’s contraception coverage say the impact will be far larger.

“The Trump administration just took direct aim at birth control coverage for 62 million women,” Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “With this rule in place, any employer could decide that their employees no longer have health insurance coverage for birth control.”

Mara Gandal-Powers, a senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, said that even though many employers will not change their coverage, women in some places could find it difficult to get the health care they need.

HHS estimated in 2015 that were covered by policies that provide no-cost contraceptives. The number of women paying for contraceptives fell from nearly 21 percent in 2012 to by 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Ìý(Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

While some employers will be exempt from the ACA rules covering contraception, they may not be exempt from applicable state laws. Eight states currently have laws to employees, while another 20 states have laws requiring coverage of prescription contraceptives with the option of asking employees to pay some of the cost. Those state laws still apply, said Laurie Sobel, associate director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Q: How have the courts ruled previously on the ACA and contraception coverage?

In 2014, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow a key exemption to the health law’s contraception coverage requirements when it ruled that closely held, for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration’s regulations.

The court’s majority said that the companies that filed suit — Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts-and-crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a custom cabinet manufacturer — did not have to offer female employees all of the Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives as part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without copays or deductibles under the law. The companies had argued that several types of contraceptives violate their owners’ religious beliefs.

The companies are family-owned, and they said that the health law’s contraception requirement violated their religious views. While both employers’ health plans covered some forms of birth control, they found some forms of emergency contraceptives objectionable, such as Plan B and Ella that can prevent a pregnancy if taken within a short window after unprotected sex. They said these contraceptive methods prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the woman’s uterus and therefore are a type of abortion.

In another lawsuit, religious groups, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns, said that complying with an Obama administration accommodation for religious-affiliated groups violated their religious views. In May 2016, the Supreme Court sent that lawsuit back to the lower courts to see if a compromise was possible.

Q: How does the Obama administration’s accommodation work?

The Obama administration’s policy also did not apply to churches or houses of worship. And in response to protests from other nonprofit religious organizations — such as church-affiliated hospitals or schools — officials set up an accommodation that allowed those employers to not contract for contraceptive coverage as part of the insurance that they offered workers. Instead, the insurance plan that served their employees would provide coverage, at no cost, to the workers. Some of those groups, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, objected to this setup and challenged the policy in court.

KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by .

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

By 2026, an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with about 28 million who would lack coverage under current law.

The Senate’s bill — , which GOP leaders hope to put to a vote later this week —Ìýcomes nearly two months after the House passed its plan to overhaul the Affordable Care Act. That measure and leave an additional 23 million people without coverage in 2026, according to CBO. It would reduce the federal .

Earlier in the day, before the nonpartisan budget office’s score was released, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described the GOP plan as preserving “access to care for patients with preexisting conditions.” He also said it would “strengthen Medicaid,” give “Americans more power to control and reduce their medical costs and out-of-pocket expenses” and give “states significant new tools to drive down premiums.”

Yet it was unclear if Republicans, who have a razor-thin Senate majority, could garner the 50 votes necessary for the measure to pass. The budget office’s findings added to this uncertainly.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who has been on the fence about the bill, tweeted late this afternoon that she could not support the current bill based on the CBO score. “I want to work with my GOP and Democratic colleagues to fix the flaws in ACA. CBO analysis shows Senate bill won’t do it. I will vote no” on bringing the bill to the Senate floor, she announced.

Senate Democrats were also swift to react.

“The CBO report should be the end of the road for Trumpcare,” tweeted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). And, in a statement, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said it was “abundantly clear [Republicans] are going in the wrong direction.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pointed to the analysis and said the GOP plan was “a cynical and immoral proposal.”

Detailing The Medicaid Numbers

Under the GOP measure, federal spending on Medicaid would drop by 26 percent over current spending projections, or $772 billion, over the next decade, according to the analysis.

The drop in spending would occur mainly because the Senate plan phases out federal funds for states to expand Medicaid and it puts annual caps on federal Medicaid dollars to states. Currently, federal Medicaid matching payments to states are open-ended.

By 2026, the budget office predicted, 15 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid than projected under the ACA. Currently, more than low-income and disabled people are Medicaid beneficiaries.

How Medicaid beneficiaries are affected by these caps depends on how states respond to them, the CBO notes.

“With less federal reimbursement for Medicaid, states would need to decide whether to commit more of their own resources to finance the program at current-law levels or to reduce spending by cutting payments to health care providers and health plans, eliminating optional services, restricting eligibility for enrollment through work requirements and other changes,” according to the analysis.

The Medicaid funding provisions are a key reason several influential health groups say they cannot support the bill.

“Access to care for some of the most vulnerable members of our society — including those who require treatment for opioid-use disorder — would be endangered by the Senate proposal’s arbitrary, unsustainable, and shortsighted formula for funding Medicaid,” David Barbe, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement posted on the organization’s website.

And even before the CBO report was issued, the National Association of Medicaid Directors was on record with its concerns. “The Senate bill does formalize several critical administrative and regulatory improvements, such as giving Medicaid Directors a seat at the table in the development of regulations that impact how the program is run, and the pathway to permanency for certain waiver programs,” the group said. “However, no amount of administrative or regulatory flexibility can compensate for the federal spending reductions that would occur as a result of this bill.”

Other organizations, such as Families USA and the American Public Health Association, said the CBO’s findings show the Senate proposal did “devastating harm” and would “seriously jeopardize the health of America.”

Cost And Coverage

The budget scorekeepers also concluded that, for the individual insurance market, premium costs would go down under the Senate plan, but so would the amount of coverage provided.

Because these plans “would pay for a smaller average share of benefits under this legislation, most people purchasing it would have higher out-of-pocket spending on health care than under current law,” CBO said.

In 2017, an estimated people bought health coverage through the ACA’s marketplaces. Most bought silver-level plans, which covered 70 percent of health care costs.

Under the Senate’s plan, the average premiums for an individual in 2020 would be about 30 percent lower. But these policies would cover about 58 percent of costs on average.

According to the CBO, “a combination of factors would lead to that decrease – most important, the smaller share of benefits paid for by the benchmark plans and federal funds provided to directly reduce premiums.”

The CBO also analyzed the Senate bill provision that would allow states to use waivers to modify the health law’s that include items like prescription drugs, maternity coverage, mental health and substance abuse. In states where such waivers were granted, consumers could experience substantial cost increases for supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending, or choose to forgo services. Nearly half the population, the CBO estimates, would reside in states that seek these waivers.

In addition, the ACA’s ban on lifetime and annual limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state.

Note: This story was updated to correct the party affiliation of Sen. Ron Wyden. He is a Democrat.Ìý

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the bill from consideration after he rushed to the White House to tell President Donald Trump that there weren’t the 216 votes necessary for passage.

“We came really close today, but we came up short,” he told reporters at a hastily called news conference.

When pressed about what happens to the federal health law, he added, “Obamacare is the law of the land. … We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.”

Trump laid the blame at the feet of Democrats, complaining that not one was willing to help Republicans on the measure, and he warned again that the Obamacare insurance markets are in serious danger. “Bad things are going to happen to Obamacare,” he told reporters at the White House. “There’s not much you can do to help it. I’ve been saying that for a year and a half. I said, look, eventually it’s not sustainable. The insurance companies are leaving.”

But he said the collapse of the bill might allow Republicans and Democrats to work on a replacement. “I honestly believe the Democrats will come to us and say, ‘Look, let’s get together and get a great health care bill or plan that’s really great for the people of our country,'” he said.

Ryan originally had hoped to hold a floor vote on the measure Thursday — timed to coincide with the seventh anniversary of the ACA — but decided to delay that effort because GOP leaders didn’t have enough “yes” votes. The House was in session Friday before his announcement while members debated the bill.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said the speaker’s decision to pull the bill “is pretty exciting for us …Ìýa victory for the Affordable Care Act, more importantly for the American people.”

The legislation was damaged by a variety of issues raised by competing factions of the party. Many members were nervous about reports by the showing that the bill would lead eventually to 24 million people losing insurance, while some moderate Republicans worried that would hurt low-income Americans.

At the same time, conservatives, especially the hard-right House Freedom Caucus that often has needled party leaders, complained that the bill kept too much of the ACA structure in place. They wanted a straight repeal of Obamacare, but party leaders said that couldn’t pass the Senate, where Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop a filibuster. They were hoping to use a complicated legislative strategy calledÌýÌýthat would allow them to repeal only parts of the ACA that affect federal spending.

The decision came after a chaotic week of negotiations, as party leaders sought to woo more conservatives. Trump personally lobbied 120 members through personal meetings or phone calls, according to a count provided Friday by his spokesman, Sean Spicer. “The president and the team here have left everything on the field,” Spicer said.

On Thursday evening, Trump dispatched Office of Management and Budget Director Mick MulvaneyÌýto tell his former House GOP colleagues that the president .ÌýIt was time to move on to other priorities, including tax reform, he told House Republicans.

“He said the president needs this, the president has said he wants a vote tomorrow, up or down. If for any reason it goes down, we’re just going to move forward with additional parts of his agenda. This is our moment in time,” Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a loyal Trump ally, told reporters late Thursday. “If it doesn’t pass, we’re moving beyond health care. … We are done negotiating.”

Trump’s edict clearly irked some lawmakers, including the (R-N.C), whose group of more than two dozen members represented the strongest bloc against the measure.

“Anytime you don’t have 216 votes, negotiations are not totally over,” he told reporters who had surrounded him in a Capitol basement hallway as he headed in to the party’s caucus meeting.

Trump, Ryan and other GOP lawmakers tweaked their initial package in a variety of ways to win over both conservatives and moderates.ÌýBut every time one change was made to win votes in one camp, it repelled support in another.

The White House on Thursday accepted conservatives’ demands that the legislation strip federal guarantees of in insurance policies. But that was another problem for moderates, and Democrats suggested the provision would not survive in the Senate.

Republican moderates in the House — as well as the Senate — objected to the bill’s provisions that would to a set amount of funding for states that would also give governors and state lawmakers more flexibility over the program. Moderates also were concerned that the package’s tax credits would not be generous enough to help older Americans — who could be than their younger counterparts — afford coverage.

The House package also lost the support of key GOP allies, including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action. , patient and also opposed it.

But Ryan’s comments made clear how difficult this decision was. “This is a disappointing day for us,” he said. “Doing big things is hard. All of us. All of usÌý— myself included — we will need time to reflect on how we got to this moment, what we could have done to do it better.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La legislación mantendría las disposiciones de la ley de salud permitiendo que los hijos permanezcan en el plan de seguro de salud de sus padres hasta los 26 años y prohibiendo a las aseguradoras cobrar más a las personas con condiciones médicas preexistentes, siempre y cuando no dejen que su seguro caduque. Si esto ocurre, bajo la ley republicana las aseguradoras pueden cobrar un recargo del 30% por inscripción tardía por encima de la prima base.

En una declaración, el líder de la Cámara de Representantes, Paul Ryan (republicano de Wisconsin), dijo que la propuesta “reduciría los costos, estimularía la competencia y daría a cada estadounidense acceso a un seguro de salud asequible y de calidad”. Agregó que “protege a los adultos jóvenes, a los pacientes con condiciones preexistentes, y proporciona una transición estable para que nadie quede fuera”.

El plan del GOP, como se predijo, , y no impondría el llamado mandato del empleador, que requiere que ciertos empleadores proporcionen un nivel establecido de cobertura de salud a los trabajadores, a riesgo de tener que pagar una multa si no lo hacen.

Los demócratas rápidamente condenaron el plan. “Esta noche, los republicanos revelaron un proyecto de ley (Make America Sick Again), que les da a los multimillonarios un nuevo recorte fiscal masivo mientras se trasladan costos y enormes cargas a las familias trabajadoras de todo el país”, dijo Nancy Pelosi. “Los republicanos obligarán a decenas de millones de familias a pagar más por una cobertura peor, y empujarán a millones de estadounidenses fuera de los seguros de salud por completo”.

La legislación ha sido el foco de intensas negociaciones entre las diferentes facciones del partido republicano y la administración Trump desde enero. El ACA se aprobó en 2010 sin un solo voto republicano, y el partido lo ha denunciado fuertemente desde entonces, con la Cámara votando más de 60 veces para revocar el Obamacare. Pero más de 20 millones de personas han ganado cobertura bajo la ley, y el presidente Donald Trump y algunos republicanos del Congreso han dicho que no quieren que nadie pierda su seguro.

Cuando los republicanos tomaron el control del Congreso y de la Casa Blanca este año, no lograron un acuerdo sobre el camino a seguir para reemplazar la ley, con algunos legisladores de los estados que han ampliado el Medicaid preocupados por el efecto de la revocación, y con el ala conservadora del partido pidiendo que se eliminara toda la ley.

El senador Rand Paul (republicano de Kentucky), y uno de los que está a favor de una derogación completa, twitteó: “Todavía no hemos visto una versión oficial del proyecto de ley de la Cámara para reemplazar el Obamacare, ¡pero por informes de los medios de comunicación esto parece un Obamacare Lite!”.

Complicando el esfuerzo está el hecho de que los republicanos tienen sólo 52 escaños en el Senado, por lo que no pueden reunir los 60 necesarios para superar un contraataque demócrata. Esto significa que deben usar una estrategia legislativa complicada llamada que les permite revocar sólo partes del ACA que afectan el gasto federal.

A partir de 2020, el plan republicano ofrecería créditos impositivos para ayudar a las personas a pagar el seguro de salud, en base al ingreso familiar y la edad, con un límite de $14,000 por familia. Cada miembro de la familia acumularía créditos, desde $2,000 para un individuo menor de 30 a $4,000 para personas de 60 años o más. Los créditos empezarían a disminuir después de que los individuos alcanzaran un ingreso de $75,000, o de $150,000 para las parejas que presentan sus impuestos de manera conjunta.

A los consumidores también se les permitiría invertir más dinero en cuentas de ahorro de salud (HSA, por sus siglas en inglés) libres de impuestos y elevaría el límite de $2,500 en las cuentas de ahorro flexibles a partir de 2018.

La legislación permitiría a las aseguradoras cobrar a los consumidores mayores por la cobertura que a los jóvenes. La ley de salud actualmente permite una proporción de 3 a 1.

Los centros de salud comunitarios recibirían $422 millones en financiamiento adicional en 2017 bajo la nueva legislación, lo que también condiciona la para Planned Parenthood y prohíbe el uso de créditos tributarios para comprar un seguro médico que cubra el aborto.

El Comité de Energía y Comercio y el de Ways and Means tienen programado ponerle el sello final al proyecto este miércoles 8 de marzo. Los comités todavía no tienen ningún análisis de la Oficina del Presupuesto del Congreso sobre cuánto costaría la legislación o a cuántas personas cubriría.

Los líderes del partido han dicho que quieren entregar el proyecto al presidente Trump en abril.

En una declaración, los demócratas de alto rango en ambas cámaras dijeron que la medida cobrará a los consumidores “más dinero por menos atención. Esto aumentaría drásticamente los costos de atención de la salud para las personas mayores. Y la derogación racionaría el cuidado de más de 70 millones de estadounidenses, incluyendo adultos mayores en hogares, embarazadas y niños que viven con discapacidades, al cortar y limitar arbitrariamente Medicaid”, dijo el representante Frank Pallone de Nueva Jersey y el representante Richard Real de Massachusetts.

El nuevo plan plantea cambios dramáticos al Medicaid, el programa de seguro de salud estatal-federal que cubre a 70 millones de estadounidenses de bajos ingresos. El programa comenzó en 1965 como un derecho, lo que significa que el financiamiento federal y estatal están asegurados sin importar el costo y la inscripción. Pero el proyecto de ley republicano limitaría los fondos federales para el Medicaid por primera vez.

El gobierno federal recauda entre la mitad y el 70% de los costos del Medicaid. El porcentaje varía en función de la riqueza relativa del estado.

Bajo el plan republicano, el financiamiento federal se basaría en lo que el gobierno gastó en el año fiscal que terminó el 30 de septiembre. Esas cantidades se ajustarían anualmente, en base a la inscripción del estado y la inflación médica.

Actualmente, los pagos federales a los estados también tienen en cuenta cuán generosos son los beneficios del estado y qué tasa utiliza para pagar a los proveedores. Eso significa que estados como Nueva York y Vermont obtienen fondos más altos que estados como Nevada y New Hampshire, y esas diferencias estarían bloqueadas para los próximos años.

Los republicanos han presionado para limitar el financiamiento federal a los estados a cambio de darles más control sobre el funcionamiento del programa.

La legislación también afecta la expansión del Medicaid promovida por el ACA, por la cual el gobierno federal proporcionó una mayor financiación a los estados para ampliar la elegibilidad. El proyecto de ley también pondría fin a esa financiación adicional para cualquiera que se inscriba bajo las directrices de expansión a partir de 2020. Sin embargo, permitiría a los estados mantener el financiamiento adicional que proporcionó el Obamacare a las personas que ya están en el programa de expansión y que permanezcan inscriptas.

Cerca de 11 millones de estadounidenses se han sumado al Medicaid desde 2014.

Cambiar el programa de expansión es un delicado equilibrio para los republicanos. Cuatro senadores republicanos de los estados que eligieron ampliar el Medicaid dijeron que se opondrían a cualquier legislación que derogara la expansión.

“Nos preocupa que cualquier cambio mal implementado o mal programado en la actual estructura de financiamiento en Medicaid podría resultar en una reducción en el acceso a servicios de atención de salud que salvan vidas”, dijeron los senadores Rob Portman, de Ohio; Shelley Moore Capito, de West Virginia; Cory Gardner de Colorado, y Lisa Murkowski de Alaska en una carta al líder de la mayoría republicana Mitch McConnell.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The legislation would keep the health law’s provisions allowing adult children to stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26 and prohibiting insurers from charging people with preexisting medical conditions more for coverage as long as they don’t let their insurance lapse.Ìý If they do, insurers can charge a flat 30 percent late-enrollment surcharge on top of the base premium, under the Republican bill.

In a statement, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the proposal would “drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance. It protects young adults, patients with preexisting conditions, and provides a stable transition so that no one has the rug pulled out from under them.”

The GOP plan, as predicted, and would not enforce the so-called employer mandate, which requires certain employers to provide a set level of health coverage to workers or pay a penalty.

Democrats quickly condemned the bill. “Tonight, Republicans revealed a Make America Sick Again bill that hands billionaires a massive new tax break while shifting huge costs and burdens onto working families across American,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted. “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage — and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely.”

The legislation has been the focus of intense negotiations among different factions of the Republican Party and the Trump administration since January. The Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote, and the party has strongly denounced it ever since, with the House voting more than 60 times to repeal Obamacare. But more than 20 million people have gained coverage under the law, and President Donald Trump and some congressional Republicans have said they don’t want anyone to lose their insurance.

When Republicans took control of both Congress and the White House this year, they did not have an agreement on the path for replacement, with some lawmakers from states that have expanded Medicaid concerned about the effect of repeal and the party’s conservative wing pushing hard to jettison the entire law.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of those favoring a full repeal, tweeted: “Still have not seen an official version of the House Obamacare replacement bill, but from media reports this sure looks like Obamacare Lite!”

Complicating the effort is the fact that Republicans have only 52 seats in the Senate, so they cannot muster the 60 necessary to overcome a Democratic filibuster. That means they must use a complicated legislative strategy called that allows them to repeal only parts of the ACA that affect federal spending.

Beginning in 2020, the GOP plan would provide tax credits to help people pay for health insurance based on household income and age, with a limit of $14,000 per family.ÌýEach member of the family would accumulate credits, ranging from $2,000 for an individual under 30 to $4,000 for people age 60 and older.ÌýThe credits would begin to diminish after individuals reached an income of $75,000 — or $150,000 for joint filers.

Consumers also would be allowed to put more money into tax-free health savings accounts and would lift the $2,500 cap on flexible savings accounts beginning in 2018.

The legislation would allow insurers to charge older consumers than younger people. The health law currently permits a 3-to-1 ratio.

Community health centers would receive $422 million in additional funding in 2017 under the legislation, which also places a and prohibits the use of tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion.

Both the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees are scheduled to mark up the legislation Wednesday. The committees do not yet have any Congressional Budget Office analysis of how much the legislation would cost or how many people it would cover.

Party leaders have said they want to have the bill to President Trump next month.

In a statement, senior Democrats on both panels said the measure would charge consumers “more money for less care. It would dramatically drive up health care costs for seniors. And repeal would ration care for more than 70 million Americans, including seniors in nursing homes, pregnant women and children living with disabilities by arbitrarily cutting and capping Medicaid,”Ìýsaid Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

The House GOP plan makes dramatic changes to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program that covers 70 million low-income Americans. The program began in 1965 as an entitlement — which means federal and state funding is ensured regardless of cost and enrollment. But the Republican bill would cap federal funding for Medicaid for the first time.

The federal government picks up between half and 70 percent of Medicaid costs. The percentage varies based on the relative wealth of the state.

Under the GOP plan, federal funding would be based on what the government spent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Those amounts would be adjusted annually based on a state’s enrollment and medical inflation.

Currently, federal payments to states also take into account how generous the state’s benefits are and what rate it uses to pay providers. That means states like New York and Vermont get higher funding than states like Nevada and New Hampshire and those differences would be locked in for future years.

Republicans have pushed to cap federal funding to states in return for giving them more control in running the program.

The legislation also affects the health law’s expansion of Medicaid, in which the federal government provided enhanced funding to states to widen eligibility. The bill would also end that extra funding for anyone enrolling under the expansion guidelines starting in 2020. But the legislation would let states keep the extra funding Obamacare provided for individuals already in the expansion program who stay enrolled.

About 11 million Americans have gained Medicaid coverage since 2014.

Changing the expansion program is a delicate balance for the Republicans. Four GOP senators from states that took that option said Monday they would oppose any legislation that repealed the expansion.

“We are concerned that any poorly implemented or poorly timed change in the current funding structure in Medicaid could result in a reduction in access to life-saving health care services,” Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore CapitoÌýof West Virginia, Cory GardnerÌýof Colorado andÌýLisa MurkowskiÌýof Alaska wrote to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Algunas de estas medidas se evidencian todos los días. Otras gozan de un amplio apoyo, aunque la gente no siempre se da cuenta que provienen de la ley.

En otras palabras, el resultado del debate de revocación y reemplazo de ACA podría afectar más de lo que usted piensa, dependiendo exactamente en cómo el Congreso, con mayoría republicana, persiga su objetivo de acabar con el Obamacare.

Nadie sabe hasta dónde llegará el esfuerzo, pero aquí hay algunos ejemplos deÌý provisiones que podrían ser eliminadas:

Conteo de calorías en restaurantes y cadenas de comida rápida

¿Tiene hambre? La ley trata de darle más información sobre lo que esa hamburguesa o panecillo le costará en términos de calorías, parte de un esfuerzo por combatir la actual epidemia de obesidad. Bajo el ACA, la mayoría de los restaurantes y cadenas de comida rápida con al menos 20 sucursales deben de los artículos de su menú. Varios estados, como Nueva York, ya tenían reglas similares antes de esta ley. Aunque hubo un poco de rechazo, la regulación obtuvo el apoyo de la industria, posiblemente porque la publicación de calorías se vio como algo menos oneroso en comparación a, por ejemplo, los impuestos que se aplican a los alimentos o bebidas azucaradas.

La regla final entró en vigor en diciembre tras un retraso de un año. Una cosa que todavía no está clara: ¿Simplemente por ver que un determinado pan tiene más de 400 calorías, los consumidores elegirán comer zanahorias? Los resultados son mixtos.

Un gran meta análisis realizado antes de que la ley entrara en vigencia no mostró una reducción significativa en el consumo de calorías, aunque los autores concluyeron que el es “una estrategia de educación de bajo costo que puede llevar a los consumidores a comprar [productos] con un poco menos de calorías”.

Privacidad por favor: requerimiento de que los lugares de trabajo proporcionen una sala para lactancia

¿Lactancia materna, pero en el trabajo? La ley exige a los empleadores que proporcionen a las mujeres para extraer la leche durante un año después de dar a luz y que ofrezcan un lugar —aparte de un cuarto de baño— para hacerlo en privado. Además, la mayoría de los planes de salud apoyo y equipos para la lactancia materna, tales como bombas de extracción de leche, sin requerir un copago de la paciente.

Límites sobre los costos médicos por las visitas a las salas de emergencia

Si se encuentra en una sala de emergencia con poco efectivo, sin cobertura o no tiene claro si su seguro cubre los costos en ese hospital, la ley proporciona una . Si usted llegó a un hospital que no forma parte de la red de su aseguradora, la ley del ACA requiere que todos los planes de salud cobren a los consumidores los mismos copagos o coseguros para los servicios de emergencia fuera de su red. Sin embargo, el hospital podría “balancear la factura” por sus costos —incluyendo la atención de urgencias— que excedan lo que su aseguradora le reembolsará.

Si se trata de un hospital sin fines de lucro —cerca del 78% del total de los hospitales lo son— la ley exige que publiquen en línea una política de por escrito, especificando si ofrecen atención gratuita o con descuento, y los requisitos de elegibilidad para dichos programas.

Aunque no requiera ningún conjunto particular de requisitos para la elegibilidad, la ley exige que los hospitales cobren tarifas más bajas a los pacientes que son elegibles para sus programas de asistencia financiera. Eso se compara con sus cargos en bruto, también conocidos como tasas de “chargemaster”, o facturas detalladas.

Evaluaciones de la comunidad de los hospitales sin fines de lucro

La ley de salud también requiere que los hospitales sin fines de lucro los miles de millones de dólares en exenciones de impuestos que reciben demostrando cómo tratan de mejorar la salud de la comunidad en sus vecindarios.

Cada tres años, estos hospitales tienen que realizar una evaluación sobre las necesidades de la comunidad en el área en la que el hospital sirve. También tienen que desarrollar —y actualizar anualmente — estrategias para satisfacer estas necesidades. Por ende, los hospitales deben proporcionar documentación como parte de sus informes anuales al IRS. Su incumplimiento podría hacerlos responsables de una multa de $50.000.

El derecho de una mujer a poder elegir su ginecólogo/obstetra

La mayoría de los planes de seguro deben permitir que las mujeres busquen atención de un ginecólogo/obstetra sin tener que obtener la referencia de un médico de atención primaria. Si bien la mayoría de los estados ya tenían estas protecciones, esas leyes no se aplicaban a los planes de auto-seguro, que a menudo ofrecen los grandes empleadores. La ley de salud a todos los nuevos planes. Los defensores dicen que el acceso directo hace que sea más fácil para las mujeres buscar no sólo atención de salud reproductiva, sino también exámenes relacionados con otras condiciones de salud como la presión arterial alta o el colesterol.

Y ¿qué pasará con la garantía de cobertura terapéutica para familias con niños con autismo?

Los defensores de los niños con autismo y de las personas con enfermedades degenerativas argumentaron que muchos planes de seguros no proporcionaban la atención que sus familias necesitaban. Esto se debe a que las aseguradoras cubrían la rehabilitación para ayudar a las personas a recuperar las funciones que habían perdido, como caminar de nuevo después de un accidente cerebrovascular.

Sin embargo, esto no cubría la atención para recuperar funciones que los pacientes nunca tuvieron, como sería el caso de darle terapia de habla a un niño que nunca aprendió a hablar, ni el mantener el nivel actual de funcionamiento de un paciente. La ley requiere que los planes ofrezcan cobertura para tales tratamientos, llamados , como parte de los beneficios esenciales de salud en planes vendidos a individuos y grupos pequeños.

Ìý

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Some of these measures are evident every day. Some enjoy broad support, even though people often don’t always realize they spring from the statute.

In other words, the outcome of the repeal-and-replace debate could affect more than you might think, depending on exactly how the GOP congressional majority pursues its goal to do away with Obamacare.

No one knows how far the effort will reach, but here’s a sampling of sleeper provisions that could land on the cutting-room floor:

PRIVACY PLEASE: WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS FOR BREAST-FEEDING ROOMS

Breast feeding, but going back to work? The law requires employers to provide women to express milk for up to a year after giving birth and provide someplace — other than a bathroom — to do so in private. In addition, most health plans breastfeeding support and equipment, such as pumps, without a patient co-payment.

LIMITS ON SURPRISE MEDICAL COSTS FROM HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS

If you find yourself in an emergency room, short on cash, uninsured or not sure if your insurance covers costs at that hospital, the law provides some . If you are in a hospital that is not part of your insurer’s network, the Affordable Care Act requires all health plans to charge consumers the same co-payments or co-insurance for out-of-network emergency care as they do for hospitals within their networks. Still, the hospital could “balance bill” you for its costs —Ìýincluding ER care — that exceed what your insurer reimburses it.

If it’s a non-profit hospital — and about 78 percent of all hospitals are — the law requires it to post online a written , spelling out whether it offers free or discounted care and the eligibility requirements for such programs. While not prescribing any particular set of eligibility requirements, the law requires hospitals to charge lower rates to patients who are eligible for their financial assistance programs. That’s compared with their gross charges, also known as chargemaster rates.

NONPROFIT HOSPITALS’ COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

The health law also requires non-profit hospitals to the billions of dollars in tax exemptions they receive by demonstrating how they go about trying to improve the health of the community around them.

Every three years, these hospitals have to perform a community needs assessment for the area the hospital serves. They also have to develop — and update annually — strategies to meet these needs. The hospitals then must provide documentation as part of their annual reporting to the Internal Revenue Service. Failure to comply could leave them liable for a $50,000 penalty.

A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE … HER OB/GYN

Most insurance plans must allow women to seek care from an obstetrician/gynecologist without having to get a referral from a primary care physician. While the majority of states already had such protections in place, those laws did not apply to self-insured plans, which are often offered by large employers. The health law to all new plans. Proponents say direct access makes it easier for women to seek not only reproductive health care, but also related screenings for such things as high blood pressure or cholesterol.

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE THERAPY COVERAGE ASSURANCES FOR FAMILIES WHO HAVE KIDS WITH AUTISM?

Advocates for children with autism and people with degenerative diseases argued that many insurance plans did not provide care their families needed. That’s because insurers would cover rehabilitation to help people regain functions they had lost, such as walking again after a stroke, but not care needed to either gain functions patients never had, such speech therapy for a child who never learned how to talk, or to maintain a patient’s current level of function. The law requires plans to offer coverage for such treatments, dubbed , as part of the essential health benefits in plans sold to individuals and small groups.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).