Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a presidential candidate, unveiled the 2019 version of his “Medicare-for-all” bill this week. But even more than two decades after first proposing a single-payer plan for the U.S., Sanders still has not proposed a way to finance such a major undertaking.
Congress continued to pursue its examination of high prescription drug prices this week by calling to testify both insulin makers and the drug “middlemen” known as pharmacy benefit managers.
And Idaho is following Utah in trying to scale back an expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act approved by voters last November.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Sarah Kliff of Vox.com, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times and Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post.
Also, Rovner interviews Ceci Connolly, president and CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.
Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:
- “Medicare-for-all” was in the spotlight again this week with the release of Sanders’ bill, which is co-sponsored by four of the five other Senate Democrats running for president. Still, neither Sanders nor any other candidates — or their proposals — focus on how to pay for it. Experts differ on how much expanding Medicare would cost. But, whether it’s moving around money already being spent or raising new taxes, expanding Medicare to more people would result in winners and losers, a key political factor going forward.
- Both parties face internal divisions over health care, revolving around whether to create something new or stick with the status quo. Within the GOP, the split is between Republicans who point to years of unsuccessful efforts to repeal and maybe replace the ACA and want to move on to other things, and others — including some in the White House — who are continuing the push. Democrats’ division is between those who back House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call to strengthen and improve the ACA and those who back various efforts to create a Medicare-for-all system.
- The GOP is playing both offense and defense on the ACA. Leaders say they want to be the party of health care and protect people with preexisting medical conditions, even as the Justice Department is officially backing a court ruling in Texas that would invalidate the entire law, including those protections.
- There was lots of talk but little action on drug prices at hearings before Congress. Lawmakers heard from drug companies and pharmacy benefit managers, but are no closer to answering the question about what to do about high drug prices. While there may be incremental changes that can be adopted, few expect legislation that would fundamentally change business practices, intellectual property rights or the ability for Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
- Action in the Utah and Idaho legislatures around Medicaid expansion show that even successful ballot initiatives to expand the program can be changed by lawmakers in ways voters may not have expected. In both state capitols, elected officials reduced the number of people eligible for expansion below what voters approved.
Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:
Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Would ‘Medicare for All’ Save Billions or Cost Billions?” By Josh Katz, Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz
Sarah Kliff: Politico’s “Public Option Hits a Wall in Blue States,” by Rachana Pradhan and Dan Goldberg
Margot Sanger-Katz: Politico’s “Obamacare Fight Obscures America’s Real Health Care Crisis: Money,” by Joanne Kenen
Paige Winfield Cunningham: STAT News’ “Amazon Alexa Is Now HIPAA-Compliant. Tech Giant Says Health Data Can Now Be Accessed Securely,” by Casey Ross
To hear all our podcasts, click here.