Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Blue States Scramble To Preserve Marketplaces, But Political Climate May Deter Efforts To Save Mandate
Politico: How Blue States Might Save Obamacare's Markets
The looming demise of Obamacare’s individual mandate is spurring talks in a handful of blue states about enacting their own coverage requirements, as state officials and health care advocates fear repeal will roil their insurance markets. Republicans in Congress are poised to kill off the individual mandate in their sweeping tax overhaul, knocking out one of Obamacare's most unpopular features — but one that health experts have said is essential to making the law's insurance marketplaces function. (Pradhan, 12/17)
In other news on the health law —
The Hill: Medical Device Companies Press To Lift ObamaCare Tax This Month
The medical device industry is pressing Congress to act before the end of the year to lift ObamaCare’s medical device tax. In a letter to lawmakers, Scott Whitaker, CEO of AdvaMed, the medical device trade group, warned against waiting until January to pass a delay of the tax, instead urging them to pass the measure this month. (Sullivan, 12/15)
The Hill: Anti-Abortion Groups Push For Stronger 'Pro-Life' Restrictions In ObamaCare Funding Bill
Anti-abortion groups are sounding the alarm over an ObamaCare funding bill, urging lawmakers to vote against it because they say it doesn't contain "pro-life" protections. A bill sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) would fund the key ObamaCare insurer payments called cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which reimburse insurers for giving discounted deductibles and copays to low-income patients. (Hellmann, 12/15)
CQ: House Nears Settlement In Obamacare Spending Lawsuit
The House, White House and a number of states reached a tentative settlement Friday in a lawsuit over appropriations for the 2010 health care law, which would appear to end the legal showdown between the two political branches by essentially pretending it never happened. A federal judge’s May 2016 ruling in the case set up a showdown at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that promised to test the boundaries of separation of powers and influence when the courts can step into disputes between the branches of government. (Ruger, 12/15)
