White House: Sequester No Longer Applies to Part of Obamacare

The administration is no longer applying the mandatory spending cuts to the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing subsidies.

President Barack Obama delivers remarks during the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting at the Capitol Hilton February 28, 2014 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Sam Baker
March 13, 2014, 1 a.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has de­cided that the se­quester’s man­dat­ory spend­ing cuts no longer ap­ply to part of Obama­care.

The health care law provides sub­sidies to help low-in­come people cov­er some of their out-of-pock­et costs. Last year, the ad­min­is­tra­tion said those sub­sidies were tak­ing a 7 per­cent cut be­cause of the se­quester, which im­posed across-the-board re­duc­tions in fed­er­al spend­ing.

But now, the White House has changed its mind. It re­moved the cost-shar­ing sub­sidies from its list of pro­grams that are sub­ject to the se­quester, elim­in­at­ing the 7 per­cent cut for 2015.

The Com­mit­tee for a Re­spons­ible Fed­er­al Budget, which no­ticed the change, said the re­versal would likely re­store about $560 mil­lion to the sub­sidies — and re­quire $560 mil­lion in cuts to oth­er pro­grams to make up for it.

The cost-shar­ing sub­sidies are ex­pec­ted to total $8 bil­lion this year and $156 bil­lion over the next dec­ade.

Who be­ne­fits from the change? The low-in­come fam­il­ies who qual­i­fy for these sub­sidies, as well as the White House and in­sur­ance com­pan­ies.

Some con­sumers have com­plained about high out-of-pock­et costs in the plans they’ve pur­chased through the health care law’s ex­changes. This change will help re­duce those costs, at least for low-in­come fam­il­ies. And be­cause the sub­sidy is paid dir­ectly to in­sur­ance com­pan­ies, the change means more money for in­surers as well.

The cost-shar­ing sub­sidies aren’t the Obama­care sub­sidies that get the most at­ten­tion.

Those high­er-pro­file in­cent­ives are tax sub­sidies to help people cov­er the cost of their in­sur­ance premi­ums. Those sub­sidies wer­en’t af­fected by the se­quester be­cause they’re ad­min­istered as tax cred­its. Rather, the sub­sidies at is­sue here are de­signed to help low-in­come people re­duce their out-of-pock­et spend­ing — costs like co-pays and de­duct­ibles.

An ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial said the two types of sub­sidies were com­bined, and that’s why the out-of-pock­et sub­sidy is no longer sub­ject to se­quest­ra­tion.

“To im­prove the ef­fi­ciency in the ad­min­is­tra­tion of these pay­ments for both in­surers and the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, it was de­term­ined that the cost-shar­ing sub­sidy pay­ments would be made as ad­vance pay­ments and thus would be paid out of the same ac­count used for the premi­um tax cred­it por­tion of the ad­vance pay­ments,” the of­fi­cial said.

Cost-shar­ing sub­sidies are avail­able only to house­holds with an in­come between 100 and 250 per­cent of the fed­er­al poverty line — up to roughly $29,000 for a single per­son, or $60,000 for a fam­ily of four un­der this year’s guidelines.

COR­REC­TION: An earli­er ver­sion of this story in­cor­rectly iden­ti­fied the Com­mit­tee for a Re­spons­ible Fed­er­al Budget.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4811) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×