The Obamacare Funding Farce

Sorry, Ted Cruz. Obamacare needs less money from Congress now that insurers are helping to finance it.

National Journal
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
Sam Baker
March 4, 2014, 4:50 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama is ask­ing Con­gress for more money to im­ple­ment Obama­care. Surely he knows Re­pub­lic­ans won’t give it to him. And Re­pub­lic­ans — just as surely — know that Obama­care will be im­ple­men­ted any­way, be­cause the law con­tains ways for the ad­min­is­tra­tion to fund it with or without Con­gress’s help.

And around and around we go in the flat circle that is Obama­care polit­ics.

It’s all a bit of polit­ic­al theat­er, but it has con­sequences on the ground: The phony fight over “de­fund­ing” the Af­ford­able Care Act drove the gov­ern­ment to shut down this fall — even though the vast ma­jor­ity of fund­ing for the law was nev­er at stake.

Tues­day, it began again, when the White House’s newly re­leased budget pro­pos­al re­ques­ted about $630 mil­lion to sup­port fed­er­ally run in­sur­ance ex­changes — the center­piece of the ACA.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ques­ted al­most twice that amount last year, and the pro­pos­al was so thor­oughly dead on ar­rival that Sen­ate Demo­crats didn’t even try to pass the ex­tra fund­ing. They settled for beat­ing back the equally fu­tile ef­fort led by Sen. Ted Cruz to “de­fund” the law. And after the shut­down was over and the his­tri­on­ics were fin­ished, the status quo re­mained largely in­tact.

This year prom­ises to be little dif­fer­ent.

So, the White House won’t get the $630 mil­lion it says it needs. And it could use the money: Be­cause the ACA didn’t provide any dir­ect fund­ing for fed­er­ally run in­sur­ance ex­changes, the Health and Hu­man Ser­vices De­part­ment has had to cobble to­geth­er as much as it could, through a pro­cess that’s ba­sic­ally the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s ver­sion of rum­ma­ging through the couch cush­ions for loose change.

But the ad­min­is­tra­tion has con­sist­ently found ways to work around con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans. Con­sider the latest re­quest for ad­di­tion­al fund­ing: HHS is ask­ing for $630 mil­lion, after seek­ing $1.5 bil­lion last year. Why the drop?

It’s be­cause the ad­min­is­tra­tion is now col­lect­ing user fees from the in­sur­ance com­pan­ies that sell plans through Obama­care’s ex­changes. Those fees will bring in around $1.2 bil­lion next year, ac­cord­ing to HHS’s budget doc­u­ments.

The de­part­ment ad­ded those rev­en­ues in with its re­quest from Con­gress, cre­at­ing a total fund­ing short­fall that’s ac­tu­ally a little bit big­ger than last year’s. But now in­surers are provid­ing the ad­di­tion­al fund­ing that Con­gress won’t.

And like so much of the law’s fund­ing, it doesn’t re­quire con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al. Short of re­peal­ing Obama­care, which is just as un­real­ist­ic as fund­ing it, there’s not much Re­pub­lic­ans can do to cut off these rev­en­ues.

This is why the gov­ern­ment shut­down was so di­vis­ive even among Re­pub­lic­ans. Shut­ting down the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment did very little to stop the flow of money to im­ple­ment the ACA, be­cause most of Obama­care’s fund­ing was provided in Obama­care it­self — not through the reg­u­lar ap­pro­pri­ations pro­cess.

HHS has had to get cre­at­ive to find money for the ex­changes. It tapped pots of money from oth­er parts of the law, some­times an­ger­ing Demo­crat­ic al­lies. It drew down a $1 bil­lion fund for gen­er­al im­ple­ment­a­tion work, and also tapped the law’s pre­ven­tion and pub­lic health fund. Re­pub­lic­ans did suc­cess­fully cut that fund by $1 bil­lion in the spend­ing bill that re­opened the gov­ern­ment, pre­vent­ing HHS from us­ing it again to stand up the ex­changes.

Some of the tricks and back doors HHS used to find ex­tra cash are now ex­hausted or close to it, but in­surers’ user fees are pick­ing up most of the dif­fer­ence.

The de­part­ment de­cided in 2012 that in­sur­ance plans would pay a fee of 3.5 per­cent of their premi­ums to help the fed­er­ally run ex­changes func­tion. (States that run their own mar­ket­places can set their own fees, or choose not to charge one.) Rev­en­ue from the fees will go up along with en­roll­ment.

What We're Following See More »
BUT IS HE A YES VOTE?
Cornyn Attempting to Get McCain Back for Health Vote
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
“TIME HAD RUN OUT” FOR ILL BABY
Charlie Gard’s Parents End Legal Fight
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court 'time had run out' for the baby. Mr. Gard said it meant his 'sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy' will not reach his first birthday on 4 August. 'To let our beautiful little Charlie go' is 'the hardest thing we'll ever have to do,' his mother said. Charlie's parents said they made the decision because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy.

Source:
AGENCY SOUGHT TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION
11 States Sue EPA Over Chemical Rule
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Eleven states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its June decision to delay implementation of a chemical safety rule" until 2019. "The state attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman (D), argue the rule is important for 'protecting our workers, first-responders and communities from chemical accidents' and should be allowed to take affect as planned by the Obama administration’s EPA.

Source:
ULTIMATUM ON ACA
Trump: You’re With Us Or Against Us
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
$1.6 BILLION SET ASIDE FOR WALL
House Freedom Caucus Chair: Shutdown Over Wall Funding Unlikely
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on Monday said that funding for President Trump's controversial border wall is unlikely to cause a government shutdown. 'The odds of a government shutdown are very minimal when it comes to that,' the conservative lawmaker said at an event in Washington, D.C. 'I do think the funding of the border wall will happen,' he added. Appropriators have set aside $1.6 billion to fund new wall and fencing sections on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border covering a few dozen miles."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login