Republicans appointed “Feer Capita” in searching for a medicaid savings

Republicans in the House of Representatives seek to connect the needle to medical spending discounts looking for “individual covers”, which would outperform federal financing without technically change.

The major Republicans who support the proposal argue that it is not technically “cut”, seeking to avoid the politically charged mark.

But the controversial plan will change the nature of the Medicaid program by placing a roof on Medicaid federal payments for the states that expanded the program under reasonable prices.

However, Republican Party leaders say nothing is certain because they are discussing the best way to compensate for President Trump’s tax cuts.

Moderate and battle Republicans retreat to Midikid threats, while conservatives and budget hawks raise deeper discounts.

The Energy and Trade Committee planned for at least a week was re -coded to give members more time to solve their differences.

Here is what to know about the battle:

Federal spending caps will celebrate a major change

Medicaid is a joint venture between the federal government and the states. The federal government pays a fixed share of Medicaid costs to the states without any extent, and thus the high amount rises or decreases depending on the amount of what the state spends on the program.

For countries of expansion of medical aid, the government pays 90 percent.

The maximum of the outlets mainly change Medicaid from open entitlement to one with strict limits to federal spending. Congress will determine a fixed amount for each beneficiary for each state to receive, and the countries will be responsible for all the remaining costs.

“Medical aid spending is growing with inflation, but also with new technology costs, prescription medications such as [GLP-1 drugs]Alice Burns, assistant director of the KFF program on the Medicaid and the non -insured, and changes in the health of the population, said.

Burns said that the individual hats from Capita would prevent federal spending from growing to these new costs. It would make federal spending less and more predictable, but countries will assume 100 percent of the risks.

Over time, the maximum will inevitably lead to an increasingly lower federal match – without ground, may decrease to the current level of traditional “traditional” managers.

The cap also lock in current inequality. The low -cost states of each registrar will continue to obtain less federal financing than the states that have higher initial costs, although the maximum will change from year to year.

According to the CAP PER CAP budget office, Federal spending will reduce between $ 588 billion and $ 893 billion over nine years, depending on how the cover design.

The budget decision, which sets standards for drafting the final of the Trump Business Specific Bill, directs the Energy and Trade Committee to find at least $ 880 billion in discounts, a number that cannot reach results without changes on Medicaid.

Countries will force states to make difficult decisions

Republican supporters argue that the maximum is not a reduction in interest, as they can put a ceiling on federal spending but still allow some flexibility in the states.

Supporters say that the proposal forces states to be a financial responsibility. Any changes to the state level must be made. The argument is that state leaders who can manage their money in the best way will not have to make difficult decisions.

“If the state cuts the benefits as a result of the maximum cover,” it is bad. “

Van Drew said that if the maximum inflation rate is set, “he should say to the states,” Hey, we are still growing. We will control the growth rate, “the states will have to organize themselves to ensure that their spending reflects the change.

But experts say that state leaders will have to make difficult decisions.

If officials do not want people to lose coverage, they may have to make discounts elsewhere – such as service providers – or tax lifting. Ultimately, there will be tremendous pressure for countries to end the expansion of medical aid due to sharp costs.

With the continued growth of the CAPS effects over time, Burns said it is likely that countries are at some point that could be able to reduce benefits or payment rates, so the low federal match is inevitable.

A policy fraught with many Republicans in Congress

Republicans previously tried to reduce spending on medical aid in 2017 as part of Obamacare’s cancellation efforts.

The draft law canceling the House of Representatives included a measure that would determine the maximum amount of countries that were received in funding based on the estimated number of beneficiaries, with inflation adjustments.

But the cancellation efforts failed, and the Republican Party paid a high price during the upcoming elections.

Now, moderate and medium Republicans warn of some of the most sharp discounts.

“We have clearly clarified our position on the protection of Medicaid to the qualified received.” “Driving is well aware of it.”

MP Don Bacon (R-NB) said that he told the White House that he would not support more than $ 500 billion from discounts to medicaid-it supports work requirements and tougher civil tests, but nothing will reduce the benefits.