Showing posts with label affordable care act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affordable care act. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2017

Congressional Research Office's Medicaid: An Overview

Staff Writer, DL Mulla
Research / Statistics 
________________________________


Summary
Medicaid is a means-tested entitlement program that in FY2012 financed the delivery of primary and acute medical services as well as long-term services and supports to an estimated 57 million people, and cost states and the federal government $431 billion. In comparison, the Medicare program provided health care benefits to nearly 50 million seniors and certain individuals with disabilities in FY2012 at a cost of roughly $557 billion. Because Medicaid represents a large component of federal mandatory spending, Congress is likely to continue its oversight of Medicaid's eligibility, benefits, and costs.
Participation in Medicaid is voluntary for states, though all states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories choose to participate. In order to participate in Medicaid, the federal government requires states to cover certain mandatory populations and benefits, but the federal government also allows states to cover other optional populations and services. Due to this flexibility, there is substantial variation among the states in terms of factors such as Medicaid eligibility, covered benefits, and provider payment rates. In addition, there are several waiver and demonstration authorities that allow states to operate their Medicaid program outside of federal rules.
Historically, Medicaid eligibility has generally been limited to low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities; however, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended) included the ACA Medicaid expansion, which expands Medicaid eligibility to individuals under the age of 65 with income up to 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (effectively 138% FPL) at state option.
The ACA makes a number of other changes, which together represent the most significant reform to the Medicaid program since its establishment in 1965. In addition to the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ACA also expands Medicaid eligibility for children ages 6 to 18 and former foster care children; transitions to the modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) counting methodology for most nonelderly Medicaid enrollees; requires alternative benefit plan (ABP) coverage for certain Medicaid enrollees; provides enhanced federal matching funds for the ACA Medicaid expansion; increases uniformity among Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) program integrity activities; and provides the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the ability to test methods to improve coordination of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries, among a number of other changes.
This report describes the basic elements of Medicaid, focusing on who is eligible, what services are covered, how enrollees share in the cost of care, how the program is financed, and how providers are paid. The report also explains waivers, program integrity activities, and the dual-eligible population. In addition, the report describes the following selected issues: the ACA Medicaid expansion, the impact of the ACA health insurance annual fee on Medicaid, and the ACA maintenance of effort (MOE) with respect to Medicaid eligibility.


Source; FAS

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Is the Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Government / News
_____________________________________

This article isn't one of those prescriptions of why and how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a terrible piece of legislation. We already know that. People are living that fact everyday.

This article isn't a conservative or liberal propaganda piece. I don't support failed policies and excuses of the main corporate-owned political parties. I just don't have time to have my ethical, moral, or mental aptitudes corrupted. I rather watch paint dry and then eat the lead-laden pieces off the house.

With that said, this article is here to explain how Constitutional and Congressional procedures were not adhered to and therefore makes the Affordable Care Act defunct. You guessed it, when the Affordable Care Act was made into a TAX by the Supreme Court that decided how the legislation was supposed to be brought to fruition. 

As a Commerce Clause Law, the Affordable Care Act was begun in the Senate. However, as a tax as it now stands, the Affordable Care Act was supposed to be started in the House of Representatives. Origination is everything.

A lawsuit now underway is bringing this fact under scrutiny. The case was filed by Associate of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2010 (AAPS v. Sebelius), and is pending in the District of Columbia's Circuit Court. 

Besides questioning the constitutionality of the ACA, this case raises other issues including that the law violates the Fifth Amendment by compelling private citizens to buy from a government approved private company as well as for government to take property from one citizen in order to transfer that property to another in direct violation of the Takings Clause. 

If these issues cause nonconformity in rulings amongst the courts, then the probability of a Supreme Court intervention is possible. 

However while we are questioning being forced to buy goods and services by the government... Shouldn't we question why our regular light bulbs are illegal but mercury spewing ones aren't? Shouldn't we question why Americans are forced to buy car insurance? Or for that any state or corporate mandated insurance? Why the Food and Drug Administration has argued in court that Americans do not have the right to food choices?

Until the American people have had enough and start speaking out, we have to rely on others to speak for us: 
The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."
If the Affordable Care Act is a tax that the Supreme Court has defined specifically for the House of Representatives to originate, then the ACA may be unconstitutional and therefore finished as an executable law.