States will be forced to dramatically cut the services Medicaid covers and cut the number of people who qualify for them if Congress makes changes in state Medicaid funding. And the services that states will likely drop first are those on which seniors, people with disabilities, and others with serious health needs rely.
People with pre-existing conditions, low-income consumers, and others would not fare well under the continuous coverage provisions contained in both Speaker Paul Ryan’s bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and other Republican health care proposals.
Despite a divided Congress in Washington, many state policymakers around the country, supported by advocates, reached across the aisle to make needed improvements to the health care system.
Governors, lawmakers, and regulators made strides to expand health coverage, protect consumers in the insurance market, and address rising prescription drug prices. Here are some of the highlights of the 2016 sessions through June 1 and the Families USA allies whose advocacy was critical to making them happen.
We know you have a lot going on, and there isn’t always time to read everything. That’s why we’ve rounded up five of our most popular blogs published between January and March of this year.
With a majority of states expanding Medicaid, many more people stand to gain health coverage, including those recently released from jail or prison. States are re-evaluating their policies regarding Medicaid for incarcerated residents.
We’ve taken a closer look at what states have accomplished so far to get a better idea of how this has played out across states. We found that 34 states and the District of Columbia now have some form of policy to suspend Medicaid for people in prison or jail. Here, we explain why more states should adopt this policy.
At our Health Action conference last month in Washington, D.C., we heard about the great work advocates are doing in their legislatures and communities to improve access to high-quality, affordable health care. Hear from advocates working in Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and Tennessee about their priorities for 2016.
If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs who brought the case, an estimated 6.4 million moderate-income people would lose premium tax credits. Without these subsidies, many people will simply be unable to afford to purchase health insurance.
One of the most significant and popular features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the new protection that puts an end to insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing health conditions. This important ACA protection depends on two other provisions that keep coverage affordable: premium subsidies and the coverage mandate.
This blog is part of a weekly series—one that analyzes the political, legal, and social issues and ramifications of King v. Burwell, a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that threatens to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The case challenges the government’s provision of tax credits to help consumers buy health insurance in states where the federal government runs the marketplace. Learn about what’s at stake in King v. Burwell.
The wide spectrum of those who filed briefs proves the enormity of support for the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance in general, and the continued availability of financial help for consumers (premium tax credits) in particular. Here’s a quick look at some of the individuals and groups who filed, along with the constituencies who would suffer if the Supreme Court rules in favor of withdrawing premium tax credits in states with federally facilitated marketplaces.