NC: What Does Ryan Budget Mean to Healthcare, Safety Net Programs?

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif> National Council Public Policy Update - Mental Health and Addictions Policy and Practice Excellence<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/header-public.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

Washington DC, Thursday, August 16, 2012

<http://echo4.bluehornet.com/cimages/e3d5a044fad64fa6e535cd731ff5971e/piggy_bank%20cropped%20resized.jpg>

The Paul Ryan Budget Plan: What Does it Really Mean for Healthcare and Safety Net Programs?

With Mitt Romney’s announcement over the weekend that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan would be his vice presidential running mate, media attention has surged around Ryan’s controversial budget proposals <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336760:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> , particularly their impact on Medicaid and Medicare spending. Both political parties have leveled charges against the other of trying to destroy Medicare – and countered that their own proposals will save it.

Amid all the shouting, what’s really in Ryan’s budget plan, and how will it affect services for vulnerable Americans? As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has for two years proposed a vast spending overhaul that would dramatically change federal investment in healthcare and social services. Ryan states that his budget is designed to “repair the safety net by returning power over public assistance programs to the states” and “realigning incentives to ensure these programs can best meet their critical missions.”

In a nutshell, the changes that he proposes would result in substantial cuts to both Medicare and Medicaid, along with what is known as “non-defense discretionary spending” – the category of federal funding that supports the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, food stamps, education, community services, and much more. His proposals would also remove many federal regulations governing enrollment, income standards, and other requirements for participation in public assistance programs, allowing states wide latitude in how and to whom they make these benefits available.

Ryan has dubbed his budget the “Path to Prosperity” and says it will help slash the federal deficit to a more sustainable level. However, much of his budget’s $5.3 trillion in savings would be used not for deficit reduction, but to offset $4.6 trillion in corporate and individual tax cuts and a $200 billion increase in defense spending. This is reflective of the approach that many fiscal hawks have taken to deficit reduction in recent years: an approach that puts a disproportionate burden of spending cuts on health and social service programs while refusing to cut other areas of the budget or raise revenues that could mitigate the impact of these cuts.

Among the major changes in Ryan’s budget are:

Converting Medicaid to a block grant, indexed for inflation and population growth. Under this proposal, states would receive a fixed amount of funding from the federal government each year to operate their Medicaid programs. This amount would not change based on fluctuations in enrollment or healthcare needs. Ryan would remove certain enrollment requirements and other program standards. He would also repeal the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion and its subsidies to assist low-income people with purchasing insurance on state health insurance exchanges.

* The net result: an $810 billion reduction in state and federal Medicaid spending over 10 years from converting the program to a block grant, plus a $1.6 trillion <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336761:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> reduction from repealing the Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies. * The effect on people with mental illness/addiction: Individuals could lose Medicaid coverage if states cut back on enrollment or don’t have enough money to serve everyone under the block grant formula. Mental health and substance use treatment are optional benefits in Medicaid and could be at risk if states need to find ways to cut down on costs. * For more information: see our fact sheet <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336762:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> with more details on how this proposal would affect Medicaid enrollees with mental illness and substance use disorders and this Center on Budget and Policy Priorities state-by-state analysis <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336763:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> of the Medicaid cuts.

Converting Medicare into a system of vouchers that could be used to purchase private insurance in a competitive market. The subsidy amount would vary by enrollees’ age, income, and health status, and would increase over time as the enrollee gets older. Yet, it would increase at a slower rate than the projected growth in healthcare spending costs, potentially leaving seniors on the hook for a rising share of their medical care over time. Ryan’s budget would also gradually raise the Medicare age from 65 to 67. These changes would be phased in over coming years so that current beneficiaries and Americans now over age 55 would not be affected. Ryan’s budget also maintains $716 billion in cuts to Medicare that were included in the health reform law. The ACA reduced overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans (which are currently paid more than their actual costs of providing services), phased down the federal payments that help hospitals provide uncompensated care to the uninsured, and established a variety of adjustments to improve payment accuracy.

* The net result: preserves the $716 billion in cuts to Medicare included in the health reform law, plus achieves an unspecified level of reductions from converting Medicare to a voucher system. A 2011 Congressional Budget Office report <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336764:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> found that the Medicare voucher proposal would reduce spending by $30 billion. * The effect on people with mental illness/addiction: To the extent that the Medicare subsidy is insufficient for the cost of coverage, individuals would have to make up the difference out of their own pockets. Although seniors could use their vouchers to purchase traditional Medicare coverage, this coverage could become steadily more unaffordable over time as less-comprehensive private plans entice the healthiest seniors into private coverage, leaving traditional Medicare to support those with the most complex (and costly) healthcare needs. * For more information: see this excellent article <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336765:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> from Politico explaining the truths and misrepresentations in each party’s talking points against the other’s Medicare proposals.

Converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a block grant and devolving other federal low-income assistance programs to the states. Receipt of food stamps (SNAP) would be contingent upon work or job training, and time limits and work requirements would be established for other low-income assistance programs. States would get new “flexibility” in tailoring these programs to their own populations as federal program requirements would be removed.

* The net result: $134 billion in spending reductions for the food stamp program, plus an estimated <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336761:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> $463 billion in cuts to other low-income assistance programs. * The effect on people with mental illness/addiction: Individuals with mental health or substance use conditions who are receiving food stamps or other social services could see their benefits cut or eliminated, particularly if they exceeded the time limits or did not meet the new work requirements. * For more information: see this state-by-state analysis <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336766:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> on the food stamp cuts, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Bipartisan Policy Center has compiled a detailed summary of the Ryan budget plan, available here <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336767:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> . You can read the full 100-page “Path to Prosperity <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336760:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> ” here.

________________________________

Congress Grapples with Sequestration “Fix”; Urge Your Legislators to Preserve Health Spending

With nearly $100 billion in automatic, across-the-board budget cuts slated to take effect on January 1, lawmakers have been circulating various plans to repeal, modify, or shift the burden of the cuts (known as sequestration). Most recently, the House approved <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336768:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> legislation that would cut $315 billion from social programs in 2013, well below the level of cuts necessary under the Budget Control Act. Social programs will continue to be at risk throughout the election season and into the new year, as Congress seeks a way to resolve the sequester issue.

Lawmakers are currently home in their districts for the August recess. This is an excellent opportunity to speak up about the impact these cuts would have and urge Congress to protect health and social services spending. The Coalition for Health Funding has created a toolkit <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336769:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> for advocates to urge their legislators to oppose drastic cuts to healthcare programs. The toolkit includes an FAQ on sequestration, tips for engaging with lawmakers at town hall meetings, tips for letters to the editor and speaking up on social media, and template documents that you can use to make your voice heard. The more Congress hears from you about the importance of preserving health and social service programs, the more support we will have for protecting these programs when lawmakers return to debate the terms of a deal. Don’t wait – take action <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336769:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> today!

________________________________

National Organizations Urge HHS to Include All Psychiatric Medications in Essential Health Benefits

The National Council has joined 17 other national organizations in a letter <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/17336770:20064955406:m:1:1362575734:673A63BCF7FC1DD46B9E4ADB1DE0EB9B:r> urging the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that consumers will have open access to psychiatric drugs as part of the Essential Health Benefits package.

Under the Affordable Care Act, prescription drugs are one of the 10 categories of benefits that must be included in the Essential Health Benefits offered by Medicaid benchmark plans and qualified health plans sold on the state health insurance exchanges. The ACA left the precise details of what constitutes “essential benefits” up to HHS. Although HHS has said it intends to pursue a state-based approach that will allow each state flexibility in determining its own benefits package, additional regulatory guidance is needed to outline official requirements for inclusion of benefits.

In regards to prescription drug benefits, our national groups’ letter urges HHS to – at minimum – adopt a structure similar to that of the Medicare Part D program in offering access to “all or substantially all” medications in six therapeutic classes affecting conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, kidney disease, mental illness and epilepsy. Providing patients who have critical, life-threatening conditions with access to the drugs they need constrains health care costs by improving patient health and reducing the need for hospitalizations, acute care and emergency care.

A notice of proposed rulemaking on essential benefits is expected from HHS late this summer or fall. Stay tuned to the Public Policy Update for the latest details.

________________________________

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

IN THIS ISSUE

What's Really in the Ryan Budget Plan?

Advocacy Toolkit to Preserve Federal Healthcare Spending

National Council Urges Open Access to Psychiatric Medications

________________________________

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

National Council Public Policy Update, a Weekly E-newsletter Managing Editor: Rebecca Farley

For more information, email Communications at thenationalcouncil.org <mailto:Communications at thenationalcouncil.org> or call 202.684.7457.

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/footer.jpg>

<http://highroadsolution.com/clients/nccbh/images/spacer.gif>

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 1701 K Street NW Suite 400 | Washington DC | 20006 Phone: 202.684.7457 | Email: Communications at thenationalcouncil.org

This message was intended for: harveyr at nyaprs.org Update your preferences <http://www.nccbh.net/profiles/enteremail_sub.htm> | Unsubscribe <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/p/oT6GSRELNb>

This message was intended for: harveyr at nyaprs.org You were added to the system August 9, 2010. For more information click here <http://echo4.bluehornet.com/p/iT6GSRELNb> .

<http://echo4.bluehornet.com/imagelibrary/N-20064955406-D818618F8AB3A3F0C3A2AA571426B974.jpg>