| Maryland state lawmakers propose replacement for repealed ObamaCare mandate State lawmakers in Maryland are looking to replace ObamaCare's individual mandate, which was repealed by Republicans in Congress last month. A proposal in the state would require people to pay a penalty for not having insurance. The money, though, could be used as a down payment for a health insurance plan. People would also have the option to pay the penalty and get nothing in return. If approved, the proposal would take effect in 2020. The fine would be 2.5 percent of a person's income or a flat rate of $696 -- whichever is more. The proposal would also automatically enroll uninsured residents who are eligible for Medicaid in the program. Read more here Alexander, Trump discussed ObamaCare fix in Nashville Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) says he spoke to President Trump on Monday about a bipartisan bill aimed at stabilizing ObamaCare markets and that Trump again expressed his support for the measure. Alexander told reporters Tuesday that Trump asked about the bill when the two appeared together at an event in Tennessee on Monday. Alexander said he told the president he would get back to him after meeting with Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) this week. "He's for it," Alexander said. Backers of the measure, known as Alexander-Murray, had planned to attach it to a government funding bill last month, but had to punt after Congress opted for a slimmed-down, short-term spending measure instead. They are now hoping to pass the bill when Congress acts on a long-term funding package in the coming weeks, but they still face opposition from House conservatives who say the measure is simply throwing more money at ObamaCare. Alexander-Murray would fund for two years key payments to insurers that reimburse them for giving discounts to low-income ObamaCare enrollees. Trump cut off those payments last year. Read more here. Senate Dems seek $25B in opioid funding Senate Democrats are pushing for an extra $25 billion to be included in any final budget agreement to combat the opioid epidemic. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, the New Hampshire Democrats who are leading the effort, said during a press conference Tuesday that the federal response to the crisis has been insufficient and negotiations over a long-term spending deal are an opportunity to change that. "Make no mistake: This is a national public health emergency, and we still don't see a robust federal response," Shaheen said. While Democrats have repeatedly said additional funding for the opioid epidemic is a priority, Republicans haven't matched their rhetoric, making it unclear if additional dollars will come in a spending package. Read more here CDC rejects censorship reports: No 'banned' words The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the agency "has not banned, prohibited, or forbidden" the use of certain words, in a response to concerns from Senate Democrats. Democrats had questions on whether "the Trump Administration is yet again prioritizing ideology over science" after reports that agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had banned employees from using words including "fetus," "vulnerable" and "science-based." CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald told Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in a letter released Tuesday that "There are absolutely no 'banned' words. These are merely suggestions of what terms to use and what often overused words should be avoided." As examples, she said the HHS style guide recommends avoiding the use of "vulnerable," "diversity," and "entitlement." But Schatz and other Senate Democrats said even the suggestion to avoid certain words sends a politically charged message. Read more here. Hospital groups to appeal dismissed case against Trump administration Three hospital groups will appeal a district court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit over the Trump administration's cuts to a discount drug program. The American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges and America's Essential Hospitals formally notified the court Tuesday of their intent to appeal the district court's Dec. 29 decision. The groups initially sued the administration last year over a rule that will result in $1.6 billion in cuts to hospitals participating in the 340B drug discount program. The program requires drug companies to give eligible hospitals serving a large number of low-income patients steep discounts for some drugs. Read more here. | 
沒有留言:
張貼留言