Senior Women Web

The number of people with comprehensive health insurance that covers high-cost medical events would be reduced by millions compared with the baseline projections for each year during the decade, CBO and JCT estimate. That number could vary widely depending on how states implemented the legislation, although the direction of the effect is clear. The reduction in the number of insured people relative to the number under current law would result from three main causes. First, enrollment in Medicaid would be substantially lower because of large reductions in federal funding for that program. Second, enrollment in nongroup coverage would be lower because of reductions in subsidies for it. Third, enrollment in all types of health insurance would be lower because penalties for not having insurance would be repealed. more »

The bill would establish a new block grant program for states, but overall the funding levels for the coverage expansion and Medicaid would be substantially lower than under current law, and states that have expanded Medicaid would be disproportionately affected by the cut and reallocation of funding. Because of the dramatic changes that the bill could make in health care financing and insurance coverage, it would have a direct impact on the availability and scope of coverage for millions of women with private insurance and Medicaid. more »

The Graham-Cassidy proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is reviving the federal health reform debate and could come up for a vote in the Senate in the next two weeks before the budget reconciliation authority expires on September 30. The Graham-Cassidy proposal goes beyond the American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed by the House in May and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) that failed in the Senate in July. The Graham-Cassidy proposal revamps and cuts Medicaid, redistributes federal funds across states, and eliminates coverage for millions of poor Americans.  more »

H.R. 1701 would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for official painted portraits of any officer or employee of the federal government, including the President, Vice President, Cabinet members, and Members of Congress. The legislation would not apply to the judicial branch. Appropriation laws have prohibited the use of federal funds for such portraits since fiscal year 2014. CBO is unaware of any comprehensive information on spending for official portraits before 2014, but we expect that most portraits of federal officials are for those in the line of succession to the presidency, members of the legislative branch, and military service personnel. The cost of such portraits appears to be about $25,000 per portrait, based on contract awards for a few federal portraits. more »