�Թϲ�����

Most states would take a stiff budgetary hit if the latest Senate GOP health care bill becomes law, according to an analysis released Wednesday. That would likely result in more uninsured Americans. The study by the consulting firm Avalere Health found that the Graham-Cassidy bill would lead to an overall $215 billion cut to states in federal funding for health insurance, through 2026. Reductions would grow over time. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 9/20)

The latest Republican proposal for curtailing the Affordable Care Act was assembled with such haste that it may get a vote before a full cost estimate is finished. But it is not a new idea. At its core, the bill introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) would implement a decades-old conservative concept, capping the amount that taxpayers spend on Medicaid and giving states full control over the program. As he’s sold the legislation to conservative governors and activists, Graham has described it as a possible triumph for federalism, and a way to end the progressive dream of universal health care managed from Washington. (Weigel, 9/20)

More than half of the overall cuts in the legislation — named for its primary sponsors, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) — would come from Medicaid, the analysis shows. States with relatively low medical costs, skimpy Medicaid benefits and no program expansion would win out. Texas would gain more than any state, about $35 billion from 2020 through 2026. On the other hand, states with higher-priced medicine and generous benefits for their low-income residents, such as California and New York, would lose billions of dollars. (Goldstein, Weigel and Eilperin, 9/20)

“The vast majority of states lose money, and some lose truly jaw-dropping amounts,” said Jocelyn Guyer, managing director of Manatt Health, a consulting firm that has analyzed the Graham-Cassidy proposal. “That suggests coverage losses that are likely somewhere between significant and vast,” she said. (Levey, 9/20)

Cassidy, Graham and the other co-sponsors of the bill said the legislation is about fairness. It aims to redistribute money from high-spending Medicaid expansion states — like California — to states that rejected the expansion — like Texas. But it isn't just blue states that stand to lose under the Graham-Cassidy proposal. (Weixel, 9/20)

Big cuts in funding to states for coverage subsidies, Medicaid expansion, and traditional Medicaid under the latest Senate Republican bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act have created a political migraine for GOP senators, as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushes for a vote on the bill next Wednesday. Two nonpartisan analyses of the Graham-Cassidy bill show that many states represented by Republican senators would lose billions of dollars in federal healthcare funding through 2026, and far larger amounts after that. Total funding would be significantly lower than under current law. (Meyer, 9/20)

California would lose more federal funding than any other state under the latest GOP plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the health policy consulting firm Avalere Health. By 2026, California would lose $78 billion in federal money for the Medi-Cal insurance program for the poor and in federal subsidies for low-income residents who buy health insurance through Covered California, the state exchange created under the ACA. (Ho, 9/20)

Oregon would be the hardest hit state – losing at least $13 billion in funding -- if the latest Republican health care bill becomes law, according to two analyses of the bill issued this week. Avalere Health, a health care consulting firm, on Wednesday pegged Oregon’s losses at $13 billion over 10 years and $111 billion over 20 years. (Manning, 9/20)

Georgia and several other Southern states initially would gain in federal health care funding under a Republican bill speeding through the U.S. Senate, a new analysis finds. But that effect would begin to wear off after a decade, and ultimately could lead to losses for all states as compared with current funding streams, according to the study by consulting firm Avalere Health, released Wednesday. (Miller, 9/20)