Winners and Losers in the Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)


With the election of Donald Trump as president, Congressional Republicans are scrambling to come up with a repeal and replace plan that is acceptable to their various factions and president-elect Trump.

House Republicans have a lot of experience in successfully approving bills to repeal the ACA more than 60 times (without a replacement plan) over the past 6 years knowing that the Senate lacked the necessary votes to approve their bill.

While Republicans have labeled the ACA a disaster since it began 6 years ago, they have opposed every opportunity to work with the President and Democrats to design and improve the health insurance legislation. They have also been successful in arm-twisting Republican members of Congress and Republican governors to oppose the establishing state insurance exchanges, expanding Medicaid and providing tax credit subsidies to eligible low-moderate income uninsured Americans. Their actions have had had a negative impact on the large percent of workers who’s employers do not offer health insurance and the 40% of workers who are treated as “contingent” with no employer commitment to a work schedule or any benefits including health insurance.

However, the ACA has succeeded in enrolling more than 20 million people in exchange plans and another 14 million people have enrolled in expanded Medicaid in 31 states. This includes 16 Republican governors.


The Trump Wildcard

Now that Trump has been elected after campaigning on repealing and replacing the ACA, the fun really begins. While many people have jumped on the repeal bandwagon, the vast majority of people opposing the ACA don’t know what the impact will be on their ability to buy health insurance and receive services at a reasonable cost in the future.

The repeal and replacement of the ACA will also affect small businesses, state and local governments, health care providers and facilities, insurance companies & brokers, employees of large businesses and national and regional economies. The great uncertainty that remains is what specifically will be lost and gained.

Trump has campaigned as an independent, populist who is the “peoples’ choice” who is not indebted to any special interests. Time will tell.


Who are the Winners of the ACA Repeal?

Career Republican Politicians

The obvious, big initial winners from the repeal of Obamacare are career Republican politicians who have opposed all forms of tax-supported social supports including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every universal health insurance proposal presented over the past 100+ years, including those proposed by various Republican presidents.

It should be noted that the US spends more than double what every other country spends for health care and prescriptions drugs and has poor health outcomes. Our system is a patchwork of multiple insurers, providers, payers that is costly, inefficient and ineffective that leaves millions uninsured with chronic and costly medical conditions.

From a political standpoint, opponents want to kill, not improve or replace, “Obamacare”. They want to obliterate President Obama’s landmark legislation from the history books.

Higher Income Individuals and Business Owners

Other winners are higher income individuals, who have experienced an increase taxes as a result of the ACA and employers who have experienced increased costs associated with compliance and implementation of the ACA. What is unknown is the cost of repercussions resulting from the repeal of the ACA.

Insurance Companies

Large, national for-profit insurers have to make the most changes to comply with and participate in selling uniform ACA insurance policies in both state and the federal insurance exchanges. Some insurers chose not to participate, others entered the exchange market late after millions were already enrolled and others, such as Aetna, United Healthcare and Humana dropped out of exchanges for 2017 as federal subsidies for catastrophic claims were expiring and their plans for merging with smaller companies were being scrutinized by federal regulators.

With potentially millions of insurance subscribers displaced as a result of the ACA repeal, it will likely cause a “death spiral”, state and federal insurance exchanges and plans for individuals who are not covered by group insurance plans. If it does, insurers will be losers of both subscribers and income. If insurers can negotiate positive changes for them with rate-setting, regulations and federal subsidies for high-need subscribers and regulator support for planned insurer mergers, they will be big winners.

Who are the Losers with the ACA Repeal?

  • The majority of Americans who have indicated in polls, that they only want improvements, not repeal, of the ACA.
  • Individuals who have pre-existing conditions may return to paying between $15,000 (ind.) and $30,000 (fam.) a year for private policies with increased co-pays and deductibles.
  • 14 million low-income individuals may lose their expanded Medicaid eligibility in 31 states
  • Young adults may find their new health insurance costs are unaffordable and chose to go uninsured.
  • Individuals with pre-existing conditions, chronic diseases and those that require costly medical & surgical treatment may find insurance & health care unaffordable and file for a medical bankruptcy.
  • Families with young-adult children, less than 26 years old, who have been covered on their employers’ family plans, may have significant new costs.
  • People who are at risk of serious diseases that may not be able to afford preventative screening tests that have been free.
  • Employees and employers who will require more education and support to understand differences in new  regulations, plans, coverage, benefits and true costs. This will have a negative effect on employee morale and productivity.
  • Insurance companies will lose up to $20 million existing ACA insurance plan subscribers along with up to $16 million in subsidies for low-middle income individuals.
  • Loss of federal tax revenue from select taxes and closed loopholes included in ACA to pay a portion of insurance costs.
  • Loss of brand-name prescription drug discounts and higher out-of-pocket expenses. for seniors.
  • Small employers, who have purchased or directed low-moderate income employees to insurance exchanges for subsidized policies, may face higher health insurance expenses and/or higher employee turnover.
  • Hospitals and health care professionals will likely face loss of insurance income, an increase in bad debts and increased administrative expenses to manage changes.
  • Health care quality and cost containment standards and strategies will be lost.
  • Loss of consumer protections and assistance in navigating a very complex and costly insurance/healthcare system


CBO Report on the Impact on Repealing the ACA

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) just released a report on the impact of repealing the ACA on insurance coverage and premiums.

Without any replacement plan in place, the impact will be devastating including:

  • Increasing the number of uninsured by 18 million in the first year and rising to 32 million by 2026.
  • Premiums for individual policies would increase by 20%-25% in the first year and increasing by 100% by 2026
  • Eliminating subsidies to insurers and the individual mandate will destabilize the insurance market and reduce the participation of insurers in selling policies.
  • In the first year after subsidies are repealed, about 50% of the nation’s population lives in areas that would have no access to insurers participating in the individual policy market.

Final Thoughts

The first 100 days of the Trump administration should be very interesting. There will be a major transformation of The White House and management personnel.

And, the repeal and replacement of the ACA is just one of many domestic and foreign promises that Trump has made, but will be implemented by people who have largely not had any similar responsibilities or experience.

The public expects the positive results that Trump has promised and we will soon see the public’s reaction to the new administration’s performance.

With Congressional midterm elections scheduled for 2018, Republicans, who are up for re-election, have their political survival at stake.




How Congress Has Sold-Out Serious Ill Patients and Taxpayers to Big Pharma.


medicationsBig Pharma is a trillion dollar industry that has established a practice of demanding outrageous ransoms for new breakthrough therapeutics to treat life-threatening and chronic debilitating diseases. And, Congress has legalized their behavior with the passage of Patent laws, the 2003 MEDICARE MODERNIZATION ACT (MMA) and weak government regulations, oversight and enforcement.

Big Pharma’s Money and Influence over Congress

Big Pharma leads all other industries in spending billions of dollars on lobbying to gain preferential treatment with Congress’s federal laws and administrative regulations. In addition, many members of Congress, administrative officials and health care providers have been generously rewarded for their support of Big Pharma over the interests of patients and taxpayer


According to a recent New York Times story, pharmaceutical and devise firms paid $6.5 billion to physicians and hospitals last year. About 80% of the total payments went doctors whose prescribing decisions directly affect the profits of pharma and device firms. Payments were made to 610,000 doctors and 1,100 teaching hospitals.


According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the pharmaceutical and health products industry employs more than 3 lobbyist for every member of Congress; spends about $1.2 million lobbying every day Congress is in session and has created a career path for dozens of loyal Congressional and administration public employees to become well-paid private-sector pharma lobbyists.

The vast majority of Democrats and many Conservative Republicans opposed the MMA bill for different political and ideological reasons and it initially passed the House by just one vote. However, the Republican House Leadership heavily lobbied members of Congress and Big Pharma spent over $125 million to convince Congress to pass this very complex and costly drug benefit in which they were the primary beneficiaries.


To help build support, Big Pharma contributed nearly $10 million to federal candidates in the 2004 election campaign with 70% going to Republicans including more than $500,000 going to the re-election of President Bush.

Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Billy Tauzin were very effective in twisting arms, threatening and offering special deals to members of Congress who voted for this legislation.

Tauzin, who steered the bill through the House, quit after its passage to accept a $2 million a year job as president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). More than a dozen congressional aides and administrative staff also quit their jobs to work for pharma lobbying firms.

Tom DeLay left Congress in disgrace after charges of ethics violations and Bush appointee, Thomas Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also left his leadership position to become a lobbyist for drug companies.

Other notable “wayward fiscal conservative” Republican leaders that publicly supported and encouraged the passage of this costly, unfunded drug benefit included: Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Elizabeth Doyle, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Orin Hatch. With their strong influence over members, the MMA law was finally passed in 2003 with a slim margin by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, just in time for his re-election campaign.


Bush went on to win a tight re-election against John Kerry with the smallest popular vote margin of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948. The passage of this new, complicated, unfunded Medicare drug program had the desired outcome of significantly increasing senior votes in support of Bush from 47% in 2000 to 52% in the 2004 presidential election.

Congress’s Unfunded Trillion-Dollar Medicare Drug Program

There has been long-standing public interest to reduce the high cost of health care and prescription drugs in the United States and to make these necessities available and affordable to everyone including seniors, similar to what has been done in Canada and European countries for decades.

However, partisan political conflicts and the controlling influence of millions of dollars from special interest to Congress has resulted in the status quo which profits the health care industry at the expense of patients, taxpayers and employers.

The new 2003 Medicare drug legislation did not include any cuts to existing federal spending to offset this new, costly benefit or to reduce the growing federal structural deficit for the existing Medicare Part B outpatient services and the Medicare Advantage plans that are run by private insurers.

Rather, the new Medicare Part D drug benefit, that it is run by private insurance companies, was made available largely by increasing the federal deficit.

Medicare beneficiaries contribute only 14% of the drug program cost and taxpayers pay the remaining 86%. The cost of the program is expected to grow significantly over the foreseeable future, due to uncontrollable drug prices established by drug makers and the growing senior population that uses them.

The annual cost of this drug program has grown dramatically to an estimated $76 billion in 2015. And, the 2014 Medicare Trustees report, projects the federal deficit just for the Medicare Drug program is estimated to go over $1 trillion in the year 2023.

2014-2024-debt bomb

Congress Restricts Competition, Purchasing Power and Consumer Protections

The 2003 MMA also includes a number of provisions that clearly benefit the financial interest of Big Pharma over the interests of patients, taxpayers and employers.

These include:

  • prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices for over 55 million Medicare beneficiaries; eliminating price competition with extended-term drug patents;
  • making it illegal for citizens to purchase the same patented drugs, at a fraction of the price charged in the US, from Canada and other countries;
  • allowing pharma companies to increase the demand for their drugs by directly marketing them to consumers on TV and other media;
  • allowing pharma companies to withhold full disclosure of clinical data, adverse side-effects/incidents and the actual cost/benefit of drugs;
  • providing minimum government oversight and sanctions for illegal and unethical pharmaceutical and device-maker behavior.

I welcome your questions and comments.

Future blogs will describe in greater detail: the high cost of specialty drugs; how drug prices are established; the backlash from stakeholders; and some hope for future changes.