House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) has introduced a bill that would “push federal workers off their employer-sponsored health plan” and onto Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Camp claims the bill is intended to show solidarity with the American people.

In fact, the legislation comes in the wake of a sensationalized — and inaccurate — media controversy claiming that Democrats are trying to “exempt” Congress from Obamacare. A Politico article from last week stoked speculation that skittish lawmakers were in negotiations to try and forgo the health care law. The ensuing outrage was more about manufacturing a political controversy than addressing any real flaws in Obamacare, and actually centers on a fairly mundane, technical question about how the government will finance congressional employees’ benefits under the law. The confusion stems from a poorly-worded, Republican-backed amendment to Obamacare that was meant to embarrass Democrats. Congressional negotiators have since dispelled the rumors about “exemptions,” assuring that “all members of Congress and Congressional staff [will] experience the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in exactly the same way as every other American.”

Camp seemingly prefers to keep the outrage going. “If the Obamacare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress and federal employees,” said a Camp spokeswoman. But those comments — and the general GOP assertion that having lawmakers purchase insurance through the exchanges is just fair, since the rest of America will be subject to the health law — completely twists Obamacare’s intent. The exchanges were never meant to overhaul America’s system of employer-provided insurance by forcing everybody onto them. Rather, they are meant to be a resource for American individuals and small businesses who would otherwise not be able to access affordable health insurance.

In no small bit of irony, Camp’s bill would actually force the federal government, the nation’s largest employer, to unnecessarily drop health coverage for all of its employees — something that Obamacare critics such as Camp have consistently (and inaccurately) warned will be a consequence of the health care law. As National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen M. Kelley put it, “This legislation would put federal employees in a special class and prohibit them from receiving health insurance from their employer.”

As Obama administration officials work toward fully implementing the health care reform law, and prepare to begin enrolling Americans in the new state-level insurance marketplaces by 2014, Obamacare’s critics have decried the effort as nothing short of a disaster. Republican opponents of health reform have long complained that the legislation is too lengthy and complicated, business owners are too confused about what it means for them, and Americans won’t be able to figure out how to navigate their future insurance plans in the statewide markets. And earlier this month, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D–MT) suggested that the health law is so complicated that its implementation could be a “huge train wreck” going forward.

But, as President Obama pointed out during a press conference on Tuesday morning, most of those concerns are overblown — largely because a “huge chunk” of the health law has already been implemented. Obamacare isn’t threatening to create a huge headache for most of the country because it’s actually already in effect for all of the Americans who currently have health insurance. The president explained that from this point forward, implementation efforts will solely be focused on the 10 to 15 percent of Americans who remain uninsured, which is a relatively small part of the population:

For the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, they are already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act even if they don’t know it… And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better, more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.

The implementation issues come in for those who don’t have health insurance — maybe because they have a preexisting condition and the only way they can get health insurance is to go out on the individual market, and they are paying 50 percent or 100 percent more than those of us who are lucky enough to have group plans. Or people who are too poor to get health insurance and their employers don’t offer it. Maybe they work for a small business and the small business can’t afford right now to provide health insurance. So, all the implementation issues that are coming up are implementation issues related to that small group of people: 10 to 15 percent of Americans. Now, it’s still 30 million Americans, but a relatively narrow group who don’t have health insurance right now.

Obama’s statements come on the heels of an announcement that the administration has simplified the application that Americans will use to apply for coverage in the health law’s state exchanges. After Obama administration officials published a first draft of the 21-page application, it was met with complaints that it would be too difficult to fill out. The Department of Health and Human Services addressed those concerns by revising the document and releasing a final version on Tuesday that’s much shorter, simpler, and easier to navigate.

Of course, overhauling the nation’s health care system does involve a lot of work — especially since Republican lawmakers have refused to cooperate with Obamacare over the past several years. Because many GOP leaders have avoided laying any groundwork on the state level, much of the law’s implementation has been left to the federal government. Federal officials are certainly working hard to prepare for the state-wide insurance markets’ open enrollment period, which is set to begin in October. Just as in the case of the new application, they may continue to make tweaks to streamline the process — but that doesn’t necessarily mean Obamacare’s implementation is a total disaster that will wreak havoc on the majority of Americans’ health coverage.

Despite the fact that Obamacare has been in place for over three years at this point, a lot of Americans still remain confused about the specific nature of the health reform law. Last month, a Kaiser Health poll revealed that many Americans still can’t correctly identify Obamacare’s provisions. Now, Kaiser’s most recent polling finds that 42 percent of Americans aren’t sure about whether Obamacare is law at all. Seven percent of survey respondents believed the Supreme Court overturned it, and 12 percent thought Congress had repealed it:

Of course, now that Obamacare has survived a Supreme Court challenge, dozens of repeal efforts, and a presidential election, even Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has admitted that it’s the “law of the land.” Nonetheless, as administration officials prepare for the full implementation of the law and ready the state-level insurance markets to open in 2014, they still have a long way to go when it comes to fully educating the American public about it.

Kaiser found that Americans’ education gaps fall along class lines, as wealthier Americans are more likely to have heard something about health care reform from newspapers, radio, or online sources. Just 30 percent of those with lower incomes reported that they had received information about Obamacare from those sources. That’s especially problematic because many low-income Americans stand to significantly benefit from the health law, as they will become eligible for federal assistance to help them afford insurance coverage on the state marketplaces. Still, 58 percent of uninsured Americans and 56 percent of low-income Americans told Kaiser that they don’t know how Obamacare will impact their lives.

The good news, as Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff points out, is that there’s still some time to change the tide. Obamacare’s new health care options still won’t be available for another seven months, and some health care advocates point out that it might be confusing to tout a product that isn’t accessible yet. This summer, the nonprofit Enroll America — which hopes to increase public awareness about the impending health reform benefits — will ramp up its campaign to try to reach those four in ten Americans who still remain confused.

The GOP-controlled Florida state house on Friday passed a Medicaid “expansion” bill that would substantially burden the state’s budget by rejecting any federal funding. It would open up private insurance access to a very select pool of Florida’s low-income residents — but it could force these vulnerable Americans to forgo care, despite their new coverage, by giving them insufficient subsidies and making them choose between private high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that also come with costly premiums.

Unlike its companion bill in the Senate — which has been endorsed by both Gov. Rick Scott (R) and the Obama Administration — the House’s bill would expand coverage to a mere one-tenth of the 1.1 million poor Floridians who would have gained access under a more expansive effort. That’s because the bill only addresses Americans living at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), instead of Obamacare’s more ambitious limit.

Now that the bill has passed, a showdown between the House and Senate is likely. Although both bills would privatize Florida’s Medicaid program, the Senate’s version would insure all poor Floridians up to 138 percent FPL. The House version, on the other hand, will concentrate on extending insurance to poor single moms, poor working parents, and disabled adults by giving them a flat $2,000 per year subsidy — but would not extend coverage to poor working adults in general. Although Republicans insisted the pared down bill was necessary to contain rising health costs, critics argued that it is unfair to ask the poorest Americans to pay over three times the monthly premium as state workers and legislators, pointing out that there is bipartisan support for the Senate’s alternative bill:

The House plan would use $237 million in state funds to give recipients $2,000 a year to choose their own private insurance plans. The plans would require a $25 monthly premium and likely have high deductibles, which Democrats said many families would not be able to afford.

In contrast, House members covered by the state insurance plan spend $8 a month.

“There’s very little you can buy,” said Rep. Mia Jones, D-Jacksonville. “This population will not be able to take this product that has been crafted for them and not be able to do anything of value with it.”

House Democratic Leader Perry Thurston warned that members were missing a chance for bipartisanship, noting the Senate had already put aside their differences.

“We have a governor who has disagreement with the president of the United States but they came to a bipartisan resolution and put aside those differences,” Thurston said. “Why? Because of the importance of saving lives.”

As Jones points out, since this bill would provide Floirida’s uninsured with insurance that they still won’t be able to use, the $237 million price tag is largely a waste. The average annual deductible in HDHPs has been rising steadily as more employers rely on them, ranging anywhere from $1,100 for an individual to $2,500 for a family in 2012. By contrast, the average annual out-of-pocket health care costs for American households is expected to exceed $3,000 by 2014. So the $2,000 annual subsidy wouldn’t end up going very far at all. This would present a problem for any family trying to afford health coverage — but for the particularly vulnerable populations that the Florida House’s bill seeks to cover, it could be catastrophic. Low-income Americans have specialized health care needs that, in many cases, are simply not covered by cheaper private health plans.

Read more

Trauma centers, the medical facilities that provide the full spectrum of emergency services at all times, are being forced to close their doors. In fact, between 1990 and 2005, over 300 of them were shuttered in states across the country. Considering the fact that last week’s events in Boston demonstrated the life-saving effects of emergency responders and trauma care — since the nearly 300 people who were injured in the bombings have all survived, an incredible feat for the city’s medical professionals — why are we limiting access to this type of emergency relief?

As the Atlantic details, it’s not because there are fewer emergencies. There’s still a big need for trauma centers and emergency departments, particularly since they aren’t just important for terrorist attacks like the bombs at the Boston Marathon; they also treat Americans who are injured in car crashes or other serious accidents. And these types of facilities are especially important for servicing vulnerable Americans, who tend to wind up in the ER at higher rates than more economically privileged people do.

In fact, researchers Renee Hsia and Yu-Chu Shen have found that emergency care is at risk largely because of financial pressures. Many trauma centers can’t afford to continue operating precisely because they’re serving low-income and vulnerable populations. The type of services that they provide are expensive, yet they’re more likely to provide care for Americans who can’t pay anything in return. Of course, those uninsured or Medicaid patients still need health services — so when trauma centers are forced to close, it hits them the hardest:

The populations associated with greater closure are the populations that need these services the most. Medicaid patients are more likely to use the emergency department than privately insured patients. But, contrary to conventional wisdom, these visits aren’t routine. A Center for Studying Health System Change research brief shows that Medicaid patients are three times more likely than privately insured patients to visit for complex or disabling needs. Sometimes there’s no other choice. In a study of physicians who accepted new patients in 2011, 31 percent were unwilling to accept new Medicaid patients.

We also know that African Americans tend to use emergency departments at twice the rate of whites and Hispanics. This difference is the product of other racial disparities in health care, especially insurance coverage. In 2010, 21 percent of African Americans relied on Medicaid programs. Nearly a quarter did not have employer-sponsored health insurance. And nearly one in five African Americans under the age of 65 are without insurance entirely. This is also the product of income disparities. By 2010, African Americans lived below the poverty level at nearly three times the rate of whites. These factors together help explain why African Americans are more likely to lack access to primary care specialists — and why they tend to rely on emergency departments.

This is why emergency departments are sometimes called the “safety net” of the health care system. What happens when the safety net moves farther and farther away from the people it’s supposed to catch?

Unfortunately, emergency care is becoming increasingly expensive for the low-income Americans who rely on it. The average trip to the ER costs 40 percent more than most Americans spend on monthly rent. In fact, medical costs continue to soar across the entire health care industry. Health costs have skyrocketed while workers’ wages have stagnated, and more than one in three people are forced to put off the health care they need because they can’t afford it.

Obamacare hopes to address some of these issues so that emergency care doesn’t have to serve as primary care for so many vulnerable Americans. By emphasizing preventative services, as well as vastly expanding the social safety net to allow states to add additional low-income residents to their Medicaid rolls, the health law seeks to ensure that Americans are regularly accessing care rather than allowing their health issues to devolve into more serious ailments. And Obamacare may also help ensure that trauma centers don’t continue providing essential services without any type of reimbursement, since about 30 million previously uninsured Americans are expected to gain coverage under health plans — and will therefore have some kind of means to pay their medical bills.

According to a new Commonwealth Fund study published Friday, Obamacare has sharply reduced the number of young Americans lacking health coverage, reversing a decade-long trend that saw a rise in the ranks of the young and uninsured. The study also finds that uninsurance rates for Americans as a whole remained relatively unchanged, leading the authors to emphasize that full implementation of the Affordable Care Act will be critical to securing Americans’ health coverage.

The report, based on a biennial survey of Americans’ access to health insurance, found that adults aged 19 to 25 had seen their uninsurance rates fall “from 48 percent in 2010 to 41 percent in 2012, from 13.6 million [young adults] to 11.7 million — a decline of 1.9 million.” And those are just the numbers for a single year — since the health care law was passed in 2010, a full 3.4 million young Americans have become newly-insured. That represents a 10 percent upward swing in two years:

Researchers say that this positive development is almost entirely a consequence of Obamacare’s provision allowing adults up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ health plans. Still, 46 percent of all adults, or “an estimated 84 million people, did not have insurance for the full year or were underinsured and unprotected from high out-of-pocket costs” in 2012. Addressing these Americans’ high medical costs and lack of access to health insurance demonstrates the need to carefully implement the rest of the health care law, as highlighted by Obamacare’s success in providing young Americans with coverage.

But that could be difficult given conservative critics’ steadfast opposition to all things Obamacare, which is bolstered by the media’s predilection for pouncing on any potential problems with the law — regardless of whether or not such claims are housed in reality. In particular, GOP governors who remain reticent to take part in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion could end up undermining reform by denying health benefits to some of America’s most vulnerable populations — and prevent the same kind of progress being seen with young adults from taking hold with U.S. adults at large.

After a Politico article on Wednesday evening suggested that Congress is plotting to “exempt” itself from enrolling in the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, other media outlets quickly began using the piece to accuse Democrats of trying to avoid complying with the law. But a close reading of the original Republican amendment behind the uproar reveals that the controversy has more to do with politics than the merits of the health legislation.

The provision, initially authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), requires Congressional employees, including lawmakers and some of their aides, to drop their existing health care coverage in the Federal Health Benefits Program (FEHB) and enroll in the insurance exchanges at the core of the health law by 2014.

“My interest in having Members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country,” Grassley said in a press release at the time, hoping to force Democrats to take a vote of “no confidence” in their own law. But that’s not what happened. Democrats, led by Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), called Grassley’s bluff and included his amendment in the final Senate bill that eventually passed.

The measure ended up on page 157 of the final law, but did not specifically mention the role of the employer contribution, leading regulators to raise concerns that the language could prohibit the federal government from contributing to the insurance costs of Congressional employees and leave poorly-paid aides responsible for the full cost of coverage. The Office of Personnel Management is currently deciding the matter, though Republican staffers told Politico that lawmakers are in negotiations to change the amendment and alter Grassley’s requirement.

But Politico’s implication that Democrats are trying to exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act, while mandating millions of Americans to enroll in expensive coverage through the exchanges, falls apart upon examination of the original Grassley amendment, available on the Senate Finance Committee website. The measure may have been a political ploy to embarrass Democrats, but it does not seek to treat Congressional aides as unemployed and uninsured individuals who would have to (comparatively) pay more for insurance than they currently do. Rather, the measure clearly stipulates that Congressional employees “use their employer contribution” to buy insurance through the exchange:

The author of the provision and all of the lawmakers who ultimately voted for it always intended for the federal government to continue subsidizing coverage for their staff (Grassley introduced another amendment to cover more staffers in 2011, which also included the “employer contribution” portion) and Democrats fully expect OPM to issue regulations consistant with the intent of the law. “Senator Reid is committed to ensuring that all members of Congress and Congressional staff experience the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in exactly the same way as every other American,” spokesman Adam Jentelson said in a statement. “He believes that this is the effect of the legislation as written, and that therefore no legislative fix is necessary.”

Unfortunately, conservative critics and some in the press are so eager to report on the alleged failure of the Affordable Care Act, they’d exploit a fairly mundane and technical question into sensationalistic story about Congressional hypocrisy.