Republican members the House and Senate unveiled a proposed alternative to the Act. It would eliminate the and mandate, provide a to help offset the buying , and maintain the availability for those with pre-existing medical conditions.
The proposal, named the Patient Choice, Affordability, and Empowerment () Bill, was submitted by Senate Finance Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), Chair the House Energy and Commerce .
“Our plan allows patients to make decisions for themselves, without a maze mandates, fines and taxes,” said Hatch in a press release. “This plan is achievable, and above all, fiscally sustainable.”
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), an outspoken advocate the Act, said the GOP proposal “would mean the retraction for millions Americans,” and called the bill a “memo” with few details and no indication .
The House measure’s own language acknowledges that it is short specifics; it instructs several key House committees, including Ways and Means, to develop to replace the Act with new laws and policies.
Lawmakers backing the proposal said it would reduce federal spending by hundreds billions dollars and eliminate more than $1 trillion in taxes. All the taxes introduced by the , including those medical devices, and company revenues, would be dropped. The federal and state marketplaces would also be scrapped.
Hatch called the measure “a bold bicameral plan that fully repeals and replaces the healthcare law with reforms that empower patients, not Washington.”
With a nod toward changes made under the , Hatch added, “We agree we can’t return to the status quo the pre- world, so we equip patients with tools that will drive down costs while also ensuring those with pre-existing conditions and the young are protected.”
The proposal would reduce costs via a refundable to lower- and middle-income families earning up to 0% the federal poverty level, including workers for businesses.
Under the plan, companies would not be allowed to impose lifetime limits benefits, but they would not be required to include a specific set benefits in their .
Consumers with pre-existing conditions could not be denied or charged a higher . However, this protection would only be available if the consumer had maintained “continuous ” for at least 18 months before seeking a new policy.
Age-rating policies would be allowed. Older insureds could be charged up to five times the rate paid by younger people, compared to three times under the . Like the , the plan would allow young people to stay their parents’ until age 26, but it would allow a state to modify this.
The plan would repeal the option for states to expand , the federal-state for low-income people, and would give states more control over their programs.