Republicans in the House of Representatives this week laid out their alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in an effort to position themselves against various Democratic healthcare proposals. The document contains many ideas that have been debated previously when Republicans tried to repeal the ACA, and it draws on work from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
Republicans in the House of Representatives this week laid out their alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in an effort to position themselves against various Democratic healthcare proposals.
The Republican Study Committee (RSC) called the plan “practical solutions to repair our broken healthcare system.” This first part of their plan lays out their vision should the Republicans regain the House of Representatives and should Donald Trump be reelected to the presidency in 2020.
The document contains many ideas that have been debated previously when Republicans tried to repeal the ACA, and it draws on work from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
While the ACA contains many regulatory provisions and pathways such as the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act or BPCIA, and forms the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in CMS, this first part of the RSC plan is silent on those issues, though they may be discussed in the next release of the plan.
The RSC said a second report will follow, with additional recommendations “to further reduce the cost of healthcare and increased transparency competition and innovation technologies. This will include recommendation on policies like transparency competition in reducing barriers to technological innovation.”
Among other things, the plan released Tuesday addresses pre-existing conditions, access to primary care, health savings accounts (HSAs), and more.
While the plan retains protection for pre-existing conditions, it removes the ACA provision that kept insurers from charging patients with costly healthcare needs more money, through the introduction of high-risk pools. The plan calls these “guaranteed coverage pools” to be funded by the subsidies that previously went to exchange plans for those who qualified for help paying premiums, as well as ending and diverting Medicaid expansion funds.
The plan would end Medicaid expansion and replace Medicaid with a block grant; states that adopt a work requirement may be eligible for more funding. Republicans call this “rightsizing” Medicaid.
“There is no reason why an able-bodied adult without any dependents should be more heavily subsidized” than “a poor pregnant woman, elderly person, child, disabled individual, or parent,” the document states.
The blueprint also focuses heavily on HSAs. It increases the amount that an individual or family could contribute; the current limits are $3500 for an individual and $7000 for family. The RSC plan would increase those amounts to $9000 per individual and $18,000 for families.
In addition, the scope of eligible expenditures for HSAs would expand as they would be allowed to issue reimbursements for health insurance premiums. The RSC plan would also sever the rule that HSAs be linked to a high-deductible health plan.
It also champions short-term healthcare plans and association healthcare plans, as well as “healthcare sharing ministries,” in which people with a common set of beliefs pool their money and share medical expenses among themselves. Under such an arrangement, those pulling the money could decide what they will and will not pay for—such as reproductive health care.
Another model backed by Republicans is the direct primary care model, in which patients pay a monthly fee to a provider instead of an insurance copayment or coinsurance. The fee covers primary care services, clinical laboratory services, consultations, care coordination, and comprehensive care management.
The plan also recommends expanding access to telemedicine by ending state regulatory barriers.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.