- Per capita caps, leading to devastating cuts in funding
- States penalized for investing Medicaid systems; rural states getting an advantage over urban ones
- Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies phased out
- Elimination of consumer safeguards
Here is an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Here is an analysis from FamiliesUSA
Here is a recap from Vox
-
In short, analysts looking at the bill through a disability filter say it would be devastating to people with disabilities and their families and threaten access to community living.
Here is an alert from The Arc if you would like to use it as a model.
If you choose to act, please do so quickly. The bill could pass with fewer votes if acted on by September 30.
"The complex funding formula used to divvy up the big pot of money would tilt more funding toward sparsely populated states. It advantages rural states that have fewer people per square mile than those with denser, more urban populations.
"Cassidy-Graham would also take the current Medicaid expansion spending from the 30 states that participate in the program and divvy it up among all 50 states. For a place like Texas, which has not expanded Medicaid, this would be a windfall — it might see its overall health funding rise under Cassidy-Graham. But a state like California would be dramatically disadvantaged, as it would see some of its Medicaid expansion funds sent elsewhere." - Vox-
"Under current law, federal funding for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies automatically adjusts to account for increases in enrollment or health care costs.
"In contrast, the Cassidy-Graham block grant amounts would be fixed, no longer adjusting for increased enrollment due to recessions or higher costs related to public health emergencies, new breakthrough treatments, demographic changes, or other cost pressures.
"Faced with a recession, for example, states would have to either dramatically increase their own spending on health care or, as is far more likely, deny help to people losing their jobs and their health insurance." - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
