2018 United States Conference on AIDS

 

 

June 12th has been designated as Orlando United Day.  On this day, we remember the 49 angels who were killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. This was a deliberate attack on the LGBT community that must never be forgotten.

To show our support for Orlando and the LGBT community, NMAC is pleased to announce that we will hold the 2018 United States Conference on AIDS in Orlando on September 6-9, 2018.  Please save the date.

The 2018 meeting will highlight the contributions made by the LGBT community to our efforts in ending the epidemic.  Our community has suffered so many losses and we must stand together.

The 49 beautiful portraits in this e-newsletter were created by 49 different artists across the country.  Each portrait portrays someone who was killed in the Pulse shootings.  They are all on exhibit at the Terrace Gallery at Orlando City Hall from May 1 – June 14, 2017.

Yours in the struggle,

Board & Staff of NMAC
Stronger Together!

AIDS United Responds to Fiscal Year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations Bil

 

AIDS United acknowledges that the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, released last night, provides continuity of HIV funding for most domestic programs. This is an important development for maintaining our progress towards the national goals and priorities of reducing new HIV infections, increasing access to care and improving health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reducing HIV-related health disparities.

While most HIV programs will see level funding in the budget, AIDS United is concerned that a $4 million cut to Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part C clinical providers and a $5 million cut affecting the budget to fight sexually transmitted infections will diminish our response to HIV and health care, particularly given the increasing cases of sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis, among men who have sex with men.

“Knowing that Congress plans to keep funding intact for most HIV efforts is reassuring, but we urge Congress to also ensure that Part C clinical providers and our response to sexually transmitted infections are fully funded,” said AIDS United President & CEO Jesse Milan, Jr.

AIDS United is particularly appreciative that Congress listened to the voices of people living with and affected by HIV in increasing funding for the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS (HOPWA) program by $21 million. “Housing is fundamental to ensuring that people living with HIV live longer and healthier lives and we thank Congress for recognizing the importance of this program by securing its current stability,” said Milan.


About AIDS United: AIDS United’s mission is to end the AIDS epidemic in the U.S., through strategic grant-making, capacity building, formative research and policy. AIDS United works to ensure access to life-saving HIV/AIDS care and prevention services and to advance sound HIV/AIDS-related policy for U.S. populations and communities most impacted by the epidemic. To date, our strategic grant-making initiatives have directly funded more than $104 million to local communities, and have leveraged more than $117 million in additional investments for programs that include, but are not limited to HIV prevention, access to care, capacity building, harm reduction and advocacy. aidsunited.org

Upcoming PMBSGN Support Group Meeting

April2017AvenueCSGflyer1

House and the Administration Begin to Show Their Hands

February 23, 2017

House Republicans Unveil a Health Care “Policy Menu”; Trump Department of Health and Human Services Proposes First Major Health Care Regulation

 

Although there is still no specific ACA repeal and replace proposal from the hill, both Congressional Republicans and the Trump Administration released documents last week articulating their approach to replacing the ACA and addressing concerns with the Marketplaces in the meantime. Congressional Republicans released a Health Care Policy Brief that is intended to serve as a menu of potential elements for a forthcoming ACA replacement bill. This Brief includes elements that have been found in previous ACA replacement proposals and that present concerns for access to care. Further, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposed rule entitled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Market Stabilization” (proposed rule), which is intended to help stabilize the Marketplaces until an ACA replacement is completed. Unfortunately, some of its changes may limit access to care for vulnerable individuals and make the Marketplaces less friendly to those living with chronic illnesses and disabilities. Advocates should be sure to understand both documents as well as send comments on the proposed rule to HHS by March 7, 2017.

Advocates Should:

1. Review the Health Care Policy Brief released by House Republicans last week to better understand which ideas are popular among Congressional Republicans and likely to make it into any ACA repeal and replace proposal.

2. Understand the proposed Market Stabilization regulation released by the Department of Health and Human Services and how it will impact access to care in the 2018 qualified health plans.

3. Submit comments on the proposed rule to HHS urging them to consider the impact the proposed regulations will have on access to care for vulnerable individuals.

House Republicans Unveil Health Care Policy Brief

On February 16, 2017, after a closed-door meeting, House Republicans unveiled a policy brief and resource document to explain major elements of their plan to repeal and replace key programs and protections of the ACA. House Leadership is terming this strategy “repeal plus.” The policy brief should not be considered an actual legislative proposal but rather a “menu” of replacement ideas such as tax credits for purchasing health care, health savings accounts, and high risk pools. Part of the intention of this document is to encourage Congressional Republicans, who have found it difficult to coalesce around a health care policy strategy, to find consensus on these issues. Unfortunately, many of the components of this “repeal plus” strategy would curb access to care for vulnerable individuals, including those living with chronic illnesses and disabilities.

 

New Administration, Old Approach: Trump advocates Medicaid Block Grants & ACA Repeal

 

As the shifting legislative landscape of President Trump’s first 100 days continues, two major developments emerged in the health care reform world: that the Trump administration plans to block grant the Medicaid program and that President Trump signed an initial executive order weakening the ACA.

 

From its inception in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson until the present day, Medicaid has served as a public insurance program for low-income individuals, families, and people with certain disabilities. Unlike Medicare, which was created at the same time and is both federally funded and administered, Medicaid is a federal-state partnership program in which each individual state administers their own Medicaid program using a mixture of state and federal funds, provided that certain services and populations are covered. For the entirety of its existence, Medicaid has been an entitlement program, which means that the government is required to provide coverage for anyone who meets the eligibility rules for enrollment. This means that the amount of money being spent on a state’s Medicaid program fluctuates from year-to-year based on how many people qualify for coverage.

 

Every Republican President since Ronald Reagan has tried, and so far failed, to turn Medicaid from an entitlement program into a discretionary block grant program. Block granting Medicaid would mean the federal government would present states with a predetermined amount of money to serve their low-income and disabled residents at the beginning of each year. Most plans to block grant Medicaid would determine the amount of funding based on previous state and federal Medicaid spending in a given state, with slight changes each year to account for inflation. The states would then be allowed to determine exactly how to spend that money with many fewer requirements than in the current system. This means that if there were a recession, an unexpected disaster, disease outbreak or if general health care costs continued to rise faster than inflation, state governments would not be given extra federal funds.

 

In such a situation, states would address the health care needs of their low income and disabled residents through a variety of means, but most would reduce or eliminate covered services, restrict access to the program, or introduce higher cost-sharing mechanisms. Taken together, this would adversely affect the health and wellbeing of those in need of care. In a best case scenario, states would take on the excess costs themselves. However, this might prove difficult since many states are required to balance their budgets which might require tax increases or additional sources of revenue to meet these increased Medicaid costs. As a result, many states would choose to avoid added costs by changing the Medicaid eligibility criteria, reducing Medicaid benefits, and simply not providing care to people who are eligible. According to an analysis of a previous Republican proposal from 2012, the block granting of Medicaid could wind up dropping anywhere between 14.3 million and 20.5 million people from care.

 

It is nearly impossible to overstate how devastating Medicaid block granting would be for people living with or at risk of contracting HIV. Right now, Medicaid is the largest source of insurance coverage for people living with HIV, covering more than 40% of people with HIV who are in care. At the same time, Medicaid accounts for 30% of all federal HIV spending and when combined with state Medicaid spending, represents the 2nd biggest source of public HIV financing, trailing only Medicare. Under block grant funding, people living with HIV could bear some of the largest burdens of all impacted populations, because state governments may choose benefit designs that disproportionately affect pricey HIV medications. Given the amount of stigma regarding people living with HIV, LGBT people, and lower income populations, it is possible that some states would choose to do so. Although it may sound unlikely that a state government would discriminate against the provision of medical treatment for certain populations, it has been suggested in the past. For example homophobic legislators in Tennessee openly questioned providing funds to treat people living with AIDS due to their “bizarre lifestyle.” AIDS United strongly opposes block granting Medicaid and we urge readers to call their legislators with that message.

 

President Trump’s executive order intended to weaken the ACA may be more important for what it suggests than for what it actually accomplishes. The executive order directs federal agencies to use their current regulatory authority to “minimize the economic burden” and minimize or remove “any provision…that would impose a fiscal burden on any State, or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on an individual.” The order would also grant waivers to states that undercut the cost of consumer protections, encourage the sale of health insurance across state lines, and encourages agencies to use discretion to avoid expanding the ACA.

 

By himself, Mr. Trump doesn’t have the power to repeal or directly impede the implementation of the ACA. However, he can instruct the employees of federal agencies to begin chipping away at the law’s effectiveness. For example, the Trump administration can’t formally strike down the ACA’s individual mandate that all Americans be insured, but he can instruct the IRS to simply not fine anyone who doesn’t abide by the mandate, rendering it useless. Similarly, the executive order instructs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide states with considerable leeway when it comes to the implementation of their health care programs and encourages HHS to accept waivers from states that would help them get around ACA regulations that they find overly restrictive.

 

On Thursday, the administration reportedly took another step to undermine the ACA. White House officials ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to halt all advertising and outreach efforts encouraging enrollment in ACA health plans purchased on the Healthcare.govmarketplace during the last days of the 2017 open enrollment period. This is significant because in previous ACA open enrollment periods, the final days were among the heaviest for signing up for health coverage. The White House action does not affect people’s ability to sign-up for coverage on the website; open enrollment ends Tuesday, Jan. 31.

 

AIDS United believes that the ACA must remain in place and that no effort to make changes, including this executive order, should attempt to repeal the law without an immediate and effective replacement in place. AIDS United will continue to provide concise analysis of the what’s happening in Washington regarding health care reform and why it should matter to people living with HIV.

 

Posted By: AIDS United, Policy Department – Friday, January 27, 2017
Search Tags: Affordable Care Act , HIV Policy

5 Things To Know About Rep. Tom Price’s Health 

Rep. Tom Price has introduced his own alternative to the Affordable Care Act four times. The legislation provides an idea of how he might lead the Department of Health And Human Services.

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Georgia Rep. Tom Price has been a fierce critic of the Affordable Care Act and a leading advocate of repealing and replacing the 2010 health care law.

Price, an orthopedic surgeon from the suburbs of Atlanta, introduced his own legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare in the current Congress and the three previous sessions. Price’s plan, known as the Empowering Patients First Act, was the basis for a subsequent health care proposal unveiled by House Speaker Paul Ryan, with Price’s endorsement, in June.

Price’s major complaint about the ACA is that it puts the government in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship.

“They believe the government ought to be in control of health care,” Price said in June at the American Enterprise Institute event where Ryan unveiled theRepublican proposal to replace Obamacare. “We believe that patients and doctors should be in control of health care,” Price continued. “People have coverage, but they don’t have care.”

Now that President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, here are five key planks in his own health care proposal.

  1. Price’s plan offers fixed tax credits so people can buy their own insurance on the private market. The credit starts at $1,200 a year and rises with age, but isn’t adjusted for income. Everyone receives the same credit whether they are rich or poor. People on Medicaid, Medicare, the military health plan known as Tricare, or the Veterans Affairs’ health plan could opt instead for the tax credit to buy private insurance.
  2. Price advocates for expansion of health savings accounts, which allow people to save money before taxes to pay for health care. This includes allowing people who are covered by government health programs including Medicare and the VA to contribute to health savings accounts to pay for premiums and copayments. These proposals are included in Ryan’s plan.
  3. People with existing medical conditions couldn’t be denied coverage under Price’s plan as long as they had continuous insurance for 18 months prior to selecting a new policy. If they didn’t, then they could be denied coverage for that condition for up to 18 months after buying a new plan.
  4. The Price proposal limits the amount of money companies can deduct from their taxes for employee health insurance expenses. Companies can deduct up to $20,000 for a family health insurance plan and $8,000 for an individual. The goal is to discourage companies from offering overly generous insurance benefits to their workers. Ryan’s plan proposes a cap on the employer tax deduction but doesn’t specify the level of the cap.
  5. States would get federal money to create so-called high-risk pools under Price’s plan. These are government-run health plans for people with existing medical conditions who can’t get affordable health insurance on the private market. Critics say high-risk pools have been tried in as many as 34 states and largely failed because they were routinely underfunded.

Price has said he’s not wedded to his own ideas and is open to compromise, so the final proposal to replace Obamacare is likely to be a hybrid of his ideas and those hammered out with other Republican House members and presented as Ryan’s plan.

Still, with Price on track to be at the helm of HHS, he would be the one writing the rules to implement whatever legislation is eventually passed.

Repeal Without Replace: Senate Starts Undoing Obamacare With No Replacement

In the wee hours of the morning on Thursday, the Senate took the important first step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act, narrowly approving a budget resolution that lays the groundwork for the undoing of much of President Obama’s signature health care law. The 51-48 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only Republican to vote against the resolution and no Democrats voting for it. Having passed in the Senate, the budget resolution has been transferred over to the House where it could be voted on as early as this Friday or later, depending on how successful Speaker Ryan is at bringing together an often-fractured House GOP.

If the House passes the Senate resolution, reconciliation instructions will be sent out to the Senate Finance Committee; the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and to the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees. These instructions are designed to get the committees to report legislation that would reduce the federal deficit by at least $1 billion over the next decade. In practice the legislation will be used to repeal certain aspects of the ACA with only a 51-vote majority in the Senate and without having to face the risk of being filibustered by Democrats. This means that the GOP will be able to repeal major provisions of the ACA that affect the federal budget and will have to introduce other legislation to repeal the other provisions, including those that reform health insurance practices.
For people living with or at risk of contracting HIV, the changes that could be made through this reconciliation process will be immense and potentially deadly. Through reconciliation, Congress will be able to repeal the individual mandate to buy coverage, take away the ACA’s insurance premium subsidies and, perhaps worst of all, roll back Medicaid expansion. Medicaid is the single largest source of insurance coverage for people living with HIV, covering more than 40% of all people with HIV who are in care. Add to that the fact that Medicaid expansion by itself was responsible for putting an addition 14 million Americans on health insurance, and it is not hard to understand just how much of an impact this reconciliation process could have on the HIV community.

The Senate vote on the budget resolution was the climax of nearly 7 hours of rapid-fire voting known as “vote-a-rama”, a tradition whereby Senators—in this case, mostly Democrats—are allowed to propose roll call votes on amendments to a budget resolution in quick succession with the aim of getting their colleagues on the record with votes concerning politically volatile issues. On Wednesday night, Democrats put forth a number of amendments regarding some of the popular aspects of Obamacare as both an act of defiance and a way to put pro-repeal Senators on-the-record for the elimination of well received ACA provisions.

For their part, Republicans in the Senate chose in most instances to vote as a unified block even when such a vote went against the wishes of their constituencies. Over the course of the evening, the Senate rejected 19 different amendments along party lines, many of which would have served to protect access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Of particular interest to people living with or at risk for contracting HIV were amendments put forth by Senate Democrats aimed at preventing health insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents’ health insurance until the age of 26, prohibiting insurers from denying health insurance or raising rates on women because of their gender, and not making any cuts to Medicaid funding. None of these amendments were accepted, but they did provide good indication of what aspects of the ACA would be vulnerable under a full ACA repeal.

Perhaps the most important vote of the night—aside from the final approval of the budget resolution—was one that didn’t happen at all. An amendment put forth by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and four other GOP Senators that would have extended the January 27th deadline to come up with repeal legislation by an additional 5 weeks was withdrawn late on Wednesday night. The amendment was initially brought up by Senator Corker and some of his Republican colleagues in light of legitimate fears that their party would not have a replacement plan in place when they repealed the ACA. And, while nothing happened over the course of the evening that would have given Senator Corker and his amendment’s supporters reason to believe a replacement plan was any nearer than before, they would all go on to vote in favor of the budget resolution at the end of the night, continuing down a path of repeal without replacement.

Most of America had long since gone to sleep and likely won’t remember when or exactly how it happened, but history with certainly note that, if the Affordable Care Act is indeed dismantled, that Congress began to do so when no one was watching.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events

  • June 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930