An important story about a major threat to health coverage and access to care. A few additional points 1/
First, while the story questions whether the Administration will put forward a health care plan, it already has one: its budget. And the budget seeks basically the same major policy outcomes as the lawsuit: cbpp.org/blog/trumps-he… 2/
The budget calls on Congress to enact the Cassidy-Graham ACA repeal bill, then cut coverage programs by about $700 billion below the levels in that legislation. Comparing with the lawsuit… 3/ 
For people with pre-existing conditions, Cassidy-Graham similarly ends nationwide protections, as we, physicians, hospitals, insurers, patient advocates, and independent fact checkers have all explained bit.ly/31pDsfF bit.ly/2qqIOe2 wapo.st/2J5NI6K 4/
Medicaid expansion and marketplace financial assistance would go away too; instead, Cassidy-Graham would create a flawed and inadequate block grant, which the Trump budget then proposes to cut even further cbpp.org/research/healt… 5/
And the lawsuit and the budget would have similar impacts on overall health coverage, with some 18 percent of non-elderly people uninsured under both, compared to about 11 percent today bit.ly/2VY6Qsn urbn.is/2MrVSIF 6/
Second, the consequences of the lawsuit would be even more wide ranging than the NYT article explains. On top of the 20 million people losing coverage, tens of millions more would end up w/worse or less affordable coverage 7/
Individual market consumers who didn’t lose their coverage would face a return to pre-ACA practices like health status underwriting, plans that exclude essential health benefits like maternity, substance use treatment, or prescription drugs – plus loss of financial assistance 8/
In Medicaid, those still eligible for coverage would face more burdensome eligibility procedures, & the lawsuit would end coverage expansions for former foster youth, coverage improvements for seniors and people with disabilities, & other improvements: bit.ly/2MRFAaR 9/
In Medicare, enrollees would face higher costs for prescription drugs & preventive services. The lawsuit could also cause massive disruption & confusion for providers & plans. Plus, @CMSinnovates demos improving coverage & reducing costs would end: bit.ly/32r0YKE 10/
@CMSinnovates And in the employer market, annual & lifetime limits would return & plans would no longer have to cap out-of-pocket costs or cover kids up to age 26. Not to mention impact on people with pre-existing conditions who lose a job & need individual market coverage 11/
@CMSinnovates Finally, it’s important to remember just how outlandish the lawsuit is 12/
@CMSinnovates Leading ACA opponents, who supported or drove earlier (also outlandish!) challenges to the law, call this one “absurd” or “ludicrous” nytimes.com/2018/12/15/opi… reason.com/2018/06/09/tho… 13/
@CMSinnovates Here’s an assessment from the Republican attorneys general of Montana and Ohio, who submitted an amicus brief arguing against the Administration and the other Republican AGs ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing… 14/
@CMSinnovates And when the Administration decided not to defend the law, career attorneys resigned or withdrew from the case politico.com/story/2018/06/… 15/
@CMSinnovates Bottom line: the Administration made that unprecedented move despite the legal arguments against – PLUS the major political downsides outlined in the NYT story. That’s a pretty strong indication of just how strongly committed it is to repealing the ACA by any available means /end
