Via multiple sources, Dem budget negotiators may scale back funding increase for home and community-based care. Like, by more than half -- from $400B, which was what Biden proposed, to below $200B.
Very much in flux, nothing decided. (1)
This is the initiative to boost funding of home care aides and other services that let the elderly, people w/disabilities live at home, stay in labor force, etc. (2)
Medicaid funds these services, but with limited allotments. That creates long waiting lists, plus the care workers are famously underpaid. huffpost.com/entry/joe-bide… (3)
Context for this particular discussion is the internal debate over how to put together a budget resolution that includes as much of the Dem/Biden agenda as possible and still has votes to pass.
Even $3.5T can't fund all the priorities. And that number could still come down. (4)
A $200B increase would still be very substantial.
Even so, it would be short of what it takes to accomplish the goal -- in this case, putting home/community care on equal footing w/institutional care & raising worker pay. Even $400B wouldn't be enough. (5)
Expect to see this dynamic play out on a bunch of other agenda items over coming weeks and months, as Democrats move from top-line budget number to specific legislation w/CBO scores -- and, inevitably, are negotiating among themselves to keep caucuses together. (6)
And a reminder that, on the health care side, a lot depends on prescription drug reform.
Standard disclaimer: Even well-placed, insider sources don't always know the truth, or at least full truth, or what is happening or being discussed. Especially now with so many moving legislative pieces.
Read all reporting on negotiations, including mine, with that in mind. (8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In case you thought conservatives were done with the "death panel" smear, here's the Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning. (1) wsj.com/articles/the-a…
The subject of the editorial is the outrage over a new Alzheimer's drug that will cost $56,000 with scant evidence of benefit.
Editorial sneers about "experts" making that case. Also takes a swipe at Sen. Ron Wyden, who has spoken out against the drug. (2)
Wyden has spent his career as an advocate for seniors & their health care, going back to 1970s when he was with Oregon's chapter of the Gray Panthers.
Also his mother had Alzheimer's, a fact he's cited repeatedly when making the case to help patients & their families. (3)
@JHWeissmann ...although I really think it depends on the issue. With a lot of these, you can dial it down, one way or another, and still get serious benefits.
@JHWeissmann And then you build on later. Make paid leave longer, expand child care to more kids or make it more generous, add dental now and visual later, etc.
Per this chart I made this week, of Senate seats that changed parties 2009 to 2021, Dems had more than a dozen in R-states. Survival strategy for most was to create distance from party & liberal-sounding policies. (2) citizencohn.substack.com/p/one-reason-2…
Here's what Phil Schiliro, who was director of legislative strategy at the White House under Obama, told me for @HuffPost article on this. (Similar quotes in my book on the ACA.)
Latest from @adamcancryn on the internal Biden administration debate over an FDA commissioner, and concerns that Janet Woodcock is too close/sympathetic to pharmaceutical industry.
In 2009, when E&C Committee was writing its version of what became the the Affordable Care Act, Eshoo pushed to give biologics a longer "exclusivity" period.
Chairman Henry Waxman, who thought it was a giveaway to industry, opposed that strongly. Eshoo prevailed. (2)
As legislation moved through Congress, Waxman kept fighting to reduce that period. So did Obama, who agreed w/Waxman and was really worked up about it.