�鶹Ů��

The experts who brought you the “Cadillac tax” aren’t about to let it go without a fight. On Thursday, 101 economists and other health policy experts signed an open letter defending the controversial levy, which takes effect in 2018 as part of the Affordable Care Act. n the letter, the economists describe the Cadillac tax as an essential, if blunt, tool for controlling health-care costs. They warn that eliminating it could mean higher premiums for people with private insurance and less take-home pay for workers who get benefits from their employers -- unless, somehow, lawmakers find an alternative policy that serves the same purposes. (Jonathan Cohn, 10/1)

Surprisingly, there appears to be one small area of bipartisanship in Washington: the desire to repeal the so-called Cadillac tax. It is a tax on super-expensive health insurance plans provided by some private companies to their employees. The tax would be paid by employers who sponsor these high-cost plans. ... this would be a big mistake, for a number of reasons. In its first eight years, the Cadillac tax will raise some $91 billion. Repeal it and politicians — if they are being fiscally responsible — will have to find other sources of revenue rather than add to the deficit. But more important, the tax makes sense. (Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Bob Kocher, 10/2)

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and a bipartisan group from Congress have come out in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act’s “Cadillac tax.” Debate over the Cadillac tax on employer-provided health-care plans has been framed by some as a matter of good policy (keeping the tax) vs. good politics (repealing it to appeal to business, labor interests, and the Democratic base). As with many issues, things are not that simple. There are strong substantive arguments on both sides. Reasonable people and policy makers could disagree on pure policy grounds. (Drew Altman, 10/1)

Hillary Clinton upended the delicate consensus on health care policy in the Democratic Party’s upper echelons this week. Clinton reportedly came out against the so-called “Cadillac tax,” adding her voice to a bipartisan call ranging from Bernie Sanders to conservative House Republicans, from business to labor, to repeal the excise tax on high-cost employer health plans (40 percent on every dollar above $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 a year for families). The elite pushback has been intense. (David Dayen, 10/2)

Pretty much the only people who want the tax to go forward as planned are economists. Which seems likely to make voters hate it even more. But here’s a fun fact that might help turn the tide: This tax would probably help you get a raise. How, exactly? The chain reaction between Cadillac taxes and your paycheck is a little complicated and not terribly intuitive. It all comes down to the fact that, for decades, Congress has been encouraging your employer to give you a dollar more of health insurance rather than a dollar more of wages whenever possible. (Catherine Rampell, 10/1)

For fresh evidence that prescription drug pricing is out of whack, look no further than the recent case of Martin Shkreli, the hedge fund manager turned pharmaceutical CEO. Shkreli announced that his company would abruptly increase the cost of a 62-year-old drug, used to treat a life-threatening parasitic infection, from $13.50 per pill to $750. (10/1)

Since 2006, Medicare Part D has been providing affordable prescription drug coverage to seniors and persons with disabilities. The program is exceeding expectations by saving money for beneficiaries and taxpayers and helping seniors live longer, healthier lives. (John J. Castellani, 10/1)

It was nice of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to clarify that a primary goal of the Republicans’ never-ending investigations into the Benghazi terrorist attack was to do damage to the leading Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now, if he would just acknowledge that the current round of hearings “investigating” Planned Parenthood are just another political gambit, McCarthy could be given two gold stars for candor. (David Horsey, 10/1)

Judging by [this week's congressional] hearing, the only thing more painful than watching Republicans not do anything about Planned Parenthood is watching them try to do something about Planned Parenthood. They gave every sign of being underprepared and overmatched. They were like a team of paralegals squaring off with an accomplished mob lawyer. ... If there’s a lesson from the congressional hearing it is that any serious Republican effort to dent Planned Parenthood’s shockingly positive public image must focus on the abhorrent acts at the center of the group’s work. Niggling criticisms are too easily deflected, as Richards attempts to spin away the unspeakable. (Rich Lowry, 10/1)

Two decades after a near-death experience, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the only federal agency devoted to health services research and improving the safety and quality of US health care, is at risk once again. Last June, the House Committee on Appropriations passed a bill that would terminate AHRQ’s funding. Two days later, the Senate Committee on Appropriations voted to cut AHRQ’s budget by 35%, decreasing the AHRQ FY 2015 budget by $128 million. ... The Senate’s position is perhaps understandable, but it is short-sighted, given AHRQ’s function and purpose. The House’s position is just wrong. People should care about how this portion of the budget debate is resolved because AHRQ is important for efforts to improve our health care system. (Gail Wilensky, 9/30)

For the first time, the global sustainable-development goals being negotiated at the United Nations treat tobacco use — and the chronic diseases it causes — as a development issue. It’s long overdue. (Michael R. Bloomberg and Margaret Chan, 10/1)