�鶹Ů��

But he speaks with near-equal passion about a domestic issue that has all but disappeared from the campaign conversation: entitlement reform, and the importance of a balanced approach to achieving it. Here Graham is the only candidate willing to say two words that have become ideological poison for both sides: Simpson-Bowles. That debt-reduction proposal has become anathema for Republicans because it calls for trillions in new tax revenue and, equally, anathema for Democrats because it calls for entitlement changes such as raising the Medicare eligibility age and changing the method for calculating Social Security cost-of-living increases. (Ruth Marcus, 7/14)

Hillary Clinton was criticized by a number of mainstream outlets for a speech yesterday light on substance and, in its anti-Wall Street rhetoric, disingenuous coming from someone who has gotten rich off the same Wall Street moneymen she now decries. All that won’t matter to the electorate, however, if the GOP nominee does not seize the opening. Here’s how to do that. ... no candidate can get away with promising to repeal Obamacare without explaining what he or she will put in its place. The rationale for the alternative must be directed to people who are hurt by or not helped by Obamacare. That means the alternative must deliver on the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act and restore greater choice to consumers. Ideally, the case should be made that consigning the poor to unreformed Medicaid is tantamount to saying the poor will get inferior care. (Jennifer Rubin, 7/14)

A week after the White House’s celebration of the King v. Burwell decision, insurance companies across the nation asked for rate increases of 20 to 60 percent. When asked, Obama suggested consumers pressure state regulators to deny the increases. As it turns out, at least in Oregon, the insurance commissioner actually made several companies raise premiums more than they asked and approved average rate increases of over 24 percent for all companies. ... Unfortunately, as premiums increase, those who are not heavily subsidized are less likely to buy insurance. This means the younger and healthier people only buy insurance when they get older and sicker. This is what is happening. Can anyone say “insurance death spiral”? (Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., 7/13)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is working. And the numbers and stories back it up. In my home state of California, more than 3 million people now have health security because of the ACA. In my district, the number of uninsured residents has drastically declined, by 50 percent. ... But we know that, just like with any other large piece of legislation, there are fixes to be made and follow-up efforts that are required to bring the promise of high-quality, affordable, accessible healthcare to all Americans. We must continue to work to address affordability, ensuring that all Americans have access to care at a rate that fits their budgets. ... We must also continue to work to improve provider network adequacy and ensure that Americans have access to the healthcare providers they need and trust. (Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., 7/13)

After the Supreme Court recently upheld yet another provision of the ACA, it is time for opponents of healthcare reform to accept that the ACA is here to stay and stop partisan attempts to block, repeal or undermine key elements of the successful law. States should take steps to more fully implement the Affordable Care Act. The states that have adopted Medicaid expansion have seen larger gains in coverage than non-expansion states and generally are saving money in their budgets. Recent reports confirm that hospitals in these states are treating fewer uninsured patients and experiencing steep declines in the amount of uncompensated care they are providing. (Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, 7/13)

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the high-profile and historic King v. Burwell case upholding federal subsidies distributed under ObamaCare has caused Republicans in Congress to ask the next logical question: Where do we go from here? Many legal experts had expected the Supreme Court to rule in a favor of a plain reading of the law, which clearly states that the federal subsidies are illegal. Conservatives who had believed this decision might finally be the death knell for ObamaCare are frustrated — and in one sense, rightfully so. But despite this frustration, I’m optimistic that this decision might be the first step to finally achieving full repeal of this disastrous law. (Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., 7/13)

No matter how many times the U.S. House of Representatives votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the outcome will be the same. Failure. First, despite many votes for repeal by the Republican-controlled House, the legislation has never cleared. (Bob Sigman, 7/14)

CVS Health did something the other day that we don't see enough in the business world. It stood up for its principles. The pharmacy giant announced it was quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after reports that the influential business organization was lobbying against anti-smoking laws around the world. (David Lazarus, 7/14)

The birthrate among teenagers across Colorado plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health. The declines were similar for married women under 25 who have not finished high school. A private grant allowed the Colorado experiment, which advocates are scrambling to find a way to continue as their original funding is running out. What can Texas, which has some of the highest teen birth rates in the U.S., learn from the Colorado story? (Sharon Grigsby, 7/14)

Last week, Congress passed the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, which has been heralded as a “once-in-a-decade” bill designed to improve the process of discovering, developing and delivering treatments to patients, and to boost biomedical research. Included in this package is a provision which will improve patient access to potentially life-saving investigational drugs when all other options have been exhausted. The British Parliament has also been debating its own legislation, called the Medical Innovation Bill, a slightly different, albeit no less important effort to reduce barriers that prevent doctors from using novel medicines when their patients have no other options. (U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Lord Maurice Saatchi, member of Parliament, 7/15)

A new report by a health care advocacy group confirmed what many of us in Florida already know: it's too difficult to compare prices for medical services and procedures. Medical pricing remains an enigma, it seems, because the industry likes it that way. Consumers without information are consumers who can't vote with their wallets. Florida and all but five other states received an "F" for price transparency from the Catalyst for Payment Reform and the Health Care Incentives Improvement Institute. The report evaluates states based on whether they have laws or regulations that require health prices be made public. New Hampshire was the only state to receive an "A," the result of its NH HealthCost site. The site allows consumers to compare prices based on geography, type of insurance and other factors for everything from a basic visit to the doctor to complicated medical tests. (Kassab, 7/14)