The Trump administration, working with governors and state legislatures, could make dramatic state by state changes to Medicaid and the ACA marketplaces using two types of state innovation waivers. Section 1332 of the ACA, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2017, lets states waive several key provisions of the ACA, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the premium tax credit, cost-sharing subsidies, and essential health benefits for ACA marketplace plans. In short, Section 1332 (ACA) waivers let states operate their health care systems as if major parts of the ACA do not exist. Additionally, Section 1115 (Medicaid) waivers give states the opportunity to waive federal Medicaid law. The changes made possible by Section 1115 waivers aren’t as dramatic as those contained in the AHCA—for example, states can’t use these waivers to fully restructure Medicaid under block grants or per capita caps, nor can the federal government use them to take away federal reimbursements for Medicaid expansion—but they are still significant.

. . .

With the passage of the ACA, Congress promised Americans that they would be able to keep the plans and doctors they like while paying less for health insurance and healthcare overall. Seven years later, many Americans have fewer choices when it comes to health decisions and are paying more for care and insurance. The State Policy Network has compiled stories from around the country that highlight state and local challenges and represent the need for a state-based approach that unleashes innovation in health care based upon the needs of citizens.

. . .

Obamacare has already failed, and it failed because the government violated several basic economic and free-market principles, resulting in devastating outcomes for those seeking coverage, people already covered, and taxpayers.

Under Obamacare, our most vulnerable citizens in Pennsylvania are paying more for health insurance with fewer choices. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, individual premiums increased by more than 50% in Philadelphia this year. Deductibles for a family plan now exceed $6,000, and the choices continue to shrink.

Pennsylvania’s health care delivery system should encourage participation in the health-insurance market rather than mandating it as Obamacare did, offer the option of using open network, lower-cost, catastrophic plans supported by health savings accounts, and place much greater emphasis on prevention and addressing the causes of poor health.

. . .

As high health costs persist, insurance affordability remains a challenge for many employers and individuals. However, allowing insurers to sell coverage across state lines could result in unintended consequences such as market segmentation that could threaten the viability of insurers licensed in states with strict benefit coverage, issue, or rating rules. The ability for high-risk individuals to obtain coverage could be compromised as a result. If rules governing insurance are consistent across the states, as they are under the ACA, market segmentation could be minimized. However, potential premium savings would also be minimal, as premiums would continue to reflect local health care costs, regardless of location of the insurer.

. . .

As Republicans in Congress look to repeal and replace the ACA, they’re considering a return to high-risk pools like one in Wisconsin, which some considered a national model. The “Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan” — which ran from 1979 to 2014, when the federal health law’s exchanges started — was funded through premiums, insurance company assessments and reduced payments to providers. “Pooling the high-risk individuals together and managing their needs separately was a huge factor in the state’s success in offering a competitive insurance market,” J.P. Wieske, the state’s deputy insurance commissioner, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee this month.

. . .

Let the states derive their own health care solutions, particularly when it comes to cost containment. That’s why we may need to look to six states that are aggressively working to contain costs. The Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee legislatures are considering a proposal to eliminate defensive medicine by abolishing each state’s medical malpractice system and replace it with a no-blame model similar to workers’ compensation. Two other states are also examining the concept. When doctors are no longer the target of litigation, they would be less likely to order unnecessary tests, medications and procedures.

. . .

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey heads to Washington this week to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference. The Washington Examiner asked him to preview his main priorities regarding Obamacare replacement and what they should know about Arizona’s healthcare challenges.

He said, “The damage from Obamacare is clear: Insurance markets have been wrecked; premiums have soared; and promises, such as “you can keep your doctor,” have been broken. That’s what happens when one party imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on one-sixth of the country’s economy without even bothering to read the bill. Congress should do the opposite of what occurred in 2010: It should seek to expand choices for consumers, not limit them; it should encourage innovation in the states, not stifle it; and it should read the bill and understand the implications of what it’s passing instead of simply hoping for the best despite ample evidence to the contrary.”

. . .

California has been an early and frequent booster of the Affordable Care Act and the vast majority of the state’s politicians are committed to improving, rather than repealing, the law. The best path forward is for California to seize the opportunities in the GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. Two major areas where California could cooperate with the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress include improving coverage and access for the working poor, and controlling health care costs, particularly for small businesses and those who do not receive insurance subsidies.

. . .

Since its passage in 1965, Medicaid has expanded and contracted with the political tides. With concurrent Republican executive and legislative control in 2017, conservative policy makers have already declared their desire to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its Medicaid expansion, which has been responsible for approximately 12 million of the 20 million individuals who became newly insured as a result of the ACA. But proposals for fundamental reform of Medicaid are even more far-reaching in terms of their consequences for the other 60 million low-income children, parents, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities who rely on the program. Understanding the rationale for and likely effects of these proposals is critical for physicians and patients alike.

. . .

President Trump, the House and the Senate have all taken the first steps toward repealing the Affordable Care Act. Yet many critics (and even supporters) of the move share a common concern: With the ACA gone, what comes next?

We hope any replacement plan engages the states as true partners and allows for greater local accountability. Fortunately, there is already a mechanism to let states take the lead — a shift that would generate bipartisan consensus the ACA never achieved.

The Department of Health and Human Services has discretion under the ACA to offer states waivers from many of the law’s most expensive and onerous regulations. The Trump administration can use the waivers to immediately signal its commitment to promoting market competition and empowering patients and consumers. Along with new reforms to promote transparency on pricing and quality, the administration and Congress can facilitate a health care revolution from the ground up.

. . .