Sens. Cassidy (on left) and Graham are set to introduce a new version of their health care bill. Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy have revised their health-care bill, allowing states to loosen more of the Affordable Care Act's regulations while diverting more money to the states whose senators hold the deciding votes on the legislation. They will formally release the revised measure tomorrow.

Why it matters: The deadline to pass a bill with just 50 votes is Saturday.

The Congressional Budget Office is expected to release preliminary estimates this week of the initial — and now outdated — version of the bill. With the clock ticking and little time for independent economic analyses, Graham and Cassidy are making a last-minute play for senators who have been critical not only of the bill's contents, but of the rushed process, too.

What's different: According to Graham and Cassidy's analysis, the revised bill would direct more money to Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky and Maine, compared with earlier versions. But it would still reduce overall federal funding to those states — whose Republican senators are, for now, opposed to the bill or undecided.Although the state-by-state numbers being circulated show these states faring well, the Kaiser Family Foundation's Larry Levitt called them "pretty misleading," as they don't take into account the per-person cap on federal Medicaid funding. They also add state savings to the block grants under the bill, but don't include them in the current law baseline, meaning the comparison isn't apples to apples. The revisions also ramped up some of the regulatory rollbacks needed to help win conservative votes. Sen. Ted Cruz said earlier today that he's not yet on board with the legislation.For Alaska:Funding carve outs for low-density states Increased Medicaid federal match rate for high-poverty states, aka Alaska and Hawaii Regulatory changes: Allows "multiple risk pools," which could separate sick and healthy people and thus drive up premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. Allows states to change the federal cap on out-of-pocket costs for enrollees.Allows states to decide how much insurers can charge people with pre-existing conditions, the benefits plans must offer and how cost-sharing is structured.States only have to describe their plans; they don't have to submit waivers of insurance rules."If there was any question about Graham-Cassidy's removal of federal protections for pre-existing conditions, this new draft is quite clear," Levitt tweeted. Go deeper: The bill ... State-by-state effects

Go deeper

Miriam Kramer, author of Space
7 mins ago - Science

The next environmental crisis could be in space

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

An unexpected frontier is facing calls for new environmental regulations and cleanup: outer space.

Why it matters: Space junk clutters up orbits and poses an urgent threat to weather, security, communications and other satellites. Long-term, you can’t live or work in space if trash is literally slamming into you.

36 mins ago - Health

Axios-Ipsos poll: Trump's sickness makes him harder to trust

Data: Axios/Ipsos poll; Note: ±3.3% margin of error; Chart: Axios Visuals

Large shares of women, seniors and independents now say they're less likely to trust President Trump for accurate information about COVID-19 since he caught it himself, according to the latest installment of the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index.

The big picture: Week 28 of our national survey has most Americans rejecting ideas that Trump has floated around hydroxychloriquine as a virus treatment, how herd immunity works or any imminent availability of a vaccine.

NY Post story goes massive on social media despite crackdowns

Data: NewsWhip; Chart: Naema Ahmed/Axios

Facebook and Twitter's frantic attempts to stop the spread of the New York Post's Hunter Biden story didn't prevent the article from becoming the top story about the election on those platforms last week, according to data from NewsWhip.

Why it matters: The data shows that even swift, aggressive content suppression may not be swift or aggressive enough to keep down a story with as much White House backing and partisan fuel as this one.