Good morning ... Last week gave us an executive order and an end to cost-sharing payments. Can't wait to find out what the health policy universe has in store for us this week.
The Trump administration's decision to stop paying the Affordable Care Act's cost-sharing reduction subsidies will affect ACA customers in Republican-leaning congressional districts as well as Democratic ones. Here's a look at how many people could feel the impact in districts that voted for President Trump, compared with those in districts that voted for Hillary Clinton.
The details: This year, 11.1 million people were enrolled in ACA marketplace plans or in a Basic Health Plan created by the law. Of those, 5.9 million live in Republican-held congressional districts and 5.2 million live in districts held by Democrats, per the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The impact: The CSR subsidies are going to 58% of the people who are enrolled in ACA marketplace plans. In all, about 7 million people don't receive any financial assistance with their premiums, so they'd pay the full cost when health insurance companies raise their rates. But others could be affected if health insurers decided to pull out of the markets rather than deal with the instability.
There are broader implications of the Trump administration's decision to lean so heavily on a legal rationale for cutting off the CSR subsidies: institutional divisions between the executive and legislative branches.
Between the lines: The White House said it was ending the payments in part because of a ruling last spring that said it was unconstitutional to make the payments without an explicit appropriation from Congress. As part of that process, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote a memo saying, in effect, there was no point appealing that ruling.
Real talk: Former White House strategist Steve Bannon, speaking at the Values Voters Summit over the weekend, cut to the heart of Trump's decision: "Not going to make the CSR payments, going to blow that thing up; going to blow those exchanges up, right?"
The American Hospital Association released a report last week that said the benefits that not-for-profit hospitals provide to their local communities far outweigh foregone federal tax revenue. But Axios' Bob Herman talked to some experts who said the AHA's report has flaws and omissions that exaggerate hospitals' community roles and understate the power of their tax exemptions.
AHA's response: Mindy Hatton, the AHA's top lawyer, responded with a statement to Axios. The report did not include property tax values, she said, because the analysis only covered federal exemptions, which "Congress has jurisdiction over."
The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" teamed up for a lengthy investigation into changes in the laws governing the Drug Enforcement Agency that, some experts claim, made it harder to crack down on the flow of opioids.
Read the whole thing
What we're watching this week: With health care back on the front burner, all eyes are on Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray.
Get in touch: I welcome your thoughts, questions and tips: firstname.lastname@example.org