User login
The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.
The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.
With few exceptions, the key players in the health care team of President Joe Biden’s new administration are in place, according to Mr. Studdard, who is a lobbyist and health care expert. By moving quickly to fill key positions, the new administration “got off to a good start” for a health care agenda that Mr. Studdard believes will be a focus of the Biden presidency. There is some degree of urgency.
“The amount of time [the Biden administration has] to get their agenda through is fairly limited,” Mr. Studdard reported. The problems include a slim majority of fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives (222 vs 213), no majority of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate (50 vs 50), and mid-term elections that are already looming.
“Midterms historically favor the opposition party,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects party lines to harden as the midterms approach, dissipating the already limited appetite for bipartisan cooperation.
The midterms provide the basis for trying to affect change in advance of legislative gridlock, but the recently announced $2 trillion infrastructure bill is an even more compelling impetus. Infrastructure in this case is not limited to the construction of bridges and roads. Rather, this bill “is a massive package that will almost certainly touch on health care policy,” according to Mr. Studdard.
As the infrastructure bill winds its way through the legislative process, Mr. Studdard expects there will be efforts to include language that favors expansion of services and funding for health care. This includes those related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the temporary modifications permitted under the CARES Act, which was passed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those who think that waivers and exceptions introduced in the CARES Act, such as the expansion of telehealth, should be made permanent, “this will be your main shot on goal,” Mr. Studdard said.
The debates around the ambitious infrastructure bill are “all that we will be hearing about from the legislative standpoint for the next few months,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects major lobbying efforts in regard to this legislation from a vast array of interest groups, not just those with a stake in health care.
If the bill passes, it will likely to be greatly helped by a vote under the reconciliation process. Created in 1974 to allow expedited consideration of spending legislation, the reconciliation process allows bills to be enacted with a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Filibustering is not permitted.
This means that the infrastructure bill, like the CARES Act, which was also passed through the reconciliation process, can be made into law even if all 50 Republican senators vote against it. As she has already done three times since taking office—most recently for COVID19 relief bill in early March—Vice President Kamala Harris can break a 50-50 tie with her vote for the administration’s agenda.
Legislation is one of two paths for altering funding and rules regarding health care in the United States. Policy is the other. For reaching decision makers with influence on policy, Mr. Studdard provided a long list of agencies, political appointees, and elected representatives that could be targeted. Many, such as the director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are well known, but others might be overlooked without a detailed list of the players.
As one example, he pointed to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which is a relatively new organization within CMS. Led by Liz Fowler, a former Senate aide involved in writing the ACA, the CMMI has broad authority over several aspects of health policy, such as value-based care.
“The CCMI is something you should put on your radar. It moves with more flexibility than the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services],” Mr. Studdard said.
Mr. Studdard’s detailed overview of the intricacies of how to affect change in health policy and the likely trajectory under the Biden Administration included frequent comments about the traits, background, and goals of the specific decision makers he identified. The implication is that personal relations matter. Mr. Studdard indicated that knowing who to contact is just the first step.
For the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, this information is critical. In his outline of the numerous paths for influencing health care policy, Mr. Studdard’s comments lead directly to strategies to lobbying goals for CHEST.
“CHEST and its Health Policy and Advocacy Committee are keeping a focus on health care policy to improve access and to improve care for our patients and reduce the burden on our providers,” according to the Chair of the Committee, Neil Freedman, MD, FCCP. Dr, Freedman is the Division Head Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Northshore University HeatlhSystem, Evanston, Illinois.
“We would hope that, in addition to the proposed infrastructure bill subsidizing some additional costs for the ACA and COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] and enhancing Medicaid eligibility, the bill would also provide some additional funding for the provider relief fund,” he said.
Mr. Studdard or his lobbying firm represent 62 clients with interests in health care policy.
The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.
The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.
With few exceptions, the key players in the health care team of President Joe Biden’s new administration are in place, according to Mr. Studdard, who is a lobbyist and health care expert. By moving quickly to fill key positions, the new administration “got off to a good start” for a health care agenda that Mr. Studdard believes will be a focus of the Biden presidency. There is some degree of urgency.
“The amount of time [the Biden administration has] to get their agenda through is fairly limited,” Mr. Studdard reported. The problems include a slim majority of fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives (222 vs 213), no majority of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate (50 vs 50), and mid-term elections that are already looming.
“Midterms historically favor the opposition party,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects party lines to harden as the midterms approach, dissipating the already limited appetite for bipartisan cooperation.
The midterms provide the basis for trying to affect change in advance of legislative gridlock, but the recently announced $2 trillion infrastructure bill is an even more compelling impetus. Infrastructure in this case is not limited to the construction of bridges and roads. Rather, this bill “is a massive package that will almost certainly touch on health care policy,” according to Mr. Studdard.
As the infrastructure bill winds its way through the legislative process, Mr. Studdard expects there will be efforts to include language that favors expansion of services and funding for health care. This includes those related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the temporary modifications permitted under the CARES Act, which was passed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those who think that waivers and exceptions introduced in the CARES Act, such as the expansion of telehealth, should be made permanent, “this will be your main shot on goal,” Mr. Studdard said.
The debates around the ambitious infrastructure bill are “all that we will be hearing about from the legislative standpoint for the next few months,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects major lobbying efforts in regard to this legislation from a vast array of interest groups, not just those with a stake in health care.
If the bill passes, it will likely to be greatly helped by a vote under the reconciliation process. Created in 1974 to allow expedited consideration of spending legislation, the reconciliation process allows bills to be enacted with a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Filibustering is not permitted.
This means that the infrastructure bill, like the CARES Act, which was also passed through the reconciliation process, can be made into law even if all 50 Republican senators vote against it. As she has already done three times since taking office—most recently for COVID19 relief bill in early March—Vice President Kamala Harris can break a 50-50 tie with her vote for the administration’s agenda.
Legislation is one of two paths for altering funding and rules regarding health care in the United States. Policy is the other. For reaching decision makers with influence on policy, Mr. Studdard provided a long list of agencies, political appointees, and elected representatives that could be targeted. Many, such as the director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are well known, but others might be overlooked without a detailed list of the players.
As one example, he pointed to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which is a relatively new organization within CMS. Led by Liz Fowler, a former Senate aide involved in writing the ACA, the CMMI has broad authority over several aspects of health policy, such as value-based care.
“The CCMI is something you should put on your radar. It moves with more flexibility than the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services],” Mr. Studdard said.
Mr. Studdard’s detailed overview of the intricacies of how to affect change in health policy and the likely trajectory under the Biden Administration included frequent comments about the traits, background, and goals of the specific decision makers he identified. The implication is that personal relations matter. Mr. Studdard indicated that knowing who to contact is just the first step.
For the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, this information is critical. In his outline of the numerous paths for influencing health care policy, Mr. Studdard’s comments lead directly to strategies to lobbying goals for CHEST.
“CHEST and its Health Policy and Advocacy Committee are keeping a focus on health care policy to improve access and to improve care for our patients and reduce the burden on our providers,” according to the Chair of the Committee, Neil Freedman, MD, FCCP. Dr, Freedman is the Division Head Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Northshore University HeatlhSystem, Evanston, Illinois.
“We would hope that, in addition to the proposed infrastructure bill subsidizing some additional costs for the ACA and COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] and enhancing Medicaid eligibility, the bill would also provide some additional funding for the provider relief fund,” he said.
Mr. Studdard or his lobbying firm represent 62 clients with interests in health care policy.
The ambitious infrastructure bill now being debated in the US Congress might be one of the best immediate opportunities to lobby for legislative or policy changes in delivery of health care during the current Biden administration, according to an analysis delivered at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.
The infrastructure bill is likely to be pushed forward in the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which means “that some things might get passed that otherwise would not,” explained Keith S. Studdard, Vice President, Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates, Washington, DC.
With few exceptions, the key players in the health care team of President Joe Biden’s new administration are in place, according to Mr. Studdard, who is a lobbyist and health care expert. By moving quickly to fill key positions, the new administration “got off to a good start” for a health care agenda that Mr. Studdard believes will be a focus of the Biden presidency. There is some degree of urgency.
“The amount of time [the Biden administration has] to get their agenda through is fairly limited,” Mr. Studdard reported. The problems include a slim majority of fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives (222 vs 213), no majority of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate (50 vs 50), and mid-term elections that are already looming.
“Midterms historically favor the opposition party,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects party lines to harden as the midterms approach, dissipating the already limited appetite for bipartisan cooperation.
The midterms provide the basis for trying to affect change in advance of legislative gridlock, but the recently announced $2 trillion infrastructure bill is an even more compelling impetus. Infrastructure in this case is not limited to the construction of bridges and roads. Rather, this bill “is a massive package that will almost certainly touch on health care policy,” according to Mr. Studdard.
As the infrastructure bill winds its way through the legislative process, Mr. Studdard expects there will be efforts to include language that favors expansion of services and funding for health care. This includes those related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the temporary modifications permitted under the CARES Act, which was passed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those who think that waivers and exceptions introduced in the CARES Act, such as the expansion of telehealth, should be made permanent, “this will be your main shot on goal,” Mr. Studdard said.
The debates around the ambitious infrastructure bill are “all that we will be hearing about from the legislative standpoint for the next few months,” Mr. Studdard said. He expects major lobbying efforts in regard to this legislation from a vast array of interest groups, not just those with a stake in health care.
If the bill passes, it will likely to be greatly helped by a vote under the reconciliation process. Created in 1974 to allow expedited consideration of spending legislation, the reconciliation process allows bills to be enacted with a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Filibustering is not permitted.
This means that the infrastructure bill, like the CARES Act, which was also passed through the reconciliation process, can be made into law even if all 50 Republican senators vote against it. As she has already done three times since taking office—most recently for COVID19 relief bill in early March—Vice President Kamala Harris can break a 50-50 tie with her vote for the administration’s agenda.
Legislation is one of two paths for altering funding and rules regarding health care in the United States. Policy is the other. For reaching decision makers with influence on policy, Mr. Studdard provided a long list of agencies, political appointees, and elected representatives that could be targeted. Many, such as the director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), are well known, but others might be overlooked without a detailed list of the players.
As one example, he pointed to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which is a relatively new organization within CMS. Led by Liz Fowler, a former Senate aide involved in writing the ACA, the CMMI has broad authority over several aspects of health policy, such as value-based care.
“The CCMI is something you should put on your radar. It moves with more flexibility than the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services],” Mr. Studdard said.
Mr. Studdard’s detailed overview of the intricacies of how to affect change in health policy and the likely trajectory under the Biden Administration included frequent comments about the traits, background, and goals of the specific decision makers he identified. The implication is that personal relations matter. Mr. Studdard indicated that knowing who to contact is just the first step.
For the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, this information is critical. In his outline of the numerous paths for influencing health care policy, Mr. Studdard’s comments lead directly to strategies to lobbying goals for CHEST.
“CHEST and its Health Policy and Advocacy Committee are keeping a focus on health care policy to improve access and to improve care for our patients and reduce the burden on our providers,” according to the Chair of the Committee, Neil Freedman, MD, FCCP. Dr, Freedman is the Division Head Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, Northshore University HeatlhSystem, Evanston, Illinois.
“We would hope that, in addition to the proposed infrastructure bill subsidizing some additional costs for the ACA and COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] and enhancing Medicaid eligibility, the bill would also provide some additional funding for the provider relief fund,” he said.
Mr. Studdard or his lobbying firm represent 62 clients with interests in health care policy.
REPORTING FROM THE CHEST HEALTH POLICY AND ADVOCACY CONFERENCE