2015: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing The Share Of Medicare Premiums Paid By Wealthy Individuals, As Part Of Permanent "Doc Fix" Legislation. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "Starting in 2018, the bill increases the percentage of premiums that beneficiaries in two upper income brackets must pay --- which bill sponsors estimate will effect roughly 2% of Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, it increases from 50% to 65% the percentage of premiums that must be paid by individuals with modified adjusted gross income between $133,500 and 160,000 (between $267,000 and $320,000 for a couple), and increases from 65% to 80% the percentage of premiums to be paid for those with modified adjusted gross income above $160,000 ($320,000 for a couple). It also formally adjusts the minimum income threshold at which beneficiaries would begin to pay a percentage (35%) of premiums, increasing it from $80,000 to $85,000. Under the measure, all income-related thresholds for Medicare premiums would be indexed for inflation beginning in 2020." The House passed the bill by a vote of 392 to 37. The president later signed the bill into law. [House Vote 144, 4/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
Provision Was Part Of Larger Bill Replacing The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Formula For Medicare Reimbursements To Doctors With Two Alternate Payment Systems. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill replaces the SGR with a new reimbursement system under which physicians could choose to participate under one of two methods: a Merit-Based Incentive Payment system under which doctors could get higher reimbursements based on better overall performance, or a group-oriented Alternative Payment Model system under which doctors would move away from traditional fee-for-service payments.." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Bill Extended Children's Health Insurance Program For 2 Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill extends funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for an additional two years, through FY 2017, providing a total of $19.3 billion for the program for FY 2016 and $20.4 billion for the program for FY 2017." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Bill Increased Deficit by $141 Billion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Republicans, however, oppose the bill because it increases the deficit by $141 billion over ten years, while some Democrats have expressed concern that it extends CHIP for only two years and restricts the use of community health center funds for abortions." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
1997: Balanced Budget Act Created SGR, Which Determines Reimbursement Rates For Medicare. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (PL 105-33) implemented the current system used to determine reimbursements under Medicare Part B. This system sets an overall target for federal spending under Medicare Part B, which allows for reimbursements to physicians to be adjusted, upward or downward, to meet the target." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Permanent "Doc Fix" Legislation That Replaced Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate Physician Payment Formula With A Performance-Based Payment System Or A Group-Oriented System. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "replace[d] the SGR with a new reimbursement system under which physicians could choose to participate under one of two methods: a Merit-Based Incentive Payment system under which doctors could get higher reimbursements based on better overall performance, or a group-oriented Alternative Payment Model system under which doctors would move away from traditional fee-for-service payments." The House passed the bill by a vote of 392 to 37. The president later signed the bill into law. [House Vote 144, 4/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
1997: Balanced Budget Act Created SGR, Which Determines Reimbursement Rates For Medicare. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (PL 105-33) implemented the current system used to determine reimbursements under Medicare Part B. This system sets an overall target for federal spending under Medicare Part B, which allows for reimbursements to physicians to be adjusted, upward or downward, to meet the target." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
Since SGR's Creation, Congress Has Prevented Almost All Reductions Under The SGR With So-Called "Doc Fix" Bills; Lone Exception Was 2002, When Rates Were Reduced By 4.8 Percent. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Since the system was created, reimbursement rates have been cut just once, by 4.8% in 2002. Congress has prevented any further cuts by repeatedly enacting 'doc fix' legislation to block the required cuts, and to often provide an increase --- which has acted to build up the size of the cumulative cut needed to hit the sustainable growth rate (SGR) target for Medicare spending. Doc fix measures have become routine in recent years, often attached to other essential legislation. The most recent temporary adjustment was enacted as part of the December 2013 budget agreement (PL 113-67) and expires at the end of March. Prior to that, an extension was enacted as part of the January 2013 fiscal cliff agreement (PL 112-240)." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
April 1, 2014: President Obama Signed Temporary "Doc Fix" Bill Eliminating SGR-Mandated Cuts For One Year Until April 1, 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, "President Barack Obama on Tuesday [April 1, 2014] signed into law a one-year payment patch for Medicare physicians, the day after 24 percent cuts were scheduled to take place. The Senate cleared the 'doc fix' (HR 4302) on Monday evening, the same day that the current payment patch (PL 113-67) expired, which would have triggered the cuts absent congressional action. [...] Under the measure, physicians will receive a 0.5 percent payment update through the rest of 2014, and then those payment rates will stay flat until April 1, 2015." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/1/14]
Under The SGR, Medicare Reimbursement Rates For Doctors Were Scheduled To Drop By 21 Percent On April 15, 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Senate late Tuesday ended a long-running pattern of temporarily blocking scheduled fee cuts to doctors who treat Medicare patients, replacing an oft-criticized payment formula in a strong bipartisan vote just hours before 21 percent reimbursement reductions were scheduled to take effect. [...] A payment patch (PL 113-93) temporarily blocking cuts dictated by the formula expired March 31, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had said it would begin paying physician claims at the reduced rate Wednesday." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/15]
Bill Permanently Repealed SGR Formula. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure repeals the sustainable growth rate (SGR) used to determine Medicare payment rates for physicians." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Starting In 2019, Bill Would Require Doctors To Choose Between One Of Two New Payment Systems. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Starting in 2019, providers would have to choose between the Merit-Based and Alternative Payment systems, and the amounts subsequently paid to individual providers would be subject to adjustment through the chosen system." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
One System Would Increase Or Decrease Payments Based On Performance, With Overall Increases And Decreases Offsetting. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Within the Merit-Based system, payments to individual providers would be subject to positive or negative adjustments based on performance --- but with the increases and decreases in aggregate offsetting one another so there is no overall net increase in payments." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Other System Would Encourage Doctors To Move Away From Fee-For-Service Model To Group Payment Models Like A Single Payment For Bundled Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In the Alternative Model system, meanwhile, providers would be required to move away from traditional fee-for-service Medicare payments into alternative payment models. Through 2024, providers would receive an annual bonus lump sum of 5% of the amount of payments they received the prior year if they achieved specified targets in moving away from fee-for-service.[...] Under the Alternative Payment Model system for making Medicare payments, doctors would be encouraged to move away from the traditional fee-for-service and toward group-oriented alternative payment mechanisms in which they bear some financial risk --- such as a single payment for bundled services for a patient." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Bill Extended Children's Health Insurance Program For Two Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill extends funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for an additional two years, through FY 2017, providing a total of $19.3 billion for the program for FY 2016 and $20.4 billion for the program for FY 2017." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Bill Increased Means Testing For High Income Medicare Beneficiaries And Indexed Income Thresholds To Inflation. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Starting in 2018, the bill increases the percentage of premiums that beneficiaries in two upper income brackets must pay --- which bill sponsors estimate will effect roughly 2% of Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, it increases from 50% to 65% the percentage of premiums that must be paid by individuals with modified adjusted gross income between $133,500 and 160,000 (between $267,000 and $320,000 for a couple), and increases from 65% to 80% the percentage of premiums to be paid for those with modified adjusted gross income above $160,000 ($320,000 for a couple) It also formally adjusts the minimum income threshold at which beneficiaries would begin to pay a percentage (35%) of premiums, increasing it from $80,000 to $85,000. Under the measure, all income-related thresholds for Medicare premiums would be indexed for inflation beginning in 2020." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
Bill Increased Deficit by $141 Billion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Republicans, however, oppose the bill because it increases the deficit by $141 billion over ten years, while some Democrats have expressed concern that it extends CHIP for only two years and restricts the use of community health center funds for abortions." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted For A 10-Year Doc Fix. In April 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "concurrent resolution that would provide for $2.842 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2015, not including off-budget accounts. [...] It also would include a proposal for a 10-year 'doc fix' to prevent a 24 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against The Congressional Progressive Caucus Substitute To The FY 2015 Budget, Which Permanently Addressed The Doc Fix. In April 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "Grijalva, D-Ariz., substitute amendment that would provide for $3.248 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2015, not including off-budget accounts. The plan would [...] direct $138 billion to be used to permanently address the Medicare physician reimbursement rate issue known as the 'doc fix.'" The substitute was rejected by a vote of 89 to 327. [House Vote 173, 4/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 96]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Temporary Doc Fix. In March 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 524) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would modify how presidents designate national monuments. It also would grant suspension authority on the legislative day of March 27, 2014, for House floor consideration of legislation that would change how Medicare pays physicians and a measure addressing Ukraine." [House Vote 143, 5/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 5/26/14; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 524]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Replace Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate Formula For Determining Payments To Physicians With Two New Formulas Aimed At Moving Doctors Off Of The Traditional Fee-For-Service Model. In March 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "[would] formally repeal[] the sustainable growth rate (SGR) used to determine Medicare payment rates for physicians, and it provides for a transition to a new dual system intended to reward quality of care that would begin in 2018. Under the new system, physicians could choose to participate under one of two reimbursement methods: a Merit-Based Incentive Payment system under which doctors could get higher reimbursements based on better overall performance, or a group-oriented Alternative Payment Model system under which doctors would move away from traditional fee-for-service payments." According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, the House bill also "include[d] provisions to fully offset the bill's 10-year cost by delaying the individual mandate penalties included in the 2010 health care overhaul [...] for five years. [...] [It] [would] eliminate[] the tax penalty until 2019 for taxpayers who fail to purchase health insurance under the individual mandate, reducing the penalty to 'zero.' It [would] also delay[] for five years certain phase-ins and indexing related to the individual mandate penalty under the 2010 health care overhaul for 2015 and later years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the modified version of the measure would reduce deficits by $20.7 billion over a 10-year period, with the individual mandate delay accounting for a $169.5 billion reduction in direct spending." The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 181; however, as of mid-August 2014, the Senate has taken no substantive action on the measure. [House Vote 135, 3/14/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/14/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4015]
1997: Balanced Budget Act Created SGR, Which Determines Reimbursement Rates For Medicare. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (PL 105-33) implemented the current system used to determine reimbursements under Medicare Part B. This system sets an overall target for federal spending under Medicare Part B, which allows for reimbursements to physicians to be adjusted, upward or downward, to meet the target." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
Since SGR's Creation, Congress Has Prevented Almost All Reductions Under The SGR With So-Called "Doc Fix" Bills; Lone Exception Was 2002, When Rates Were Reduced By 4.8 Percent. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Since the system was created, reimbursement rates have been cut just once, by 4.8% in 2002. Congress has prevented any further cuts by repeatedly enacting 'doc fix' legislation to block the required cuts, and to often provide an increase --- which has acted to build up the size of the cumulative cut needed to hit the sustainable growth rate (SGR) target for Medicare spending. Doc fix measures have become routine in recent years, often attached to other essential legislation. The most recent temporary adjustment was enacted as part of the December 2013 budget agreement (PL 113-67) and expires at the end of March. Prior to that, an extension was enacted as part of the January 2013 fiscal cliff agreement (PL 112-240)." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
Under The SGR, Medicare Reimbursement Rates For Doctors Were Scheduled To Drop By 24 Percent On April 1, 2014. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Absent congressional action, a 24% reduction in the Medicare reimbursement rate for physician services is set to occur on April 1." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/14]
April 1, 2014: President Obama Signed Temporary "Doc Fix" Bill Eliminating SGR-Mandated Cuts For One Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "President Barack Obama on Tuesday [April 1, 2014] signed into law a one-year payment patch for Medicare physicians, the day after 24 percent cuts were scheduled to take place. The Senate cleared the 'doc fix' (HR 4302) on Monday evening, the same day that the current payment patch (PL 113-67) expired, which would have triggered the cuts absent congressional action." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/1/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Paying For Either A Short-Term Patch Of The Medicare Physician Reimbursement Rate Problem Or Towards A Permanent Overhaul Of The Formula Used To Determine The Rate. In February 2014, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "repeal[ed] the 1 percent reduction to annual cost-of-living adjustments for most working-age military retirees enacted in the December 2013 budget agreement. It also [...] create[d] a $2.3 billion fund that could be used to pay for either a short-term 'patch' or contribute toward a permanent overhaul of the formula that determines Medicare physician reimbursement rates. The bill [was] offset by extending sequester cuts to certain mandatory spending by one year, until fiscal 2024." The House passed the bill by a vote of 326 to 90. Subsequently, the Senate also passed the bill, and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 60, 2/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/14; Congressional Actions, S. 25]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against The Congressional Black Caucus Substitute To The FY 2014 Budget, Which Permanently Addressed The Doc Fix. In March 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "Scott, D-Va., substitute amendment that would [...] assume $138 billion in spending to permanently address the Medicare reimbursement rate issue known as the 'doc fix.'." The House rejected the substitute by a vote of 105 to 305. [House Vote 84, 3/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 25]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against The Congressional Progressive Caucus Substitute To The FY 2014 Budget, Which Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Drug Prices. In March 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "Grijalva, D-Ariz., substitute amendment that would provide $3.802 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2014, not including off-budget accounts. [...] It would call for the creation of a public insurance option within the health insurance exchanges and legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate rates for prescription drugs and services." The House rejected the substitute by a vote of 84 to 327. [House Vote 85, 3/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 25]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Raising The Medicare Eligibility Age. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future [...] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can't afford insurance into the individual insurance market --- where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high --- leaving them uninsured. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "[R]aising Medicare's eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future [...] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can't afford insurance into the individual insurance market --- where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high --- leaving them uninsured. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "[R]aising Medicare's eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future [...] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can't afford insurance into the individual insurance market --- where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high --- leaving them uninsured. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "[R]aising Medicare's eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Increase Medicare's Eligibility Age To 67 As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for increasing Medicare's eligibility age to 67. According to the Republican Study Committee, "this budget proposes raising the age of Medicare eligibility by two months every year beginning with those born in 1960 until the eligibility age reaches 67." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Raise The Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal; The Increase Would Be Phased In Starting In 2024 And Completing In 2035. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Starting in 2024, the Ryan budget would raise Medicare's eligibility age --- now 65 --- by two months per year until it reaches age 67 in 2035." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
Because Ryan's Plan Would Also Repeal The ACA, Seniors Aged 65 And 66 Without Employer Coverage Would Face High Premium Costs Due To Their Age -- Or Might Be Unable To Obtain Any Insurance Due To A Pre-Existing Condition. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "At the same time, the plan would repeal health reform's coverage provisions. Consequently, 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would drive 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer-sponsored coverage into an individual insurance market that would be poorly regulated (since the Ryan plan repeals the Affordable Care Act's insurance reforms) and would charge older individuals extremely high premiums. People of limited means would be affected most harshly because they would not be able to afford private coverage. In addition, 65- and 66-year-olds with a pre-existing medical condition often would not be able to purchase coverage at any price. As a result, many 65- and 66-year-olds would find themselves uninsured." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
Loss Of Relatively Healthy 65- And 66-Year Olds From Medicare Would Raise Premiums For Remaining Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "All remaining Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher premiums because the removal of 65- and 66-year-olds, who are typically healthier than Medicare beneficiaries overall, would leave Medicare beneficiaries costlier to cover, on average." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Raise The Medicare Eligibility Age To 70 Over 20 Years. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support raising the Medicare eligibility age to 70 over 20 years, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "To address the increased demands on Medicare, this budget proposes raising the age of Medicare eligibility, beginning in 2024, by two months every year beginning with those born in 1959 until the eligibility age reaches 70, bringing Medicare eligibility in parity with Social Security." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Age Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "This means 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage into the individual insurance market, where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be extremely high --- thereby leaving many of them uninsured." [CBPP, 3/20/12]
Raising The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 Would Have Resulted In 3.7 Billion In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Costs To Seniors Aged 65 And 66. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "In the aggregate, raising the age of eligibility to 67 in 2014 is projected to result in an estimated net increase of $3.7 billion in out of -pocket costs for those ages 65 and 66 who would otherwise have been covered by Medicare. [Kaiser Family Foundation, 7/11]
Costs To Employers Would Increase By $4.5 Billion And Costs To States By $700 Million. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "costs to employers are projected to increase by $4.5 billion in 2014 and costs to states are expected to increase by $0.7 billion." [Kaiser Family Foundation, 7/11]
Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "raising Medicare's eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Cutting Medicare By $473 Billion. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would have, according to The Hill, "The spending blueprint is key to Republicans' efforts to pass tax reform because it includes instructions that will allow the plan to avoid a Democratic filibuster. [...] The budget, meant to outline spending for the fiscal year, was widely viewed as a mere vehicle for passing tax reform. [...] The budget would allow the Senate GOP's tax plan to add up to $1.5 trillion to the deficit over a decade, a proposal that has raised concerns with fiscal hawks in the GOP. Its instructions call for the Senate Finance Committee to report a tax bill by Nov. 13. Still, the document outlines the Senate GOP's political vision. It maintains spending at 2017 levels for the year, but would then cut nondefense spending in subsequent years, leading to a $106 billion cut in 2027. It would also allow defense levels to continue rising at their current rates, reaching $684 billion at the end of a decade. The resolution also proposes $473 billion in cuts to Medicare's baseline spending over a decade and about $1 trillion from Medicaid, though those provisions are not enforceable without additional legislation." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby agreeing to the budget by a vote of 216 to 212. [House Vote 589, 10/26/17; The Hill, 10/19/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For $1.5 Trillion In Health Care Programmatic Cuts, Including Medicare. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for the House GOP FY 2018 budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would provide for $3.2 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume $1.22 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2018. It would assume the repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul law. It also would propose reducing spending on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and changing programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food stamps). It would call for restructuring Medicare into a 'premium support' system beginning in 2024. I would also require the House Ways and Means Committee to report out legislation under the budget reconciliation process that would provide for a revenue-neutral, comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code and would include instructions to 11 House committees to trigger the budget reconciliation process to cut mandatory spending. The concurrent resolution would assume that, over 10 years, base (non-Overseas Contingency Operations) discretionary defense spending would be increased by a total of $929 billion over the Budget Control Act caps and non-defense spending be reduced by $1.3 trillion." The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 206. A modified version was later agreed to by both the House and the Senate. [House Vote 557, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Making $430 Billion In Unexplained Cuts To Medicare, As Part Of The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 conference report budget resolution which, according to the Congressional Conference Report, "The agreement proposes the same amount of Medicare savings reflected in the Senate-passed fiscal year 2016 budget as a target to extend the life of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and tasks the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate with determining the specific Medicare reforms needed to bring spending levels under current law in line with the budget." According to Bloomberg, the Senate's original budget, "avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget [and] instead call[ed] for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made." The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 226 to 197. The Senate also passed the budget resolution. [House Vote 183, 4/30/15; Conference Report, 4/29/15; Bloomberg, 3/27/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
Politico: Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget "Calls For Finding $430 Billion In Cuts From Medicare, But Offers Few Details On How To Achieve Those Savings." According to Politico, "The overall budget, written by Enzi in his first budget as chairman, slashes $5.1 trillion in spending over 10 years --- achieving the GOP's goal of balancing the budget within a decade. The budget also relies heavily on a war contingency fund to boost military spending --- a move that allows Republicans to go around the strict spending caps outlined in a 2011 deficit deal. It calls for finding $430 billion in cuts from Medicare but offers few details on how to achieve those savings. It also proposes cuts to Medicaid and welfare programs, while not increasing taxes. The budget also gives reconciliation instructions to two key committees that would be charged with replacing Obamacare." [Politico, 3/27/15]
Bloomberg: Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget "Avoided" House Budget's "Plan To Partially Privatize Medicare, [...] Instead Calls For $430 Billion In Spending Cuts." According to Bloomberg, "Senate Republicans avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget. The Senate plan instead calls for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made. Some Senators worried that the House approach on Medicare, unpopular with voters, would damage them politically in 2016. Next year, Republicans must defend 24 Senate seats compared with 10 for Democrats, a reversal from the past two elections when significantly more Senate Democrats were on the ballot. The Medicare provisions will now be the subject of a House-Senate conference committee next month." [Bloomberg, 3/27/15]
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) Likened Running On House's Specific Medicare Plan To A "Kamikaze Mission" That Would "Give Your Opponents All This Ammunition To Just Slaughter You In The Next Election." According to Bloomberg, "The House [FY 2016 budget] plan released Tuesday, straight from Representative Paul Ryan's budgets of the past, is sure to run into opposition among Republicans who control the Senate. Almost half the Senate Republicans are up for re-election next year, and few senators are eager to run on a budget that would cut benefits for senior citizens. [...] The Senate won't make specific cuts to Medicare in its proposal due Wednesday, said an aide familiar with the plan -- evidence of the deep splits inside the Republican Party over how to govern. 'What you're asking me is, yeah, hey, Republicans, why don't you go on a kamikaze mission here and why don't you lead and give your political opponents all this ammunition to just slaughter you in the next election?' Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican whose seat is up in 2016, told Bloomberg reporters and editors last week." [Bloomberg, 3/17/15]
Reuters: Senate FY 2016 Budget's Medicare Cuts "Similar To Those Proposed By Obama This Year." According to Reuters, "Republican lawmakers and aides in both the House and Senate say that a deal nearing completion to work out differences between the two chambers' budget plans will instead use the Senate's adoption of Medicare savings goals that are similar to those proposed by Obama this year. 'We're going to stick with the Senate language on Medicare,' said Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a member of the budget negotiating panel." [Reuters, 4/24/15]
President Obama Said Reducing Health Costs Could Save Medicare $430 Billion. According to Bloomberg, "[House Budget Committee Chairman Tom] Price's budget would cut Medicare by $148 billion through 2025. Starting in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries would choose from a range of options, including standard Medicare and private coverage. The government would issue fixed payments directly to the plan. It's a policy change the Senate didn't embrace as many Senate Republicans seeking re-election in 2016 don't want to cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The Senate budget chairman, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, is proposing to find $430 billion in unspecified savings in Medicare, the amount Obama says can be found from lowering health costs." [Bloomberg, 3/17/15]
Sanders: Congressional Budget Office Estimated That Obama's Proposals Would Reduce Medicare Spending By $279 Billion, While The White House Office Of Management And Budget Estimated $435 Billion. According to a "Dear Colleague" letter from Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders, "Despite Republicans' assertion that their Medicare cuts mirror those proposed by President Obama, their cuts are actually twice as large. This is for two key reasons. First, while the Office of Management and Budget estimated the President's budget request as reducing Medicare spending by $435 billion over the 10-year window, the Congressional Budget Office estimated these policies would in fact reduce Medicare outlays by $279 billion over the decade." [Sanders Letter, 4/20/15]
Center For Budget And Policy Priorities: Budget Would Eliminate Health Coverage For Millions Of Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed budget agreement that the Senate will consider next week would repeal health reform and cut Medicaid over the coming decade by roughly half a trillion dollars on top, making tens of millions more Americans uninsured." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/1/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against The Democratic Substitute FY 2015 Budget Resolution Which Prevented Sequester Cuts To Medicare And Permanently Addressed The Doc Fix. In April 2014, Schweikert voted against the Democratic FY 2015 substitute budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution would "provide for $3.078 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2015, not including off-budget accounts. The plan would call for repealing the sequester, including cuts to Medicare. [...] It would accommodate deficit-neutral legislation to permanently address the Medicare physician reimbursement rate issue known as the 'doc fix.'" The vote was on the substitute amendment to the FY 2015 Ryan budget. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 163 to 261. [House Vote 176, 4/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/10/14; Congressional Record, 4/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 616; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Means Testing Medicare As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for means testing Medicare, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, "his budget also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors, similar to the President's proposal in his fiscal year 2013 budget." The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Medicare Part B And Part D Premiums Would Have Increased For Some Seniors By $42.00 To $230.80 Per Month. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Ryan budget would raise Medicare's income-related premiums. Currently, most Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums for Parts B and D (which cover physician services and prescription drugs, respectively) that represent about one-quarter of program costs. The standard Part B premium is $104.90 a month in 2013, but beneficiaries with incomes above $85,000 (twice that amount for couples) must pay an extra amount that ranges from $42.00 to $230.80 a month." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
Medicare Prescription Drug Premiums Would Have Increased For Some Seniors By $11.60 To $66.60 Per Month. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, "High-income beneficiaries also must pay more for their Medicare prescription drug benefit, with the same income thresholds as for the income-related Part B premium. The additional premium amounts for the drug benefit range from $11.60 to $66.60 a month." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Means Testing Medicare. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support means testing Medicare, as part the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the Republican Study Committee, "Under the RSC's proposal, wealthier seniors would be required to pay slightly more in annual premiums than those with fewer financial resources, and conversely, poorer seniors would receive higher health insurance subsidies.." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; House Budget Committee, 3/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing An Estimated 52 Percent Increase In Medicare Part B Premiums As Part Of The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2015. In October 2015, Schweikert voted against preventing an estimated 52 percent increase in Medicare Part B Premium Increase as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement prevents an estimated 52% increase in Medicare Part B (medical insurance) premiums in 2016 for certain beneficiaries by resetting the premiums for those who are not protected by 'hold harmless' provisions in current law, providing instead for a lower increase. [...] CBO estimates that these provisions would cost $5.2 billion in FY 2016 and $2.1 billion in FY 2017, but over 10 years would produce $240 million in savings." The measure was part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which also "would suspend the debt limit until March 15, 2017 and increase[d] the discretionary spending cap for fiscal 2016 by $50 billion and for fiscal 2017 by $30 billion, with the increases split equally between defense and non-defense spending" among other provisions." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 266 to 167. The Senate later passed the bill and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 579, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1314]
30 Percent Of Medicare Beneficiaries Are Not Covered By 'Hold Harmless' Would See Premium Spikes. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Roughly 70% of Medicare Part B enrollees are covered by a 'hold harmless' provision that prevents their premiums from rising more than their Social Security paychecks. Because there is no Social Security cost-of-living-adjustment scheduled for next year, premiums for those beneficiaries would remain frozen at the 2015 level. For the remaining 30% of beneficiaries who are not held harmless, however, Part B premiums would spike to make up for the premium freeze for the 70% (under the law, 25% of the costs of Medicare Part B must be covered by beneficiaries). This exposed group includes new Medicare enrollees, those who do not receive Social Security checks, higher-income beneficiaries and low-income seniors enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid who have their premiums paid by the states. The measure maintains the hold-harmless provision in current law, but it sets the monthly Part B premium rate for the exposed group at $120 for 2016 --- a $15 (and 15%) increase from the current monthly premium of $104.90 (rather than a $54 increase to $159.30 that would otherwise occur). A monthly premium of $120 is the amount the premium would otherwise be for all beneficiaries if the hold-harmless provision did not apply. It also would alleviate an increase in the Part B deductible for all beneficiaries, lowering it from a projected $223 to $167. The agreement also provides that if there is no Social Security COLA for 2017, the measure's provision would apply once again." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
Budget Agreement Provided Offsets By Requiring The Beneficiary Not Subject To Hold Harmless To Pay An Additional $3 Monthly Part B Premium. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To cover the cost of the Part B premium adjustment, the agreement provides for a loan from the Treasury to the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which finances Medicare reimbursements. But it also establishes a system for repayment of that loan, requiring the 30% of beneficiaries not subject to the hold-harmless provision to pay an additional $3 in their monthly Part B premium beginning in 2016 until the loan is repaid. Those who pay higher income-related premium adjustments would pay more than $3, with the amount increasing in proportion to higher income brackets." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
Budget Agreement Also Provided A $9.3 Billion Offset Codifying A Center For Medicare And Medicaid Services Definition Of Provider Off-Campus Hospital Outpatient Departments. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement codifies the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) definition of provider-based off-campus hospital outpatient departments as those locations that are not on the main campus of a hospital and are located more than 250 yards from the main campus. The change would effectively block hospitals from purchasing physician's practices and using them to receive higher Medicare outpatient reimbursement rates. This provision would only be effective for applicable non-emergency items and services made after Jan. 1, 2017. Any new 'provider-based off-campus hospital outpatient department' that was not billed before the date of enactment would not be eligible for reimbursements from the CMS Outpatient Prospective Payment System and would instead be eligible for reimbursements from either the Ambulatory Surgical Center or the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. CBO estimates these provisions would reduce spending by $9.3 billion over 10 years." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
AARP Endorsed Budget Deal In Part Because It Prevented Medicare Part B Premium Spike. According to the AARP, "On behalf of our 38 million members and as the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing the interests of Americans age 50 and older and their families, AARP strongly supports the bipartisan agreement you have reached to avert deep reductions in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in 2016, and to address the imminent spike in Medicare Part B premiums which many older Americans would otherwise experience. Your efforts to reach across the aisle and together find sensible solutions to significant problems are appreciated and commended." [AARP, 10/27/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against The Congressional Progressive Caucus Substitute To The FY 2015 Budget, Which Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Drug Prices. In April 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "Grijalva, D-Ariz., substitute amendment that would provide for $3.248 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2015, not including off-budget accounts. [...] It also would recommend the creation of a public insurance option within the health insurance exchanges and propose allowing Medicare to negotiate rates for prescription drugs and services." The substitute was rejected by a vote of 89 to 327. [House Vote 173, 4/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 96]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Ending Medicare As We Know It. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for the House GOP FY 2018 budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would provide for $3.2 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume $1.22 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2018. It would assume the repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul law. It also would propose reducing spending on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and changing programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food stamps). It would call for restructuring Medicare into a 'premium support' system beginning in 2024. I would also require the House Ways and Means Committee to report out legislation under the budget reconciliation process that would provide for a revenue-neutral, comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code and would include instructions to 11 House committees to trigger the budget reconciliation process to cut mandatory spending. The concurrent resolution would assume that, over 10 years, base (non-Overseas Contingency Operations) discretionary defense spending would be increased by a total of $929 billion over the Budget Control Act caps and non-defense spending be reduced by $1.3 trillion." The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 206. A modified version was later agreed to by both the House and the Senate. [House Vote 557, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Replacing Medicare With A Voucher Program. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Instructing House Conferees To Not Support Changing Medicare To A Premium Support System. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against a motion that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "instruct[ed] House conferees to recede from disagreement with the Senate with respect to a section in the fiscal 2016 Senate budget resolution relating to paid sick time, and recede from a provision in the House amendment that would assume changing Medicare to provide premium support payments." The underlying legislation was the FY 2016 budget resolution. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 187 to 239. [House Vote 153, 4/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a 'premium support' system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a 'premium support' system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a 'premium support' system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Transition Medicare To A Premium-Support Program, Instead Of A Guaranteed Benefit Program As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for transforming Medicare to a premium support system in 2020. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Beginning in 2020, our budget gradually transforms Medicare into a health insurance program similar both to the system that federal employees enjoy and to the current Medicare Part D. These programs allow participants to choose among health and prescription drug plans provided on a regulated exchange. Changes would only apply to individuals born in 1955 or later. Those born prior to 1955 would have the choice of opting into the new system." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Replacing Medicare With A Premium Support Plan As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, "Beginning in 2024, for those workers born in 1959 or later, Medicare would offer them a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a new Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or to offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior." The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
CBPP: Ryan's Medicare Policies in FY 2014 Budget "Essentially The Same As Those In Last Year's Ryan Budget." According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year's Ryan budget." [CBPP, 3/15/13]
A Similar Provision in Ryan's FY 2013 Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee For Service Model. According to CRS, "Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [CRS, 3/29/12]
Ryan's Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, "The benchmark plan would be either the second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever cost less. If a senior chose a more expensive plan than the benchmark, he or she would pay the difference between the subsidy and the monthly premium. And if a senior chose a plan less expensive than the benchmark, he or she would receive a rebate for the difference. Medicare would offer higher payments depending on the patient's health history and the cost of living. And it would require private plans to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package offered by the fee-for-service option." [House Budget Committee, 3/13]
Ryan's Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5 Percent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
If So, Seniors Would Have To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits With Each Passing Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Replace Medicare With A Premium Support Plan. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Beginning in 2019, enrollees in the newly created private insurance market would receive premium subsidies to offset the cost of their health insurance policies. Seniors can direct this premium support payment to the plan of their choice offered on a regulated exchange. This includes private plans as well as Medicare's traditional fee for service option." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Medicare Proposal Was The Same As The Ryan Budget's Plan For Individuals Born In 1954 Or Later. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The RSC budget adopts the Republican House budget's Medicare reform plan to ensure that the promises made to current beneficiaries and younger Americans will be kept. This budget makes no changes for individuals in or near retirement and applies common sense reforms for individuals born in 1954 or later." [Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13]
CBPP: Ryan's Medicare Policies in FY 2014 Budget "Essentially The Same As Those In Last Year's Ryan Budget." According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year's Ryan budget." [CBPP, 3/15/13]
A Similar Provision in Ryan's FY 2013 Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee For Service Model. According to CRS, "Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [CRS, 3/29/12]
Ryan's Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, "The benchmark plan would be either the second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever cost less. If a senior chose a more expensive plan than the benchmark, he or she would pay the difference between the subsidy and the monthly premium. And if a senior chose a plan less expensive than the benchmark, he or she would receive a rebate for the difference. Medicare would offer higher payments depending on the patient's health history and the cost of living. And it would require private plans to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package offered by the fee-for-service option." [House Budget Committee, 3/13]
Ryan's Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5 Percent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
If So, Seniors Would Have To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits With Each Passing Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]