Dr. Andrey Ostrovsky is one of the leading physicians in the country. He is currently serving as the Chief Medical Officer for The US Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services (CMCS). Last night he broke from Tom Price, Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, to state his opposition to the Republican’s faulty ACA replacement:
Andy Slavitt, the former Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) later took to Twitter to call Ostrovsky a hero for taking this stance:
How long until Ostrovsky is relieved of duty for telling the truth?
Ostrovsky joined the American Medical Association in opposing the plan. The AMA released a letter yesterday cementing their firm opposition in large part because of the loss of income-related plans and the loss of successful Medicaid expansion:
The AMA has long supported advanceable, refundable tax credits as a preferred method for assisting individuals in obtaining private health care coverage. It is important, however, that the amount of credits available to individuals be sufficient to enable one to afford quality coverage. We believe that credits should be inversely related to an individual’s income. This structure provides the greatest chance that those of the least means are able to purchase coverage. We believe credits inversely related to income,rather than age as proposed in the committee’s legislation, not only result in greater numbers of people insured but are a more efficient use of tax-payer resources.
AMA policy also supports increased flexibility in the Medicaid program so that states may pursue innovations that improve coverage for patients with low incomes. We are concerned, however, with the proposed rollback of the Medicaid expansion under the ACA. Medicaid expansion has proven highly successful in providing coverage for lower income individuals. Beyond the expansion, the underlying structure of Medicaid financing ensures that states are able to react to economically driven changes in enrollment and increased health care needs driven by external factors. The Medicaid program, for example, has been critical in helping many states cope with the increased demand for mental health and substance abuse treatment as a result of the ongoing crisis of opioid abuse and addiction. Changes to the -2-program, therefore, that limit the ability of states to respond to changes in demand for services threaten to force states to limit coverage and increase the number of uninsured.