P2 Mobile Logo

Search form


Healthcare Industry Skeptical about AHCA

Healthcare Industry Skeptical about AHCA

  • ©KarenRoach/Shutterstock.com

Republican congressmen recently unveiled their plan to repeal and replace parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Thus far, the reaction has been mostly not welcoming.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) would replace the subsidies that the ACA provided for low-and-middle-income families with a tax credit, end the Medicaid expansion program in 2020, and increase the amount insurers can charge older consumers compared to younger ones from three times the amount to five times. It does retain some aspects of the ACA, such as the provision that requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing condition and allow young adults to stay on their parents' plan until they are 26.

Overall, the reaction to the AHCA has been controversial at best. Not only have Democrats railed against the bill, but physician advocacy groups, such as the AMA, have come out strongly against it. Even some Republicans have stated they wouldn't vote for the bill as currently constructed, like the three that voted against the measure this week on the House Budget Committee

What about physicians and on-the-ground clinicians? We asked members of our editorial advisory board to share their thoughts on the AHCA and also asked our readers on Facebook. Here's what everyone had to say.

(What do you think of the AHCA? Share your thoughts below in the comments section or by tweeting us @PhysiciansPract.)

Click here to download a PDF of this slideshow.

Physicians Practice


They were tasked with repealing the ACA. Period. What they have done is put lipstick on a pig. My issue is not who is covered for what, but rather the 2700+ pages of garbage in the ACA that had little or nothing to do with healthcare but served as a huge power grab by the federal government, specifically the Executive branch. Start with a fresh slate and do it now!

Richard @

End this ridiculous and expensive debate that caters to the politicians and the big insurance companies who line their pockets. As providers, we waste a tremendous amount of money just navigating the insurance market, negotiating contracts and payments, satisfying "quality" requirements in their pay to play programs, keeping up with all the different rules that vary from one company to another, etc. etc.

I say we have Medicare for all - one payer - one set of rules - greater negotiating power with suppliers and pharmceuticals. I don't think the next generation of doctors will put up with all this nonsense.

Jane @

63 y.o. female with pre-existing condition (shoulder surgery 3 years ago) with income of $26,000 per year . Actual Premium is $1250 ($15K per yr) per month with $6,000 deductible. Her subsidized Premium is $225. Assuming the move to 5 times the lowest premium is 66% increase her premium (going from 3X to 5X) will move to $24,900 per year with a $4,000 tax credit. If she can claim the full credit her premium will be $20,900 on income of $26K...
Article ignores deletion taxes of 3.8% on lower taxed earnings (dividends taxed at 20% -- move is from 24.7% back to 20%) and high earners point nine percent (0.9%) tax. Thereby a higher earner net tax reduction of 20% that funded subsidies and that made premiums affordable for millions. Also ignores that basic and annual services that were covered in full (annual physical, colonoscopy, mammography) and that mental health coverage is no longer included. Tax relief is worth $346 billion over 10 years mostly going to the top 5% or earners who disproportionately receive earnings that are taxed at the 20% rate...

Stephen @

If you want to make everybody HAPPY...attach the SHERWIN AMENDMENT TO THE AHCA.

1. Free medical care for every household with an annual income of less than $20,000.00...No
need for insurance or medicaid.
2. In every county in every state set up a clinic and make provisions for hospital surgical
procedures, similar to (drivers license facilities)
3. Every licensed healthcare provider would serve one day per month or twelve times per year
to staff the facility.
4. Each healthcare professional would serve in their own vocation and keep track of every
service which they perform at the medical facility or hospital.
5. The rate charged for each service provided would be pre-set and follow managed care
guide lines.
6. The healthcare provider would then receive an income tax credit on their earnings for that
year. It would be an itemized deduction. Hospitals/Clinics would receive same tax credit.
7. A committee would be established to set the boundaries, charges, rates, hours of operation,
fees, location of the services, percentages for tax credits for each level of care.
8. Individuals choosing to secure individual insurance coverage should be free to contact any
insurance company in the United States with rates and coverages set by competition.
9. Contact # 1- 217-243-4343.......Dr Larry Sherwin Jacksonville, Illinois 62650

Dr Larry @

Hopefully you are being sarcastic! The above would SUCK!

Louis @

explain why you think so. As a doctor? you'd hate to have to volunteer time to clinics? or for You think it's bad for patients? "it sucks" is kinda vague. I'm one of those single-payer loving liberals but the first red flag for me is creating a $20,000/year income threshold for getting free healthcare. That could create incentives to remain unemployed or underemployed, or to not report your earnings. Still the solutions to getting people healthcare are truly complex. The easy solutions seem extreme but most countries do one or the other: NO insurance and 100% out of pocket, with everyone taking an attitude of "its gods will" to illness. Certainly no one survives critical illness in those nations. I speak out of experience living in one for 3 years. treating cancer is not remotely an option. but no one expects it. OR some version of single payer where all the complexity is ironed out by just putting EVERYONE in the system and allowing governments to negotiate prices and costs down because they have the negotiating leverage of millions of citizen customers who pharmaceutical and medical companies want to serve. I prefer the latter. and I've also lived in THOSE countries and they do pretty darn well. I liked it a lot. My american friend who is married to a frenchman had as her primary complaint, NOT that the system was expensive or slow or low quality, but that they wouldn't pay for her to give birth at home with a midwife and no access to hospital services. That was all she was worried about. I thought she was crazy anyway and glad she was being incentivized to give birth with a doctor around. but that's me. ANYWAY--long ramble. I'd like to know which part you think sucks, and why

Rebecca @

What about continuity of care? People would never see the same doctor twice.

john @

If the doctor serves once per month, they could schedule their patients to come back on the days that they will be in.

James @

Dr. Sherwin, for this to be useful the clinic would have to have the capacity to serve patients in a timely manner. The medical care providers would have to have enough time with the patients to treat them like humans not cattle. Idealy, medical care providers should be allowed to trade their time and credits with other physicians. This will insure that physicians who have an "attitude" about treating poor people would not have to do so.

James @

The proposed legislation is a terrible betrayal of our commitment to patient care and wellness. It deprives millions of critical health care coverage and leaves health care providers to fill the gap with non-reimbursed patient treatment. SB, MD, NY, NY

Bradford @

The proposed legislation is a terrible betrayal of our commitment to patient care and wellness. It deprives millions of critical health care coverage and leaves health care providers to fill the gap with non-reimbursed patient treatment. SB, MD, NY, NY

Bradford @

Add new comment

Loading comments...

By clicking Accept, you agree to become a member of the UBM Medica Community.