Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Senate’s budget rules invalidate key provisions in Republican health care bill

Repealing and replacing Obamacare just got harder.

Ted Cruz Mitch McConnell
Ted Cruz Mitch McConnell
Tom Williams / Getty Images
Dylan Scott
Dylan Scott covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017.

The Senate would likely need 60 votes to overcome Democratic opposition and pass key portions of the GOP health care bill under the chamber’s rules, a blow to both the plan’s policy and its political fortunes unless Senate Republicans are willing to break decades of precedent or the bill is substantially rewritten.

The Senate’s so-called “Byrd Rule” is designed to make sure policies passed under “budget reconciliation” — which allows legislation to advance with only 51 votes instead of the usual 60 needed to get past a filibuster — directly affect the federal budget, either by decreasing spending or by increasing revenue. (Vox has explained the Byrd Rule in great detail.)

The findings of the Senate parliamentarian, who evaluates whether policies included in bills meant to pass through reconciliation comply with the Senate rules, were posted online late Friday afternoon and sent out by Democratic ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders’s office. A Senate Republican aide noted that the parliamentarian reviewed a draft version of the bill, and the legislation could still be changed.

They are a critical blow to Republicans’ hopes of repealing and replacing Obamacare. Their plan is already short on votes, but Friday’s news could make it even more difficult for Senate leaders to sway their holdouts.

The biggest casualty would be the GOP’s replacement for Obamacare’s individual mandate, which required people to buy insurance or face a penalty. Under the Senate GOP’s bill, people who went more than a month without health coverage and then bought insurance later on would have to wait six months for their coverage to take effect and cover their medical bills.

The provision was considered necessary in order to encourage people to sign up for health insurance and keep the market stable. Without such a provision, experts fear the insurance market could be sent into a death spiral — only the sickest people, who cost insurers the most, buy coverage, and premiums and costs continue to rise.

Another key provision for market stability — the funding of Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions, currently in limbo because of an ongoing Republican lawsuit — was also said to be out of order under the Senate rules, according to a summary posted on the Senate Budget Committee website. The cost-sharing reductions are payments to insurers that help them meet a requirement that low-income people get help with their copays and deductibles.

Two provisions crucial for social conservatives, the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the restrictions on federal tax subsidies paying for health insurance that covers abortion, would also require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and pass — and with no Democrats willing to vote for them, those provisions appear effectively dead. Without them, it could be even harder to win conservative support for the bill.

There have long been questions about whether changes to insurance regulations, like the waiting period, would comply with the rule. The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, appears to have sided with outside experts who believed they would not.

The parliamentarian did not evaluate a proposal by Sen. Ted Cruz that would allow health insurers to sell plans that do not comply with Obamacare’s regulations as long as they also sold plans that did. The provision is considered essential for conservative support, but outside experts are skeptical it satisfies the Byrd Rule. The proposal had not yet been added to the draft bill that the parliamentarian reviewed.

Republicans could try to override the parliamentarian’s findings while the bill is debated on the Senate floor, but that would require 60 votes. Democrats are almost certain not to side with Republicans against the parliamentarian in order to add these critical provisions back into the bill.

The other possibility is known as the nuclear option. The parliamentarian technically offers only guidance on which policies comply with the Byrd Rule and which ones do not; the chair — which in this case could be Vice President Mike Pence — makes the final decision.

But for decades, the parliamentarian’s judgment has been final. Some senators, particularly the most conservative members, have pushed for Republicans to sidestep the parliamentarian if she nixes key parts of their plan. But senior Republicans have balked, fearing the precedent it would set for the reconciliation process.

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters