Biden administration – What can the healthcare industry expect?

As Joe Biden takes the reins at the White House, pharmaphorum asks experts how his presidential tenure may influence the global healthcare industry.

“I think the Biden administration will have only an incremental impact on the healthcare industry as a whole,” said Maxim Jacobs, CFA, managing partner and director of research at Edison Group.

“With a slim majority in the House and an evenly divided Senate it will be tough for him to get anything radical through Congress.  He ran on protecting and expanding Obamacare and I think that is probably what he will try to do. He’ll be able to protect it but I’m not sure about his ability to expand it or enact things like the public option.”

Given other challenges in the US that need to be dealt with first – such as the COVID-19 response, additional Medicaid funding and economy and tax reform – dramatic changes are unlikely, said Mark Brewer, life sciences research director for finnCap.

“Sweeping healthcare reform, in the way that it was prioritised in the Obama administration, is unlikely to be top of the agenda, partly also due to the narrow majority that the Democrats have in the House of Representatives and the Senate and the time/effort that would be required to try and push through such legislation without any guarantee of success. We don’t believe there will be draconian price cuts, for the same reason.

“The Biden administration could put additional scrutiny on drug prices, but more drastic measures, such as allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharma companies directly, are still unlikely.”

“The industry should continue to prosper with innovation driving new product introductions and consequently valuations. Post-COVID recovery in global healthcare systems should also drive the broader healthcare sector, which should benefit device companies and those focused on elective surgery rates,” said Brewer.

Biden could put additional scrutiny on drug prices but more drastic measures, such as allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharma companies directly, are still unlikely, according to Tim Xu, investment associate at Boston, US-based Arix Bioscience.

“Policy-wise, President Biden will aim to protect and restore Obamacare, which to many remains a band-aid solution to the US’ healthcare problem. It is quite likely that cornerstones of the Affordable Care Act will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, such as the individual mandate.

“As ever, it takes a “supermajority” of over 60 votes to get any major legislation through the Senate, so longer-term Democratic wishlist items like a public option or single payer are unlikely. What this means for the pharma industry is likely business as usual, at least until the midterm elections in 2022.”

Generic and opioid-alternative companies could benefit from expanded coverage, if Biden changes policy, according to analysts at Jefferies. In the EU, pharmaceutical companies like Roche could have the largest exposure to Medicare Part B drug reforms due to the proportion of its products that are either IV infused or administered in the physician’s office.

“Some of this apparent threat is already de-risked, given biosimilar erosion of Rituxan, Herceptin and Avastin which have wider pricing disparities ex-US than the newer launches at more competitive prices such as Ocrevus, Hemlibra and Tecentriq. Ex-US stocks with less Part B exposure are Novo Nordisk, Novartis and GSK,” said Jefferies’ Peter Welford.

One area where Biden might be able to make a big difference is pandemic preparation, according to Jacobs. “COVID has been a global disaster and unfortunately there are other pathogens that can be as or more deadly. He’ll probably want greater investment in biodefense so the country can increase its stockpile ahead of the next pandemic event, which may increase industry focus on vaccines, antivirals and antibiotics.”

Science first

While Donald Trump had a strained relationship with the scientific community, Biden is keen to strengthen its position.  This support could help the US preserve its reputation for being at the forefront of research, science and innovation. “It is very clear that Biden is using science and not public opinion to drive change,” ImaginAb CEO, Ian Wilson told pharmaphorum.

“He has publicly stated he expects newly appointed presidential science adviser and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Eric Lander and his team to address questions about the future of science and technology and recommend how his administration can combat public health threats, mitigate the impact of climate change, keep the country a world leader in innovation, use science to improve social equity, and strengthen the US research enterprise.

“This is the first time in history the science adviser will be a cabinet-level position. That, along with the 100 day promise to immunise 100 million people, increased stimulus packages to ensure biotech companies and smaller businesses can ride out the pandemic, and a focus on making the US a leader once again in medical science, gives hope for a new beginning.”

The post Biden administration – What can the healthcare industry expect? appeared first on .

Fauci backs Biden’s plan for 100 million COVID-19 shots

A promise by president-elect Joe Biden to carry out 100 million coronavirus vaccinations in his first 100 days in power is “absolutely doable”, according to the US leading infectious diseases expert Dr Anthony Fauci.

Biden has announced ambitious initiatives to fight COVID-19 ahead of his inauguration, which is due to take place on Wednesday.

While Biden’s team acknowledges that it is a steep challenge, it’s received the backing of Fauci, who is optimistic that two new vaccines from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson could be approved in the US in the next few weeks.

So far only 12 million people have received vaccines in the US.

This would add to the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA-based shots that already have emergency approval in the US.

The US has been severely affected by the pandemic, with figures recorded on Sunday morning showing 23,760,523 cases and 395,855 deaths had been recorded by Johns Hopkins University in the US.

Fauci, director of the US-government funded National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told NBC’s Meet the Press that “it’s going to take a while to turn this around.”

He added: “I can tell you one thing that’s clear is that the issue of getting 100 million doses in the first 100 days, is absolutely a doable thing.”

Biden can invoke the Defense Production Act to boost supplies of the vaccine, Fauci added.

“But the feasibility of his goal is absolutely clear, there’s no doubt about it. That can be done.”

On the vaccines from J&J and AZ, Fauci said: “I would imagine within a period of a week or so, or at the most a couple of weeks, they’re going to be getting their data together and showing it to the [FDA].

“They’re going to have to get their data and safety monitoring board to look at it to see if it is appropriate to start, you know, essentially putting the package together to get an Emergency Use Authorization. But we’re weeks away, not months away, for sure.”

The post Fauci backs Biden’s plan for 100 million COVID-19 shots appeared first on .

Andy Slavitt at JPM: Biden unlikely to pick ‘divisive’ fights on healthcare

In a wide-ranging discussion at J.P. Morgan’s Annual Healthcare Conference, former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt talked about the future of the ACA, telehealth and Medicare Advantage with a Democrat-led House, Senate and presidency.

What Will Shape Joe Biden’s Health Care Agenda?

I’m thrilled to have health futurist Jeff Goldsmith back on THCB, and given Biden was only confirmed as President-elect this morning, his article on what to expect is extremely timely!–Matthew Holt


The Trump administration’s health care journey began with a trillion dollar near miss–the failed Repeal and Replacement of ObamaCare- and ended with a full-on train wreck, the catastrophically mismanaged COVID epidemic that will have claimed 300,000 lives by the time he leaves office. After four years of posturing and lethal incompetence, it will be a relief to see caring and professionalism return to the White House health policy under President-Elect Joe Biden.   

Like Inheriting a Badly Managed World War

Like Barack Obama, Joe Biden will be saddled at the beginning of his regime with a damaged national economy. He will also walk in the door to the immediate need to manage the greatest public health catastrophe in a century as well as its economic consequences–a deep and enduring recession. Biden will be inheriting the equivalent of a badly managed World War we are presently losing.

Public health professionals who were marginalized by Trump will be challenged not only to craft coherent policy to contain and extinguish COVID  but also to sell it to a frightened and polarized general public, many of whom reject the need for basic public safety measures.    

Controlling COVID and rebuilding the critical public health agencies–CDC and FDA–that have damaged by political meddling will consume the lion’s share of the administration’s health policy bandwidth in its first year. It will be pressed to address a huge readiness gap–from critical PPE supplies to the development and deployment of testing and tracing capability to public health co-ordination and messaging–for the next pandemic. Increasing the presently inadequate level of public health funding (less than $100 billion a year in a $21 trillion economy) seems inevitable.

The inability of Congress to produce a fall round of COVID relief will create pressure on Biden to take immediate action to help struggling sectors of the economy, like airlines, restaurants and hospitals, as well as further help for the long term unemployed. Only a little more than half of the 22 million jobs lost in the spring have returned by November. Twenty million Americans were stranded by the July expiration of supplemental unemployment benefits as well as countless millions more “free agents” and contractors not eligible for traditional unemployment that are losing coverage at the end of the year. Mortgage, credit card and consumer loan forbearance are ending, and unless Congress acts, acres of rotten credit will turn rapidly into a banking and bond market crisis which the Federal Reserve cannot fix by itself.   

State governments face FY21 deficits equaling $500 billion over the next two years , against a current annual spending base of about $900 billion.  Further assistance to state and local governments will almost certainly include an additional increase in the federal match for Medicaid (FMAP), beyond the 6.2% temporary increase passed in March). Medicaid enrollment will likely top 80 million by mid 2021, almost one-quarter of the US population. Some states will have upwards of 40% of their population on Medicaid by mid-2021.

States laboring under severe revenue shortfalls will be unable to afford the expanded Medicaid program that was part of ObamaCare without a further increase in the FMAP rate.  President Trump and Senate Republicans blamed the state and local government fiscal crisis on profligate Democratic mismanagement, and blocked aid to them during 2020. But Texas, Florida, Georgia and other red states have the same problems New York and California do. 

Serious Fiscal Limitations Push the Health Policy Agenda Away from Coverage Expansion

Barack Obama entered office with a FY08 federal deficit of $420 billion. Joe Biden enters with a FY20 deficit of $3.1 trillion and a baseline FY21 deficit of $1.8 trillion, before adding the cost of the likely additional trillion dollar-plus stimulus package early next year. It will be passed over the dead bodies of Republican Congressional leadership suddenly recommitted to deficit reduction after racking up $8 trillion in deficit spending during the four years they controlled the federal government.

Coverage Expansion via Medicare and Public Option Unlikely

That deficit will significantly constrain a further expansion of health coverage. Not only will “Medicare for All” be off the table. Severe fiscal pressures will cause the new administration to “slow walk” a public option (which would require federal subsidies to implement) and Medicare expansion to people over age 60. These expansions were going to be  controversial and politically costly because they would be fiercely contested by hospitals and other care providers concerned about the erosion of their commercial insured customer base (the source of perhaps 130% of their bottom lines) as well as the use of Medicare as a de facto price control lever. 

By the time Biden addresses the first two problems–COVID and the economic crisis–he will probably have expended his limited stock of political capital and be weakened enough to be unable to take on the large messy issues of health coverage expansion and cost control. The Affordable Care Act exhausted Obama’s store of political capital, by early 2010. His administration’s failure to turn the economy cost the Democrats control of the House of Representatives and 20 (!) state legislatures in 2010.

What Can Biden Do in Health that Does Not Require Federal Spending?

Thus, the focus of Biden health policy is likely to be on items not requiring fresh spending.

Two major candidates for Biden policy activism: facilitating unionization of health care workers and antitrust enforcement. Labor unions were major Democratic supporters in this election cycle. Moreover, they were extremely active this spring and summer as advocates for the safety of health workers. They ran a very effective orchestrated press campaign to pressure large health systems such as HCA and Providence Health. Union leaders were prominent in health policy working groups for the Biden campaign after the conclusion of the primary season. Aggressively pro-union appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and legislation to facilitate union elections are almost certain to be early Biden initiatives.

Antitrust action to slow down or unwind hospital and health insurance mergers are also likely. The California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s settlement of his aggressive anti-trust action against Sutter Health not only resulted in a huge financial payment (useful for reducing California’s budget deficit) but also forbade Sutter from “all or nothing” rate negotiations with health insurers. Spreading this approach nationally would significantly damage the financial position of large multi-hospital systems and complicate the forthcoming rate negotiation cycle with health insurers.  

It is also likely that the Biden administration will continue the push begun during Trump for price transparency and disclosure of patient financial responsibility prior to service, further complicating rate negotiations with health insurers. Resolution of the deadlock over surprise billing is also likely.

Finally, Biden is likely to attack the 5% margins generated by Medicare Advantage carriers who now control 37% of all Medicare lives, and are getting a 50% share of each year’s worth of baby boomers enrolling in the program. Only half of boomers are yet enrolled in Medicare, and cutting Medicare Advantage cap rates will be a juicy target for Biden’s OMB in attempting to control the exploding federal deficit. Cutting health insurer profits is not the same as “cutting Medicare”.

Health care’s corporate sector is presently basking in record valuations and a largely favorable regulatory climate from the outgoing Trump administration, even as the care system has reeled from COVID.  Financial pressures from the COVID health economy and continued slack demand for care will certainly challenge the care system, as it faces renewed regulatory and political pressures from the new administration. 

Jeff Goldsmith is the President of Health Futures, Inc

Health in 2 Point 00, Episode 154 | Health Tech Rounds, Socialized Medicine, & the ACA

On Episode 154 of Health in 2 Point 00, follow @barkyboy (a dog wearing a Health in 2 Point 00 shirt!) on Twitter! Jess also asks me about Papa getting $18M in a Series B for their matching platform for college students, raising $15.6M in a Series A for their RPM platform, Joint Academy raising $23M for their physical therapy platform, and Maple Corp raising $75M for their Canadian telehealth platform in socialized medicine. Also, Matthew talks about his new piece on THCB where he wrote about what Biden should say to the Supreme Court Justices on the ACA. Matthew Holt

Subscribe to Health in 2 Point 00’s Channel

Follow @boltyboy & @jessdamassa on Twitter

Subscribe to our channel and tweet us your questions using the hashtag #healthin2point00!

Biden’s Nov 9th speech: “Don’t you force me to pass Medicare 4 All”


The new Supreme Court, in all likelihood including just nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett, will be hearing the California v Texas suit against the ACA on November 10th, seven days after the election. The lower courts have already ruled the ACA unconstitutional. Some hopeful moderates among my Democratic friends seem to believe that the justices will show cool heads, and not throw out the ACA. But it’s worth remembering that in the NFIB vs. Sebelius decision which confirmed the legitimacy of most of the ACA back in 2011 all the conservative justices with the exception of John Roberts voted to overturn the whole thing. With Ginsburg being replaced by Barrett there’s no reason to suppose that she won’t join Thomas, Alito, Kavanagh & Gorsuch and that Robert’s vote won’t be enough to stop them this time. The betting odds must be that the whole of the ACA will be overturned.

There is nothing the Democrats can realistically do to prevent Barrett filling RBG’s seat on the court, but assuming Biden wins and the Democrats take back the Senate, the incoming Administration can give the Supremes something to think about regarding the ACA. I would not suggest this level of confrontation before the election but, if Biden wins, the gloves must come off.

Assuming he wins and that the Dems win the Senate, this is the speech Biden should give on November 9th. (The TL:DR spoiler is, “Keep the ACA or I’ll extend Medicare to all ages”)

“I’m directing this speech to an extremely select number of people, just the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. It is obviously no secret that we have political differences on many issues and we find ourselves in the strange situation in which I am the incoming President with an incoming Democratic Senate majority and yet you are considering overturning the signature bill of the administration in which I was Vice-President. You may recall that at the time of its signing I told President Obama that it was a “big f****** deal”  and, although many of my colleagues in the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party have criticized the ACA since its passage, it turns out that I was right. 

I am not referring here to the apoplexy that the ACA created amongst the Republican Party including not only the current and outgoing President but also almost all Republican members of Congress between 2010 and 2018. Instead I’m referring to the ACA’s impact on the nation and its health care system. 

Since 2010 there have been many changes to the way our nation’s health care system operates; almost all of them have their roots in the ACA. 

First, the ACA gave access to health insurance coverage to many people who had great trouble getting it before. That includes young people moving between their parent’s home, college and getting into the workforce; small business owners; freelance workers; the unemployed; people with low incomes; and people with underlying “pre-existing” health conditions. I remind you that due both to the pandemic and changes in our economy, there are many, many more of these people now than there were in 2009. 

Before the ACA these people were either not well served by the private health insurance industry or literally were unable to buy coverage at all. This not only caused extreme personal and financial suffering and in some cases death to the people affected, but also impacted the economy. It restrained innovation and entrepreneurship, and it meant that the participants in the health care system–including very many well meaning clinicians and provider organizations–had to play very inefficient games in order to try to provide those people with much-needed care, which drove up the cost of care to everyone else. Warren Buffet calls that the tapeworm in the US economy.

The ACA changed this in two main ways.

First it created a system of standardized insurance benefits and mandated insurers to provide those benefits to anybody regardless of health status. It also directly subsidized the cost of insurance for people of low to moderate-incomes. Given that median household income is around $63,000 in the US and the current cost of family insurance is around $28,000, these subsidies are essential. Otherwise people who do not have employment-based insurance would not be able to purchase coverage.

Second, the ACA expanded Medicaid coverage for the poor, creating a standardized set of benefits for those earning up to 133% of poverty. Sadly, the conservative majority on the court, joined (in my view to their everlasting shame) by Justices Breyer and Kagan, decided that the federal government did not have the right to force states to expand Medicaid even though the federal government paid 100% of the cost. It turned out that many states with Republican governors chose not to expand Medicaid, even though this meant that many rural hospitals in their states were forced to close. Numerous studies have shown that Medicaid expansion has improved the financial and emotional health of the poor, and other work has shown that the current Administration’s policy of allowing states to restrict access to Medicaid, by using such tricks as work requirements, have been cruel and counterproductive–and that they have not reduced health care costs or increased employment. States that have not expanded Medicaid have left their most vulnerable and poor populations in an extremely difficult state. For example in Texas a single parent with two  children is only eligible for Medicaid if the children are on Medicaid and total household income doesn’t exceed $230 a month, which would barely cover your clerks’ daily lunch bill. Some estimates suggest that nearly three-quarters of a million people in Texas are in the coverage gap between Medicaid and qualifying for the ACA.

However, the ACA was not just about expanding insurance for those who had trouble getting it before. It also closed several loopholes that had confronted many other people who needed to use the health care system. This included closing the donut hole in the drug coverage for seniors provided by the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003. It also did away with maximum coverage benefits which severely compromised the care received by extremely sick people–often children or those with very rare diseases. And, in a great benefit to many, many young Americans from middle class and even wealthy families, the ACA allowed parents to keep their children on their insurance up until the age of 26, when they were usually established in the workforce.

Many of you on the Supreme Court believe that private delivery of insurance and health care services are superior to those delivered by the government. For you the ACA should indeed have been a very welcome piece of legislation. All of the new enrollment coming through the ACA exchanges went through private health insurance companies, and the vast majority of Medicaid expansion is also managed by private health insurers. While federal tax dollars are subsidizing this coverage expansion, it’s worth pointing out that a IRS decision in 1954 confirmed the tax-free status of private health insurance premiums paid by employers which translates to an annual subsidy to private employers that exceeds the cost of the premium subsidies in the ACA. On the night that the ACA was passed a Canadian journalist reported that America had just seen the largest expansion of private health care coverage ever–and he was right.

This coverage expansion was by no means all that the ACA did. It was also the legal and regulatory basis for a substantial modernization of the nation’s health care system. Of course since the 1930s, US health care has largely been based on a fee-for-service payment approach, acknowledged by experts to be both inefficient and inflationary. The ACA created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which has been at the forefront of creating programs that encourage improved care at a lower cost by, for instance, bundling payments for joint surgery, cancer and other care. It also created the system of accountable care organizations which encourages doctors and hospitals to work together to more efficiently and effectively manage the health of large populations of Medicare recipients. And while the ACA did not create the Medicare Advantage program, it put in place an environment in which private health insurance companies were able to use government funding within the Medicare program to deliver innovative programs that are improving the quality of care received by our seniors. 

In addition, since the passage of the ACA, and assisted by it and the HITECH Act passed in 2009, there has been a considerable boom in the development of new types of health care technologies, particularly digital technologies. These show amazing promise for delivering 24/7 care to many vulnerable populations. The significant spread of telehealth and remote patient monitoring during the current COVID-19 pandemic was only possible because of the innovation of numerous private companies. They developed those technologies in large part in response to incentives created by the ACA.

Finally, although the cost of health care in the United States is still significantly higher than it is in other countries, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act the rate of increase of health care cost has slowed and up until this year the health care system was barely growing as a share of the overall economy for the first time ever (other than a brief blip in the mid 1990s).

This is just a brief overview of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. It has directly meant access to health care coverage for around 20 to 30 million people and, as health futurist Ian Morrison points out, has tentacles impacting every single part of the health care system. This was not the case when four conservative justices including two currently on the bench (Alito & Thomas) voted to throw out the ACA in 2012. And it has not escaped my attention that the two justices who have replaced Scalia and Kennedy appear to have similar or perhaps even more conservative viewpoints.

If following the arguments you will hear this week, the Supreme Court decides to uphold the lower court hearing and abolish the entire ACA on what is pretty much a technicality, the consequences will be dramatic. And they will be very bad.  

Tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance. Of course they will still require care. The cost of delivering that care will fall upon the nation’s health care providers, and eventually on the taxpayer. That cost will be distributed in an unplanned and chaotic manner –resulting in much actual and financial pain.

In addition, virtually every current organization funding, delivering or involved in care delivery will have to completely reformat the business operations it has spent the last decade putting in place. American health care will be thrown into chaos and the cost in both dollars and human suffering will be extreme. 

Given the extreme impact of throwing out the ACA,  I will appeal to all the justices to maintain the ACA in place.

Unlike the outgoing president, I respect the institutions and separation of powers inherent in the constitution of our nation. But given that I and my colleagues in the Senate have just been elected by a significant majority of Americans, and also given that none of the conservative justices on the court were appointed by a President who won the majority of the vote of his fellow citizens when initially elected, I would recommend that the court consider its actions very carefully. Unlike some in my party, I am not advocating significant constitutional changes such as appointing more justices, but the more the court bends against the arc of history, the more likely it is that such actions may be taken in the future.

However, in regards to the nation’s health care system I am hereby telling you exactly what I will do–should the court return a verdict overturning the ACA.

You are well aware that in the Democratic primary campaign, which was largely settled before the covid-19 pandemic had its full effect, my opponent Senator Sanders was campaigning to create Medicare for All. While I was and am opposed to this policy, it is clear that a significant majority of Democrats and in some polling a majority of Americans were in favor of expanding Medicare For All even before the full effect of the pandemic was realized. 

The world of course is radically different now compared to how things were even at the start of 2020. Not only has our health care system had to deal with the onslaught of the pandemic, but the recession that it caused has placed many more millions of Americans out of work, and some 5 million of those have already lost their health insurance. I pledged in the election campaign both to get the economy moving and also to support those who were victims of the recession, which includes those millions who lost their health insurance. 

In my campaign I pledged to build on the successes of the ACA. As you are well aware, two of the most significant policies I proposed were to create a public option and to reduce the eligibility age for Medicare to 60 years old. If the Supreme Court throws out the ACA, it will be by definition impossible for me to build on the ACA’s infrastructure.

But at a time of a pandemic during a recession I will not stand by and allow tens of millions of Americans to suffer. 

Instead let me tell you what I will do. 

As you know under the current rules of the Senate and from the convoluted passage of the ACA itself, it is virtually impossible to pass significant legislation without 60 votes. In the election that just happened we Democrats have retaken control of the Senate, but only with a slight majority. However, as you also know, the Senate can pass legislation impacting budgets under the process of reconciliation with a simple majority. You will recall that using reconciliation the Republican majority in the Senate tried to repeal the ACA in 2017, and were only prevented from doing so by the deciding vote of my friend the late Senator John McCain.

On the day which I hope never comes that the Supreme Court invalidates the ACA, my colleagues in the House and Senate will immediately introduce legislation amending Title 18 of the 1965 Social Security Act that created Medicare to reduce the age of eligibility not to 60 but to zero. At the same time we will amend title 19 of the 1965 Social Security Act that created Medicaid to reduce its budget to $0 other than to pay the premiums into Medicare for those known as “dual eligibles” and to pay for long term care and other services that Medicare currently doesn’t cover.

You and other conservatives might believe that we will not be able to complete this because of the Byrd Rule for reconciliation which was designed in the 1980s to ensure that reconciliation did not radically change the budget of the federal government. But the Senate Republican majority in the Congress before last essentially already violated these rules by passing a scandalously unfair and unfunded tax cut, and my colleagues in the Senate will be prepared to override the Byrd Rule. This, I point out, is significantly less controversial than overriding the filibuster or changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Conservatives might also believe that Medicare expansion would significantly increase the budget of the federal government. This would be true but is ignoring two salient facts. The first is that the expansion to the federal budget would be something of the order of 2 trillion dollars a year, as the federal government already spends roughly 1.5 trillion of the 3.5 trillion the United States spends on health care. That level of expansion of government is somewhat similar to the deficit spending which just happened under the CARES act and other stimulus money spent during the current pandemic. So it’s not that large a leap for the country to make.

In addition while the expansion of Medicare under reconciliation would not directly abolish private health insurance in the manner that my colleague Senator Sanders has proposed, the fact that Medicare part A is free to Medicare recipients, and that parts B & D are very heavily subsidized, will mean that it is not only those who have lost their insurance or have trouble buying it in the individual market, or those who were previously on Medicaid, who will voluntarily enter the Medicare program. It is extremely likely that the vast majority of employers who are currently providing health insurance for their employees, which to be noted would be voluntary if there is no ACA, will cease to do that. After all their employees could now enter the Medicare program at no extra cost to them. While this will cost the government more, it will save employers and individuals an approximately equal amount and so the net effect on the economy will be limited.

Part of the reason that I am not a proponent of Medicare for all, has been that the change it would cause to employer-based health insurance, and to the finances of our nation’s health care system would be too extreme. It is worth noting that Rand  recently showed that employer-based health insurance paid hospitals and doctors at nearly 250% the rate they receive from Medicare. There will certainly be high transition costs for the health care system from this move but everyone in the health care system already understands how Medicare works. My Administration will to work with providers and care delivery organizations to make sure that they are able to fulfill their mission of providing high-quality care to Americans.

Even though I have been a political centrist my entire life and have never been a proponent of Medicare For All–despite the fact that every other industrialized nation has something pretty similar to it–if you strike down the ACA I will act immediately. I would view the suffering of Americans as being too great not to respond. With no ACA in place there is no available legislative option other than this Medicare expansion.

I am well aware of the ideology of many on the political right in the US including most of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. I would stress that this type of radical expansion of Medicare is not what I would ordinarily want to see. But if the ACA is abolished in the middle of a pandemic and a massive depression, my first duty to the American people as their President will be to relieve the suffering of as many of them as possible.

As you consider your judgement in the California v Texas case I would ask you not to put me in the position where I would have to take such a radical step.  

But I assure you that if necessary I will have no hesitation in doing so.

Matthew Holt is the publisher of THCB. He has not written a speech for Joe Biden before but would happily lend him this one