Bill Overview
Title: Taxpayers Support Life Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing a proposed rule (published on August 4, 2022) that implements the statutory ban on discrimination in federally funded health programs and activities. Further, HHS may not use federal funds to contravene the administration or enforcement of the existing nondiscrimination rule, which became effective on June 19, 2020.
Sponsors: Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]
Target Audience
Population: People using or employed by US federally funded health programs
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill is related to nondiscrimination in federally funded health programs and activities. This could potentially affect anyone making use of federally funded health services.
- About 330 million people live in the United States, and a significant portion of them will use federally funded health services at some point in their lives. This makes it a substantial target population within the US.
- Globally, this bill is likely to have minimal direct impact as it concerns US federal health programs and funding rules, which primarily impact individuals within the United States.
- However, US federal policies can often have indirect impacts internationally, especially if they influence international aid or partnerships with foreign healthcare entities.
Reasoning
- The Taxpayers Support Life Act focuses on the nondiscrimination aspect of federally funded health programs, which means the impact will primarily center around individuals engaging with these services or working within them.
- The policy may directly affect vulnerable groups who are typical users of federally funded health services, such as low-income individuals, marginalized groups, and public health officials.
- Due to the large estimated population size of 1,000,000 affected individuals with budgetary constraints, we'll need to assess varied scenarios ranging from non-impact to high-impact cases.
- Considering varying geographical locations and socio-economic backgrounds is crucial, as access to and reliance on federally funded health services can differ significantly across the US.
- Stakeholders may include regular users and employes of these programs, as well as healthcare providers and NGOs involved in federally funded health programs.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a nurse, it's crucial for me to see nondiscrimination strictly enforced, to provide equal care to all groups regardless of their background.
- I'm concerned that this policy might lessen protections for some of our most vulnerable patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Modern healthcare systems require clear nondiscrimination guidelines to serve our diverse community.
- I worry that changing these rules might create confusion but think it will yield cost savings by having a simpler process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
graduate student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've studied how health policies impact real lives and see a risk in removing any nondiscrimination focus.
- Personally, I depend on consistent policies to access care without bias.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
pediatrician (Portland, OR)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Nondiscrimination rules ensure children get a fair chance at care.
- I fear adjustments may unintentionally make some care harder for minority groups to obtain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Medicare has been a lifeline, and any policy that might change how I access services is concerning.
- I hope this will not mean more hoops to jump through to get what I need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
nonprofit worker (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work centers around ensuring nondiscriminatory access to healthcare.
- Such policies may undercut years of effort to secure fair treatment across diverse communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
software engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy will affect me directly since I have private insurance.
- As long as there's no major change in my taxes or local services, it should be fine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
college student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigating healthcare systems as an LGBTQ+ student is tough enough without added layers of discrimination.
- Worried that changes to rules may make getting fair treatment more difficult.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
health economist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an economist’s perspective, changes affecting discrimination rules can alter access and cost dynamics.
- I'm intrigued by how the implementation will match theory and actual cost benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
social worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm committed to helping my clients navigate systems that are often unfriendly and complex.
- Fearful that policies undermining nondiscrimination could make my job even harder.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential litigation costs if the new directive prompted legal challenges.
- Costs related to revising or rescinding contracts made under the previous proposed rule.
- Potential public health implications if services are altered based on nondiscrimination policy changes could affect populations accessing federally funded programs.