Executive Order 13813: Healthcare

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13813 is entitled "Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States".  It was issued on October 12, 2017 and has 7 sections.  This intends to implement some amount of roll-back on the ACA healthcare legislation.

Section 1

This section outlines some problems with the individual health care market as it currently stands and uses this as justification to direct agencies to address through regulation 3 specific strategies to make the insurance market better for consumers: Association Health Plans (AHP's), Short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) and heath reimbursement arrangements (HRA's).

Section 2

This section directs the Secretary of Labor to propose regulations to allow more employers to form AHP's.

Section 3

This section directs the Secretaries of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services to propose regulations to expand STLDI.

Section 4

This section directs the Secretaries of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services to propose regulation that would permit greater use of HRA's.

Section 5

This section affirms that the public will have an opportunity to provide public comment on any regulations that are going to be proposed as a result of this EO.

Section 6

This section calls for a report in 180 days and then every 2 years thereafter to advise what actions can be taken by government to further the policy aims described in section 1.

Section 7

This section includes the legal fine print to assure that it is constitutional.

My commentary

In reality, I don't think the President needed to issue an Executive Order to have the mentioned Secretaries propose regulations and revise guidance.  He could have just sent them an email.  And this policy direction could have been launched on January 21st, 2017 if the transition team had really been prepared in any way.  So overall this EO was issued just for the ratings.  Ultimately, the details of the new regulations and guidance will matter.  Critics were quick to jump up and propose scenarios that will likely make the situation worse for many people, especially those that can least afford to buy insurance.
It is often debated on whether health care is a right.  But I am coming to the conclusion that framing the question in this way is causing the question to be converted into something that goes along the lines of "how much of my money should be spent on people who can't afford to pay for services that  are necessary to keep them alive?"  Taxes are collected so that "public" money can be spent on public goods.  Public goods are things that to a lesser or greater degree benefit everyone.  Infrastructure, law enforcement, fire protection services, national parks are all examples of public goods that most people generally agree are reasonable things to collect taxes to create.  Maintaining the health of the population is a public good.  The argument for government involvement, whether it is a single payer system or some other form of participation, should focus on the public good that it will provide which can be shown from countless CDC studies.  And don't get me started on the false binary choices in which many debates on healthcare get framed.