{ "id": "R44100", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44100", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461067, "date": "2017-05-11", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T14:49:50.662819", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2017)", "summary": "Congress is deeply divided over implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA\u2019s enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.\nIn addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, some lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for the ACA\u2019s implementation and address other aspects of the law. ACA-related provisions have been included in enacted appropriations acts each year since the ACA became law. \nIn October 2013, disagreement between the Republican-led House and Democratic-controlled Senate over the inclusion of ACA language in a temporary spending bill for the new fiscal year (i.e., FY2014) resulted in a partial shutdown of government operations that lasted 16 days.\nThe House Appropriations Committee has added numerous ACA-related provisions to annual appropriations acts since the Republicans regained control of the House in 2011. Most of these provisions were included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) Appropriations Act, which funds the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A few provisions were incorporated in the Financial Services and General Government (Financial Services) Appropriations Act, which funds the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). By comparison, the LHHS and Financial Services appropriations bills drafted by the Senate Appropriations Committee were largely free of any ACA-related provisions while the committee remained under Democratic control through 2014.\nCongressional appropriators have used a number of legislative options available to them through the appropriations process in an effort to defund, delay, or otherwise address implementation of the ACA. First, they have denied CMS and the IRS any new funding to cover the administrative costs of ACA implementation. Second, House appropriators repeatedly have added limitations (often referred to as riders) to the LHHS and Financial Services appropriations bills to prohibit CMS and the IRS from using discretionary funds provided in the bills for ACA implementation activities. To date, the ACA limitation provisions added by House appropriators have been removed during negotiations with the Senate. None of them have been included in any of the enacted appropriations acts.\nThird, congressional appropriators have incorporated ACA-related legislative language in the LHHS appropriations bills. For example, appropriators have included language to rescind (i.e., cancel) certain mandatory funding provided by the ACA and delay (or place a temporary moratorium on) certain taxes and fees established by the ACA.\nFinally, the appropriators have added to recent LHHS appropriations acts several reporting and other administrative requirements regarding implementation of the ACA. These include instructing the HHS Secretary to establish a website with information on the allocation of funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to provide an accounting of administrative spending on ACA implementation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44100", "sha1": "ca330b634761620ec56659226e0237b806dcb2f5", "filename": "files/20170511_R44100_ca330b634761620ec56659226e0237b806dcb2f5.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44100", "sha1": "f3bd3b37ad34a8498608ea6e98a3d47ec02e4130", "filename": "files/20170511_R44100_f3bd3b37ad34a8498608ea6e98a3d47ec02e4130.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4881, "name": "Health Care Reform" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4921, "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458619, "date": "2017-01-13", "retrieved": "2017-02-03T19:16:30.705198", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2017)", "summary": "Congress is deeply divided over implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA\u2019s enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.\nIn addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, some lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for the ACA\u2019s implementation and address other aspects of the law. ACA-related provisions have been included in enacted appropriations acts each year since the ACA became law. \nIn October 2013, disagreement between the Republican-led House and Democratic-controlled Senate over the inclusion of ACA language in a temporary spending bill for the new fiscal year (i.e., FY2014) resulted in a partial shutdown of government operations that lasted 16 days.\nThe House Appropriations Committee has added numerous ACA-related provisions to annual appropriations acts since the Republicans regained control of the House in 2011. Most of these provisions were included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (\u201cLabor-HHS-ED\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A few provisions were incorporated in the Financial Services and General Government (\u201cFinancial Services\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). By comparison, the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills drafted by the Senate Appropriations Committee were largely free of any ACA-related provisions while the committee remained under Democratic control through 2014.\nCongressional appropriators have used a number of legislative options available to them through the appropriations process in an effort to defund, delay, or otherwise address implementation of the ACA. First, they have denied CMS and the IRS any new funding to cover the administrative costs of ACA implementation. Second, House appropriators repeatedly have added limitations (often referred to as riders) to the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills to prohibit CMS and the IRS from using discretionary funds provided in the bills for ACA implementation activities. To date, the ACA limitation provisions added by House appropriators have been removed during negotiations with the Senate. None of them have been included in any of the enacted appropriations acts.\nThird, congressional appropriators have incorporated ACA-related legislative language in the Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bills. For example, appropriators have included language to rescind (i.e., cancel) certain mandatory funding provided by the ACA and delay (or place a temporary moratorium on) certain taxes and fees established by the ACA.\nFinally, the appropriators have added to recent Labor-HHS-ED appropriations acts several reporting and other administrative requirements regarding implementation of the ACA. These include instructing the HHS Secretary to establish a website with information on the allocation of funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to provide an accounting of administrative spending on ACA implementation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44100", "sha1": "1a318371e81336a7bce9b5dc03ccc281bbea789b", "filename": "files/20170113_R44100_1a318371e81336a7bce9b5dc03ccc281bbea789b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44100", "sha1": "2a10259c3b35b2dc204abc8e631413c182297d92", "filename": "files/20170113_R44100_2a10259c3b35b2dc204abc8e631413c182297d92.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4881, "name": "Health Care Reform" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4921, "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456337, "date": "2016-10-07", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:17:39.304522", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2017)", "summary": "Congress remains deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA\u2019s enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.\nIn addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, some lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for the ACA\u2019s implementation and address other aspects of the law. ACA-related provisions have been included in enacted appropriations acts each year since the ACA became law. \nIn October 2013, disagreement between the Republican-led House and Democratic-controlled Senate over the inclusion of ACA language in a temporary spending bill for the new fiscal year (i.e., FY2014) resulted in a partial shutdown of government operations that lasted 16 days.\nThe House Appropriations Committee has added numerous ACA-related provisions to annual appropriations acts since the Republicans regained control of the House in 2011. Most of these provisions were included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (\u201cLabor-HHS-ED\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A few provisions were incorporated in the Financial Services and General Government (\u201cFinancial Services\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). By comparison, the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills drafted by the Senate Appropriations Committee were largely free of any ACA-related provisions while the committee remained under Democratic control through 2014.\nCongressional appropriators have used a number of legislative options available to them through the appropriations process in an effort to defund, delay, or otherwise address implementation of the ACA. First, they have denied CMS and the IRS any new funding to cover the administrative costs of ACA implementation. Second, House appropriators repeatedly have added limitations (often referred to as riders) to the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills to prohibit CMS and the IRS from using discretionary funds provided in the bills for ACA implementation activities. To date, the ACA limitation provisions added by House appropriators have been removed during negotiations with the Senate. None of them have been included in any of the enacted appropriations acts.\nThird, House appropriators have incorporated ACA-related legislative language in the Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bills. For example, appropriators have included language to rescind (i.e., cancel) certain mandatory funding provided by the ACA.\nFinally, congressional appropriators have added to recent Labor-HHS-ED appropriations acts several reporting and other administrative requirements regarding implementation of the ACA. These include instructing the HHS Secretary to establish a website with information on the allocation of funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to provide an accounting of administrative spending on ACA implementation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44100", "sha1": "75f340d1b268ba9d4912952c754ca682ffa4aaf6", "filename": "files/20161007_R44100_75f340d1b268ba9d4912952c754ca682ffa4aaf6.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44100", "sha1": "27bd763747520206d53b57da937399735093d536", "filename": "files/20161007_R44100_27bd763747520206d53b57da937399735093d536.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4881, "name": "Health Care Reform" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4921, "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 454833, "date": "2016-08-04", "retrieved": "2016-09-09T19:03:11.904510", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2017)", "summary": "Congress remains deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA\u2019s enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.\nIn addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, some lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for the ACA\u2019s implementation and address other aspects of the law. ACA-related provisions have been included in enacted appropriations acts each year since the ACA became law. \nIn October 2013, disagreement between the Republican-led House and Democratic-controlled Senate over the inclusion of ACA language in a temporary spending bill for the new fiscal year (i.e., FY2014) resulted in a partial shutdown of government operations that lasted 16 days.\nThe House Appropriations Committee has added numerous ACA-related provisions to annual appropriations acts since the Republicans regained control of the House in 2011. Most of these provisions were included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (\u201cLabor-HHS-ED\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A few provisions were incorporated in the Financial Services and General Government (\u201cFinancial Services\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). By comparison, the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills drafted by the Senate Appropriations Committee were largely free of any ACA-related provisions while the committee remained under Democratic control through 2014.\nCongressional appropriators have used a number of legislative options available to them through the appropriations process in an effort to defund, delay, or otherwise address implementation of the ACA. First, they have denied CMS and the IRS any new funding to cover the administrative costs of ACA implementation. Second, House appropriators repeatedly have added limitations (often referred to as riders) to the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills to prohibit CMS and the IRS from using discretionary funds provided in the bills for ACA implementation activities. To date, the ACA limitation provisions added by House appropriators have been removed during negotiations with the Senate. None of them have been included in any of the enacted appropriations acts.\nThird, House appropriators have incorporated ACA-related legislative language in the Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bills. For example, appropriators have included language to rescind (i.e., cancel) certain mandatory funding provided by the ACA.\nFinally, congressional appropriators have added to recent Labor-HHS-ED appropriations acts several reporting and other administrative requirements regarding implementation of the ACA. These include instructing the HHS Secretary to establish a website with information on the allocation of funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to provide an accounting of administrative spending on ACA implementation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44100", "sha1": "72f3f072617210705ec6648e68d795153fddff83", "filename": "files/20160804_R44100_72f3f072617210705ec6648e68d795153fddff83.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44100", "sha1": "22e10ec6a723415a0c18378e809b3f5981355f23", "filename": "files/20160804_R44100_22e10ec6a723415a0c18378e809b3f5981355f23.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2347, "name": "Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3746, "name": "Health Care Reform" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 448509, "date": "2016-01-05", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:36:36.667506", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016)", "summary": "Congress remains deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA\u2019s enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.\nIn addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, some lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for the ACA\u2019s implementation and address other aspects of the law. ACA-related provisions have been included in enacted appropriations acts each year since the ACA became law. In October 2013, disagreement between the Republican-led House and Democratic-controlled Senate over the inclusion of ACA language in a temporary spending bill for the new fiscal year (i.e., FY2014) resulted in a partial shutdown of government operations that lasted 16 days.\nThe House Appropriations Committee has added numerous ACA-related provisions to annual appropriations acts since the Republicans regained control of the House in 2011. Most of these provisions were included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (\u201cLabor-HHS-ED\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A few were incorporated in the Financial Services and General Government (\u201cFinancial Services\u201d) Appropriations Act, which funds the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). By comparison, the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills drafted by the Senate Appropriations Committee were largely free of any ACA-related provisions while the committee remained under Democratic control through 2014.\nCongressional appropriators have used a number of legislative options available to them through the appropriations process in an effort to defund, delay, or otherwise address implementation of the ACA. First, they have denied CMS and the IRS any new funding to cover the administrative costs of ACA implementation. Second, House appropriators repeatedly have added limitations (often referred to as riders) to the Labor-HHS-ED and Financial Services appropriations bills to prohibit CMS and the IRS from using discretionary funds provided in the bills for ACA implementation activities. To date, the ACA limitation provisions added by House appropriators have been removed during negotiations with the Senate. None of them have been included in any of the enacted appropriations acts.\nThird, House appropriators have incorporated ACA-related legislative language in the Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bills. For example, appropriators have included language to rescind (i.e., cancel) certain mandatory funding provided by the ACA.\nFinally, congressional appropriators have added to recent Labor-HHS-ED appropriations acts several reporting and other administrative requirements regarding implementation of the ACA. These include instructing the HHS Secretary to establish a website with information on the allocation of funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and to provide an accounting of administrative spending on ACA implementation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44100", "sha1": "e21b43df3d34a30bd68facd37aac36cb202f5d07", "filename": "files/20160105_R44100_e21b43df3d34a30bd68facd37aac36cb202f5d07.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44100", "sha1": "58c54edbffb2ab799ce63cc05b8ecc6ddb988060", "filename": "files/20160105_R44100_58c54edbffb2ab799ce63cc05b8ecc6ddb988060.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2347, "name": "Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3746, "name": "Health Care Reform" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795341/", "id": "R44100_2015Oct13", "date": "2015-10-13", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016)", "summary": "This report summarizes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act (ACA)-related language added to annual appropriations legislation by congressional appropriators since the ACA was signed into law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151013_R44100_9bcf1df97edd7509b24a26a9aa921f7ba032b542.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151013_R44100_9bcf1df97edd7509b24a26a9aa921f7ba032b542.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health policy", "name": "Health policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Medical care", "name": "Medical care" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health care reform", "name": "Health care reform" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health insurance", "name": "Health insurance" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813152/", "id": "R44100_2015Sep21", "date": "2015-09-21", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016)", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150921_R44100_9b81ca19802f473d4ef5c2ddeeeae8beb2874433.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150921_R44100_9b81ca19802f473d4ef5c2ddeeeae8beb2874433.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc700680/", "id": "R44100_2015Jul10", "date": "2015-07-10", "retrieved": "2015-08-27T16:20:31", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016)", "summary": "Congress remains deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA's enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law. This report summarizes the ACA-related language added to annual appropriations legislation by congressional appropriators since the ACA was signed into law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150710_R44100_fbadecc4ccc559c846c1ac9830b8ca31edd97787.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150710_R44100_fbadecc4ccc559c846c1ac9830b8ca31edd97787.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health policy", "name": "Health policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Medical care", "name": "Medical care" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health care reform", "name": "Health care reform" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health insurance", "name": "Health insurance" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816251/", "id": "R44100_2015Jul08", "date": "2015-07-08", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016)", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150708_R44100_e84a4aa2d39b2c364be9a4d24bdb2c92d335af3b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150708_R44100_e84a4aa2d39b2c364be9a4d24bdb2c92d335af3b.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Health Policy" ] }