thefiscaltimes--2020-05-22--Congress Said COVID-19 Tests Should Be Free — But Who’s Paying?

Hospitals around the country are afraid to send out hundreds of thousands of bills related to COVID-19 testing .
That ’ s because Congress mandated there would be no copays and no out-of-pocket costs for patients .
But many employers with self-funded health plans seem to believe they ’ re exempt from the rules .
When testing kits were still scarce , Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville , Tennessee , fired up its clinical labs .
It almost single-handedly took over testing in much of Tennessee .
Other health systems didn ’ t even try to compete , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by insurance .
In late March , Congress passed two laws , the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES Act , that essentially stated that not only does testing have to be covered , but patients shouldn ’ t have to pay a dime .
Yet VUMC has found that ’ s frequently not the case .
“ As many as half of those patients potentially have some out-of-pocket [ cost ] , either for the tests or for companion services with the test , ” VUMC Chief Financial Officer Cecelia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bills for these patients , Moore said , rather than face a backlash of anger at surprise billing during the pandemic .
The issue comes down to an interpretation of whether the new federal legislation applies to health plans offered by larger employers .
Those companies , which usually have at least a few hundred employees , often use their own money to pay claims as a way to drive down costs .
A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds a majority of Americans with health coverage are in this type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an editorially independent program of the foundation . )
So BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee may be on an employee ’ s insurance card , but the insurer is just managing the payments .
The employer ’ s money pays the claims ; these plans are often called self-funded or self-insured , and it may not be clear to employees that they are in such a plan .
According to multiple sources , many of the companies with those plans are operating as if they ’ re exempt from the new federal rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the law may have left self-insured employers out of certain elements , ” said Mike Thompson , CEO of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions .
The National Alliance represents employers with self-funded health plans .
He said some are not waiving copays and other bills .
Most are , he said , though sometimes only bills for the COVID-19 test itself and not for the doctor ’ s visit or the test to rule out the flu .
“ Many of them have opted to cover on a first-dollar basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may or may not have included the related treatment elements , ” Thompson said .
He acknowledges the distinction would be lost on patients .
“ I get why it ’ s causing confusion.
” Other associations representing employer-funded health plans , including the Business Group on Health , said their members are generally following the spirit of the law .
Health policy experts don ’ t see any room for interpretation .
“ It doesn ’ t matter if it ’ s a self-funded plan or a fully insured plan , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a large employer , if you buy it on your own in the marketplace , ” said Karen Pollitz , a senior fellow with KFF .
“ All private insurance has to cover 100 % of the cost of COVID-19 testing.
” Pollitz said she is miffed that employers are trying to argue otherwise .
Still , it ’ s happening , and not only in Tennessee .
Duke Health in North Carolina confirms it ’ s not billing claims related to COVID testing or treatment , citing a lack of clarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying .
In California , UCSF Medical Center is also holding off on billing , and UCLA Medical Center is pressing health plans to pay their part .
“ UCLA Health does not bill COVID-19 patients for testing even if their health plan erroneously does not pay , ” spokesperson Enrique Rivero said in a written statement .
“ Our practice is to notify insurers of their error and request that they reprocess claims consistent with CARES Act guidelines.
” NYU Langone Health and Cleveland Clinic said they won ’ t bill patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that means they have to bear the cost .
The issue extends beyond academic medical centers .
Envision Health , a Nashville-based firm that staffs and operates hundreds of emergency rooms around the country , is holding back 200,000 bills related to COVID-19 testing because of confusion about coverage of cost sharing .
So , many would-be surprise medical bills are still waiting to be sent out .
At Vanderbilt alone , the medical center has held back more than $ 6 million in billing since mid-March .
“ I know I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , but we ’ re not right now , ” said Heather Dunn , VUMC ’ s vice president of revenue cycle services .
Given the growing disdain for surprise medical bills , she expects a backlash from vulnerable patients .
“ My greatest fear is [ for ] patients who are already suffering from the COVID virus or issues after or have lost their job .
I ’ m hesitant to also say , ‘ Your insurance company has passed along this $ 50 copay , ’ ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a large deductible to pay , in the hundreds of dollars .
Dunn said that she can ’ t delay billing forever and that just because the tests are supposed to be free to patients doesn ’ t mean they have no cost .
This story is part of a partnership that includes WPLN , NPR and Kaiser Health News .
Kaiser Health News ( KHN ) is a national health policy news service .
It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated @ @ @ @

Hospitals around the country are afraid to send out hundreds of thousands of bills related to COVID-19 testing. That’s because Congress mandated there would be no copays and no out-of-pocket costs for patients. But many employers with self-funded health plans seem to believe they’re exempt from the rules.
When testing kits were still scarce, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, fired up its clinical labs. It almost single-handedly took over testing in much of Tennessee. Other health systems didn’t even try to compete, although the tests were supposed to be covered by insurance.
In late March, Congress passed two laws, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES Act, that essentially stated that not only does testing have to be covered, but patients shouldn’t have to pay a dime. Yet VUMC has found that’s frequently not the case.
“As many as half of those patients potentially have some out-of-pocket [cost], either for the tests or for companion services with the test,” VUMC Chief Financial Officer Cecelia Moore said.
VUMC is holding back bills for these patients, Moore said, rather than face a backlash of anger at surprise billing during the pandemic.
The issue comes down to an interpretation of whether the new federal legislation applies to health plans offered by larger employers. Those companies, which usually have at least a few hundred employees, often use their own money to pay claims as a way to drive down costs. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds a majority of Americans with health coverage are in this type of plan. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)
So BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee may be on an employee’s insurance card, but the insurer is just managing the payments. The employer’s money pays the claims; these plans are often called self-funded or self-insured, and it may not be clear to employees that they are in such a plan.
According to multiple sources, many of the companies with those plans are operating as if they’re exempt from the new federal rules.
“In this case, it appears that the law may have left self-insured employers out of certain elements,” said Mike Thompson, CEO of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions.
The National Alliance represents employers with self-funded health plans. He said some are not waiving copays and other bills. Most are, he said, though sometimes only bills for the COVID-19 test itself and not for the doctor’s visit or the test to rule out the flu.
“Many of them have opted to cover on a first-dollar basis, but in different ways. They may or may not have included the related treatment elements,” Thompson said. He acknowledges the distinction would be lost on patients. “I get why it’s causing confusion.”
Other associations representing employer-funded health plans, including the Business Group on Health, said their members are generally following the spirit of the law.
Health policy experts don’t see any room for interpretation.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s a self-funded plan or a fully insured plan, if you get it from a small employer or a large employer, if you buy it on your own in the marketplace,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow with KFF. “All private insurance has to cover 100% of the cost of COVID-19 testing.”
Pollitz said she is miffed that employers are trying to argue otherwise.
Still, it’s happening, and not only in Tennessee.
Duke Health in North Carolina confirms it’s not billing claims related to COVID testing or treatment, citing a lack of clarity in what the patient is responsible for paying. In California, UCSF Medical Center is also holding off on billing, and UCLA Medical Center is pressing health plans to pay their part.
“UCLA Health does not bill COVID-19 patients for testing even if their health plan erroneously does not pay,” spokesperson Enrique Rivero said in a written statement. “Our practice is to notify insurers of their error and request that they reprocess claims consistent with CARES Act guidelines.”
NYU Langone Health and Cleveland Clinic said they won’t bill patients any cost sharing for testing, even if that means they have to bear the cost.
The issue extends beyond academic medical centers. Envision Health, a Nashville-based firm that staffs and operates hundreds of emergency rooms around the country, is holding back 200,000 bills related to COVID-19 testing because of confusion about coverage of cost sharing.
So, many would-be surprise medical bills are still waiting to be sent out. At Vanderbilt alone, the medical center has held back more than $6 million in billing since mid-March.
“I know I’m supposed to be shaking everybody down, but we’re not right now,” said Heather Dunn, VUMC’s vice president of revenue cycle services.
Given the growing disdain for surprise medical bills, she expects a backlash from vulnerable patients.
“My greatest fear is [for] patients who are already suffering from the COVID virus or issues after or have lost their job. I’m hesitant to also say, ‘Your insurance company has passed along this $50 copay,’” she said.
Sometimes, the patient is also left with a large deductible to pay, in the hundreds of dollars.
Dunn said that she can’t delay billing forever and that just because the tests are supposed to be free to patients doesn’t mean they have no cost.
This story is part of a partnership that includes WPLN, NPR and Kaiser Health News.
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-26--Chart of the Day: 1 Million State and Local Jobs Lost

State and local governments cut nearly 1 million jobs in April , The Wall Street Journal reported , and the @ @ @ @ @ coming as states and cities adjust to a $ 500 billion loss in revenue over @ @ @ @ @ That has economists worried about the long-term effects of reduced spending at the state and @ @ @ @ @ have the evidence of the global financial crisis and the years afterward where state and @ @ @ @ @ of hiring did weigh on economic growth , ” Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell told @ @ @ @ @ week .

State and local governments cut nearly 1 million jobs in April, The Wall Street Journal reported, and the layoffs are expected to keep coming as states and cities adjust to a $500 billion loss in revenue over the next two years. That has economists worried about the long-term effects of reduced spending at the state and local level. “We have the evidence of the global financial crisis and the years afterward where state and local government layoffs and lack of hiring did weigh on economic growth,” Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell told the Senate Banking Committee last week.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-26--Most Publicly-Traded Companies Getting Small Business Aid Are Keeping It

More than 80 % of the publicly-traded companies that have received funds from the Paycheck Protection Program are sticking with the program , according to the market research firm FactSquared .
Last month , the Treasury Department provided guidance stating that companies that have access to other sources of capital should be excluded from the $ 670 billion program .
Pressured by both the Treasury guidelines and public criticism , some firms , including such notables as Shake Shack , Auto Nation and the Los Angeles Lakers , have returned millions of dollars to the government .
Others were given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without risk of further scrutiny .
But it looks like hundreds of publicly-traded companies are hanging onto their loans , which can be converted to grants if participants meet certain requirements .
According to FactSquared ’ s review of 425 PPP loans made to public companies , just 68 had returned the money as of Tuesday .
The returns total about $ 435 million out of the roughly $ 3.5 billion in loans provided to public companies .
Treasury has said it will review all loans worth more than $ 2 million to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

More than 80% of the publicly-traded companies that have received funds from the Paycheck Protection Program are sticking with the program, according to the market research firm FactSquared.
Last month, the Treasury Department provided guidance stating that companies that have access to other sources of capital should be excluded from the $670 billion program. Pressured by both the Treasury guidelines and public criticism, some firms, including such notables as Shake Shack, Auto Nation and the Los Angeles Lakers, have returned millions of dollars to the government. Others were given until May 18 to return their loans without risk of further scrutiny.
But it looks like hundreds of publicly-traded companies are hanging onto their loans, which can be converted to grants if participants meet certain requirements.
According to FactSquared’s review of 425 PPP loans made to public companies, just 68 had returned the money as of Tuesday. The returns total about $435 million out of the roughly $3.5 billion in loans provided to public companies. Treasury has said it will review all loans worth more than $2 million to ensure that recipients are truly in need.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-26--Trump Administration May Support Back-to-Work Bonuses

Republicans have objected to extending the $ 600-a-week in extra unemployment benefits Congress provided as part of the CARES Act in March , arguing that the payments , which come on top of state benefits , slow the reopening of the economy by encouraging workers to stay away from their jobs .
Now , a top White House economic adviser says that the administration may get behind an alternative proposal : back-to-work bonuses .
Larry Kudlow , the director of President Trump 's National Economic Council , told Fox News that the administration “ may well ” back the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who go back to work .
“ It ’ s something we ’ re looking at very carefully , ” he said .
Democrats want to extend the $ 600 weekly boost in jobless benefits , set to expire at the end of July , for six more months .
Those benefits are shaping up to be a major sticking point in discussions over the next coronavirus relief bill .
Proponents say they provide a critical lifeline and much-needed financial stability for laid-off workers .
Kudlow said he doesn ’ t think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly do not believe the $ 600 plus-up will survive the next round of talks , but I think we ’ ll have substitutes to deal with that issue , '' he said .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) reportedly told House Republicans last week that the extension of enhanced unemployment benefits “ will not be in the next bill.
” Kudlow praised a plan from Sen .
Rob Portman , an Ohio Republican , that would provide a temporary bonus of $ 450 a week , on top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back to work .
The proposal could save taxpayers money and “ saves small businesses from going out of business because they can get workers , ” Portman told The Wall Street Journal .
Kudlow also said that President Trump still supports the idea of a payroll tax holiday for workers , an idea that lawmakers in both parties have greeted skeptically .
The math behind Portman ’ s plan : “ Portman ’ s office settled on the amount by surveying benefits and wages in each state to come up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be better off working than staying at home , ” the Journal ’ s Siobhan Hughes and Lindsay Wise reports .
“ The federal minimum wage is $ 7.25 an hour , meaning that a minimum-wage worker in states without a higher minimum , or floor , makes roughly $ 290 a week .
The $ 450 payment each week on top of that base amount was designed with such low-wage workers in mind , in order to leave such employees better off than by taking $ 600 a week to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on payrolls : Lawmakers in both parties are also looking at expanding the $ 55 billion , refundable “ employee retention tax credit ” created by the CARES Act in March .
The $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package by the House earlier this month would add about $ 194 billion to the wage subsidy .
It would give employers money to cover up to 80 % of wages and benefits , up to $ 45,000 per employee , plus a credit for expenses like rent , the Journal ’ s Richard Rubin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidy offers an alternative to the payroll-tax cut President Trump is seeking , which they oppose because it does little for the unemployed .
Republican supporters prefer the subsidy to spending programs favored by Democrats and see it as a way to link aid to work , ” Rubin writes .
The expanded credit would cover 59 million workers , according to estimates from Congress ’ s Joint Committee on Taxation cited by Rubin .
The House proposal would extend through the end of the year .
Senate Democrats have proposed an even @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Republicans have objected to extending the $600-a-week in extra unemployment benefits Congress provided as part of the CARES Act in March, arguing that the payments, which come on top of state benefits, slow the reopening of the economy by encouraging workers to stay away from their jobs. Now, a top White House economic adviser says that the administration may get behind an alternative proposal: back-to-work bonuses.
Larry Kudlow, the director of President Trump's National Economic Council, told Fox News that the administration “may well” back the idea of providing extra weekly payments to employees who go back to work. “It’s something we’re looking at very carefully,” he said.
Democrats want to extend the $600 weekly boost in jobless benefits, set to expire at the end of July, for six more months. Those benefits are shaping up to be a major sticking point in discussions over the next coronavirus relief bill. Proponents say they provide a critical lifeline and much-needed financial stability for laid-off workers.
Kudlow said he doesn’t think the benefits will be extended. "I frankly do not believe the $600 plus-up will survive the next round of talks, but I think we’ll have substitutes to deal with that issue," he said. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly told House Republicans last week that the extension of enhanced unemployment benefits “will not be in the next bill.”
Kudlow praised a plan from Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, that would provide a temporary bonus of $450 a week, on top of regular wages, for unemployed people who go back to work. The proposal could save taxpayers money and “saves small businesses from going out of business because they can get workers,” Portman told The Wall Street Journal.
Kudlow also said that President Trump still supports the idea of a payroll tax holiday for workers, an idea that lawmakers in both parties have greeted skeptically.
The math behind Portman’s plan: “Portman’s office settled on the amount by surveying benefits and wages in each state to come up with an average amount by which most people would be better off working than staying at home,” the Journal’s Siobhan Hughes and Lindsay Wise reports. “The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, meaning that a minimum-wage worker in states without a higher minimum, or floor, makes roughly $290 a week. The $450 payment each week on top of that base amount was designed with such low-wage workers in mind, in order to leave such employees better off than by taking $600 a week to stay home.”
Another idea for keeping workers on payrolls: Lawmakers in both parties are also looking at expanding the $55 billion, refundable “employee retention tax credit” created by the CARES Act in March. The $3 trillion coronavirus aid package by the House earlier this month would add about $194 billion to the wage subsidy. It would give employers money to cover up to 80% of wages and benefits, up to $45,000 per employee, plus a credit for expenses like rent, the Journal’s Richard Rubin reports.
“For Democrats, the subsidy offers an alternative to the payroll-tax cut President Trump is seeking, which they oppose because it does little for the unemployed. Republican supporters prefer the subsidy to spending programs favored by Democrats and see it as a way to link aid to work,” Rubin writes.
The expanded credit would cover 59 million workers, according to estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation cited by Rubin. The House proposal would extend through the end of the year.
Senate Democrats have proposed an even more generous version of the plan.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-26--ER Visit for a Worrisome Cough Left Man With a $3,278 Bill

From late March into April , Timothy Regan had severe coughing fits several times a day that often left him out of breath .
He had a periodic low-grade fever , too .
Wondering if he had COVID-19 , Regan called a nurse hotline run by Denver Health , a large public health system in his city .
A nurse listened to him describe his symptoms and told him to immediately go to the hospital system ’ s urgent care facility .
When he arrived at Denver Health — where the emergency room and urgent care facility sit side by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nurse directed him to the ER after he noted chest pain as one of his symptoms .
Regan was seen quickly and given a chest X-ray and electrocardiogram , known as an EKG , to check his lungs and heart .
Both were normal .
A doctor prescribed an inhaler to help his breathing and told him he might have bronchitis .
The doctor advised that he had to presume he had COVID-19 and must quarantine at home for two weeks .
At the time , on April 3 , Denver Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two hours after arriving at the hospital , Regan was back home .
His longest wait was for his inhaler prescription to be filled .
Regan wasn ’ t concerned just about his own health .
His wife , Elissa , who is expecting their second child in August , and their 1-year-old son , Finn , also felt sick with COVID-like symptoms in April .
“ Nothing terrible , but enough to make me worry , ” he said .
Regan , who is an estimator for a construction firm , worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home .
( Construction in Colorado and many states has been considered an essential business and has continued to operate . )
Regan said he was worried about taking a day off and losing his job .
“ I was thinking I had to make all the money I could in case we all had to be hospitalized , ” he said .
“ All I could do was keep working in hopes that everything would be OK. ” Within a couple of weeks , the whole family , indeed , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elissa said .
Then the bill came .
The Patient : Timothy Regan , 40 , an estimator for a construction company .
The family has health insurance through Elissa ’ s job at a nonprofit in Denver .
Total Bill : Denver Health billed Regan $ 3,278 for the ER visit .
His insurer paid $ 1,042 , leaving Regan with $ 2,236 to pay based on his $ 3,500 in-network deductible .
The biggest part of the bill was the $ 2,921 general ER fee .
Medical Service : Regan was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms , including a severe cough , fever and chest pain .
He was given several tests to check his heart and lungs , prescribed an inhaler and sent home .
What Gives : When patients use hospital emergency rooms — even for short visits with few tests — it ’ s not unusual for them to get billed thousands of dollars no matter how minor the treatment received .
Hospitals say the high fees come from having to staff the ER with specialists 24 hours a day and keep lifesaving equipment up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ER visit as a Level 4 — the second-highest and second-most expensive — on a 5-point scale .
The other items on his bill were $ 225 for the EKG , $ 126 for the chest X-ray and $ 6 for his albuterol inhaler , a medication that provides quick relief for breathing problems .
The Regans knew they had a high deductible and they try to avoid unnecessarily using the ER .
But , with physician offices not seeing patients with COVID-type symptoms in April , Timothy said he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first to the urgent care , then to its ER .
“ I felt bad , but I had been dealing with it for a while , ” he said .
Elissa said they were trying hard to do everything by the book , including using a health provider in their plan ’ s network .
“ We did not anticipate being hit with such a huge bill for the visit , ” Elissa said .
“ We had intentionally called the nurse ’ s line trying to be responsible , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove barriers from people getting tested and evaluated for COVID-19 , UnitedHealthcare is one of many insurers that announced it will waive cost sharing for COVID-19 testing-related visits and treatment .
But it is not clear how many people who had COVID symptoms but did not get tested when tests were in short supply have been billed as the Regans were .
Resolution : A Denver Health spokesperson said Regan was not tested for COVID because he was not admitted and did not have risk factors such as diabetes , heart disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a COVID patient because he was not tested for the virus .
The medical center has since expanded its testing capacity , the spokesperson said .
UnitedHealthcare officials reviewed Regan ’ s case at the request of KHN .
Based on Regan ’ s symptoms and the tests performed , Denver Health should have billed them using a COVID billing code , an insurer spokesperson said .
“ We reprocessed Mr. Regan ’ s original claims after reviewing the services that he received , ” a United Healthcare spokesperson said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been waived.
” The Regans said they were thrilled with UHC ’ s decision .
“ That is wonderful news , ” Elissa Regan said upon hearing from a KHN reporter that UHC would waive their costs .
“ We are very thankful .
It is a huge relief.
” The Takeaway : The Regans said they initially found no satisfaction in calling the hospital or the insurer to resolve their dispute ― but it was the right thing to do .
“ He ’ s definitely not alone , ” said Sabrina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University ’ s Center on Health Insurance Reforms .
“ The takeaway here is both the provider as well as insurance company are still on a learning curve with respect to this virus and how to bill and pay for it.
” Corlette said Timothy should not have second-guessed his decision to use the Denver Health ER when directed there by a nurse .
That , too , was the right call .
Insurers ’ moves to waive costs associated with COVID testing and related treatment is vital to stemming the outbreak — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust they won ’ t get stuck with a large bill , she said .
“ It ’ s a critical piece of the public health strategy to beat this disease , ” Corlette said .
To help with billing , she said , patients could ask their provider to note on their medical chart when they are seeking care for possible COVID-19 .
But it ’ s not the patient ’ s responsibility to make sure providers use the right billing code , she said .
Patients need to know they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurer .
They can also seek assistance from their employer ’ s benefits department and state insurance department .
Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Kaiser Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills .
Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us ?
Tell us about it !

From late March into April, Timothy Regan had severe coughing fits several times a day that often left him out of breath. He had a periodic low-grade fever, too.
Wondering if he had COVID-19, Regan called a nurse hotline run by Denver Health, a large public health system in his city. A nurse listened to him describe his symptoms and told him to immediately go to the hospital system’s urgent care facility.
When he arrived at Denver Health — where the emergency room and urgent care facility sit side by side at its main location downtown — a nurse directed him to the ER after he noted chest pain as one of his symptoms.
Regan was seen quickly and given a chest X-ray and electrocardiogram, known as an EKG, to check his lungs and heart. Both were normal. A doctor prescribed an inhaler to help his breathing and told him he might have bronchitis. The doctor advised that he had to presume he had COVID-19 and must quarantine at home for two weeks. At the time, on April 3, Denver Health reserved COVID tests for sicker patients. Two hours after arriving at the hospital, Regan was back home. His longest wait was for his inhaler prescription to be filled.
Regan wasn’t concerned just about his own health. His wife, Elissa, who is expecting their second child in August, and their 1-year-old son, Finn, also felt sick with COVID-like symptoms in April. “Nothing terrible, but enough to make me worry,” he said.
Regan, who is an estimator for a construction firm, worked throughout his sickness — including while quarantined at home. (Construction in Colorado and many states has been considered an essential business and has continued to operate.) Regan said he was worried about taking a day off and losing his job.
“I was thinking I had to make all the money I could in case we all had to be hospitalized,” he said. “All I could do was keep working in hopes that everything would be OK.”
Within a couple of weeks, the whole family, indeed, was OK. “We got lucky,” Elissa said.
Then the bill came.
The Patient: Timothy Regan, 40, an estimator for a construction company. The family has health insurance through Elissa’s job at a nonprofit in Denver.
Total Bill: Denver Health billed Regan $3,278 for the ER visit. His insurer paid $1,042, leaving Regan with $2,236 to pay based on his $3,500 in-network deductible. The biggest part of the bill was the $2,921 general ER fee.
Service Provider: Denver Health, a large public health system
Medical Service: Regan was evaluated in the emergency room for COVID-like symptoms, including a severe cough, fever and chest pain. He was given several tests to check his heart and lungs, prescribed an inhaler and sent home.
What Gives: When patients use hospital emergency rooms — even for short visits with few tests — it’s not unusual for them to get billed thousands of dollars no matter how minor the treatment received. Hospitals say the high fees come from having to staff the ER with specialists 24 hours a day and keep lifesaving equipment up to date.
Denver Health coded Timothy’s ER visit as a Level 4 — the second-highest and second-most expensive — on a 5-point scale. The other items on his bill were $225 for the EKG, $126 for the chest X-ray and $6 for his albuterol inhaler, a medication that provides quick relief for breathing problems.
The Regans knew they had a high deductible and they try to avoid unnecessarily using the ER. But, with physician offices not seeing patients with COVID-type symptoms in April, Timothy said he had little choice when Denver Health directed him first to the urgent care, then to its ER. “I felt bad, but I had been dealing with it for a while,” he said.
Elissa said they were trying hard to do everything by the book, including using a health provider in their plan’s network.
“We did not anticipate being hit with such a huge bill for the visit,” Elissa said. “We had intentionally called the nurse’s line trying to be responsible, but that did not work.”
In an effort to remove barriers from people getting tested and evaluated for COVID-19, UnitedHealthcare is one of many insurers that announced it will waive cost sharing for COVID-19 testing-related visits and treatment. But it is not clear how many people who had COVID symptoms but did not get tested when tests were in short supply have been billed as the Regans were.
Resolution: A Denver Health spokesperson said Regan was not tested for COVID because he was not admitted and did not have risk factors such as diabetes, heart disease or asthma. He was not billed as a COVID patient because he was not tested for the virus. The medical center has since expanded its testing capacity, the spokesperson said.
UnitedHealthcare officials reviewed Regan’s case at the request of KHN. Based on Regan’s symptoms and the tests performed, Denver Health should have billed them using a COVID billing code, an insurer spokesperson said. “We reprocessed Mr. Regan’s original claims after reviewing the services that he received,” a United Healthcare spokesperson said. “All cost share for that visit has been waived.”
The Regans said they were thrilled with UHC’s decision.
“That is wonderful news,” Elissa Regan said upon hearing from a KHN reporter that UHC would waive their costs. “We are very thankful. It is a huge relief.”
The Takeaway: The Regans said they initially found no satisfaction in calling the hospital or the insurer to resolve their dispute ― but it was the right thing to do.
“He’s definitely not alone,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “The takeaway here is both the provider as well as insurance company are still on a learning curve with respect to this virus and how to bill and pay for it.”
Corlette said Timothy should not have second-guessed his decision to use the Denver Health ER when directed there by a nurse. That, too, was the right call.
Insurers’ moves to waive costs associated with COVID testing and related treatment is vital to stemming the outbreak — but it works only if patients can trust they won’t get stuck with a large bill, she said. “It’s a critical piece of the public health strategy to beat this disease,” Corlette said.
To help with billing, she said, patients could ask their provider to note on their medical chart when they are seeking care for possible COVID-19. But it’s not the patient’s responsibility to make sure providers use the right billing code, she said. Patients need to know they have the right to appeal costs to their insurer. They can also seek assistance from their employer’s benefits department and state insurance department.
Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Kaiser Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-27--Poll of the Day: Americans Oppose Wide Range of State Spending Cuts

This probably won ’ t come as a surprise , but a majority of Americans oppose their state government cutting @ @ @ @ @ public education , police and safety , Medicaid and social services , according to the @ @ @ @ @ tracking poll .
But a majority of adults ( 57 % ) do support having @ @ @ @ @ transportation as a step toward closing budget shortfalls .
• The tracking poll also finds @ @ @ @ @ live in the 14 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care @ @ @ @ @ % ) say they want their state to expand the program to cover more low-income @ @ @ @ @ a quarter of Americans ( 26 % ) say they or a member of their @ @ @ @ @ relied on government or charity food programs since February .
And nearly half ( 48 @ @ @ @ @ someone in their household has delayed medical care due to the pandemic , but more @ @ @ @ @ treatment expect to get the care in the next three months .

This probably won’t come as a surprise, but a majority of Americans oppose their state government cutting spending on areas including K-12 public education, police and safety, Medicaid and social services, according to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll. But a majority of adults (57%) do support having their state cut spending on transportation as a step toward closing budget shortfalls.
The tracking poll also finds that, among those who live in the 14 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, two-thirds (66%) say they want their state to expand the program to cover more low-income uninsured.
Just over a quarter of Americans (26%) say they or a member of their household have skipped meals or relied on government or charity food programs since February. And nearly half (48%) of Americans say someone in their household has delayed medical care due to the pandemic, but more than two-thirds of those postponing treatment expect to get the care in the next three months.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-27--Amtrak Says It Needs $1.5 Billion to Prevent Service Cuts in 2021

In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Amtrak President and CEO Bill Flynn said that the passenger railroad service will need an additional $ 1.475 billion in funding for fiscal year 2021 in order to avoid service cuts .
Flynn said that , as of February , Amtrak had been on track to break even for the first time ever , but as the pandemic led people to cut back on travel , many routes are now struggling to reach 10 % of normal ridership .
“ While we work towards a full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell us that we expect to see ridership drop by approximately 50 % , down to just over 16 million riders in FY 2021 , ” Flynn wrote .
Amtrak had already requested $ 2.04 billion for its Northeast Corridor and national network for fiscal year 2021 .
The new request is for funding on top of that .
Amtrak received $ 1 billion in emergency funding as part of the $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief package Congress approved in March .
Flynn said that the railroad is planning to reduce operating costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including $ 150 million in savings from reduced train frequency and capacity and $ 350 million from workforce restructuring .

In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Amtrak President and CEO Bill Flynn said that the passenger railroad service will need an additional $1.475 billion in funding for fiscal year 2021 in order to avoid service cuts.
Flynn said that, as of February, Amtrak had been on track to break even for the first time ever, but as the pandemic led people to cut back on travel, many routes are now struggling to reach 10% of normal ridership. “While we work towards a full recovery one day, our current projections tell us that we expect to see ridership drop by approximately 50%, down to just over 16 million riders in FY 2021,” Flynn wrote.
Amtrak had already requested $2.04 billion for its Northeast Corridor and national network for fiscal year 2021. The new request is for funding on top of that. Amtrak received $1 billion in emergency funding as part of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package Congress approved in March. Flynn said that the railroad is planning to reduce operating costs by $500 million in fiscal 2021, including $150 million in savings from reduced train frequency and capacity and $350 million from workforce restructuring.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-27--European Union Proposes $825 Billion Crisis Fund

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Depression , the European Union is proposing to take unprecedented steps to combat the downturn : borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to distribute to member states .
That sounds familiar to American ears , since it ’ s what the U.S. government does every day , and at a record pace since the coronavirus pandemic hit .
But for the EU , such a move would be revolutionary , moving the union closer to the kind of federal state that Germany , the union ’ s most powerful member , has long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission , the executive committee of the EU , calls for borrowing 750 billion euros ( about $ 825 billion ) in total , with about 500 billion euros being used for grants to the 27 member states and the rest for loans that must be paid back .
New taxes are proposed to bring in revenues , including a digital tax on tech firms such as Google and Facebook , and a tariff on carbon energy imports .
A “ Hamiltonian ” moment : Some European policymakers are referring to the proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” after the American founder ( and Broadway musical inspirer ) who pushed the U.S. to become a full fiscal union .
Wolfgang Ischinger , former German ambassador to the U.S. , told The Washington Post that his country ’ s change of heart is driven by fears that the EU is at risk of coming apart amid the crisis .
“ This is not simply a gift which we give away because we like our neighbors so much , ” Ischinger said .
“ It ’ s about assuring the survival of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now been attached to for the last 70 years .
Our political future .
And we ’ re not going to let that fall apart.
” But there are still doubts : Germany may be losing its fear that fiscally weak states in southern Europe will act as a drain on hard-won savings , but a handful of other northern countries still have their doubts .
According to CNBC , four nations – Austria , the Netherlands , Sweden and Denmark – would prefer to use loans for all assistance , while requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Mark Copelovitch , a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin , is skeptical about the “ Hamiltonian ” narrative .
The “ initiative may yet prove to be a major step forward in turning the European Union into a federal union like the United States , ” he wrote Wednesday in The Washington Post .
“ Yet the plan is less a ‘ Hamiltonian moment ’ than another demonstration that E.U .
leaders can not reach agreement on the euro zone ’ s fundamental structural issues or how to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greece and other highly indebted euro-zone countries.
” What ’ s next : Lots of negotiations .
EU leaders will meet on June 18 to discuss the proposals , and any agreements would have to be approved by the European Parliament .
In the meantime , the European Central Bank will continue to buy bonds from EU nations to help fund unemployment payments and loans to struggling businesses .

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Depression, the European Union is proposing to take unprecedented steps to combat the downturn: borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to distribute to member states.
That sounds familiar to American ears, since it’s what the U.S. government does every day, and at a record pace since the coronavirus pandemic hit. But for the EU, such a move would be revolutionary, moving the union closer to the kind of federal state that Germany, the union’s most powerful member, has long opposed.
The proposal from the European Commission, the executive committee of the EU, calls for borrowing 750 billion euros (about $825 billion) in total, with about 500 billion euros being used for grants to the 27 member states and the rest for loans that must be paid back. New taxes are proposed to bring in revenues, including a digital tax on tech firms such as Google and Facebook, and a tariff on carbon energy imports.
A “Hamiltonian” moment: Some European policymakers are referring to the proposed borrowing and spending program as “Hamiltonian” after the American founder (and Broadway musical inspirer) who pushed the U.S. to become a full fiscal union.
Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to the U.S., told The Washington Post that his country’s change of heart is driven by fears that the EU is at risk of coming apart amid the crisis. “This is not simply a gift which we give away because we like our neighbors so much,” Ischinger said. “It’s about assuring the survival of the European project to which Germany has now been attached to for the last 70 years. Our political future. And we’re not going to let that fall apart.”
But there are still doubts: Germany may be losing its fear that fiscally weak states in southern Europe will act as a drain on hard-won savings, but a handful of other northern countries still have their doubts. According to CNBC, four nations – Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark – would prefer to use loans for all assistance, while requiring reforms from states in return for help.
And Mark Copelovitch, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, is skeptical about the “Hamiltonian” narrative. The “initiative may yet prove to be a major step forward in turning the European Union into a federal union like the United States,” he wrote Wednesday in The Washington Post. “Yet the plan is less a ‘Hamiltonian moment’ than another demonstration that E.U. leaders cannot reach agreement on the euro zone’s fundamental structural issues or how to address the enduring debt problems of Italy, Greece and other highly indebted euro-zone countries.”
What’s next: Lots of negotiations. EU leaders will meet on June 18 to discuss the proposals, and any agreements would have to be approved by the European Parliament. In the meantime, the European Central Bank will continue to buy bonds from EU nations to help fund unemployment payments and loans to struggling businesses.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-26--Another Relief Bill ‘Likely,’ McConnell Says

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) said Tuesday that another round of coronavirus relief legislation is likely and may happen “ in the next month or so , ” but he again insisted that it will be narrower than the $ 3 trillion package passed by House Democrats earlier this month .
“ Many of you are asking , what next ?
I think there ’ s likely to be another bill .
It will not be the $ 3 trillion bill the House passed the other day , but there ’ s still a likelihood that more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an event in Louisville , Kentucky , according to The Hill .
The Senate is out of town this week and scheduled to return to Washington on June 1 .
Republicans have said they want to pause and assess the effectiveness of the trillions in emergency coronavirus funding already provided by Congress , and some White House advisers have questioned whether another round of spending will be necessary .
“ We can ’ t keep propping up the economy forever .
We do need to begin to re-engage , to develop our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another event Tuesday .
“ The ultimate solution is to begin to get back to normal.
” The keys to getting fully back to normal , he said , would be testing , treatment and a vaccine .
The House-passed HEROES Act included more aid for state and local governments , an extension of enhanced unemployment benefits and another round of direct payments to households .
Republicans have declared the bill dead on arrival , and McConnell on Tuesday again derided the package , which included many other provisions , as a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ain ’ t going to happen , ” he reportedly said of the $ 3 trillion legislation .
McConnell has advised President Trump that the next coronavirus measure should not be larger than $ 1 trillion , The Hill says .
Republican requirements : McConnell has not laid out a detailed GOP plan for a next phase of coronavirus relief beyond saying that it be more narrowly focused and must shield businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits .
“ It ought to be very carefully targeted to correct the mistakes that we certainly made in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said Tuesday , adding that “ there are some other needs that need to be met . ''
McConnell also said that he supports targeted aid to state and local governments , according to the Louisville Courier-Journal , but that the next round of funding can ’ t be used to address “ pre-existing ” fiscal troubles .
Republicans including President Trump have objected to “ bailouts ” for blue states that they say have racked up large unfunded pension liabilities or other debt due to mismanagement .
McConnell denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Courier-Journal reported .
The Senate Majority Leader last month told radio host Hugh Hewitt that he “ would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route , ” drawing a sharp backlash from governors and Democratic leaders , who warned that allowing such bankruptcies would worsen the economic damage from the pandemic .
McConnell on Tuesday reportedly described that as just a suggestion , not a policy recommendation .
The bottom line : Republicans remain split over the next coronavirus bill , including how big it should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it should include and whether there ’ s even a need for it .
So while McConnell signaled that another bill will be in the works , there ’ s still a long way to go , and the pressure on Republicans is only likely to mount as we get closer to the end of July , when the $ 600 weekly unemployment benefit is set to expire .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Tuesday that another round of coronavirus relief legislation is likely and may happen “in the next month or so,” but he again insisted that it will be narrower than the $3 trillion package passed by House Democrats earlier this month.
“Many of you are asking, what next? I think there’s likely to be another bill. It will not be the $3 trillion bill the House passed the other day, but there’s still a likelihood that more will be needed,” McConnell said at an event in Louisville, Kentucky, according to The Hill.
The Senate is out of town this week and scheduled to return to Washington on June 1. Republicans have said they want to pause and assess the effectiveness of the trillions in emergency coronavirus funding already provided by Congress, and some White House advisers have questioned whether another round of spending will be necessary.
“We can’t keep propping up the economy forever. We do need to begin to re-engage, to develop our activity again,” McConnell said at another event Tuesday. “The ultimate solution is to begin to get back to normal.”
The keys to getting fully back to normal, he said, would be testing, treatment and a vaccine.
The House-passed HEROES Act included more aid for state and local governments, an extension of enhanced unemployment benefits and another round of direct payments to households. Republicans have declared the bill dead on arrival, and McConnell on Tuesday again derided the package, which included many other provisions, as a “left-wing wish list."
“That ain’t going to happen,” he reportedly said of the $3 trillion legislation. McConnell has advised President Trump that the next coronavirus measure should not be larger than $1 trillion, The Hill says.
Republican requirements: McConnell has not laid out a detailed GOP plan for a next phase of coronavirus relief beyond saying that it be more narrowly focused and must shield businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits. “It ought to be very carefully targeted to correct the mistakes that we certainly made in passing a multitrillion-dollar bill in one week,” he said Tuesday, adding that “there are some other needs that need to be met."
McConnell also said that he supports targeted aid to state and local governments, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, but that the next round of funding can’t be used to address “pre-existing” fiscal troubles. Republicans including President Trump have objected to “bailouts” for blue states that they say have racked up large unfunded pension liabilities or other debt due to mismanagement.
McConnell denied advocating allowing states to declare bankruptcy, the Courier-Journal reported. The Senate Majority Leader last month told radio host Hugh Hewitt that he “would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route,” drawing a sharp backlash from governors and Democratic leaders, who warned that allowing such bankruptcies would worsen the economic damage from the pandemic. McConnell on Tuesday reportedly described that as just a suggestion, not a policy recommendation.
The bottom line: Republicans remain split over the next coronavirus bill, including how big it should be, how quickly it should happen, what it should include and whether there’s even a need for it. So while McConnell signaled that another bill will be in the works, there’s still a long way to go, and the pressure on Republicans is only likely to mount as we get closer to the end of July, when the $600 weekly unemployment benefit is set to expire.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-28--White House Pushes to End Surprise Medical Bills: Report

The White House is pushing Congress to take action on a plan to end “ surprise ” medical bills , possibly by including it as part of the next coronavirus relief package , Politico ’ s Susannah Luthi and Rachel Roubein report .
Congress punted on a legislative fix to the problem last year , as lawmakers — buffeted by intense lobbying on the issue — couldn ’ t agree on competing proposals to prevent health care providers from hitting patients with unexpected bills for emergency room visits or out-of-network care .
The main point of contention was how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolve billing disputes .
Trump administration officials are now floating a plan that would simply ban surprise bills but avoid specifying out how doctors and hospitals would get paid by insurers , Luthi and Roubein report , citing administration sources , Capitol Hill aides and industry lobbyists familiar with discussions .
Billing disputes would reportedly have to be worked out case by case .
Cost concerns could still kill the White House plan : “ The prospect of the White House plan raising health care costs could yet douse enthusiasm on Capitol Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Though congressional scorekeepers have n't issued a formal estimate , a congressional aide said the Congressional Budget Office has advised through informal guidance that the plan would raise premiums by driving up provider rates.
” A spokesperson for Sen. Patty Murray ( D-WA ) , the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Health , Education , Labor and Pensions , told Politico that she is concerned that the White House proposal would increase patients ’ costs .
Doctors , insurers and employers all still have concerns .
The bottom line : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to steer clear of obstacles to a deal .
“ In the end , the issue is the same as it ’ s been for over a year , ” Politico ’ s Adam Cancryn and Dan Diamond say .
“ All sides support an elimination of surprise bills .
But if the patient is n't paying for those sometimes-hefty treatment expenses , some other part of the health sector will need to — and nobody wants to be the one stuck with the bill .
”

The White House is pushing Congress to take action on a plan to end “surprise” medical bills, possibly by including it as part of the next coronavirus relief package, Politico’s Susannah Luthi and Rachel Roubein report.
Congress punted on a legislative fix to the problem last year, as lawmakers — buffeted by intense lobbying on the issue — couldn’t agree on competing proposals to prevent health care providers from hitting patients with unexpected bills for emergency room visits or out-of-network care. The main point of contention was how to determine compensation for health care providers and resolve billing disputes.
Trump administration officials are now floating a plan that would simply ban surprise bills but avoid specifying out how doctors and hospitals would get paid by insurers, Luthi and Roubein report, citing administration sources, Capitol Hill aides and industry lobbyists familiar with discussions. Billing disputes would reportedly have to be worked out case by case.
Cost concerns could still kill the White House plan: “The prospect of the White House plan raising health care costs could yet douse enthusiasm on Capitol Hill,” Luthi and Roubein write. “Though congressional scorekeepers haven't issued a formal estimate, a congressional aide said the Congressional Budget Office has advised through informal guidance that the plan would raise premiums by driving up provider rates.” A spokesperson for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, told Politico that she is concerned that the White House proposal would increase patients’ costs. Doctors, insurers and employers all still have concerns.
The bottom line: There’s probably no easy way to steer clear of obstacles to a deal. “In the end, the issue is the same as it’s been for over a year,” Politico’s Adam Cancryn and Dan Diamond say. “All sides support an elimination of surprise bills. But if the patient isn't paying for those sometimes-hefty treatment expenses, some other part of the health sector will need to — and nobody wants to be the one stuck with the bill.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-28--White House Won’t Update Economic Projections

The White House typically releases a mid-year review in July or August , updating its projections on a variety of economic factors including unemployment , inflation , GDP growth and the size of the deficit .
But for the first time in decades , the review will not be released this summer , according to The Washington Post Thursday .
Administration officials say the coronavirus crisis has produced so much volatility in the economy that it ’ s too difficult to model the trends .
Whatever the motivation , the decision will help the White House avoid providing what would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy wracked by the coronavirus .
“ It gets them off the hook for having to say what the economic outlook looks like , ” former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said .
Bill Hoagland , senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee , also expressed doubts about the administration ’ s decision .
“ There is no logistical reason they couldn ’ t do it , ” he said .
“ It seems more likely they do not want to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d have to project for this year , and into next year.
” The lack of economic projections could make it harder for federal agencies to develop their budget requests for next year .
“ The agencies need good information on the economic outlook to plan , ” said Claudia Sahm , who served on the White House Council on Economic Advisers during the Obama administration .
“ Without these forecasts , they can not ask for the right amount in appropriations.
” Fed survey provides a look at the damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the brutal economic conditions the Trump White House may be seeking to avoid bringing to light .
Economic activity fell “ sharply ” in most districts in the six weeks up to May 18 , the survey says , with severe reductions in travel and tourism , automotive sales , manufacturing and construction .
The outlook among business owners is “ highly uncertain ” and many say they are “ pessimistic about the potential pace of recovery.
” The survey is a “ bracing reminder that as some Americans take advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending — and the stock market continues to rally — the economic wound remains open , ” the Post ’ s Tory Newmyer said Thursday .

The White House typically releases a mid-year review in July or August, updating its projections on a variety of economic factors including unemployment, inflation, GDP growth and the size of the deficit. But for the first time in decades, the review will not be released this summer, according to The Washington Post Thursday.
Administration officials say the coronavirus crisis has produced so much volatility in the economy that it’s too difficult to model the trends. Whatever the motivation, the decision will help the White House avoid providing what would likely be an unflattering picture of an economy wracked by the coronavirus. “It gets them off the hook for having to say what the economic outlook looks like,” former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said.
Bill Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee, also expressed doubts about the administration’s decision. “There is no logistical reason they couldn’t do it,” he said. “It seems more likely they do not want to bring attention to the high level of unemployment they’d have to project for this year, and into next year.”
The lack of economic projections could make it harder for federal agencies to develop their budget requests for next year. “The agencies need good information on the economic outlook to plan,” said Claudia Sahm, who served on the White House Council on Economic Advisers during the Obama administration. “Without these forecasts, they cannot ask for the right amount in appropriations.”
Fed survey provides a look at the damage: A new Federal Reserve survey reveals some of the brutal economic conditions the Trump White House may be seeking to avoid bringing to light. Economic activity fell “sharply” in most districts in the six weeks up to May 18, the survey says, with severe reductions in travel and tourism, automotive sales, manufacturing and construction. The outlook among business owners is “highly uncertain” and many say they are “pessimistic about the potential pace of recovery.”
The survey is a “bracing reminder that as some Americans take advantage of easing restrictions to resume working and spending — and the stock market continues to rally — the economic wound remains open,” the Post’s Tory Newmyer said Thursday.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-28--Jobless Claims Top 40 Million, but There’s a Glimmer of Hope

More than 2.1 million people filed for unemployment benefits last week , the Department of Labor announced Thursday , bringing the total for coronavirus-related jobless claims to more than 40 million over the last 10 weeks – a staggering toll without precedent in American history .
The initial claims numbers continued to decline on a week-over-week basis , though , as the pace of layoffs slows .
And for the first time since the crisis began , continuing jobless claims – from those already on the jobless rolls – moved lower , falling to 21.1 million for the week ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is delayed by a week ) .
That suggests that nearly 4 million people have left the unemployment system .
“ The data still point to a pretty significant loss of jobs but at least the numbers are moving in the right direction , ” Aneta Markowska , chief financial economist at Jefferies Group , told Bloomberg News .
“ Even though initial claims are still very elevated , the fact that continuing claims are declining means businesses are actually bringing a lot of workers back in and that is more than offsetting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment rate is at levels not seen since the Great Depression , and economists expect the pain to linger for months , if not years .
While employers appear to be bringing some employees back as parts of the economy reopen , the competition for jobs – especially safe ones that can be done remotely – is fierce .
“ Those who aspire to return to the workforce , seeking new positions amid a battered economy , are likely to find their options limited and less than ideal , ” The Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Already , some economists said they had noticed a growing reluctance on the part of workers to apply for positions where face-to-face interaction is required -- and working at home might be difficult or impossible .
”

More than 2.1 million people filed for unemployment benefits last week, the Department of Labor announced Thursday, bringing the total for coronavirus-related jobless claims to more than 40 million over the last 10 weeks – a staggering toll without precedent in American history.
The initial claims numbers continued to decline on a week-over-week basis, though, as the pace of layoffs slows. And for the first time since the crisis began, continuing jobless claims – from those already on the jobless rolls – moved lower, falling to 21.1 million for the week ended May 16 (the continuing claims data is delayed by a week). That suggests that nearly 4 million people have left the unemployment system.
“The data still point to a pretty significant loss of jobs but at least the numbers are moving in the right direction,” Aneta Markowska, chief financial economist at Jefferies Group, told Bloomberg News. “Even though initial claims are still very elevated, the fact that continuing claims are declining means businesses are actually bringing a lot of workers back in and that is more than offsetting the new filings.”
Still, the unemployment rate is at levels not seen since the Great Depression, and economists expect the pain to linger for months, if not years. While employers appear to be bringing some employees back as parts of the economy reopen, the competition for jobs – especially safe ones that can be done remotely – is fierce. “Those who aspire to return to the workforce, seeking new positions amid a battered economy, are likely to find their options limited and less than ideal,” The Washington Post’s Tony Romm said Thursday. “Already, some economists said they had noticed a growing reluctance on the part of workers to apply for positions where face-to-face interaction is required -- and working at home might be difficult or impossible.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-27--Hunger Relief Program Falling Behind

Hunger Relief Program Falling Behind

Congress created an emergency food aid program in March that allows families to transfer the value of meals they would have received at school to electronic cards that can be used at grocery stores .
But the Pandemic-EBT program is falling far short of its goals , The New York Times ’ Jason DeParle reports , reaching only about 15 % of the roughly 30 million children who are eligible to receive assistance .
Poor design and clunky infrastructure are playing a big role in the problem .
Lists of names of eligible students must be collected from school districts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are often not up to the task .
Credits – calculated at $ 5.70 per child for each lost school day – are then placed on electronic cards and mailed out .
The cumbersome process has produced considerable delays ; although the program was approved in mid-March , only 12 states had started sending out aid money by May 15 .
There ’ s little doubt that the need is massive , DeParle says .
“ In a survey of mothers with young children by the Brookings Institution , nearly a fifth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to eat — a rate three times higher than the worst of the Great Recession , ” he writes .
“ The Census Bureau reported last week that 31 percent of households with children lacked the amount or quality of food they desired because they ‘ couldn ’ t afford to buy more .
’ ”

Congress created an emergency food aid program in March that allows families to transfer the value of meals they would have received at school to electronic cards that can be used at grocery stores. But the Pandemic-EBT program is falling far short of its goals, The New York Times’ Jason DeParle reports, reaching only about 15% of the roughly 30 million children who are eligible to receive assistance.
Poor design and clunky infrastructure are playing a big role in the problem. Lists of names of eligible students must be collected from school districts and then transferred to state computer systems that are often not up to the task. Credits – calculated at $5.70 per child for each lost school day – are then placed on electronic cards and mailed out. The cumbersome process has produced considerable delays; although the program was approved in mid-March, only 12 states had started sending out aid money by May 15.
There’s little doubt that the need is massive, DeParle says. “In a survey of mothers with young children by the Brookings Institution, nearly a fifth said their children were not getting enough to eat — a rate three times higher than the worst of the Great Recession,” he writes. “The Census Bureau reported last week that 31 percent of households with children lacked the amount or quality of food they desired because they ‘couldn’t afford to buy more.’”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-29--Why US Incomes Jumped During the Pandemic

U.S. personal income rose by $ 1.97 trillion in April , the Commerce Department reported Friday .
At 10.5 % , it was the largest month-over-month increase on record – and it was driven almost entirely by the coronavirus relief transfer payments authorized by Congress in March .
The one-time relief checks of up to $ 1,200 per adult and $ 500 per child sent to most households made up the lion ’ s share of the transfer payments .
Unemployment benefits , boosted by an extra $ 600 per week in supplemental federal payments , made up most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , average monthly compensation fell by $ 600 , no doubt reflecting significant job losses .
But that drop was more than made up for by an increase of $ 1,400 in government assistance .
( The chart below from Ernie Tedeschi of Evercore ISI beaks down the household income components in April . )
As Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias noted , the monthly jump in income has everything to do with the median wage of lower-income workers , who were more likely to lose their jobs and temporarily earn more on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken into account .
The “ median American worker earns about $ 949 per week , ” Yglesias said Friday , “ so $ 600 plus a fraction of that is going to come up to more income in many cases than what they would earn by working.
” Without transfer payments from various government sources , personal income would have dropped 6.3 % in April .
This would have been the largest drop in personal income on record , former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said .
Despite the jump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % in April , the Commerce Department said , as the economy shut down in response to the coronavirus epidemic .
It was the largest one-month drop on record .
A one-time event : “ The reason the numbers look so extreme this month was because of the one-time checks that were sent out -- which won ’ t be continuing , ” Michelle Meyer , head of U.S. economics at Bank of America , told Bloomberg News .
And as numerous economists have warned , if federal relief efforts end after July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerably worse in August and beyond .

U.S. personal income rose by $1.97 trillion in April, the Commerce Department reported Friday. At 10.5%, it was the largest month-over-month increase on record – and it was driven almost entirely by the coronavirus relief transfer payments authorized by Congress in March.
The one-time relief checks of up to $1,200 per adult and $500 per child sent to most households made up the lion’s share of the transfer payments. Unemployment benefits, boosted by an extra $600 per week in supplemental federal payments, made up most of the rest.
At the household level, average monthly compensation fell by $600, no doubt reflecting significant job losses. But that drop was more than made up for by an increase of $1,400 in government assistance. (The chart below from Ernie Tedeschi of Evercore ISI beaks down the household income components in April.)
As Vox’s Matthew Yglesias noted, the monthly jump in income has everything to do with the median wage of lower-income workers, who were more likely to lose their jobs and temporarily earn more on unemployment once state and federal benefits were taken into account. The “median American worker earns about $949 per week,” Yglesias said Friday, “so $600 plus a fraction of that is going to come up to more income in many cases than what they would earn by working.”
Without transfer payments from various government sources, personal income would have dropped 6.3% in April. This would have been the largest drop in personal income on record, former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said.
Despite the jump in income, consumer spending dropped by 13.6% in April, the Commerce Department said, as the economy shut down in response to the coronavirus epidemic. It was the largest one-month drop on record.
A one-time event: “The reason the numbers look so extreme this month was because of the one-time checks that were sent out -- which won’t be continuing,” Michelle Meyer, head of U.S. economics at Bank of America, told Bloomberg News. And as numerous economists have warned, if federal relief efforts end after July, the income numbers will start looking considerably worse in August and beyond.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-29--Trump Says He’ll Terminate US Relationship With WHO

Accusing the World Health Organization of protecting China during the coronavirus pandemic , President Trump said Friday that the U.S. would sever its relationship with the agency .
“ We will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs , ” Trump announced in the White House Rose Garden .
“ The world needs answers from China on the virus.
” Earlier this month , Trump announced a temporary funding halt for the WHO , and threatened a permanent withdrawal if it did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next 30 days . ''
Trump has repeatedly criticized the WHO for its response to the coronavirus pandemic , alleging that the organization pushed misinformation from China and allowed Beijing to exert control over the United Nations health agency .
Critics said Trump was blatantly trying to shift blame for his administration ’ s own failures in halting the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. , where it has resulted in more than 100,000 deaths so far .
Currently , the U.S. provides about 15 % of the WHO ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or about $ 450 million per year .
It ’ s not clear , however , that Trump can end U.S. funding for the health organization without the intervention of Congress , which controls the power of the federal purse .
Mike Ryan , the Irish doctor who leads the emergencies program at the agency , said the funding loss would be difficult , but hoped to find the money from other nations .
“ [ T ] his is going to have major implications for delivering essential health services to some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Ryan told Stat News , “ and we trust that other donors will if necessary step in to fill that gap .
”

Accusing the World Health Organization of protecting China during the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump said Friday that the U.S. would sever its relationship with the agency.
“We will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs,” Trump announced in the White House Rose Garden. “The world needs answers from China on the virus.”
Earlier this month, Trump announced a temporary funding halt for the WHO, and threatened a permanent withdrawal if it did not "commit to major substantive improvements in the next 30 days."
Trump has repeatedly criticized the WHO for its response to the coronavirus pandemic, alleging that the organization pushed misinformation from China and allowed Beijing to exert control over the United Nations health agency. Critics said Trump was blatantly trying to shift blame for his administration’s own failures in halting the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S., where it has resulted in more than 100,000 deaths so far.
Currently, the U.S. provides about 15% of the WHO’s roughly $2.3 billion annual budget, or about $450 million per year. It’s not clear, however, that Trump can end U.S. funding for the health organization without the intervention of Congress, which controls the power of the federal purse.
Mike Ryan, the Irish doctor who leads the emergencies program at the agency, said the funding loss would be difficult, but hoped to find the money from other nations. “[T]his is going to have major implications for delivering essential health services to some of the most vulnerable people in the world,” Ryan told Stat News, “and we trust that other donors will if necessary step in to fill that gap.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-28--House Votes to Relax Paycheck Protection Program Rules

The House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved bipartisan changes to give small businesses more time and flexibility in using emergency loans obtained through the Paycheck Protection Program meant to aid companies and workers during the pandemic .
The details : The $ 670 billion program provides businesses with fewer than 500 employees with low-interest loans up of to $ 10 million that can be forgiven if companies meet certain requirements — but business owners said the criteria for forgiveness were problematic , making the program less effective and appealing .
In response , the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act passed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses have to spend their funds and still qualify for loan forgiveness from eight weeks to 24 weeks ; • Reduce the percentage of forgivable loan funds required to be spent on payroll from 75 % to 60 % , giving business owners the ability to use more of the money they receive on overhead expenses including rent and utilities ; • Extend the application deadline from June 30 to December 31 ; • Allow more time to rehire workers ; • Extend the repayment time for non-forgiven loans from two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bill , introduced by Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota , passed 417-1 .
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky cast the only “ no ” vote .
What ’ s next : The legislation now goes to the Senate , which is expected to take up the issue when it returns next week .
Senators said last week that they had made progress on their own set of PPP changes , including some changes not in the House bill .
The Senate would reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 , for spending the loan money and would have kept the 75 % payroll requirement .
Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) , one of the architects of the program , has some concerns about the House version , according to The New York Times .
The new proxy voting process used by the House to pass the bill also creates some uncertainty since Republicans have filed a lawsuit arguing that legislation passed in such a manner is invalid .
The sponsors of the bill want the Senate to act quickly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger coronavirus relief package that is likely still weeks away .
“ I would be both surprised and disappointed if the Senate didn ’ t pass this immediately and get it to the president , ” Phillips said , according to the Star Tribune .
And Roy told CNN ahead of Wednesday ’ s vote : `` I hope that Congress does n't mess this up en route to some grand bargain .
”

The House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved bipartisan changes to give small businesses more time and flexibility in using emergency loans obtained through the Paycheck Protection Program meant to aid companies and workers during the pandemic.
The details: The $670 billion program provides businesses with fewer than 500 employees with low-interest loans up of to $10 million that can be forgiven if companies meet certain requirements — but business owners said the criteria for forgiveness were problematic, making the program less effective and appealing. In response, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act passed on Thursday would:
Extend the window small businesses have to spend their funds and still qualify for loan forgiveness from eight weeks to 24 weeks;
Reduce the percentage of forgivable loan funds required to be spent on payroll from 75% to 60%, giving business owners the ability to use more of the money they receive on overhead expenses including rent and utilities;
Allow payroll tax deferrals to PPP loan recipients;
Extend the application deadline from June 30 to December 31;
Allow more time to rehire workers;
Extend the repayment time for non-forgiven loans from two years to five years for future borrowers.
The bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, passed 417-1. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky cast the only “no” vote.
What’s next: The legislation now goes to the Senate, which is expected to take up the issue when it returns next week.
Senators said last week that they had made progress on their own set of PPP changes, including some changes not in the House bill. The Senate would reportedly have allowed 16 weeks, rather than 24, for spending the loan money and would have kept the 75% payroll requirement. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of the architects of the program, has some concerns about the House version, according to The New York Times.
The new proxy voting process used by the House to pass the bill also creates some uncertainty since Republicans have filed a lawsuit arguing that legislation passed in such a manner is invalid.
The sponsors of the bill want the Senate to act quickly and avoid making this bill part of a larger coronavirus relief package that is likely still weeks away.
“I would be both surprised and disappointed if the Senate didn’t pass this immediately and get it to the president,” Phillips said, according to the Star Tribune. And Roy told CNN ahead of Wednesday’s vote: "I hope that Congress doesn't mess this up en route to some grand bargain.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-01--Coronavirus Will Cost US Economy Nearly $16 Trillion, CBO Says

The coronavirus pandemic will shrink U.S. economic output by $ 15.7 trillion over the next decade , or $ 7.9 trillion after adjusting for inflation , the Congressional Budget Office estimated on Monday .
In response to a request by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) , CBO Director Phillip Swagel laid out how the pandemic has caused the budget office to dramatically revise projections it had issued in January , reducing its forecast for total U.S. economic output by a cumulative , inflation-adjusted 3 % from 2020 through 2030 .
Swagel said that the projections come with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” given that it 's not clear how the pandemic will play out , how social distancing will affect the economy , how past and future policy responses may affect the economy and even how economic data will be compiled amid the disruption caused by the virus .
Schumer and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) responded to the report by urging the Senate and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) to “ act with a fierce sense of urgency ” and not wait another month to pass the next coronavirus aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at these catastrophic economic numbers and believe there is no ‘ urgency ’ to protect America ’ s working families ?
” they said in a statement .
“ At a time of massive wealth and income inequality , how can President Trump believe that what this country needs is another huge tax break for the top one percent ? ''

The coronavirus pandemic will shrink U.S. economic output by $15.7 trillion over the next decade, or $7.9 trillion after adjusting for inflation, the Congressional Budget Office estimated on Monday.
In response to a request by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), CBO Director Phillip Swagel laid out how the pandemic has caused the budget office to dramatically revise projections it had issued in January, reducing its forecast for total U.S. economic output by a cumulative, inflation-adjusted 3% from 2020 through 2030.
Swagel said that the projections come with an “unusually high degree of uncertainty” given that it's not clear how the pandemic will play out, how social distancing will affect the economy, how past and future policy responses may affect the economy and even how economic data will be compiled amid the disruption caused by the virus.
Schumer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) responded to the report by urging the Senate and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to “act with a fierce sense of urgency” and not wait another month to pass the next coronavirus aid package.
“How can Senator McConnell look at these catastrophic economic numbers and believe there is no ‘urgency’ to protect America’s working families?” they said in a statement. “At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, how can President Trump believe that what this country needs is another huge tax break for the top one percent?"


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-01--The Battle Over State Bailouts

The Battle Over State Bailouts

States are confronting massive budget shortfalls as tax revenues plunge and social safety net spending soars , but there ’ s no clear sense in Washington about how to approach the problem .
Despite strong evidence that federal assistance was both necessary and effective during the last recession , a political battle has broken out over state aid , says Michael Grunwald of Politico , leaving many local leaders wondering if they will receive the help they need .
Democrats are pushing for nearly a trillion dollars in additional aid to the states , as part of an effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduced spending at the state and local level .
The CARES Act signed into law in March provided $ 150 billion in direct aid for state , local and tribal governments , and Democrats have proposed $ 915 billion more in the HEROES Act that passed in the House in May .
But Republicans say they have no intention of taking up the bill and have started pushing back against the idea of further aid , particularly any assistance that could be seen as a bailout of Democratic-led blue states .
“ Polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help states avoid layoffs of teachers , police officers and public health workers , ” Grunwald writes , “ but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , Fox News personalities , and other influential Republicans are trying to reframe state aid as Big Government Democratic welfare spending.
” The experience of the Great Recession : In an effort to prevent layoffs and cutbacks that could make the recession even worse , President Obama proposed $ 200 billion in aid for states in 2009 as the economy was still deteriorating .
But both Democratic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size of the aid package , whittling it down to $ 140 billion .
Still , the aid was effective , and there is widespread agreement among economists that it helped ease the recession , even though the relatively small size limited its effects .
“ There were at least a dozen papers written on the state aid , and the evidence is crystal clear that it helped , ” says former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman .
“ Unfortunately , it was incredibly hard to get Congress to do more of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to austerity : Most states have balanced-budget rules , which force governors to cut back on spending during recessions as revenues fall .
Those cutbacks make the recession worse , most economists agree , by further reducing spending at a time when local economies are already shrinking .
In the wake of the coronavirus , states have started announcing layoffs and budget cuts , moves that will almost certainly amplify the effects of the contraction .
Some economists worry that the political struggle over additional federal aid will fail to prevent a turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There wasn ’ t a lot of evidence that state aid would be good stimulus in 2009 , but now there ’ s a lot of data , and it all adds up to juice for the economy , ” Moody ’ s chief economist Mark Zandi told Politico .
“ It ’ s baffling that this is getting caught up in politics .
If states don ’ t get the support they need soon , they ’ ll eliminate millions of jobs and cut spending at the worst possible time.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Larry Hogan , the Republican governor of Maryland , wrote an op-ed Monday asking Congress to move quickly to provide more assistance .
“ The revenue losses states are projected to face are more than double what we experienced during the Great Recession , ” Hogan said , adding that “ no amount of fiscal prudence could have fully prepared any state for the scope of this challenge.
” Hogan argued that another round of federal aid will help keep the nearly 15 million people employed by state and local governments working , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country afloat .
Forcing those employees off the payrolls would not be “ a fiscally responsible choice , ” Hogan said , since it would simply increase the unemployment rolls while further slowing the economy .
“ In past times of war , natural disaster and economic depression , Americans have put aside partisan bickering to find common ground on the urgent challenge right in front of us , ” Hogan pleaded .
“ In that spirit , Congress came together to swiftly pass the CARES Act to deliver aid for America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is required of us once again .
”

States are confronting massive budget shortfalls as tax revenues plunge and social safety net spending soars, but there’s no clear sense in Washington about how to approach the problem. Despite strong evidence that federal assistance was both necessary and effective during the last recession, a political battle has broken out over state aid, says Michael Grunwald of Politico, leaving many local leaders wondering if they will receive the help they need.
Democrats are pushing for nearly a trillion dollars in additional aid to the states, as part of an effort to limit the damage caused by layoffs and reduced spending at the state and local level. The CARES Act signed into law in March provided $150 billion in direct aid for state, local and tribal governments, and Democrats have proposed $915 billion more in the HEROES Act that passed in the House in May. But Republicans say they have no intention of taking up the bill and have started pushing back against the idea of further aid, particularly any assistance that could be seen as a bailout of Democratic-led blue states.
“Polls show that most voters want Washington to help states avoid layoffs of teachers, police officers and public health workers,” Grunwald writes, “but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Fox News personalities, and other influential Republicans are trying to reframe state aid as Big Government Democratic welfare spending.”
The experience of the Great Recession: In an effort to prevent layoffs and cutbacks that could make the recession even worse, President Obama proposed $200 billion in aid for states in 2009 as the economy was still deteriorating. But both Democratic and Republican lawmakers pushed back against the unprecedented size of the aid package, whittling it down to $140 billion. Still, the aid was effective, and there is widespread agreement among economists that it helped ease the recession, even though the relatively small size limited its effects.
“There were at least a dozen papers written on the state aid, and the evidence is crystal clear that it helped,” says former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. “Unfortunately, it was incredibly hard to get Congress to do more of it, and that hurt.”
The pivot to austerity: Most states have balanced-budget rules, which force governors to cut back on spending during recessions as revenues fall. Those cutbacks make the recession worse, most economists agree, by further reducing spending at a time when local economies are already shrinking. In the wake of the coronavirus, states have started announcing layoffs and budget cuts, moves that will almost certainly amplify the effects of the contraction.
Some economists worry that the political struggle over additional federal aid will fail to prevent a turn to austerity in state and local budgets. “There wasn’t a lot of evidence that state aid would be good stimulus in 2009, but now there’s a lot of data, and it all adds up to juice for the economy,” Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi told Politico. “It’s baffling that this is getting caught up in politics. If states don’t get the support they need soon, they’ll eliminate millions of jobs and cut spending at the worst possible time.”
A plea from a governor: Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland, wrote an op-ed Monday asking Congress to move quickly to provide more assistance. “The revenue losses states are projected to face are more than double what we experienced during the Great Recession,” Hogan said, adding that “no amount of fiscal prudence could have fully prepared any state for the scope of this challenge.” Hogan argued that another round of federal aid will help keep the nearly 15 million people employed by state and local governments working, providing essential services that help keep the country afloat. Forcing those employees off the payrolls would not be “a fiscally responsible choice,” Hogan said, since it would simply increase the unemployment rolls while further slowing the economy.
“In past times of war, natural disaster and economic depression, Americans have put aside partisan bickering to find common ground on the urgent challenge right in front of us,” Hogan pleaded. “In that spirit, Congress came together to swiftly pass the CARES Act to deliver aid for America’s businesses and workers. That is what is required of us once again.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-01--Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Wants Next Coronavirus Bill to Address Rising Debt

Congress is likely to pass another coronavirus relief bill at some point , but doing so may require addressing the mounting deficit concerns of a bipartisan group of lawmakers .
A group of 60 House members from both parties wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Monday asking that any further pandemic response ensures that the nation will address the national debt , budget reforms and projected trust fund shortfalls for Social Security and other programs once the economy is stronger .
“ Though emergency borrowing is necessary now , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring the debt burden to sustainable levels as the pandemic recedes and the economy recovers , ” the group , led by Reps. Scott Peters ( D-CA ) and Jodey Arrington ( R-TX ) , wrote .
The members of Congress behind the new letter aren ’ t calling for specific future tax increases or budget cuts .
Instead , they propose a few steps to ensure a future focus on budget and debt issues : • They want the Government Accountability Office to issue an annual report on the fiscal health of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill introduced last year that would create bipartisan , bicameral “ rescue committees ” to recommend fixes for Social Security , Medicare and other federal trust funds facing future insolvency .
• They propose establishing goals for managing the budget and national debt , such as setting targets for the ratio of debt to gross domestic product .
Such a process , they say , would reduce debt-limit brinkmanship as well .
The Congressional Budget Office projected in April that the federal deficit would be close to $ 4 trillion for fiscal year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely exceed the size of the economy by the end of the year .
Senate Republicans have cited debt concerns in recent weeks as they advocated a “ pause ” before any additional coronavirus aid .

Congress is likely to pass another coronavirus relief bill at some point, but doing so may require addressing the mounting deficit concerns of a bipartisan group of lawmakers. A group of 60 House members from both parties wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Monday asking that any further pandemic response ensures that the nation will address the national debt, budget reforms and projected trust fund shortfalls for Social Security and other programs once the economy is stronger.
“Though emergency borrowing is necessary now, we must have a credible plan for responsibility to bring the debt burden to sustainable levels as the pandemic recedes and the economy recovers,” the group, led by Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Jodey Arrington (R-TX), wrote.
The members of Congress behind the new letter aren’t calling for specific future tax increases or budget cuts. Instead, they propose a few steps to ensure a future focus on budget and debt issues:
They want the Government Accountability Office to issue an annual report on the fiscal health of the nation.
They back a bill introduced last year that would create bipartisan, bicameral “rescue committees” to recommend fixes for Social Security, Medicare and other federal trust funds facing future insolvency.
They propose establishing goals for managing the budget and national debt, such as setting targets for the ratio of debt to gross domestic product. Such a process, they say, would reduce debt-limit brinkmanship as well.
The Congressional Budget Office projected in April that the federal deficit would be close to $4 trillion for fiscal year 2020 and debt held by the public would likely exceed the size of the economy by the end of the year. Senate Republicans have cited debt concerns in recent weeks as they advocated a “pause” before any additional coronavirus aid.