Here's What to Expect after the Senate Health Bill Vote

This is where it gets complicated

So the Senate has voted to start debate on a bill to replace the Affordable Care Act. Now what?

Well, it gets wonky.

The rules for budget reconciliation, the process the Senate is using that limits debate and allows a bill to pass with only a simple majority, comes with a set of very specific rules. Here are some of the big ones that could shape whatever final bill emerges:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Matters Of Timing

Unlike most other Senate bills, where deliberation can last for days or weeks, budget reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours. While that 20-hour clock starts running as soon as the Senate votes to proceed to the bill, the debate can be paused. In other words, the Senate can recess for the night, then come back the next day and the clock would resume where it left off the day before. The 20 hours does not include time spent voting on amendments.

Near the end of the debate, Senate leaders could offer a substitute bill. It may incorporate some of the earlier amendments or not, and it is likely geared to attracting as many votes as possible.

At the end of the 20 hours, there is potentially unlimited time for senators to vote on (but not debate) amendments. By tradition, the minority and majority party each gets one or two minutes to announce what the amendment is, and why it is good or bad. Unlike the initial debate, the clock does not pause for what is referred to as the “vote-a-rama.” That means voting goes only until members get too tired to continue. Vote-a-ramas in the past have often stretched for more than 12 hours, but rarely longer than 24.

Amendments

Senate leaders have for the past several weeks talked about starting debate and having an “open amendment process.” But under reconciliation, amendments are more constrained than under almost any other Senate rules.

According a report by the Congressional Research Service (a nonpartisan research group that provides background briefs to Congress), the Budget Act, which sets the reconciliation rules, “requires that all amendments be germane to the provisions in the bill.” What does that mean? Says CRS, “amendments cannot be used to introduce new subjects or expand the scope of the bill.”

Amendments also cannot add to the budget deficit or cause the bill to miss its overall budget targets.

Budget Targets

Reconciliation is designed to be a process to address the federal budget and is governed by the details set in a budget resolution passed by Congress. Even though congressional leaders have often used it to move legislation that has broader intent, the process has strict rules about spending or saving federal dollars. This year’s targets are modest by most budget resolution standards — each of the two health committees in the Senate were instructed to save $1 billion over 10 years.

But the Senate committees did not take up the bill to make changes or meet those targets on their own. As a result, the Senate is working from the bill passed by the House in May. It saved $119 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Although the Senate is certain to make major revisions to the House legislation, any bill it passes must produce at least that much in savings.

And, of course, if the Senate passes a bill, it would have to be approved by the House or the House and Senate would have to work out differences and then pass that bill.

Byrd Rule

Both the underlying ACA replacement bill and its amendments must comply with the “Byrd Rule,” named for former Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), which prohibits language that is “extraneous” to the federal budget from being included in the bill. In practice that means language must add to or subtract from federal spending and that the spending must not be “merely incidental” to a broader policy purpose.

Those determinations are made by the Senate parliamentarian. Last Friday, Senate Democrats released a list of initial decisions made by the parliamentarian’s office that found about 10 parts of the Senate- and House-passed health bills run afoul of the Byrd Rule. That list included a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood and requirements that people with breaks in coverage wait six months before buying individual health insurance.

Republican leaders say they are working to rewrite the problematic provisions. Whether that will pass the Byrd Rule is one of many things no one knows yet in this very tumultuous debate.

This story was originally published by Kaiser Health News on July 25, 2017. Read the original story here.

Julie Rovner, the Robin Toner Distinguished Fellow, is Chief Washington Correspondent for KHN.

More by Julie Rovner

KFF Health News, formerly known as Kaiser Health News (KHN), is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF -- the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

More by KFF Health News

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe