If the ACA is not repealed

  Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up.

Trump said during the campaign that he would not work to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Of course, Trump’s promises are not worth the breath polluted by his utterance of them, and Republicans in Congress, flush with the Republican trifecta, are talking about block-granting Medicaid. that would probably go hand in glove with phasing out the ACA Medicaid expansion — the ACA’s most important and effective program, responsible for most of the drop in the uninsured rate achieved by the ACA.

But let’s undertake the dubious exercise of taking Trump at his word. Repealing and replacing (or, in the case of the Medicaid expansion, declining to replace) the ACA’s core programs may fail, as it did in 2017. Congress may take some hacks at the law, as they did in 2017 (remember the individual mandate? or the tax on insurers?) without changing the core subsidy structure of the ACA marketplace (minus the subsidy enhancements enacted in the American Rescue Plan, which expire in 2026) or entirely eliminating the Medicaid expansion. And the Trump administration may do much to reshape the marketplace administratively — as Trump 1.0 did, but much more. As I noted earlier this fall, JD Vance sketched out how Trump might, um, “build on” (that is, partially dismantle) the ACA marketplace.

Thanks for reading xpostfactoid! Subscribe for free:

Let’s look at the various means by which the Trump administration and Republican Congress might reshape the ACA’s core programs (Medicaid expansion and Marketplace) short of wholesale repeal.

---

Medicaid work requirements. Billed as a way to help “able-bodied” (read: unworthy, largely nonwhite) Medicaid enrollees discover the joys and dignity of wage labor, this Republican favorite is actually a means pushing eligible people off the rolls, as brief experiments in Trump 1.0 demonstrated. As the Kaiser Family Foundation never tires of documenting, a large majority of Medicaid expansion enrollees do work, and almost all the rest are otherwise constructively engaged, e.g., in school or caring for loved ones, or disabled. During Trump 1.0, CMS administrator Seema Verma enthusiastically promoted work requirements, inviting states to file waivers enacting them. While thirteen states had waivers approved, only Arkansas implemented them, with reporting requirements so onerous and so incompetently administered that the D.C. Circuit Court shut the program down after some 18,000 had been gratuitously disenrolled, holding that the waivers were unlawful because CMS failed to consider the impact on coverage, as required for Medicaid waivers. The pandemic then interrupted other states’ waiver plans, and the Biden administration removed approvals. Various court challenges were paused or dismissed as moot. Get ready for Round 2.

Medicaid de-expansion. The path on this front is laid out by the Trumpist Paragon Institute, headed by Brian Blase, who was on Trump’s NEC. The Paragon proposal, like the 2017 ACA repeal bills, would end the federal government’s 90% match rate (FMAP) for Medicaid enrollees rendered eligible by ACA criteria (eligibility for legally present adults (except recent immigrants) with income up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, reducing the FMAP to each state’s FMAP for other Medicaid programs, which ranges from 50% in the wealthiest (a.k.a. blue) states to 77% in Mississippi. The proposal would allow states to drop the eligibility threshold to 100% FPL, which would then be the starting point for marketplace subsidy eligibility, as it is now in the ten remaining states that have refused to implement the ACA expansion (Paragon notes gleefully that those states, which include Texas and Florida, will never enact the expansion under this proposal). In an extra swipe at wealthy (blue) states, Paragon would drop the minimum FMAP from 50% to 40%. This proposal nominally does not end the expansion, and allows states to avoid a “coverage gap” on the current Wisconsin model (Medicaid to 100% FPL, marketplace from 100% FPL). As the federal government pays 100% of marketplace premium subsidies, the shift of enrollees in the 100-138% FPL range offset a bit of the cost to states of the reduced match rate. But most states would probably find maintaining expansion at the reduced FMAP unsustainable — especially if the Republican Congress also imposes block grant funding or per capita caps on federal Medicaid spending, which would slow-strangle Medicaid over the course of a decade or two.

Undercutting the ACA marketplace. With Republicans in control of Congress, the enhanced premium subsidies enacted through 2022 by the American Rescue Plan Act and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act are almost certainly dead. (Had Democrats won the House, they might have leveraged the expiration of Trump’s income tax cuts to preserve the ARPA subsidy boosts.) Those subsidy increases were doubtless the main cause of a 78% enrollment increase nationally from 2021-2024 and a 123% increase in the nonexpansion states, where the enhanced subsidies rendered benchmark silver coverage free for enrollees with income in the 100-150% FPL range. That means that the pre-ARPA income cap on subsidy eligibility, 400% FPL ($60,240 annually for a single person in 2024), will snap back into place, rendering ACA-compliant coverage unaffordable for several million people.

From there, a supercharged version of Trump 1.0’s parallel, ACA-noncompliant market will go to work to reduce the ACA marketplace to a sort of high risk pool. Vance sketched out how this might work, as I noted a few weeks ago. If more wholesale repeal/redesign does not happen, Trump 2.0 might

rebuild Trump 1.0’s alternative market of medically underwritten, ACA-noncompliant plans (so-called Short-Term Limited Duration, or STLD, plans*), and 2) prompting states to implement measures like the waiver concepts put forward by Trump’s former CMS administrator, Seema Verma. These “concepts” included 1) replacing ACA premium subsidies with a lump-sum health savings account that could be used to pay premiums for any plan; 2) inviting states to restructure the federal premium subsidy as they wished; 3) allowing states to grant premium subsidies for ACA-noncompliant plans; and 4) creating state high risk pools. Options 1 and 3 could effectively convert the ACA-compliant marketplace as we know it into a high risk pool of sorts, and in combination with option 4, could create the multiple stratified risk pools that Vance described in followup comments.

Verma’s waiver concepts plainly violated the ACA statute, as alternative state schemes outlined in an ACA Section 1332 “innovation waiver” proposal has to provide coverage at least as comprehensive as that stipulated in the ACA; provide coverage and cost sharing protections that are at least as affordable; and cover a comparable number of residents. Amending the waiver provision to allow Verma-esque concepts would be low-hanging fruit for a Republican Congress, and in fact was under negotiation after Republican repeal attempts failed in 2017.

Georgia made a brief attempt to take Verma up on her waiver concepts, filing a waiver proposal in late 2020 that would have eliminated a state-sponsored exchange, relying on commercial Enhanced Direct Enrollment (EDE) platforms commissioned by the federal government, and, in one early iteration, allow plans that did not include all Essential Health Benefits to be paid for with federal subsidies. That provision was cut from the submitted waiver, as it violates the ACA statute too plainly even for Trump 1.0’s administrators. But this may be the ACA’s future, if it has any future: some semblance of the ACA subsidy that can be used for ACA noncompliant plans — including, perhaps, medically underwritten plans. As those plans would be cheaper for healthy people, ACA-compliant marketplace enrollment might be reduced to those who would a) pay very little for comprehensive coverage because of low income and a favorable shakeout of price spreads, and/or b) those who know they need comprehensive coverage or who could not get a viable offer when subjected to medical underwriting.

The big enchilada, now as ever, is the ACA Medicaid expansion — and behind that, sustained federal funding for Medicaid programs generally. Perhaps Republicans will divide the baby, and cut the ACA expansion’s enhanced FMAP, say to 80% instead of 90% — and/or cut it disproportionately for states with higher per capita income. Under the best scenarios, the uninsured rate will rise substantially, and the individual market for health insurance will degrade considerably. Just one set of the many pillars of our society likely to come crashing down in coming months and years.

Update: It’s worth noting that when the Trump administration created an ACA-noncompliant market by extending the allowable limit of so-called Short-term, limited duration (STLD) plans to a full year, renewable twice, many states imposed or preserved strict limits of their own. (The STDL plans are medically underwritten, don’t have to cover the ACA’s ten Essential Health Benefits, and are not subject to medical loss ratio limits, e.g., the requirement to spend at least 80% of premiums on patients’ medical expenses.) As of this year, 14 states have either banned STDL plans outright or effectively regulated them out of existence, and others had either imposed other duration limits (often six months) or new coverage rules. If the ACA is not substantially repealed, state markets will doubtless diverge further in how they regulate and reshape coverage.

Update 2, 11/16/24: Charles Gaba, by means of Georgetown’s Edwin Park, runs down the more extreme scenario, Republicans enacting their proposals to destroy Medicaid

* Borrowing my last quick rundown of the Trump admin’s STLD program:

The Trump administration’s major initiative to “build on” the ACA marketplace after repeal failed was to stand up (by administrative rule in 2018) a parallel market of medically underwritten, lightly regulated plans by extending the allowable duration of already-existing so-called “short-term, limited duration plans” (STLD) to up to one year, renewable twice. The Obama administration had limited STLD duration to three months, though not until 2016. In combination with the Republican Congress’s zeroing out of the tax penalty for failing to obtain ACA-compliant insurance, the STLD market was an alternative for people who were priced out of the regulated ACA marketplace — as several million people were before the Biden administration removed the income cap on subsidy eligibility via the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in March 2021. (The ARPA subsidy enhancements were temporary, and extended by the Inflation Reduction Act only through 2025.)

STLD plans can refuse access to people with pre-existing conditions or exclude coverage for the condition. They do not have to cover the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits and generally offer very limited prescription drug coverage, if any, and no substance abuse coverage. They are not subject to the ACA requirement to spend at least 80% of premiums on members’ medical bills (and on a few allowed other expenses) and have been reported to spend as little as 45% of premiums on claims. They do not have to offer a provider network and can pay providers what they deem appropriate, exposing enrollees to balance billing. They do not have to provide an annual out-of-pocket cost cap on covered benefits, though some do. They are much like the plans offered in the pre-ACA individual market.

Thanks for reading xpostfactoid! Subscribe for free:

Photo by Kaboompics.com 

"They saw everything through the prism of healthcare" -- Pelosi at Health Action 2019

I've just started going through my notes from Health Action 2019, Families USA's annual conference, which is always a delight to me, as recounted here (for 2018) and here (2017). I'm reminded that in her 15 minute keynote, Nancy Pelosi actually said something of substance It's here, beginning at about 12:15 (my emphasis):

God truly blessed America with the activism of all of you. It made so much difference..we not only want the grass roots to mobilize, we want them to give us their view of what public policy should be, and how we message that public policy. That was our success in the last two years, because we would say, 'this is what we need to do, how does this translate to the people who are out there?' And they saw everything, the grassroots we were working with  -- including many of you --  through the prism of healthcare. If you want to talk about the tax bill, talk about healthcare...Republicans say about the tax bill, it doesn't really increase the deficit, but if it does, we'll take a trillion dollars out of Medicaid, we'll take a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. So again, the point being, the effective messaging is what worked at the grassroots level, which encourages people to take advocacy action, to make the calls, to show up at the town halls, to do the sit-ins, all the activism that you know very well. So I'm here to say thank you in all of you. I hope again that you take satisfaction in all you do.

Four healthcare questions for Bob Hugin

Bob Hugin, the former Celgene CEO seeking to take Democrat Bob Menendez's New Jersey Senate seat, talks a moderate game on healthcare. He promises to protect access to insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, doesn't trash-talk the Affordable Care Act, and talks up value-based payment and focusing more on prevention than treatment -- pious goals to which politicians in both parties pay tribute.

Hugin is, however, a Republican - a prominent supporter of President Trump, big donor to Paul Ryan's SuperPACs, and aspiring member of Senate Team McConnell. Many of his rather vague pronouncements about existing programs demand greater scrutiny.

Hugin focused on healthcare in a September 26 roundtable in Glen Ridge, covered by Advance Media here. Here are some followup questions reporters -- and voters - -should ask Hugin when he delivers moderate-sounding pronouncements about existing programs. Quotations are from the AM story or the short video embedded in it.

1. "I cannot envision any changes to our health system today that would not protect people with pre-existing conditions." 

2017: A year of healthcare combat

2017 was the fourth year in which xpostfactoid focused mostly on healthcare access -- and more specifically, on ACA implementation (and, this year, on de-implementation, threatened and actual).

It was a year of intense combat (to be continued...) and high drama, and I participated not only via writing, but as an advocate in New Jersey working to help ward off ACA repeal, and as a Certified Application Counselor during Open Enrollment.

Below is a look back at a few posts, roughly one per month, that I hope might have contributed something to our understanding of where we've been and where we're headed in the struggle toward (or away from) universal healthcare access. These include:

• Statistical measures of the extent to which Republican repeal-and-replace bills (AHCA, BCRA) would reduce subsidies to low income Americans (and relatedly, at the contrasting structure and aims of Democratic and Republican healthcare spending cuts).

• Previewing the paradoxical effects of Trump's cutoff of federal reimbursements for Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies, then spotlighting the actual effects in counties where marketplace enrollment is heaviest.

• Snapshots of who's benefited most (1, 2) and who's been left out (1,2,3) by ACA offerings.

• A couple of passes (1, 2) at my vision of how U.S. healthcare might most plausibly and profitably evolve.

Here they are in chronological order, earliest first:

The ACA is London after the Blitz

Trump administration sabotage of the ACA has done serious damage and will likely do more. Uncertainty over CSR reimbursement and enforcement of the individual mandate have themselves driven premiums up by over 20% in 2018 (Gaba's estimate) and driven many insurers out of the individual market.

Those premium hikes will probably knock several million unsubsidized buyers out of the individual market.  Weakened mandate enforcement, real or perceived, will probably reduce the numbers of people enrolled not only in the individual market but also in employer-sponsored insurance and Medicaid. An increased percentage of unsubsidized enrollees in the individual market who do stay in will probably be underinsured, pushed into bronze plans and/or overburdened by the combination of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Poor-to-nonexistent outreach from HHS may result in many current marketplace enrollees failing to shop anew and so re-enrolling in a suboptimal plan. Trump's threat to issue an executive order that reportedly would empower association health plans to evade state regulation via ERISA could bleed health enrollees out of the individual market.

Red states, meanwhile, are lining up to accept HHS's invitation to propose work requirements, time limits and more frequent enrollment redeterminations on Medicaid enrollees, which will likely reduce Medicaid takeup.

It's worth keeping in mind, though, that as long as Republicans fail to pass a repeal bill or cap federal Medicaid spending, the damage thus far can be contained, and reversed if and when Democrats regain power -- or, under divided government, Republicans tire of sabotage. Maintaining the ACA's taxes (to fund benefits), the enhanced federal match rate for the Medicaid expansion (and pre-ACA match rates for the rest of Medicaid), the marketplace infrastructure and subsidy structure -- all of that would have been a January dream come true for any ACA advocate.

What might moderate Republicans do to the ACA?

From the release of the AHCA on March 4 to Sunday night's amendments to Graham-Cassidy, Republican repeal bills have got ten worse and worse -- more conducive to individual market chaos, more draconian in Medicaid expansion rollback and per capita capping of federal medicaid payments. All of the bills would reduce the ranks of the insured by more than 20 million. Which suggests a question: what would a "good" partial repeal bill look like?

To some extent that's a nonsense question. The ACA embodies a Democratic concession to a core conservative concept: That there's inherent virtue in establishing a competitive insurance market, that doing so will drive down costs and improve healthcare quality (i.e., that insurers can make providers deliver better care more cheaply). The ACA's flaws are in any case all in a conservative direction. Real fixes would include bigger subsidies, including via reinsurance; some means of capping the rates insurers pay providers, as in Medicare Advantage or Medicaid managed care; rules more or less compelling providers to accept the insurance (i.e., if they accept Medicare); and strong incentives for insurers to participate in the market (tied to their eligibility to participate in managed Medicaid or Medicare Advantage markets).

A genuinely moderate Republican would not accept such changes but would seek to amend rather than repeal/replace the ACA -- not just in the short term, as Lamar Alexander has called for, but for the long term, as Susan Collins would probably like to do  There's no shortage of proposed conservative tweaks that might do minimal harm and in some cases perhaps even some good. Yevgeniy Feyman and Paul Howard could write such a bill. Here's my sense of what concessions might be won from Democrats in exchange for CSR and reinsurance funding.

Senate "moderates" promised long ago to support the ACA repeal bill in progress

I keep reading that Senators Capito and Portman and Heller, relative Republican "moderates" from states that have embraced the ACA Medicaid expansion,  have reversed themselves by signaling willingness to repeal the expansion if the repeal timeline is stretched out.

Capito may have made some contradictory noises over the last few months, occasionally indicating that she does not want to see the expansion repealed.

But look again at the letter to McConnell that Capito and Portman signed onto just before the House repeal bill, the AHCA, was released.  That letter, which was read as defense of the Medicaid expansion, demanded

that any health care replacement provide states with a stable transition period and the opportunity to gradually phase-in their populations to any new Medicaid financing structure.

In Republican-speak, that means expanding the timeline in which enhanced federal funding for the Medicaid expansion population is phased out -- as the Senate bill will do. I examined the letter's consistency with the course the Senate is undertaking now in more detail in this post.

My letter to the Senate Finance Committee about ACA repeal legislaton

Topher Spiro, veep for health policy at the Center for American Progress and a forceful ACA advocate on Twitter (@topherspiro), got hold of a letter from Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch to healthcare "stakeholders," inviting their input by May 23 on Republican senators' efforts to write an ACA repeal bill. Hatch asked that letters be sent to HealthReform@Finance.Senate.gov.

Since the Republican senators' bill-writing process is as secretive and rushed as the House's, Spiro seized the opportunity to encourage non-privileged "stakeholders" -- all of us -- to send their two cents to the email address provided. He has offered to tweet any letters tweeted at him, with a screenshot.

Here's mine:

Dear Members of the Senate Finance Committee:

As a constituent, husband and father of two adult children, son and son-in-law of four aged parents, member of a community and citizen of a nation with many people who lack affordable, reliable access to health insurance or are at risk of losing newly obtained insurance, I urge you

• not to eviscerate Medicaid by imposing per capita caps on federal funding or imposing a block grant formula; 
• not to phase out the ACA Medicaid expansion or reduce the enhanced federal funding that enables it;
• not to end income-based subsidies for premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses that render individual market coverage and actual healthcare affordable to millions of low-and moderate-income Americans; 
• not to compromise the ACA's ban on medical underwriting or mandating of guaranteed issue or requirement that health plans provide Essential Health Benefits; and 
• not to repeal the ACA taxes that have enabled some 20 million Americans thus far to gain insurance coverage.

What's next for Democrats in the healthcare wars?

While the ACA appears to have escaped repeal for the time being, the ACA marketplace remains under apparent and threatened assault from the Trump administration -- which, after all, has to administer it.

The avowals of Trump and other Republican leaders, including Ryan and McConnell, that the marketplace will implode or is in a death spiral; the withdrawal of advertising for the marketplace in the closing weeks of open enrollment last January; the threat not to enforce the individual mandate; the possibility of destroying the marketplace immediately by stopping federal payments to insurers for Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies; and, most recently, the walk-back of avowals that Ryan's repeal bill is dead -- all these factors have left insurers and therefore the marketplace in a shaky position. Insurers may withdraw, and premiums are likely to spike, as they did last year.

Even if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election, the marketplace would be in need of fixes. The risk pool is sicker, older and smaller than originally envisioned. The subsidies are smaller than they should be. Millions whose employers offer nominally "affordable" individual insurance but unaffordable family insurance are denied marketplace subsidies through the family glitch. The trio of risk control programs designed to smooth insurers' losses in a new kind of market expired too quickly, and one -- the risk corridor program -- was sabotaged by Republicans.

Given the need for fixes, and the at least momentary acknowledgment by Republican leadership that "we're going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future," as Paul Ryan rather astonishingly put it last Friday, a number of progressives have started to scope out possible means by which Democrats in Congress could win Republican support for legislation that would improve competition, participation and affordability in the marketplace. If such a deal were possible, it would entail agreeing to provisions that would reshape the marketplace more to Republicans' liking. These might include:

Do we have to repeal the ACA to find out what's in it?

No one is claiming that the ACA led us into health access paradise. The ACA marketplace and wider individual market as open enrollment for 2017 began. But they were (and are) troubled markets, in need of adjustment, e.g. along lines sketched by scholars at Georgetown and the Urban Institute. The networks keep narrowing, premiums and out-of-pocket costs have spiked, and choice has narrowed in many markets. The roughly half of marketplace enrollees with strong Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies are partly but not wholly insulated from this deterioration.  Those who are unsubsidized or lightly subsidized have in many cases been hit hard.

The Medicaid expansion has been a clear boon to those who gained access through it, as well as to state budgets, state economies, state public health, and access to drug treatment. It's also, to some extent, highlighted the law's political weakness, apparently triggering a fair amount of Medicaid envy and resentment among the somewhat more affluent and the fact that the ACA's most direct beneficiaries are generally the poor and near-poor.

As mentioned in a prior post, I have a piece shopping that spotlights very mixed experiences of unsubsidized marketplace enrollees with pre-existing conditions -- grateful for access but dealing with rising costs.

Another piece relaying a wide variety of experience and perception, by Jay Hancock of Kaiser Health News, is a striking contrast to the polarized praise/denunciations that used to be common fare in ACA coverage. There is a really striking degree of nuance in these mostly Republican reflections, as well as a refreshing awareness in some cases of the ACA's different component parts. If nothing else, the rough number of people who have gained insurance through the law seems finally to have been hammered home. I hope Hancock doesn't mind my extracting all of the article's citizen testimony, as I do think it has a strong cumulative effect:

Two comparisons of Price plan vs. ACA marketplace are roughly congruent

Late last year, I put forward a simple measure of the value (to the beneficiary) of a government subsidy for health insurance in various programs: multiply the percentage of premium covered by subsidy by the actuarial value of the insurance obtained. (A somewhat more streamlined version of the comparison is here at HIO).

For the ACA marketplace, I multiplied the average premium subsidy as reported by HHS (73% of premium) by the weighted average actuarial value obtained by subsidized marketplace enrollees (81%, my calculation) to come up with 59% total subsidized costs.

I then calculated that Tom Price's replacement plan, which has subsidies based on age not income, would on average cover about 40% of ACA benchmark silver plan premiums. I estimated that those flat subsidies would cover about 60% of premium for the cheaper plans to be offered in Price's deregulated market, to which I charitably ascribed an average AV of 60% -- coming up with a total average subsidized cost of 35% or 36%.  Of course, that's for all buyers, whereas only about half of current individual market enrollees are subsidized. Thus Price's plan radically redistributes subsidies from low-income toward higher income prospective enrollees.

Yesterday David Cutler, a Harvard health economist, John Bertko, chief actuary for Covered California, and Topher Spiro, veep for health policy at CAP, published in Vox a more nuanced and sophisticated comparison of the ACA-governed individual market and Tom Price's plan that ended up in pretty much the same place.

More than half of ACA marketplace enrollees are in states that refused to expand Medicaid

I have noted on multiple occasions that in states that refused the ACA Medicaid expansion, marketplace enrollment has been bolstered by a large contingent of people who "should have" been enrolled in Medicaid. That is, over 2 million marketplace enrollees in those 19 states have incomes between 100% and 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) -- incomes that would have qualified all of them except for certain legally present noncitizens for Medicaid had their states accepted the expansion.

To review a few facts about these low income enrollees:

• In nonexpansion states, 36% of enrollees had incomes in the 100-138% FPL range. In mid-2016 that came to about 2.1 million enrollees.


• Close to 90% (or more*) of those low-income enrollees selected silver plans and so accessed Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies that raised the actuarial value of their plans to 94%. That generally translates to a deductible of $0-250.


• Customer satisfaction in the ACA marketplace is much higher among enrollees who are not in high deductible plans (defined by survey conductor Kaiser as under $1500 for an individual). In Kaiser's 2016 tracking survey, 74% of enrollees in lower deductible plans rated their plans good or excellent, vs. 59% of those in higher deductible plans. And again, the vast majority of enrollees in the 100-138% FPL range are in low deductible plans.

All that said, a fact hiding in plain sight (to me, anyway) is the extent to which nonexpansion states are over-represented in the ACA marketplace. This is not surprising, since a third of enrollees in those states should have been eligible for Medicaid. Nonetheless, I find it rather startling, based on state-by-state data released by HHS in December, that as of the end of the first quarter of 2016, the 19 nonexpansion states contained:

A mantra for Democrats in ACA 'replace' negotiation: "Save Medicaid First"

There's a lot of speculation just now over whether Democrats in the Senate will work with Republicans to pass an ACA replacement after swift repeal. While repeal can substantively be done with just 51 votes via reconciliation, a replacement bill would require 60 votes, and hence eight Democrats. Per Politico:

Twenty-five Democrats are on the ballot in 2018, including 10 in states that Donald Trump just won. The GOP is betting that many or most in the latter group will be under irresistible pressure to back an Obamacare replacement, if the alternative is leaving millions of people in the lurch without insurance.

Greg Sargent responds that if Republicans put forward a plan that covers far fewer people that the ACA (as expected), Democrats can counter that  "they will only support a more generous replacement plan that covers a lot more people than the GOP replacement would.

It seems to me that the major barrier to bipartisan cooperation is the Medicaid expansion. The Medicaid rolls have increased by 16 million since 2013. By Charles Gaba's estimate (updating Kaiser's), 12.3 million new enrollees were rendered eligible by the ACA, which makes Medicaid available to adults with incomes up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level in states that opt to implement the expansion (as 31 plus DC have done to date).