| In order to get the myriad outstanding GOP priorities accomplished before November, some House Republicans are pushing for a third reconciliation bill, which is able to pass with a simple majority. It would provide lawmakers, particularly those in tough reelection battles, the ability to send a message on lowering health care costs and tackling fraud and abuse in the health system. → The legislation could be sprawling, tackling Republican priorities in several policy areas. As part of the talks, though, there has been a push to include additional measures to crack down on fraud in federal health and other assistance programs. Some Republicans have also been promoting proposals to increase transparency and expand health savings accounts to emphasize giving Americans more freedom and choice in their health spending. On Wednesday, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Missouri) held an event with several other conservative members — supported by multiple organizations aligned with the White House — to encourage Congress to move a package of these policies, mirroring what President Donald Trump laid out in his Great Healthcare Plan. But the math ain’t mathin’: There has been some ambivalence from Senate Republicans in trying to shoot for another reconciliation package — and, either way, time isn’t on lawmakers’ side. Since 1980, there have been 24 bills passed using the reconciliation process enacted into law, according to the Congressional Research Service. It took lawmakers between 28 to 385 days — or an average of 148 days — to get those bills across the finish line after adopting the congressional budget resolution that kicks off the process. Republicans haven’t even gotten to the launching point, and there are 131 calendar days remaining until Nov. 3, with Congress on recess for roughly half of those days. As Politico reported, GOP lawmakers have less than a week to advance key parts of the process in order to meet their self-imposed deadline to move a reconciliation bill before they leave town for August recess. Of course, trying to move these policies now could lay the groundwork for some of them to be included in a lame-duck legislative package after the election, should one materialize. Reality check: Comprehensive reforms will be an uphill battle. Proposals such as imposing additional transparency requirements on insurers and providers could even provide some bipartisan fodder in the next Congress, but there appear to be early divisions between the House and Senate on which transparency policies should be the ones to advance. Here’s why this all matters: Americans increasingly say that the cost of health care is a top concern. Polling from nonprofit KFF shows that majorities in both parties say that health care costs will impact their vote in November. “Midterm elections are lower-turnout elections,” Ashley Kirzinger, the director of survey methodology at KFF, said Wednesday during an Axios event. “So what the candidates are really trying to do is mobilize those independent voters in the general election that may be more likely to stay home in a midterm election year.” “What’s complicated is, for a long time, the Republican Party had the independents’ trust when it came to economic issues, and the Democratic Party had [the] independents’ trust when it came to health care issues. Well, what happens when those are combined?” Kirzinger asked. → Last week, a Gallup poll conducted with West Health showed that fewer than half of Americans can consistently afford their health care, representing a five-year low. John McLaughlin, the pollster who has worked for Trump, met with the conservative Republican Study Committee on Capitol Hill this week to emphasize how voters resonate with proposals to increase transparency surrounding health costs, bolster competition in health markets and give patients more options to control their own medical purchases. McLaughlin is encouraging Republican lawmakers to start taking ownership of key health policy legislation rather than ceding the issue to Democrats. The briefing was part of an effort involving Americans for Health Excellence, a group led by former representative Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio). Buried in the White House’s $87.6 billion supplemental budget request to fund the conflict with Iran is a call for Congress to refine the legal definition of hemp-derived cannabinoid products. It’s necessary “to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks,” the White House says in the document. Why it matters: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has launched a pilot program to allow certain Medicare beneficiaries to receive CBD treatments. It’s a priority of Trump’s longtime friend and Mar-a-Lago club member Howard Kessler. But there’s a catch: Last November, Congress enacted legislation banning hemp-derived products with levels of THC above 0.4 mg per container — a level that some hemp industry and consumer advocates argue is too low, even for CBD products that don’t produce a high. There’s a one-year phase-in of the language, which started a countdown on the efforts to roll it back. While the issue is potent for some members — including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who has tried rolling back the restrictions — it hasn’t yet gained broader momentum on Capitol Hill. → Also: The administration wants Congress to allocate $1.4 billion in federal funding to aid the U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa, proposing to use the funds to “limit the spread of Ebola beyond the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda to other vulnerable nations and ensure the virus does not reach U.S. shores.” Key context: There have been more than 1,000 confirmed cases of the Ebola virus in Africa and about 280 confirmed deaths, though global health experts worry the figures could be much higher. There are no approved treatments or vaccines to combat the rare Bundibugyo strain of Ebola that’s currently circulating. The Supreme Court on Thursday handed Monsanto a major legal victory, sharply limiting lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn consumers that its weed killer Roundup causes cancer, writes The Post’s Justin Jouvenal. In a 7-2 decision, the justices blocked an avenue that cancer patients have been using to sue the pesticide company: the state court system. The ruling also concluded that Bayer, which owns Monsanto, didn’t have to issue a warning to consumers because the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. Why it matters: The ruling provides fresh legal backing for glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, which farmers consider essential but critics argue poses health risks. Earlier this year, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current and future Roundup cancer lawsuits. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens tens of thousands of pending legal claims and could shield Monsanto from billions more in potential liability. Read the full story: “Supreme Court blocks thousands of suits claiming Roundup causes cancer.” → Some advocates in the Make America Healthy Again movement, pioneered by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have been frustrated by some Trump administration moves to increase production of the chemical, as they have sought to reduce or eliminate its use in American farming. Last year, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief with that court, siding with Bayer in the case. “DNA editing of human embryos reignites debate over designer babies,” The Post’s Carolyn Y. Johnson writes. “Inside the C.D.C.’s Mad Scramble to Meet Kennedy’s Demands,” reports Sheryl Gay Stolberg at the New York Times. This newsletter is published by WP Intelligence, The Washington Post’s subscription service for professionals that provides business, policy and thought leaders with actionable insights. WP Intelligence operates independently from the Washington Post newsroom. Learn more about WP Intelligence. | 
