I have not seen it stated explicitly, although the fact is implicit in analyses of the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare Repeal Bill, but it’s a short-change scam. (See http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/state-by-state-estimates-of-changes-in-federal-spending-on-health-care-under-the-graham-cassidy-bill/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-sept-21-GrahamCassidy-state-analysis&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–7gbNf2hieTlUtKkAERXVl7OG_T9xmWq5XenMqmzWv6PIVO798sWQSMocqAOz4WsDNwRuNXyepxsoh6A082F1PbYQBcg)
If the bill were an actual repeal-and-replace effort, then it would have to provide more money than Obamacare does, not just a redistribution of the current amounts. That is because Obamacare resulted in a very uneven distribution of benefits.
About three-quarters of the states chose to expand benefits through Medicare, thus drawing more money out of the national fisc. If Graham-Cassidy were evenhanded, then it would either provide less for the nonexpansion states, or more in order to bring benefit levels up to an even level throughout the country.
The Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds an overall reduction in funding, but even if funding were at the same levels, it would be a reduction for most Americans.
If it were labeled the Graham-Cassidy Health Care Erosion Bill, that would be accurate, but then it’s a rightwing plot.
Additionally, some critics of Obamacare made much of the claim that it amounted to rationing. I have not heard even one of them complain about the greater rationing in the Graham-Cassidy bill.