New Report from Protect Our Care Finds that Health Care is the Most Important Issue for Voters in the 2018 Election Cycle
Washington, DC – In a new report released today, Protect Our Care analyzes polling, public data, advertising spending, candidate statements and more to confirm that health care is is the most important issue for voters in the 2018 election cycle. Health care is the defining issue of this campaign, leading American families to reject Republicans after they have worked to rip away protections for pre-existing conditions, repeal health care, and raise costs, especially for older Americans.
“November’s election will be a health care referendum,” said Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care. “Whether you look at public opinion polling, ad spending or the Republican politicians spinning their wheels trying to rebrand themselves as health care heroes, mounting evidence suggests that when voters head to the polls this November, they will be voting on health care. Health care packs a devastating one-two punch for Republicans — it is both the top issue for voters and the issue where Democrats hold the largest trust advantage over Republicans.”
Protect Our Care’s report, Defined By Health Care: Election 2018, synthesizes all the evidence that health care is the issue in 2018. Among the findings: Health Care is a top Google search in 75 percent of Congressional Districts; national and district-specific polling of voters confirms health care is the top issue heading into November, and public opinion is decidedly against the Republican repeal-and-sabotage agenda; fifty percent of Democratic ad spending is on health care according to the Wesleyan Media Project, and up and down the ballot, Republicans are breathlessly working to reinvent their records on health care with outright lies.
“Republicans only have themselves and their repeal-and-sabotage agenda to blame for keeping health care a constant, top-of-mind issue for voters,” said Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care. “The Republican health care agenda boils down to this: you pay more for coverage and lose protections that you depend on, but wealthy insurance and drug companies get record tax breaks. It’s deeply unpopular and will cost them this November.”
Protect Our Care unveiled the new report after a press call with leading Democratic pollster Geoff Garin and U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan.
“Health care is the dominant issue in the election because it’s the number one pocketbook issue for voters today,” said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research. “Importantly, health care and affordable health care is not only the number one issue for people who intend to vote Democratic, but it is also frequently cited by independents and those critical undecided voters.”
“It couldn’t be clearer to me that health care is the number one issue on voters’ minds right now — I hear about it everywhere I go,” said U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan, a health care champion who defeated a pro-repeal incumbent in the 2016 election. “Voters really see the stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. They know their lives and their livelihoods are at stake, and they’re going to vote like it.”
Washington, DC – A new pollfrom Public Policy Polling (PPP) for Protect Our Care shows health care is a top issue for voters and that Wisconsinites trust health care champion Senator Tammy Baldwin and Democrats more with their health care than Leah Vukmir and Republicans. This poll comes on the heels of Senator Baldwin and Leah Vukmir’s second debate in Wausau, Wisconsin. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to the poll findings:
“For Leah Vukmir, the jig is up. Leah Vukmir’s extreme anti-health care positions have done absolutely nothing to help people with pre-existing conditions in Wisconsin — and worse, in fact, it’s hurt women, children and working families. That’s why Wisconsinites know she can’t be trusted on health care and why they prefer Senator Baldwin both on the issue of health care and in their voting preference this fall.”
Key Findings from theProtect Our Care-Public Policy Polling survey of Wisconsin Voters:
Forty-seven percent of voters say health care is very important when deciding who to vote for in the US Senate election
Sixty-three percent of voters say want to keep what works and fix what doesn’t in the health care law
Forty-nine percent of voters have a major concern with Leah Vukmir’s opposition to Medicaid expansion
Fifty-three percent of voters oppose Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act
Fifty-three percent of voters trust Senator Tammy Baldwin more on the issue of health care
Sixty-three percent of voters oppose the Trump’s Administration’s lawsuit strike down the health care law’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions
In a head to head matchup, Senator Baldwin enjoys a commanding 10 point lead over Vukmir, 52-42.
Public Policy Polling surveyed 816 Wisconsin voters on October 10-11, 2018. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 3.4%. This poll was conducted using automated telephone interviews on behalf of Protect Our Care.
What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act mean for Wisconsin?
Protections for 2.4 million Wisconsinites with pre-existing conditions, if they buy coverage on their own
Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs
Allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
Ban on annual and lifetime limits
Ban on insurance discrimination against women
Limit on out-of-pocket costs
Vukmir Supports “Obamacare’s Full Repeal.” “Vukmir reaffirmed her stance against Obamacare. Mattias Gugel, a Vukmir spokesman, said: ‘As a nurse, Leah wants to ensure all people have access to quality health care. Here in Wisconsin — that’s exactly what we had for people with pre-existing conditions before Obamacare was forced on us. Leah has long supported Obamacare’s full repeal and free-market solutions that cover people with pre-existing conditions.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/9/18]
Just what are the “free-market solutions” that existed before the Affordable Care Act that Vukmir says she supports? Well, before the Affordable Care Act became law, health coverage on the nongroup market was described as the “wild wild West” of health insurance marketplaces. That was because consumers were at the mercy of insurance companies that could deny coverage, drop coverage, or charge people more based on their health status, gender and age. That was a time when a 60-year-old could be charged $3,854 more annually in premiums.
Vukmir Supported Scott Walker’s Plan To Convert All Health Care Programs To Block Grants: “A Successful Repeal Of Obamacare Begins With The Federal Government Handing Over The Reins To The States.” “State Sen. Leah Vukmir, R–Brookfield, Tuesday endorsed Gov. Scott Walker’s request of the White House and Congress to send states block grants, giving them full responsibility for health care programs. ‘Healthcare is very personal,’ said Vukmir, chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. ‘That’s why those closest to our constituents, not Washington bureaucrats, should be responsible for tailoring our programs to fit Wisconsin’s needs. A successful repeal of Obamacare begins with the federal government handing over the reins to the states.’” [State Senator Leah Vukmir Press Release, 8/22/17]
Converting health care programs to block grants was the core of what the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have done. Multipleindependentanalyses agreed that the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have cut federal funding to states including a $29 billion cut over two decades to Wisconsin.
Though Leah Vukmir claims she supports protections for people with pre-existing conditions, saying “patients with pre-existing conditions should be covered,” she has turned her back on Wisconsinites at every opportunity to do so.
Vukmir refuses to stand against a lawsuit designed to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration refused to defend against a lawsuit brought by twenty conservative states aimed at overturning the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Leah Vukmir refuses to speak against this lawsuit, instead calling it a “necessary step.”
Vukmir refuses to take action at the state level against the Trump administration’s junk plan and association plan rules that let insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration finalized a junk plan rule and an association plan rule that allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Experts warn that these moves will only increase the cost of comprehensive care, ultimately making it even harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get the care they need. Twenty-one states have taken or are taking action to limit the harmful effects of these junk plans, but Vukmir refuses to do the same for Wisconsin.
Vukmir supports Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. As cases to overturn the Affordable Care Act make their way through the courts, Leah Vukmir still has not come out against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the court. Instead, she has voiced support for Trump’s nominee who could decide cases that would strip protections from people with pre-existing conditions. Kavanaugh has previously criticized Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
As Republicans continue to cover up their repeated votes to eliminate and gut coverage for pre-existing conditions, several are claiming that “high risk pools” are the answer. The reality is that high risk pools have never worked to protect people with preexisting conditions — every time they have been tried, they have failed. Here’s why.
HIGH RISK POOLS IMPOSE HIGH PREMIUMS & DEDUCTIBLES …
Premiums For Coverage In High Risk Pools Were As Much As 200 Percent Higher Than The Average Rate But Covered Less Care. “High-risk pool enrollees faced substantially higher premiums than people in the normal individual market, often by as much as 150 percent to 200 percent, although some pools did offer subsidies to low-income enrollees…And stunningly, the overwhelming majority of state high-risk pools actually refused to pay for services associated with a patient’s pre-existing conditions in the first months of their enrollment.” [Center for American Progress, 2/16/17]
Deductibles For High Risk Pool Enrollees Were Well Above Maximum Allowed By ACA. ”Fourteen states had plans with deductibles of $10,000 per year or higher, substantially greater than the current maximum $7,150 deductible for catastrophic plans in the marketplaces. Thirty states imposed maximum lifetime limits; others had annual coverage limits as low as $75,000 per year.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]
Despite High Premiums, High Risk Pools Could Still Cost The American People Over $90 Billion Annually. “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently estimated that up to 17,875,000 people with preexisting conditions were uninsured in 2010. Had all of them been covered by high-risk pools, the cost would have been $194.8 billion in 2010 dollars, with premiums covering only $103.3 billion. Thus, states and the federal government would have needed to find $91.5 billion in additional funding to cover them all—much more than the up to $10 billion per year in federal assistance to states recently proposed by congressional Republicans.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]
An Analysis Of High Risk Pools Under The ACHA Finds Such Pools Would Cost The Government Between $37 and $56 Billion Annually. “Government costs for supporting the high-risk pool using ACA-like coverage and subsidies would range from $37 to $56 billion in 2020 and $437 to $656 billion over 10 years (2020–2029), depending upon the eligibility rules used.” [The Urban Institute, May 2017]
Even Conservatives Estimated High Risk Pools Would Cost $15-$20 Billion Annually. “For comparison, conservative experts James Capretta and Tom Miller have estimated that $15 billion to $20 billion per year, or $150 billion to $200 billion over 10 years, would be needed to fully finance high-risk pools even if they covered only 2 million to 4 million people.” [Center For American Progress, 2/16/17]
Premiums For High Risk Pool Coverage Paid Just 53 Percent Of Program Costs. “Premiums ranged from 125 percent to 200 percent of average premiums in the individual market, yet covered only about 53 percent of claims and administrative costs nationally (Wisconsin allowed premiums up to 200 percent of average).” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]
… AND RESTRICT COVERAGE
High Risk Pools Typically Had Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions And Limited Benefits. “Many such pools had pre-existing condition exclusion periods, limited benefits, and enrollment limits; all of these characteristics served to reduce the value of the coverage, creating high financial burdens for enrollees and limiting the number of people who could access the coverage.” [Health Affairs, 3/15/16]
Most State High Risk Pools Had Lifetime And Annual Limits On Coverage. “Thirty-three pools [out of 35 states] imposed lifetime dollar limits on covered services, most ranging from $1 million to $2 million. In addition, six pools imposed annual dollar limits on all covered services while 13 others imposed annual dollar limits on specific benefits such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment, or rehabilitation.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2/22/17
High Risk Pools Typically Had Waiting Periods. “There were 35 state high-risk pools before the Affordable Care Act passed. To control costs, they would often do things like charge higher premiums than the individual market. Most had waiting periods before they would pay claims on members’ preexisting conditions, meaning a cancer patient would need to pay premiums for six months or a year before the high-risk pool would cover her chemotherapy treatments.” [Vox, 5/3/17]
High Risk Pools Mean Delayed Or Forgone Care. “Even once they were in a high-risk pool, the high costs and limited benefits prompted some people to delay or forgo care, leading to poorer health outcomes and even more spending. And many families accrued substantial medical debt, even with the coverage.” [Stateline, 2/16/17]
HIGH RISK POOL = MORE PEOPLE UNINSURED
Limited Coverage And High Costs Cause People To Remain Uninsured. “Some patients also delayed care to save money, exacerbating their health conditions, and only entered the pools when their conditions became emergencies.” [Stateline, 2/16/17]
CMS: One-Third Of Uninsurable Were Unable To Afford High Risk Pool Coverage. A 2004-05 study by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that “nationally, high-risk pool premiums are above 25 percent of family income (i.e., are unaffordable) for 10 percent of all individuals, 18 percent of the uninsured, and 29 percent of the uninsurable. By these standards, almost one-third of the uninsurable are unable to afford high-risk pool coverage…” [CMS, Health Care Financing Review, Winter 2004-2005]
As Evidenced By Wisconsin’s Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan (HIRSP), High Risk Pools Offer Less Protection For Fewer People Than Does The Affordable Care Act.“HIRSP, which covered people with pre-existing health conditions before the Affordable Care Act, was one of the largest and most successful so-called high-risk pools in the country. But at its peak it covered only an estimated 24,000 people, and those were people who could afford health insurance. ‘It didn’t begin to catch all the people who needed it,’ said Pollitz of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Mahaffey echoed Pollitz’s assessment. ‘If you bring HIRSP back, it may help a small segment of the population,’ she said, ‘but nowhere near what the Affordable Care Act is serving.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/20/18]
HIGH RISK POOLS HAVE BEEN TRIED & FAILED
States Sharply Restricted Enrollment In High-Risk Pools, Resulting In Only About Five Percent Of Those Eligible For High Risk Pools To Enroll In 2008. “States sharply restricted enrollment, set premiums further above what many families could afford, and/or scaled back coverage (such as by cutting benefits, raising deductibles and other cost sharing, imposing waiting periods for coverage of pre-existing conditions, and establishing lifetime dollar limits on benefits). Only 226,000 people in 35 states were enrolled in high-risk pools in 2011, on average. In 2008, only about 5 percent of those estimated to be eligible for those high-risk pools (because they had a chronic condition and were uninsured) were enrolled.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/17/16]
California High Risk Pool Led To Waiting Lists, High Premiums, And Lifetime Limits. “For example, California’s high-risk pool imposed a shorter-than-average, three-month waiting period before enrollees could receive treatment for pre-existing conditions—but also imposed a $75,000 annual limit on benefits along with a $750,000 lifetime limit. In addition, the state capped enrollment, resulting in long waiting lists of people unable to enroll; at the same time, the pool’s high premiums proved difficult for enrollees to afford, leading some to drop out.” [Center for American Progress, 2/16/17]
Premiums in Florida’s High Risk Pool Were Twice The Normal Rate. “Many states starved high-risk pools of cash. Florida’s contained only about 200 people in 2011. Premiums were commonly twice the normal rate. Many states had enrolment caps, meaning that even people willing to fork over were not guaranteed coverage.” [The Economist, 1/16/17]
In Wisconsin, “Cancer Doesn’t Wait” For High Risk Pool Waiting Periods. “The benefit waiting periods used by Wisconsin’s and other states’ high-risk pools are a big concern for patient advocates and provider groups. ‘A six-month exclusionary period is a serious issue,’ said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, who also testified at the House hearing. ‘Cancer doesn’t wait.’” [Modern Healthcare, 2/13/17]
In Utah, High Risk Pools Were Limited In Size, And Offered Sub-Par, Delayed Coverage. “Stevenson said only 3,000 people signed up for Utah’s risk pool plan while 200,000 Utahns are signed up for insurance through Obamacare. ‘Utah’s past high risk pool plan had many limitations too,’ he said. People with pre-existing conditions had to wait six months before using their coverage. Pregnant women had a 10 month waiting period before they had any coverage for them or their baby. ‘The measure of success for a program is how many people it helps and if you are only covering 3,000 people and leaving tens of thousands uninsured, I don’t think that’s a good thing to go back to,’ he said.” [CBS KUTV, 3/9/17]
High Risk Pools Mean Higher Costs, Higher Uninsured, And Less Coverage. “The reality is that high-risk pool coverage was prohibitively expensive and there is little evidence to suggest that the existence of such pools made coverage less costly for others in the individual insurance market. Without substantially more federal funding than currently proposed, these facts are not likely to change. People with preexisting conditions may have “access” to coverage, but most will not be able to afford it and those who can will face limited benefits and extremely high deductibles and out-of-pocket payments.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]
Washington, DC – Last night, Leah Vukmir continued to desperately conceal her record of siding with big insurance over Wisconsinites in need of quality and affordable health care in her second debate against longtime health care leader, Senator Tammy Baldwin. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to Vukmir’s claims during the debate:
“I will dunk a basketball over Lebron James before Leah Vukmir tells the truth about health care. Once again, Leah Vukmir repeated the lie that she’d protect people with pre-existing conditions, which has been called out by factcheckers before. The thing to know about Leah Vukmir is that she’s sided with insurance companies over ordinary Wisconsinites every chance she’s gotten, whether by supporting junk insurance plans that don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions or prescription drugs or maternity care, or by voting to let big insurance companies deny coverage of cochlear implants for children.”
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
What Vukmir Said:
“I will fall in front of a truck before I let people go without coverage for pre-existing conditions.” [WISC TV, 10/13/2018]
What Vukmir Has Done:
Vukmir “Supports Full Repeal Of Obamacare. Period.” “Leah understands why people are upset with Republicans who promised to repeal Obamacare and didn’t deliver. She supports full repeal of Obamacare. Period. And she won’t stop pushing for full repeal in Congress.” [LeahVukmir.com, accessed 6/12/18]
Though Leah Vukmir claims she supports protections for people with pre-existing conditions, she has turned her back on Wisconsinites at every opportunity to do so.
Vukmir refuses to stand against a lawsuit designed to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration refused to defend against a lawsuit brought by twenty conservative states aimed at overturning the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Leah Vukmir refuses to speak against this lawsuit, instead calling it a “necessary step.”
Vukmir refuses to take action at the state level against the Trump administration’s junk plan and association plan rules that let insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration finalized a junk plan rule and an association plan rule that allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Experts warn that these moves will only increase the cost of comprehensive care, ultimately making it even harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get the care they need. Twenty-one states have taken or are taking action to limit the harmful effects of these junk plans, but Vukmir refuses to do the same for Wisconsin.
Vukmir Says High Risk Pools Would Be Her ‘Solution’ to Cover People With Pre-existing Conditions if the Affordable Care Act is Repealed. The statement itself acknowledges that she would give insurance companies back the power to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Here are some other problems with high risk pools:
High Risk Pools Typically Had Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions And Limited Benefits. “Many such pools had pre-existing condition exclusion periods, limited benefits, and enrollment limits; all of these characteristics served to reduce the value of the coverage, creating high financial burdens for enrollees and limiting the number of people who could access the coverage.” [Health Affairs, 3/15/16]
High Risk Pools’ Limited Coverage And High Costs Cause People To Remain Uninsured. “Some patients also delayed care to save money, exacerbating their health conditions, and only entered the pools when their conditions became emergencies.” [Stateline, 2/16/17] Wisconsin’s previous high risk pool only covered 25,000 people, with estimates showing 2.4 million Wisconsinites live with pre-existing conditions.
Premiums For Coverage In High Risk Pools Were As Much As 200 Percent Higher Than The Average Rate But Covered Less Care. “High-risk pool enrollees faced substantially higher premiums than people in the normal individual market, often by as much as 150 percent to 200 percent, although some pools did offer subsidies to low-income enrollees…And stunningly, the overwhelming majority of state high-risk pools actually refused to pay for services associated with a patient’s pre-existing conditions in the first months of their enrollment.” [Center for American Progress, 2/16/17]
Despite High Premiums, High Risk Pools Could Still Cost The American People Over $90 Billion Annually. “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently estimated that up to 17,875,000 people with preexisting conditions were uninsured in 2010. Had all of them been covered by high-risk pools, the cost would have been $194.8 billion in 2010 dollars, with premiums covering only $103.3 billion. Thus, states and the federal government would have needed to find $91.5 billion in additional funding to cover them all—much more than the up to $10 billion per year in federal assistance to states recently proposed by congressional Republicans.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]
Washington DC — Tonight in Wausau, health care champion, Senator Tammy Baldwin will debate Leah Vukmir, a repeal crusader who supports ending protections for people with pre-existing conditions for the second time. Tonight’s debate will confirm what Wisconsinites already know, Leah Vukmir’s career as a nurse cannot conceal her extreme positions on health care and multiple attempts to block Medicaid expansion in Wisconsin. Ahead of the debate, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:
“Let’s be clear, Leah Vukmir will not defend Wisconsinites’ health care. Although Vukmir claims she supports keeping protections for people with pre-existing conditions, she has turned her back on Wisconsinites at every opportunity to do so. Whether it’s supporting the Trump-GOP lead lawsuit to gut protections for pre-existing conditions, refusing to take action at the state level against the Trump administration’s junk plan rule or opposing Medicaid expansion, Leah Vukmir’s extreme views would be a disaster for the health care of Wisconsinites.”
Vukmir Supports Repealing The ACA And Its Protections For 2.4 Million Wisconsinites with Pre-Existing Conditions
Vukmir “Supports Full Repeal Of Obamacare. Period.” “Leah understands why people are upset with Republicans who promised to repeal Obamacare and didn’t deliver. She supports full repeal of Obamacare. Period. And she won’t stop pushing for full repeal in Congress.” [LeahVukmir.com, accessed 6/12/18]
Though Leah Vukmir claims she supports protections for people with pre-existing conditions, saying “patients with pre-existing conditions should be covered,” she has turned her back on Wisconsinites at every opportunity to do so.
Vukmir refuses to stand against a lawsuit designed to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration refused to defend against a lawsuit brought by twenty conservative states aimed at overturning the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Leah Vukmir refuses to speak against this lawsuit, instead calling it a “necessary step.”
Vukmir refuses to take action at the state level against the Trump administration’s junk plan and association plan rules that let insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, the Trump Administration finalized a junk plan rule and an association plan rule that allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Experts warn that these moves will only increase the cost of comprehensive care, ultimately making it even harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get the care they need. Twenty-one states have taken or are taking action to limit the harmful effects of these junk plans, but Vukmir refuses to do the same for Wisconsin.
Vukmir Supported Scott Walker’s Plan To Convert All Health Care Programs To Block Grants: “A Successful Repeal Of Obamacare Begins With The Federal Government Handing Over The Reins To The States.” “State Sen. Leah Vukmir, R–Brookfield, Tuesday endorsed Gov. Scott Walker’s request of the White House and Congress to send states block grants, giving them full responsibility for health care programs. ‘Healthcare is very personal,’ said Vukmir, chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. ‘That’s why those closest to our constituents, not Washington bureaucrats, should be responsible for tailoring our programs to fit Wisconsin’s needs. A successful repeal of Obamacare begins with the federal government handing over the reins to the states.’” [State Senator Leah Vukmir Press Release, 8/22/17]
Converting health care programs to block grants was the core of what the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have done. Multipleindependentanalyses agreed that the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have cut federal funding to states including a $29 billion cut over two decades to Wisconsin.
Vukmir Is Hostile Towards Medicaid
Vukmir “Would Support Efforts To Send Medicaid Dollars To States In The Form Of A Block Grant.” “Finally, Leah knows from her experience dealing with Wisconsin’s Medicaid program that states truly are laboratories of innovation, which is what our founders intended. Leah supports more flexibility for states when it comes to Medicaid spending, and would support efforts to send Medicaid dollars to states in the form of a block grant – allowing states more flexibility to design their own plans and save taxpayers billions of dollars.” [LeahVukmir.com, accessed 6/12/18]
The Graham-Cassidy bill would have enacted Vukmir’s plan to convert Medicaid into a block grant, meaning the 1,037,795 Wisconsinites who are enrolled on Medicaid would have their care jeopardized. Medicaid disproportionately helps children, seniors in nursing home care and people with disabilities. A study by Avalere found that a Graham-Cassidy-style plan would cut funding for people with disabilities by 15-percent and 31-percent for children by 2036.
Vukmir Opposed Medicaid Expansion In Wisconsin. “State Sen. Leah Vukmir, R–Brookfield, issued the following statement Friday after seeing recent news reports from states that accepted Medicaid expansion dollars and are now facing major problems with their budgets: ‘Recent reports from states across the U.S. are confirming our prior expectations, proving what we’ve known all along: Increased expansion is not financially feasible.” [State Senator Leah Vukmir Press Release, 4/22/16]
Medicaid is not only a lifeline for over one million Wisconsinites, it strengthens our communities and is supported by 74 percent of Americans. By not fully expanding Medicaid, Wisconsin has restricted its Medicaid program such that only Residents earning up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible to enroll in Medicaid. If Wisconsin expanded its program, 119,000 more adults could gain coverage through Medicaid.
Vukmir Supports Drug Testing For Medicaid Recipients. “Gov. Scott Walker wants to make Wisconsin the first state in the country to require able-bodied, childless adults applying for Medicaid health benefits to undergo drug screening, a move that could serve as a national model. […] Republican backer, Sen. Leah Vukmir, defended the approach, saying: ‘We know what to do. We know how to take care of our own.’” [Associated Press, 5/25/17]
MISSOULA, MONTANA – Today, local and national health care advocates met at Partnership Health Center in Missoula to host a roundtable discussion highlighting the importance of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to Montanans.
The event was part of Protect Our Care’s national “Care Force One Tour”. The group is traveling 11,505 miles across the country, with 48 events in 23 states, to give community members, elected officials, and health care experts the opportunity to share personal stories about the ACA and how it has benefitted Montanans.
CEO of Partnership Health Center, Laurie Francis opened by emphasizing the importance of the ACA to Montana. “Partnership Health Center serves just over 16,000 people. The Affordable Care Act and allowance of pre-existing conditions have been critically important to patients at partnership our ability to add extra services. We’ve gone from 40% uninsured to 15% uninsured.”
Protect Our Care Montana steering committee member Amy Coseo is a cancer survivor and small business owner. Coseo emphasized how continued coverage under the ACA allows Montanans to focus on getting through treatment and healing instead of constantly worrying about hitting caps or going bankrupt. She spoke about her concerns recently shifting from what happens “‘if I lose coverage’ to ‘when I lose coverage’.”
The ACA also covers preventative services for Montanans – like flu shots, cancer screenings, contraception, and mammograms – which encourages patients to seek preventative care, making them healthier in the long-run and saves significant costs down the road.
Protect Our Care member and advocate, Laura Packard, shared a personal story of being diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer and receiving healthcare coverage through the ACA. “Like 1/5 of Americans with coverage under the ACA, I’m self-employed. Without the ACA, no insurance company would choose to give me a policy. We need to fight the sabotage and ensure future generations have access to comprehensive health care they deserve.”
Rep. Kim Dudik, HD 94, addressed the importance of the ACA for Montana’s Medicaid expansion and its impacts on Montana and in Missoula County. “The ACA is a federal policy, but it became a state policy issue when we voted to expand Medicaid.Because of Montana’s Medicaid, over 96,000 Montanans and 11,347 Missoula County residents were able to gain access to healthcare, including cancer screenings, vaccinations, wellness visits, and dental exams.”
Sen. Diane Sands, SD 49, emphasized the importance of Montana Medicaid’s support for rural hospitals. “I grew up in Eastern Montana. Many of these communities are built around and rely on hospitals for jobs and access to health care. It is absolutely essential that we continue to help people access care at and support our critical access hospitals. Montana’s Medicaid helps us do that.”
Hospitals in states who have expanded Medicaid are six times less likely to close than in states who haven’t expanded Medicaid. Since 2010, 83 rural hospitals have closed, with 90% of those closures happening in states that refused to expand Medicaid.
Lisa Davey and her son Logan are two Missoula residents who have a personal connection to the necessity of the Affordable Care Act. “The first day of my son’s life cost over $500,000 and the ACA made lifetime caps illegal,” said Davey. “His father and I can now find work without having to shop around to avoid hitting caps with specific insurers in Montana.” Ms. Davey also added that because of the ACA, her son will remain covered until he is 26, instead of being forced to find new or employer-based insurance at 19.
Underscoring the importance of continuing healthcare access under the ACA and Montana’s Medicaid, John Crawford shared his experience as a beneficiary of Medicaid expansion who has found better work and financial stability because of the program. He posed a question to those opposed to the efforts, “For the smallest investment you have increased the health and vitality for 100,000 Montanans. To those who oppose these things: What are we saying to those kids? To those businesses who want to move into the state? To our tribal communities? You are saying they are not valuable to Montana. With this small investment we can increase vitality and economic benefits for all Montanans and not just the people who benefit now.”
Before the ACA, many Montanans had never carried health insurance and had difficulty accessing care. Olivia Riutta, of Montana Primary Care Association, discussed efforts to assist Montanans in accessing healthcare for the first time. “There are about 45,000 Montanans who rely on the ACA. 87% receive financial assistance to pay their monthly premiums. There a lot of folks who are working hard in our communities to connect certified applications counselors to the Montanans, so the people need coverage have the information and support to get covered.”
Since 2013, navigator grants were given to non-profits to hire navigators to help people enroll in coverage through the exchange or through Montana’s Medicaid.Unfortunately, no navigator assistance funding was received in Montana this year.
Open enrollment for the ACA marketplaces in Montana begins on November 1, 2018. Members of the public can visit www.covermt.org, put in their zip code, and connect with community leaders who are certified to assist in accessing and navigating the health insurance marketplace.
Protect our Care Montana is an organization of Montana leaders focused on educating the public about the impacts and importance of the Affordable Care Act.
####
It’s expected that 40 year old Montanans will face paying an extra $1,330 for marketplace coverage in 2019 if efforts to undermine the marketplace continue.
Montana expanded Medicaid under the ACA and the 96,000 Montanans who have gained coverage because of this program would find their care at risk if the law were repealed.
Junk insurance plans that charge money for skimpy coverage could return to Montana and 26,000 Montanans could lack comprehensive coverage in 2019 because they will either become uninsured or will be enrolled in junk plans that don’t provide key health benefits.
49,000 Montanans who have obtained health insurance through the ACA marketplace could lose their coverage if the current lawsuit continues; and protections for 426,000 Montanans living with a pre-existing condition would be in jeopardy.
BUTTE, MONTANA – Today, local and national health care advocates met at Southwest Montana Community Health Center in Butte to host a roundtable discussion highlighting the importance of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to Montanans.
The event was part of Protect Our Care’s national “Care Force One Tour”. The group is traveling 11,505 miles across the country, with 48 events in 23 states, to give community members, elected officials, and health care experts the opportunity to share personal stories about the ACA and how it has benefitted Montanans.
CEO for Southwest Montana Community Health Center, Jennifer Malone, opened by emphasizing the importance of the ACA to Montana. “Our mission here is inspire hope and empower wellness by providing access to comprehensive healthcare. That’s what the ACA is all about, access. In our county, there are 4,000 people receiving care now when they weren’t before.”
Support of the ACA has provided the opportunity for Southwest Montana Community Health Center to create and provide behavioral health care to the community. Molly Malloy, the director of Behavior Health spoke to the benefits the expanded healthcare law has provided, “I’ve witnessed first-hand the benefits of the ACA to our community. We’ve been able to provide care to people, some for the first time. People are accessing care now in a way they haven’t been able to before. We are identifying opportunities to prevent healthcare crises earlier.”
Susanne Whelchel, a Protect Our Care Montana steering committee member with a pre-existing condition brought a personal context to the threats Montanans are facing. “If current national efforts prevail, 425,900 Montanans with pre-existing conditions would be at risk for losing the coverage they have now. As a Montanan with a pre-existing condition, the ACA is protecting me by ensuring I will have insurance and access to health care. Every American deserves access to health care.”
The ACA also covers preventative services for Montanans – like flu shots, cancer screenings, contraception, and mammograms – which encourages patients to seek preventative care, making them healthier in the long-run and saves significant costs down the road.
Protect Our Care member and advocate, Laura Packard, shared a personal story of being diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer and receiving health care coverage through the ACA.“The Affordable Care Act saved my life. I had junk insurance before the ACA, if I still had that insurance, I would be bankrupt or dead. We need insurance for our care, we need insurance to stay alive.”
Rep. Ryan Lynch, HD 76, shared facts about Montana’s Medicaid expansion, which as supported by the ACA, provides access health care to all Montanans, including those in Silver Bow County. “Of the 96,000 Montanans who are benefiting from Medicaid Expansion, just over 4,000 are right here in our county. But, importantly, it’s to remember that each one of those numbers is a person with a story, and someone we’ve been able to get into care including cancer screenings, vaccinations, wellness visits, and dental exams.”
Pat Noonan, formerly representative of HD 73, spoke to the importance of the ACA to Montana’s Medicaid expansion “Healthcare is one of our largest industries in Montana and the largest sector for private income in the state. Medicaid Expansion has created 500 new jobs, $280M in personal income, $47M in new tax revenue, and saved nearly $36M with federal support. Since 2010, 83 rural hospitals have closed, with 90% of those closures happening in states that refused to expand Medicaid. We’re so lucky that isn’t the case in anywhere in Montana.”
The Montana Department of Public Health and Human services recently released a Medicaid dashboard tool, a new interactive online dashboard offering information about the health benefits and local impact of Montana’s Medicaid expansion.
Eric Nyland, a representative of Senator Jon Tester, read a statement from the Senator which thanked gathered members for their work and praised the work of community health centers across Montana who “provide affordable, quality care to over 100,000 Montanans.”
Before the ACA, many Montanans had never carried health insurance and had difficulty accessing care. Unfortunately, no navigator assistance funding was received in Montana this year. In coming months, the Montana Primary Care Association will assist uninsured people in enrolling in coverage through the exchange or through Montana’s Medicaid. Montana faced a big loss without navigator funding as the grants helped folks “navigate” the complexity of signing up for health insurance. Montana’s Community Health Centers are going to be around to help pick up the slack.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that Montana’s Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act have saved lives,” said Holly McCamant, outreach and enrollment director for Southwest Montana Community Health.
Open enrollment for the ACA marketplaces in Montana begins on November 1, 2018. People can visit www.covermt.org, put in their zip code, and connect with community members who are certified to assist in accessing and navigating the health insurance marketplace.
Protect our Care Montana is an organization of Montana leaders focused on educating the public about the impacts and importance of the Affordable Care Act. “Care Force One” will also travel to Butte and Missoula on Friday, October 12. Find out more at https://protectourcarebustour.com/.
####
It’s expected that 40 year old Montanans will face paying an extra $1,330 for marketplace coverage in 2019 if efforts to undermine the marketplace continue.
Montana expanded Medicaid under the ACA and the 96,000 Montanans who have gained coverage because of this program would find their care at risk if the law were repealed.
Junk insurance plans that charge money for skimpy coverage could return to Montana and 26,000 Montanans could lack comprehensive coverage in 2019 because they will either become uninsured or will be enrolled in junk plans that don’t provide key health benefits.
49,000 Montanans who have obtained health insurance through the ACA marketplace could lose their coverage if the current lawsuit continues; and protections for 426,000 Montanans living with a pre-existing condition would be in jeopardy.
Washington DC — Tonight, President Trump will stump for Congressional Republicans in Cincinnati, Ohio. These incumbent Republicans – Troy Balderson, David Joyce and Jim Renacci – are all working overtime to gut health care as we know it. But after two years with Donald Trump in the White House and the GOP-controlled Congress, a new report shows Ohioans are still struggling to keep up with the rising costs of health care and prescription drug prices and recent polling released by Protect Our Care shows Ohioans will cast their ballots in the issue next month. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement ahead of Trump’s campaign appearance:
“Make no mistake, Balderson, Joyce, and Renacci are thick as thieves, laying in wait for their next chance to rip coverage away from millions of hard-working Americans. They have worked nonstop to help the Trump Administration gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and they show no signs of quitting.”
Additional Background:
Jim Renacci Are Still Working To Repeal The ACA And Its Protections For 4.8 Million Ohioans with Pre-Existing Conditions, While Balderson Made It a Campaign Promise
Renacci has said as recently as this year that he is still “working to repeal Obamacare in its entirety.” He also voted for the AHCA in 2017, which would have caused 539,700 Ohioans to lose coverage.
Balderson has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Balderson campaigned on repealing the ACA, saying “I would vote to repeal and replace Obamacare once and for all.” A full repeal of the ACA would eliminate protections that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to or charging the 4.8 million Ohioans who have a pre-existing condition.
Jim Renacci Voted For The AHCA, Which Would Have Devastated Ohioans’ Health Care
If the AHCA had passed, 539,700 Ohioans would have lost coverage.
In Ohio, 21 percent of marketplace consumers live in rural areas, and could see an average cost increase of $1,116. People in rural areas tend to face higher health costs, which is one of the reasons why the ACA based the amount of premium tax credits in part on geographic location. The AHCA did not, meaning people in rural areas would have faced even higher costs.
Troy Balderson Voted To Freeze Medicaid Expansion, Supports Medicaid Work Requirements, Despite Medicaid’s Crucial Role In Fighting The Opioid Epidemic
Troy Balderson Supports Medicaid Work Requirements. “I support work requirements for able-bodied individuals before they can utilize Medicaid and have worked to help streamline the state’s Medicaid program, saving taxpayers over a billion dollars.” [Columbus Dispatch, 7/27/18]
Troy Balderson Voted To Freeze Ohio’s Medicaid Expansion, Which Covers Over 700,000 Low-Income Ohioans. “Gov. John Kasich once again stood against fellow Republicans in the Ohio Legislature on Friday to support Medicaid expansion, which now provides health insurance to 700,000 low-income Ohioans…Conservatives had called on the outspoken Kasich to set a national example by leaving in place state budget provisions calling for freezing new expansion enrollment starting July 1, 2018, and preventing those who drop off from re-enrolling. Exemptions were written into the bill for those undergoing mental health or drug addiction treatment, but the administration said they had no legal force.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/1/17; Ohio Record – p. 1027, 6/28/18]
David Joyce Is Trying To Duck And Cover From His Health Care Record
In 2016 Joyce boasted that he “fought to repeal and defund Obamacare every chance he’s had.” He voted for total repeal of the ACA in 2013 and 2015. Although he voted against AHCA, Joyce promised to continue “working to repeal the federal-government controlled health care system.”
Now Joyce has scrubbed his website to conceal his record. Though in 2016 Joyce’s website read, “‘Dave Joyce has fought to repeal and defund ‘Obamacare’ every chance he’s had. Dave Joyce has voted to defund, repeal or delay Obamacare every chance he’s had, 30+ times,” it has since been updated to eliminate mentions of repeal.
That’s Why Those Who Know Health Care Best Said The American Health Care Act Was The Worst for People With Pre-Existing Conditions
American Medical Association: “The History Of High-Risk Pools Demonstrates That Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions Will Be Stuck In Second-Class Health Care Coverage — If They Are Able To Obtain Coverage At All.” “High-risk pools are not a new idea. Prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 35 states operated high-risk pools, and they were not a panacea for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. The history of high-risk pools demonstrates that Americans with pre-existing conditions will be stuck in second-class health care coverage – if they are able to obtain coverage at all.” [American Medical Association, 5/3/17]
American College Of Physicians: “We Have Grown Even More Concerned.” “It will bring great harm to patients, many of whom are treated by our members, notwithstanding the amendment that reportedly will be offered today on funding for high risk pools. In an April 24 letter, ACP detailed many of the reasons why this bill will undermine coverage, benefits, and consumer protections for millions of people. Nothing since then has changed our assessment of the harm the AHCA will bring to patients. Rather, we have grown even more concerned.” [American College of Physicians, 5/3/17]
American College Of Physicians: “Make No Mistake: This Paltry Increase In Funding For High Risk Pools That Are Already Grossly Underfunded By The Bill Will Not Make Coverage Affordable For Sick People.” [American College of Physicians, 5/3/17]
Association Of American Medical Colleges: “Patients Will Still Be At Risk, Leaving Those With Cancer, Congenital Heart Conditions, Mental Illness, Or Other Needs With Access To Coverage They Cannot Afford.” “As drafted, the AHCA would allow states to waive current protections for individuals with preexisting conditions who have a gap in coverage, leaving them vulnerable to insurers who may charge higher premiums based on their more fragile health status. The amendment appears to offer little relief for these skyrocketing costs for the sick; what relief it would provide is impossible for any patient or family to predict…Patients will still be at risk, leaving those with cancer, congenital heart conditions, mental illness, or other needs with access to coverage they cannot afford.” [AAMC, 5/4/17]
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: “[The Upton Amendment] Is Particularly Egregious Because It Would Further Incent States To Apply For Waivers From Current-Law Market Rules That Protect Patients With Pre-Existing Condition.”[American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, 5/3/17]
Nine Leading Patient Groups: “The Various Patches Offered By Lawmakers–Including High Risk Pools And Financial Assistance With Premiums–Do Not In Any Way Offer The Same Level Of Protection Provided In Current Law.” [American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network et al, 5/3/17]
AARP: “The Upton Amendment Would Do Little To Reduce The Massive Premium Increases For Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.” “Changes under consideration that would allow states to waive important consumer protections — allowing insurance companies to once again charge Americans with pre-existing conditions more because they’ve had cancer, diabetes or heart disease — would make a bad bill even worse. This would be devastating for the 25 million Americans 50-64 who have a deniable pre-existing condition. The Upton amendment would do little to reduce the massive premium increases for those with pre-existing conditions.” [AARP, 5/3/17]
AARP: “We Remain Opposed” With Upton Amendment.“Upton Amendment: $8 billion giveaway to insurance companies; won’t help majority of those w/preexisting conditions. We remain opposed.” [Tweet, 5/3/17]
Consumers Union: “Upton Amendment To AHCA A ‘Drop In The Bucket’ That Does Nothing To Fix Fundamental Flaws.” “‘This amendment is like slapping a band-aid on a broken bone and expecting it to heal — it’s a drop in the bucket in terms of actually providing protections for the millions of people insurers consider to have preexisting conditions.” [Consumers Union, 5/3/17]
Blue Cross Blue Shield Of California: “AHCA Pre-Ex Proposal ‘Could Return Us To A Time When People…Who Became Sick Could Not Purchase Or Afford Insurance.’” “@BlueShieldCA CEO: #AHCA pre-ex proposal ‘could return us to a time when people .. who became sick could not purchase or afford insurance’ [Kaiser Health News, 5/3/17]
….But that’s not all: The American Health Care Act would have resulted in HIGHER costs. FEWER covered. WEAKER protections. At the same time, millionaires get a tax cut and health care CEOs get a tax break.
Premiums would have gone up by as much as 20 percent and 24 million will have their health care taken away, according to independent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.
Insurance companies would have been allowed to charge people over the age of 50 as much as five times more for their premiums than younger people, and it would increase insurance premiums for people over age 60 by as much $8,400 – what AARP is calling an ‘age tax.’
Medicaid would have been cut by $835 billion – cuts that will result in rationed care for those in nursing homes, people with disabilities, those receiving mental health care or drug treatment.
Guts protections for those with pre-existing conditions so insurance companies could go back to charging people with health issues much higher premiums, according to the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
Insurance companies could have gone back to putting annual and lifetime limits on health care coverage, including for those with employer-paid insurance.
Women could have been charged more than men for their insurance because insurance companies would no longer be required to include pregnancy, childbirth, or prescription birth control as part of basic health insurance
Would have given hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations while raising costs and cutting coverage for average Americans.
Washington, D.C – On the heels of President Trump’s widely panned and highly deceptive health care op-ed, CMS issued a similarly misleading press release in a transparent effort to conceal how the Trump Administration has raised health care costs. Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, released the following statement in response:
“Another day, another set of lies from the Trump Administration, desperate to hide the truth about how they’ve jacked up health care costs for Americans. Here’s the simple truth: People buying health insurance in America today are paying more for it than they should because of the relentless sabotage campaign by the Trump Administration and its Republican allies in Congress and the states. People who are seeing substantial premium increases are paying more than they should and the people seeing small rate decreases should be paying even less. The fact that Americans are paying more because of Trump’s sabotage when insurance companies are getting massive tax breaks and their profits and CEO salaries are soaring — and projected to skyrocket even further — is outrageous, and underscores why millions are fed up with this Republican war on health care and preparing to take this anger out at the polls.”
FACT: ACROSS THE BOARD, AMERICANS ARE PAYING MORE DUE TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S SABOTAGE CAMPAIGN
Brookings Analysis Estimates That Individual Market Premiums Would Decrease If Not For GOP Sabotage. Among its key findings:
Estimates That Average Premium Would Fall By 4.3 Percent In 2019 In Stable Policy Environment. “I estimate that the nationwide average per member per month premium in the individual market would fall by 4.3 percent in 2019 in a stable policy environment.” [Brookings Institution, 8/1/18]
Insurance Companies’ Revenues Will Far Exceed Their Costs In 2018. “I project that insurers’ revenues in the ACA-compliant individual market will far exceed their costs in 2018, generating a positive underwriting margin of 10.5 percent of premium revenue. This is up from a modest positive margin of 1.2 percent of premium revenue in 2017 and contrasts sharply with the substantial losses insurers incurred in the ACA-compliant market in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The estimated 2018 margin also far exceeds insurers’ margins in the pre-ACA individual market. ” [Brookings Institution, 8/1/18]
Absent Republican Sabotage, Average Premiums For ACA-Compliant Plans Would Likely Fall In 2019. “In this analysis, I define a stable policy environment as one in which the federal policies toward the individual market in effect for 2018 remain in effect for 3 2019. Notably, this scenario assumes that the individual mandate remains in effect for 2019, but also assumes that policies implemented prior to 2018, like the end of CSR payments, remain in effect as well. Under those circumstances, insurers’ costs would rise only moderately in 2019, primarily reflecting normal growth in medical costs.” [Brookings Institution, 8/1/18]
American Academy of Actuaries Point To Trump Administration Sabotage As Drivers Of 2019 Premium Increases. “Key drivers of 2019 premium changes include…Recent legislative and regulatory changes, including the elimination of the individual mandate penalty, the pending expanded availability of short-term limited duration plans and association health plans, and whether changes are made regarding how insurers are instructed to load premiums to account for cost-sharing reduction subsidies.” [American Academy of Actuaries, 6/13/18]
American Enterprise Institute Says Deregulating the Individual Market will not Lower Overall Health Costs. “When these proposed rules are made final, which is likely to occur in the coming months, many middle-class consumers will be able to exit the ACA-regulated markets for less expensive options. But overall costs will not decline. Insurers will simply shift higher premiums onto those who remain in the current market, which in turn will mean the federal government will pay higher subsidies for those eligible for premium assistance.” [American Enterprise Institute, 4/26/18]
FACT: TRUMP CAN’T TAKE CREDIT FOR STABILIZATION THAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE HE CAME INTO OFFICE — AND ON A BETTER TRACK BEFORE HIS REPEAL-AND-SABOTAGE CAMPAIGN
Larry Levitt, SVP for Health Reform at Kaiser Family Foundation: Before Republican Sabotage, The Individual Marketplaces Were Stabilizing. “With insurers now mostly profitable in the ACA individual insurance market, I would have expected single-digit premium increases for 2019 reflecting health-cost growth…With repeal of the individual mandate and expansion of short-term plans, double-digit hikes are now likely.” [Rampell, Washington Post, 5/14/18]
Larry Levitt, SVP for Health Reform at Kaiser Family Foundation: If Not For Republican Sabotage, Premium Increases Would Be Modest. “If not for actions by Congress and the Trump administration, we’d be looking at very modest premium increases for next year.” [Larry Levitt, 5/17/18]
Analysis By The Kaiser Family Foundation Confirms what Experts Have Been Saying For Months, Before Sabotage Took Affect, The Individual Market Was Stabilizing. “Annual results from 2017 suggest the individual market was stabilizing and insurers in this market were regaining profitability. Insurer financial results through 2017 – after the Administration’s decision to stop making cost-sharing subsidy payments and before the repeal of the individual mandate penalty in the tax overhaul goes into effect – showed no sign of a market collapse.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17/18]
Kaiser Family Foundation: “Absent any policy changes, it is likely that insurers would generally have required only modest premium increases in 2018 and in 2019 as well.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17/18]
Between 2016 and 2017, Premiums Increased At A Much Faster Pace Than Claims Did. “Driving recent improvements in individual market insurer financial performance are the premium increases in 2017 and simultaneous slow growth in claims for medical expenses. On average, premiums per enrollee grew 22% from 2016 to 2017, while per person claims grew only 5%.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17/18]
FACT: CMS IS CHERRY PICKING. THEY IGNORE GIANT RATE INCREASES AND ONLY CITE THE AVERAGE OF SILVER PLANS BECAUSE, OVERALL, PLANS ARE GOING UP BY AN AVERAGE OF THREE PERCENT THIS YEAR (ON TOP OF 30 PERCENT INCREASES LAST YEAR)
In citing the decrease that some Tennesseans will experience next year, CMS completely neglects to mention that other Tennesseans will see increases as high as 10.84 percent on top of last year’s 36 and 21 percent rate hikes. Health insurance experts and analysts blame GOP sabotage.
Charles Gaba, Health Care Analyst: Tennessee Premiums Would Have Dropped By 23 Percent If Not For GOP Sabotage. “Regardless, the net effect of all this is that Tennessee premiums are now expected to drop by around 11.1% overall instead of 5.7%…but they still would have dropped even further (around 23% by my estimates) if not for ACA sabotage factors.” [ACASignups, 8/22/18]
Julie Mix McPeak, President of National Association of Insurance Commissioners and TN Insurance Commissioner: GOP Sabotage Could Raise Premiums Yet Again For Next Year. “Obamacare premiums for 2019 would go up 5 percent to 10 percent on top of rate increases that were previously expected because of uncertainty raised by the Trump administration’s suspension of payments among insurers to cover sick enrollees. That is what Tennessee Insurance Commissioner Julie Mix McPeak told me in an interview about the impact of the Department of Health and Human Services’ July 7 announcement that it was suspending $10.4 billion in transfer payments among insurers due to a ruling in February by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.” [Bloomberg Law, 7/20/18]
FACT: ON HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO IDENTIFY EVERY WAY IT CAN UNRAVEL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
…and he’s been sabotaging our health care each day since.
