News

Washington, DC – Today, Senators sent to President Trump’s desk a package of legislation to address the opioid crisis while the Trump Administration has taken numerous, unprecedented steps to roll back progress in the fight, such as by enacting regulations that restrict Medicaid, upon which four in 10 Americans with opioid use disorder relies, attacking health care coverage for people with opioid use disorder through its lawsuit to end pre-existing conditions protections, and by promoting junk plans that don’t cover mental health care. In response, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“Okay, President Trump, you want to fight the opioid epidemic? End your administration’s assault on Medicaid and pre-existing conditions. Without doing that, signing this bill is like shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted.”

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS REPUBLICAN ALLIES WANT TO ROLL BACK COVERAGE THROUGH MEDICAID, A LIFELINE FOR PEOPLE SUFFERING WITH OPIOID USE DISORDER

• Republicans Have Repeatedly Taken Aim At Medicaid. The GOP has attempted to restrict access to Medicaid by allowing states to impose onerous work requirements on Medicaid coverage, trying to impose per capita limits on Medicaid funding, and repeatedly proposing legislation that would end Medicaid expansion.
• Restricting Access To Medicaid Threatens Lives And Impedes States’ Ability To Respond To The Opioid Epidemic. Four in 10 Americans with an opioid use disorder relies on Medicaid for access to treatment and life-saving overdose reversal medication. Restricting access to Medicaid puts people’s lives at risk and deprives states of funding and resources they depend on to fight the epidemic.

A TRUMP-GOP LAWSUIT COULD OVERTURN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WHICH PROTECTS PEOPLE WITH SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER

• Because Of The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Can No Longer Deny Coverage Or Charge More Because Of Pre-Existing Conditions. The Affordable Care Act prevents insurance companies from denying someone coverage or charging them more because of a health problem they had before the date that new health coverage starts. It also prevents insurance companies from rescinding or canceling someone’s coverage arbitrarily if they get sick.
• The ACA Outlawed Medical Underwriting, The Practice That Let Insurance Companies Charge Sick People More. As the Brookings Institution summarizes, “The ACA outlawed medical underwriting, which had enabled insurance carriers to court the healthiest customers while denying coverage to people likely to need costly care. The ACA guaranteed that all applicants could buy insurance and that their premiums would not be adjusted for gender or personal characteristics other than age and smoking.”
• The ACA Requires That Insurance Companies Cover Mental Health And Substance Use Disorder Services, And Paved The Way For Medicaid Expansion, Which Helps People Access Services For Substance Use disorders. The Affordable Care Act established ten essential health benefits, including mental health services, substance use disorder services, and prescription drug coverage, that insurance companies are required to cover. Without these protections, people in the individual market could be on their own — before the ACA, 45 percent of individual market plans did not cover substance use disorder services, and 38 percent of plans did not include mental health services.  The ACA also enabled states to expand Medicaid, which has helped people with substance use disorders and mental illness receive treatment. Recent research finds that Medicaid expanding reduced the unmet need for substance use treatment by 18.3 percent.

TRUMP-GOP JUNK INSURANCE PLANS OFTEN EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND MORE

Short-Term Plans May Exclude Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions. “Policyholders who get sick may be investigated by the insurer to determine whether the newly-diagnosed condition could be considered pre-existing and so excluded from coverage.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2/9/18]

• As Many As 130 Million Nonelderly Americans Have A Pre-Existing Condition. [Center for American Progress, 4/5/17]
• 1 in 4 Children Would Be Impacted If Insurance Companies Could Deny Or Charge More Because Of A Pre-Existing Condition. [Center for American Progress, 4/5/17]

Short-Term Junk Plans Can Refuse To Cover Essential Health Benefits. “Typical short-term policies do not cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health care, preventive care, and other essential benefits, and may limit coverage in other ways.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2/9/18]

Under Many Short-Term Junk Plans, Benefits Are Capped At $1 Million Or Less. Short-term plans can impose lifetime and annual limits –  “for example, many policies cap covered benefits at $1 million or less.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2/9/18]

Short-Term Junk Plans Can Retroactively Cancel Coverage After Patients File Claims. “Individuals in [short-term (STLDI)] plans would be at risk for rescission. Rescissions are retroactive cancellations of coverage, often occurring after individuals file claims due to medical necessity. While enrollees in ACA coverage cannot have their policy retroactively cancelled, enrollees in STLDI plans can.” [Wakely/ACAP, April 2018]

New Legislation Introduced by Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan Would Ease Out-of-Pocket Costs

Washington, DC – Today, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced legislation to combat high out-of-pocket health care costs for uninsured patients and for patients in the individual health insurance market. U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) also announced that she will introduce companion legislation to help eliminate a related problem: surprise medical bills, where patients receive massive, unexpected medical bills, often for receiving care that they didn’t realize was considered out-of-network.

Said Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, in response to the legislation:

“We hear about it all the time – egregious surprise medical bills and astronomical out-of-network charges that bankrupt families – and it’s unacceptable. Insurance companies and providers could fix this, but they won’t. Any lawmaker who says they are serious about reducing health care costs for Americans should get behind these commonsense bills.”

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Shaheen’s Reducing Costs for Out-of-Network Services Act of 2018 would cap the amount that hospitals and physicians could charge uninsured patients and out-of-network patients who have individual market coverage. These charge caps would also improve the ability of individual market health insurers to reduce premiums by lowering costs for in-network hospital and physician services. This legislation provides patients in the individual insurance market with similar protections to safeguards that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have already benefitted from for years.

Hassan’s No More Surprise Medical Bills Act of 2018 would help eliminate surprise medical bills for people with employer-sponsored health plans. The bill will protect patients with medical emergencies from surprise billing by prohibiting hospitals and providers from charging more than the in-network amount. The bill also protects patients in non-emergency situations from surprise bills by requiring hospitals and providers to notify patients if services will be out-of-network and get their consent. Without proper notification and consent, a provider can only charge a patient the in-network amount.

Shaheen’s legislation protects patients who are uninsured or in the individual health insurance market, while Hassan’s legislation protects patients with employer-sponsored health plans.  

With at Least 31 Lies Under Oath Documented and Numerous Editorial Boards, Columnists, Moderates and Acquaintances Calling Kavanaugh’s Fitness into Question, Protect Our Care Asks:

“If Brett Kavanaugh is Willing to Lie Under Oath, Wouldn’t He Lie About Our Health Care?”

New TV Ad Airs in Arizona, Alaska, Maine and DC

Washington, DC – As Mitch McConnell gears up to “plow” Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court “right through,” Kavanaugh’s fitness for the court has been called into on question on the basis of dozens of documented lies Kavanaugh told while under oath. In a new television ad airing in Arizona, Alaska, Maine and DC, Protect Our Care points out that Kavanaugh’s lies under oath happened in plain view — and portend danger ahead for our health care and other issues if he’s seated on the Court. Said Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care:

“Brett Kavanaugh’s positions on health care, executive power, his partisanship, and his repeated lies under oath make him unfit to serve on our Supreme Court. If Brett Kavanaugh can’t be trusted to tell the truth under oath, why would any Senator believe his statements on health care or Roe v Wade? To maintain trust in the Senate and in the Supreme Court, Senators should vote no on Brett Kavanaugh.”

Watch Protect Our Care’s new ad here:

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

If Brett Kavanaugh Will Lie About All This, He’ll Lie About Protecting Your Health Care

With every passing hour, Americans learn more about the lies Kavanaugh willingly told while under oath during his confirmation process. In the past, the same Republicans defending Kavanaugh’s lies had an entirely different view:

• Eight years ago, Judge Kavanaugh himself disapproved of false statements, signing an opinion that stated “False exculpatory statements are evidence — often strong evidence — of guilt.”
• In 1999, Lindsey Graham said in a speech, “I have argued to you that when you found that a judge was a perjurer, you couldn’t in good conscience send him back in a courtroom because everybody that came in that courtroom thereafter would have a real serious doubt.”
• Just yesterday, Sen. Flake echoed this sentiment, telling reporters, “Any nominee who lies to the committee, that is disqualifying.”  

Well, the evidence that Kavanaugh has lied under oath is mounting — take a look below:

New York Times: Kavanaugh’s Responses Were “Misleading, Disputed Or Off Point.” “The combative nominee was compelled to answer questions he clearly found embarrassing or offensive. What emerges is the image of a skilled lawyer who, when pressed on difficult subjects, sometimes crafted responses that were misleading, disputed or off point.” [New York Times, 9/28/18]

Washington Post: Kavanaugh “Stretched Or Misrepresented The Truth.”  “Over the course of his testimony, though, Kavanaugh offered several answers to questions that stretched or misrepresented the truth.”  [Washington Post, 9/28/18]

Though Under Oath Kavanaugh Claimed That Ramirez Was The One Who Called Classmates To See If They Remembered What Happened, It Turns Out It Was Kavanaugh And His Team Who Were Communicating Behind The Scenes To Orchestrate Defense. “The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story…The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem’s efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.” [NBC News, 10/1/18]

Though Kavanaugh Has Tried To Minimize His Drinking, New York Times Reporting Reveals He Was Involved In Bar Fight In 1985. “As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report. The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him ‘for some unknown reason.’” [New York Times, 10/1/18]

The Huffington Post Compiled Eighteen Different Subjects Kavanaugh has Been Caught Lying About. Among other topics, Kavanaugh lied about not traveling in the same social circles as Dr. Blasey Ford (though he regularly spent time with her boyfriend), never attending a gathering like the one described by Blasey (though such a gathering is on his own calendar from 1982), and the Maryland drinking age (Kavanaugh said the drinking age was 18, even though it was legally raised to 21 in Maryland when Kavanaugh was 17 years old). The list goes on. [Huffington Post, 10/1/18]

So, how are editorial boards and columnists reacting?

Bangor Daily News Editorial: Kavanaugh Is Unfit For Supreme Court. “Further review is not necessary to conclude that Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court. His performance before the Judiciary Committee last week confirmed that. Generally, we, like Collins, believe presidents have broad leeway in their appointments and initially we felt that Kavanaugh met this broad standard. No more. Kavanaugh lied, under oath, about small things. He said he could legally drink during his senior year at Georgetown Prep, a Catholic all-boys school in Maryland. This is demonstrably false. He said he had no connection to Yale University, where he attended college and law school. Yet, his grandfather went there. His explanation for entries in his high school yearbook, which appear to be about drinking and denigrating women, stretched the bounds of credulity. If he’ll lie, under oath, about these things, he’ll lie about much bigger things.” [Bangor Daily News, 10/2/18]

Portland Press Herald Editorial: “Based On What He Demonstrated In His Own Testimony, Kavanaugh Lacks The Character And Judgment To Serve On The Supreme Court.” “But regardless of what questions the investigation can answer, we already know this: Based on what he demonstrated in his own testimony, Kavanaugh lacks the character and judgment to serve on the Supreme Court. In his widely watched appearance, Kavanaugh revealed that he has an explosive temper and resorts to bullying when he feels threatened. He was understandably under stress and fighting a high-stakes battle for his reputation, but his temperament was tested during the hearing, and he failed the test. Kavanaugh also showed himself to be impermissibly political for a job that is supposed to be above politics.” [Portland Press Herald, 9/28/18]

America Magazine: It Is Time For The Kavanaugh Nomination To Be Withdrawn. “But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.” [America Magazine, 9/27/18]

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial: Kavanaugh, Accuser Testify Convincingly Enough To Merit Delaying Confirmation. “Kavanaugh concedes only that he was ‘no angel’ during the period in question. People who knew him say he drank heavily and became aggressive when drunk. Should his reputation and entire judicial future ride on a rushed, partisan decision by a deeply divided Senate? Or would it serve everyone’s best interests, especially Kavanaugh’s and Blasey Ford’s, to slow down and investigate the allegations more thoroughly? Considering the extremely high stakes, the only reasonable option is to assign this case to the FBI and delay a confirmation action until clearer answers surface.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/27/18]

Boston Globe Editorial: The Lies That Senators Must Tell Themselves To Support Brett Kavanaugh. “Now, some of those might seem like ticky-tack kind of misstatements. But the pattern starts to look overwhelming. As former FBI director James Comey put it on Twitter: ‘Small lies matter, even about yearbooks.’ The standard jury instruction, he noted, says: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.’ Kavanaugh’s pattern of dishonesty certainly affects how to view Ford’s accusation that he attacked her when both were in high school. She was highly credible as a witness, passed a polygraph, and, unlike Kavanaugh, has no demonstrated pattern of bending the truth.” [Boston Globe, 9/28/18]

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial: The Kavanaugh Allegations Are Serious; Don’t Rush The Vote. “In light of these allegations, there is absolutely no reasonable argument for rushing through Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The U.S. Senate must allow for a complete investigation of these allegations, including witness testimony. Anything less would be a failure of the Senate’s duty to fully and fairly vet nominees for the highest court in the land.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/24/18]

Esquire’s Charles Pierce: “In Plain Terms, Kavanaugh Lies About Everything.”  “In plain terms, for all his spleen and outrage, Judge Kavanaugh lies about everything. In his earlier hearings, he lied about his judicial philosophy, and he lied about his days as a Republican operative, both in and out of the White House. On Monday, he lied to Martha McCallum of Fox News. On Thursday, he lied about his entire adolescence and his college days.” [Charles Pierce, Esquire, 9/28/18]

NY Mag’s Jon Chait: Kavanaugh Has “Told Lie After Lie After Lie.”  “The most probable account of his actions is that Kavanaugh (understandably) decided his youthful crimes should not prevent him from attaining the highest position in his career. He also calculated that any partial defense would come unraveled, and settled from the outset on a stance of total denial. This is why he has told lie after lie after lie. But now Kavanaugh is caught in those lies. He is worried that two Republicans senators might decide they’d rather vote for a justice who hasn’t flagrantly perjured himself. And this fear has legitimate basis.” [New York Magazine, 10/1/18]

Los Angeles Times Editorial: Kavanaugh Offered “Astonishingly Unjudicial Opening Statement.” “In an angry, emotional and at times astonishingly unjudicial opening statement, the appeals court judge lashed out against Democrats on the committee, accused them of unleashing Ford’s accusation when it seemed that their ideological objections to his candidacy wouldn’t succeed in keeping him off the court.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/28/18]

Boston Globe Editorial: “For This Editorial Board, Whether Kavanaugh Should Sit On The Supreme Court Hinges On His Ability To Tell The Truth.” “The FBI must conduct a fully-empowered investigation in what is being characterized as a supplemental background check. If they need more time and want to broaden their review, the White House should allow that….For this editorial board, whether Kavanaugh should sit on the Supreme Court hinges on his ability to tell the truth. That’s the least we can expect from a Supreme Court justice.” [Boston Globe, 9/30/18]

Benjamin Wittes, Editor In Chief Of Lawfare And Senior Fellow At Brookings Institution: Kavanaugh’s Performance “Was Wholly Inconsistent With The Conduct We Should Expect From A Member Of The Judiciary.” “But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary…What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support.” [The Atlantic, 10/2/18]

Daniel Larson, Senior Editor At The American Conservative: Kavanaugh’s Testimony Gave Committee Members And The Public “Ample Reason To Doubt His FItness For The Court.” “The hearing on Thursday was a spectacle and an embarrassment for the nominee. Judge Kavanaugh comported himself poorly throughout, and during his angry opening statement he gave the committee members and the public ample reason to doubt his fitness for the Court before he answered any questions. Kavanaugh’s anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who aspires to sit on the highest court, but the real problem lies with the multiple lies he told during his testimony…His evasions and misrepresentations on these other points have only made his fervent denials of the very serious charge less believable, and in the process he has torched his reputation and rendered himself unworthy of the Supreme Court.” [The American Conservative, 9/30/18]

Some Are Citing Kavanaugh’s Own Opinion, Which Stated “False Exculpatory Statements Are Evidence — Often Strong Evidence — Of Guilt.” “How then to evaluate Kavanaugh’s lies? This is not just a question of the jury instructions and principles of evidence that Comey and Wittes cite. Even more damning in Kavanaugh’s case are that several lies—including about yearbook references to sexual conquest, whether real or not, and about high school and college alcohol consumption—don’t just go to the question of his overall truthfulness. Those lies relate directly, materially to the question whether he participated in sexual assault under the influence of alcohol. Unless some surprising exculpatory evidence for Kavanaugh emerges from the ongoing FBI investigation or other sources, he does not pass the standard for elevation to the Supreme Court…The two strongest pieces of evidence that now weigh against him are Ford’s testimony and his own. ‘False exculpatory statements are evidence – often strong evidence – of guilt,’ Judge Kavanaugh once acknowledged in a judicial opinion. Those words have rightfully come back to haunt him.” [Just Security, 10/2/18]

Ana Navarro: For The Good Of Us All, Brett Kavanaugh Should Step Aside. “I feel like a unicorn these days, because I did not oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court at first, but I do oppose it now. Why? Entirely because of the character issues raised about him…I now believe Kavanaugh lacks the judicial temperament and character to serve on the Supreme Court. In the last hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was screaming, crying, disrespectful and partisan. Except for the partisan part, if any woman behaved that way, people would blame it on hormones or call her hysterical. I am not one to criticize anyone for showing emotions.” [CNN, 10/1/18]

Lawfare Blog Editor  Susan Hennessy: Kavanaugh Was “Dishonest And Misleading” Throughout His Hearing. “Susah Hennessy: The final element is that Kavanaugh seems to have been dishonest and misleading sort of throughout. Kavanaugh represented himself as someone who wasn’t a heavy drinker, as believing vulgar terms that he used actually had innocent meaning, as making only respectful references to female friends in his yearbook. You know, and these are representations that are really strongly contradicted by the written record, by statements of people who knew him at the time. And frankly, they’re explanations that sort of defy common sense.” [NPR, 9/30/18]