News

Plus All the Others, from the Washington Post

Trump’s op-ed is full of lies as brazen as any he’s ever told. Here are four things he got wrong – way wrong – on health care.

ONE: TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS WANT TO END PROTECTIONS FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Trump administration has refused to defend the ACA against a lawsuit brought by conservative leaders in 20 states and even agrees with them that the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions should be overturned.

Because Of The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Can No Longer Deny Coverage Or Charge More Because Of Pre-Existing Conditions. “Under current law, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a ‘pre-existing condition’ — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.” [HHS]

The ACA Outlawed Medical Underwriting, The Practice That Let Insurance Companies Charge Sick People And Women 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 Stopped Companies From Charging Women More Than Men For The Same Plan. The Affordable Care Act eliminated “gender rating,” meaning American women no longer have to pay an aggregated $1 billion more per year than men for the same coverage.

Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Can No Longer Drop Coverage Because of Illness. Because of the ACA, insurance companies can no longer rescind or cancel someone’s coverage arbitrarily if they get sick.

If the courts rule in favor of the Republican attorneys general, critical Affordable Care Act protections would vanish overnight, unleashing chaos in our entire health care system. Here is what could be eliminated:

• 17 million more people could lose their coverage in a single year, leading to a 50 percent increase in the uninsured rate
• Protections for 130 million people 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 and people over age 50
• Limit on out-of-pocket costs
• Medicaid expansion currently covering 15 million people
• Small business tax credits
• Marketplace tax credits for up to 9 million people

TWO: TRUMP’S “NEW HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS” ARE ACTUALLY JUNK PLANS

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]

Commonwealth Fund: “Cost Sharing Designs In Short-Term Coverage Leave Members Facing Major, Unpredictable Financial Risk.” “The out-of-pocket maximum for each best-selling plan is higher than that allowed in individual or employer plans under the ACA, when adjusting for the shorter plan duration. When considering the deductible, the best-selling plans have out-of-pocket maximums ranging from $7,000 to $20,000 for just three months of coverage. In comparison, the ACA limits out-of-pocket maximums to $7,150 for the entire year.” [Commonwealth Fund, 8/11/17]

Short-Term Junk Plans Can Retroactively Cancel Coverage After Patients File Claims. “Individuals in 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]

Short-Term Junk Plan Currently Being Sold In Thirteen States Does Not Cover Services For Patients Admitted To Hospital On The Weekend. “That brings us to the short-term plan marketed by UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule subsidiary….To begin with, the Golden Rule plan excludes pregnancy and provides for a lifetime maximum benefit of only $250,000. Remarkably, it won’t cover hospital room, board or nursing services for patients admitted to a hospital on a Friday or Saturday, unless for an emergency or for necessary surgery the next day.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/26/18]

THREE: TRUMP’S HEALTH CARE SABOTAGE IS DRIVING COSTS UP FOR CONSUMERS

Larry Levitt, Senior Vice President Of Kaiser Family Foundation: Premiums Would Be Going Down If Not For Insurance Companies Compensating For Unstable Environment. “ACA premiums are stable for 2019 because they went up so much this year due to an uncertain environment and regulatory actions by the Trump administration. Premiums would be going down a lot if not for repeal of the individual mandate penalty and expansion of short-term plans.” [Levitt, 9/27/18]

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]

Health Care Analyst, Charles Gaba Has Calculated That Across The Country, Premiums Will Increase By An Average Of 3.3 Percent In 2019. The average premium increases indicate that premiums nationwide will be 7.6 percent higher than they would have been absent GOP sabotage. [Charles Gaba, Accessed 9/27/18]

FOUR: TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS WANT TO UNDERMINE MEDICARE

Last month, Larry Kudlow, Director of the National Economic Council, confirmed that he has his sights on cutting Medicare. Asked when programs like Social Security and Medicare will be looked at for reforms, Kudlow replied, “Everyone will look at that — probably next year.”

 

Paul Ryan on Medicare: “It’s the biggest entitlement we’ve got to reform.” Paul Ryan, December 6, 2017: “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit…Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements…In- think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare…This has been my big thing for many, many years. I think it’s the biggest entitlement we’ve got to reform.”

President Trump and Congressional Republicans are targeting Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. Last December, President Trump signed a $1.5 trillion tax bill that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. How do Republicans plan on paying for it? Speaker Ryan’s answer is clear: “Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt.” In an attempt to pay for these tax cuts, in April, House Republicans passed a budget amendment that would slash Medicare funding by $537 billion over the next decade.

 

Congressional Republicans proposed these cuts after passing a budget resolution last year that cut Medicare by $473 billion. The 2018 budget resolution passed by Republicans in December 2017 cut Medicare by $473 billion.

 

As the cost of drugs skyrocket, President Trump and his Republican allies in Congress will not allow Medicare to negotiate for better prescription drug prices. Under current law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is explicitly prohibited from negotiating directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare Part D enrollees. Although it would decrease both federal spending and beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, a policy allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries was noticeably absent from President Trump’s recent prescription drug announcement.  

 

Congressional Republicans have repeatedly attempted to transform Medicare into a voucher program, which experts warn would lead to the “demise” of the program. Speaker Ryan has spoken about turning Medicare into a voucher system, and in Fall 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services filed a Request for Information concerning a shift in a “new direction” for Medicare, which Senate Democrats worried might entail a voucher system. Experts warn, and Republicans including Newt Gingrich acknowledge, that such a shift would lead to the demise of traditional Medicare as premiums increase.

 

Congressional Republicans repealed several components of the ACA designed to help keep Medicare’s costs down, effectively driving up costs for the program. By repealing the requirement that most people have insurance, Congressional Republicans knowingly voted for a measure expected to increase the number of uninsured. The 2018 Medicare Trustees Report predicts that this increase will increase the share of subsidies paid to hospitals via Medicare. Similarly, by repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board, Congressional Republicans took away a mechanism that slowed Medicare cost growth.

 

….BUT DON’T JUST TAKE IT FROM US. NON-PARTISAN FACT CHECKERS ALL AGREE THAT TRUMP IS LYING ABOUT HEALTH CARE

 

Washington Post On Trump’s OpEd:   “Almost Every Sentence Contained A Misleading Statement Or A Falsehood” [Washington Post, 10/10/18]

 

FactCheck.Org:  “Trump Misleads on Preexisting Conditions.”  [FactCheck.org, 10/2/18]

 

FactCheck.Org:  Trump’s Claims About Declining Premiums Are “Misleading.”  [FactCheck.org, 9/28/18]

 

Associated Press:  Trump “Isn’t Playing It Straight” About Pre-Existing Conditions.  [Associated Press, 10/1/18]

 

PolitiFact:  Trump Has Put Pre-Existing Condition Protections “Under Threat By Lawsuit.”  [PolitiFact, 9/29/18]

 

PolitiFact:  Trump’s Claims About Democrats And Pre-Existing Conditions Are “Pants On Fire.”  [PolitiFact, 10/5/18]

 

New York Times:  “Trump Claims to Protect Pre-Existing Health Conditions. That’s Not What the Government Says.” [New York Times, 9/21/18]

Despite what President Trump may have claimed in his op-ed today, his political argument is as divorced from reality as the facts are. There’s no reality where voters view the GOP as defenders of Medicare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

For those who don’t care about the lies he’s making and are only interested in whether it’s working, it’s also failing, bigly, according to the newly released POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

REALITY: Democrats have a 25-point advantage on party trust to protect Medicare.

REALITY: Voters know the Obama administration did the best it could with health care (57% to 38%) while they believe the Trump administration is not (36%-57%).

REALITY: Voters overwhelmingly back expansion of Medicaid in their state by 41 points (61%-20%).

“Trump knows the deficit Republicans have created for themselves on health care is too steep to climb,” says Brad Woodhouse

Washington, DC – In a transparent effort to try to conceal Republicans’ anti-health care record from voters, President Trump is pushing a recycled, demonstrably false narrative that he and Republicans are the defenders of Medicare, when they’ve voted to dismantle and weaken the program repeatedly. In response, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“Trump and his Republican allies are getting clobbered because of their record of slashing billions from Medicare in order to give huge breaks to the same drug companies that are robbing us blind, voting to increase costs for seniors in Medicare and working to dismantle Medicare by turning it into a ‘voucher’ program. Pushing this desperate lie proves that Trump knows the deficit Republicans have created for themselves on health care is too steep for them to climb.”

HERE ARE SOME OF THE WAYS TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO UNDERMINE MEDICARE:

• Last month, Larry Kudlow, Director of the National Economic Council, confirmed that he has his sights on cutting Medicare. Asked when programs like Social Security and Medicare will be looked at for reforms, Kudlow replied, “Everyone will look at that — probably next year.”
• Paul Ryan on Medicare: “It’s the biggest entitlement we’ve got to reform.” Paul Ryan, December 6, 2017: “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit…Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements…In- think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare…This has been my big thing for many, many years. I think it’s the biggest entitlement we’ve got to reform.”
• President Trump and Congressional Republicans are targeting Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. Last December, President Trump signed a $1.5 trillion tax bill that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. How do Republicans plan on paying for it? Speaker Ryan’s answer is clear: “Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt.” In an attempt to pay for these tax cuts, in April, House Republicans passed a budget amendment that would slash Medicare funding by $537 billion over the next decade.
• Congressional Republicans proposed these cuts after passing a budget resolution last year that cut Medicare by $473 billion. The 2018 budget resolution passed by Republicans in December 2017 cut Medicare by $473 billion.
• As the cost of drugs skyrocket, President Trump and his Republican allies in Congress will not allow Medicare to negotiate for better prescription drug prices. Under current law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is explicitly prohibited from negotiating directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare Part D enrollees. Although it would decrease both federal spending and beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, a policy allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries was noticeably absent from President Trump’s recent prescription drug announcement.  
• Congressional Republicans have repeatedly attempted to transform Medicare into a voucher program, which experts warn would lead to the “demise” of the program. Speaker Ryan has spoken about turning Medicare into a voucher system, and in Fall 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services filed a Request for Information concerning a shift in a “new direction” for Medicare, which Senate Democrats worried might entail a voucher system. Experts warn, and Republicans including Newt Gingrich acknowledge, that such a shift would lead to the demise of traditional Medicare as premiums increase.
• Congressional Republicans repealed several components of the ACA designed to help keep Medicare’s costs down, effectively driving up costs for the program. By repealing the requirement that most people have insurance, Congressional Republicans knowingly voted for a measure expected to increase the number of uninsured. The 2018 Medicare Trustees Report predicts that this increase will increase the share of subsidies paid to hospitals via Medicare. Similarly, by repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board, Congressional Republicans took away a mechanism that slowed Medicare cost growth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Nominations of Two Extremists on Sixth Circuit

Washington, DC – Ahead of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nominations of Chad Readler, a key advisor on the Trump Administration’s lawsuit to end pre-existing conditions protections, and Eric Murphy, an extreme anti-women’s health judicial activist and ex-Big Tobacco corporate attorney, to lifetime appointments on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“Whether it’s Chad Readler working to rip health care coverage away from the millions of Americans living with pre-existing conditions, or Eric Murphy siding with Big Tobacco over the American people, these are two anti-health care extremists unworthy of lifetime appointments on our federal courts. Period.”

At Risk with Chad Readler: Protections For 130 Million Americans With A Pre-Existing Condition

Roughly half of non-elderly American adults and one in four children, or up to 130 million people, have at least one pre-existing condition. That includes everyone with cancer, diabetes, asthma, and any form of mental health issue or drug abuse problem.  Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies were able to discriminate against them, by charging them more, dropping coverage once people got sick, or denying coverage altogether. The ACA banned all of those practices, providing health security to millions.

Ending protections for people with pre-existing conditions is the official policy of the Trump Administration. Chad Readler played a leading role in the the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice taking the extraordinary step of joining the latest partisan lawsuit that seeks to strike down the ACA and has argued the Courts put Americans at the mercy of insurance companies by overturning provisions in the law that now prevent insurance companies from denying coverage completely or charging people more because of a pre-existing condition. Experts estimate that even if a cancer patient could get covered, they would have to pay as much as $140,000 a year more in premiums.

At Risk with Eric Murphy: Women’s Health Care

Access to safe and legal abortion: By age 45, one in four women in the U.S. has had an abortion, for reasons that are deeply personal. But Eric Murphy has used his power as Ohio’s solicitor general to try to prevent women from accessing safe and legal abortion, including in a case that flouts the precedent in Roe vs. Wade and in a case that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.  

Birth control coverage: Thanks to the ACA, 62.4 million women now have access to birth control with no out-of-pocket costs and as a result, women have saved $1.4 billion on birth control pills alone in 2013. However, Eric Murphy has sided against women and with employers who have sought to deny birth control coverage to their employees.

Access to Planned Parenthood: One in five women have turned to Planned Parenthood for care at some point in their lives for a wide range of health and education services, but numerous state and federal efforts are underway to block low-income women from continuing to rely on this provider of choice for so many. Eric Murphy defended an extreme law that would have prevented low-income women from breast and cervical cancer screenings, and sexual violence prevention services, at Planned Parenthood’s health centers in Ohio.

Republicans are Citing a Bill that Undermines Protections for People with Pre-Existing Conditions to Say They Are Protecting Them

Faced with mounting pressure against their constant war on health care to undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions like cancer, diabetes and heart disease, Republicans are rewriting history. In their ads and their responses to charges they undermine these key protections, Republicans falsely cast themselves as defenders of people with pre-existing conditions. Reps. David Young (R-IA), John Faso (R-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Mike Bishop (R-MI), just to name a few, have all said they were on the side of people with pre-existing conditions.

What is even more galling is they are using, in part, their vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act to substantiate this claim.

Let’s be clear: Last year, Republicans voted for a health repeal bill – the so-called American Health Care Act – that would have gutted protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Here are the facts:

• The House repeal bill allowed insurance companies to charge people with pre-existing conditions more. Thanks to an amendment offered by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) and others, the American Health Care Act allowed states to eliminate community rating, meaning insurers would be able to charge people with pre-existing conditions more. This surcharge could be in the tens of thousands of dollars and even six figures: up to $4,270 for asthma, $17,060 for pregnancy, $26,180 for rheumatoid arthritis and $140,510 for metastatic cancer.
• The House repeal bill would have resulted in less comprehensive coverage, meaning higher costs for people with pre-existing conditions. The American Health Care Act allowed states to waive the requirement that insurance companies cover the ten essential health benefits established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Removing these guaranteed benefits would mean insurance companies would be less likely to offer comprehensive coverage. As a result, people with pre-existing conditions would be forced to pay more to get the coverage they need. These ten essential health benefits include ambulatory services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services, laboratory services, preventive services, and pediatric services.
• The Upton Amendment did not protect people with pre-existing conditions. In an effort to win over Republicans who were holding their support of the House health repeal bill until the last minute, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) added an amendment to provide $8 billion for states that establish high risk pools. First, the funding included in the amendment was inadequate. Second, high risk pools do not provide the security for people with pre-existing conditions as they get under the Affordable Care Act. They often lead to higher premiums and less care. The American Medical Association said high risk pools result in “second-class health care coverage – if they are able to obtain coverage at all.”

Don’t take our word for it. Here is what patient advocacy and provider organizations said at the time about the House repeal bill:

• American Medical Association: “The bill passed by the House today will result in millions of Americans losing access to quality, affordable health insurance and those with pre-existing health conditions face the possibility of going back to the time when insurers could charge them premiums that made access to coverage out of the question. Action is needed, however, to improve the current health care insurance system.
• The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, March of Dimes, And Others: “Weakening protections in favor of high-risk pools would also undermine the ban on discrimination based on health status. The individuals and families we represent cannot go back to a time when people with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or forced to choose between purchasing basic necessities and affording their health care coverage.”
• American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: “Today the House of Representatives passed a health care bill that could leave cancer patients, survivors and those at risk for the disease unable to access or keep quality health insurance. The bill would create a coverage patchwork whereby patients with pre-existing conditions could be charged more for their coverage while simultaneously weakening the rules for what health services will be covered.”
• American Association Of Family Physicians: “This legislation will harm millions of their constituents. It will destabilize our health care system, cause 24 million Americans to lose their coverage, and allow for discrimination against patients based on their gender, age, and health status. Its inadequate and temporary high-risk pool funds are simply a band aid that does nothing to provide health security to the nearly one in three Americans who have a pre-existing condition.
• America’s Essential Hospitals: “This is not reform. This is legislation that will take us back to a time when working individuals and families were forced to choose between health care coverage and life’s other necessities. In fact, it will leave us in a worse place than before the law it seeks to replace, the Affordable Care Act.”

Washington, DC – Upon President Trump’s first-ever veto threat of Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)’s resolution to block insurers from selling short-term, junk insurance plans, Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“Trump’s first ever act as President was about rolling back American health care and now his first ever veto threat is about ensuring his sabotage that started that day continues — go figure. By pushing junk insurance plans, and wielding veto threats when Senators stand up to them, Trump is making it clear once and for all he’s on the side of more profit for big insurance and less health care for the American people.”

Trump Has Been Falsely Claiming He Supports Pre-existing Conditions Protections on the Campaign Trail

Politifact: “Trump’s Pants on Fire Claim About Democrats, Pre-existing Conditions” [Oct 5, 2018]

Factcheck.org: “Trump Misleads on Pre-existing Conditions” [Oct 2, 2018]

Politifact: “Trump [is]…on the side of those whose lawsuit would effectively end protections…for people with pre-existing conditions” [Sept 30, 2018]

Short-term Plans Hurt People with Pre-existing Conditions

Short-Term Plans Can 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]
• One in 4 Children Would Be Impacted If Insurance Companies Could Deny Coverage Or Charge More Because Of A Pre-existing Condition. [Center for American Progress, 4/5/17]

Junk Plans Mean Higher Premiums For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. “By promoting short-term policies, the administration is making a trade-off: lower premiums and less coverage for healthy people, and higher premiums for people with preexisting conditions who need more comprehensive coverage.” [Washington Post, 5/1/18]

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]

For more information, see Protect Our Care’s fact sheet on short-term junk plans.

On the eve of Senate Democrats work to force a vote to overturn Trump’s junk plans expansion, America’s leading health care providers and advocates filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs who sued last month to block President Trump’s short-term, limited duration insurance (STLDI) “junk insurance” rule. The rule, which went into effect last week, would permit people to stay on junk plans that, among other problems, don’t cover people with pre-existing conditions for up to a year. Here’s what the medical experts said in their briefs:

American Medical Association And Seven Physician Organizations: Junk Plans “Will Be Devastating To The Health, Well-being, And Pocketbooks Of Millions Of Americans.”

“A key part of this mission is providing as many of their members’ patients as possible with affordable, meaningful health coverage. As courts have recognized again and again, this is the same goal as underpins the Affordable Care Act itself.3 The 2018 Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance (STLDI) Rule is antithetical to this shared goal. The Rule will be devastating to the health, well-being, and pocketbooks of millions of Americans—and disproportionately so for women, children, and the chronically ill…One need “not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act” to recognize that allowing the 2018 STLDI Rule to go forward will sabotage the ACA’s crucial reforms.” [AMA et al., 10/5/18]

American Cancer Society And Other Patient Groups: “The Rule Poses A Very Real Threat To The Health Of Many Millions Of Americans.”

“As detailed below, the availability of affordable, accessible, and adequate health insurance is critical to health outcomes. The challenged rule, however, ensures that a greater number of individuals will purchase plans that deny coverage for, and thereby deny access to, critical treatments if and when they are needed, and that individuals with existing health conditions will incur greater expense in accessing the treatment they need. In so doing, the rule poses a very real threat to the health of many millions of Americans.” [American Cancer Society et al., 10/8/18]

AARP: If Not Enjoined, The STLDI Rule Will Return The Nation To A Pre-ACA Health Coverage Landscape—An Untenable Situation For Those Who Do Not Have Access To Coverage Through Their Employer Or Public Programs Such As Medicare And Medicaid.”

“If not enjoined, the STLDI rule will return the nation to a pre-ACA health coverage landscape—an untenable situation for those who do not have access to coverage through their employer or public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid…The STLDI Rule will also expand the reach of coverage that discriminates against older adults. Because STLDI issuers are not required to comply with the consumer protection provisions contained in the ACA, STLDI plans can deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on a person’s health or preexisting conditions. These insurers are also allowed to charge an older person significantly higher premiums based purely upon their age.” [AARP, 10/8/18]

Washington, D.C. – Following Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) filing a discharge petition to force a vote on her resolution to block insurers from selling the Trump Administration’s short-term, junk insurance plans, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“Now it’s time for Senate Republicans who all of the sudden claim to be protectors of people with pre-existing conditions to step up and prove it. If the GOP truly cared about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions, they would join their Democratic colleagues on this resolution in taking concrete action to preserve the protections and essential health benefits that tens of millions of Americans depend on. Forgive us, though, if we don’t hold our breath waiting on them to do so.”

Short-term Plans Hurt People with Pre-existing Conditions

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]
• One in 4 Children Would Be Impacted If Insurance Companies Could Deny Coverage Or Charge More Because Of A Pre-existing Condition. [Center for American Progress, 4/5/17]

Junk Plans Mean Higher Premiums For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. “By promoting short-term policies, the administration is making a trade-off: lower premiums and less coverage for healthy people, and higher premiums for people with preexisting conditions who need more comprehensive coverage.” [Washington Post, 5/1/18]

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]

For more information, see Protect Our Care’s fact sheet on short-term junk plans.