Skip to main content
Category

Capitol Hill

protectourcare
In Administration, Capitol Hill

Trump Stumps for Heller, Architect of GOP Plan to Rip Health Care from Millions

Heller Authored Repeal Legislation That Would Have Jacked Up Premiums, Gutted Medicaid And Eliminated Protections For 1.2 Million Nevadans With Pre-Existing Conditions

Washington, DC – Tonight, President Trump will campaign for Dean Heller, lead sponsor on the failed Senate repeal bill who has worked for years to strip protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions and recently pledged to work again this fall to repeal our health care. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, said in response:

“At a time when Dean Heller should be listening to Nevadans who are demanding that Republicans stop their attacks on health care, he is instead standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Repealer-in-Chief. It’s unbelievable. Time and again, Nevadans have made it crystal clear that they do not want their health care ripped away — yet time and again, Dean Heller has stood with Trump and other Republicans who would do precisely that. Make no mistake, Dean Heller presents a real and present danger to the health care of Nevadans and people need look no further than his own words and actions for proof.   

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

Senator Dean Heller has pledged to repeal Obamacare if Republicans wins Senate seats. If he succeeds, this could have devastating effects on hundreds of thousands Nevadans.

  • “Dean Heller Pledges To Repeal Obamacare If Gop Wins More Senate Seats.”Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he believes his party will pick up more Senate seats during the 2018 midterm elections, which would help the party fulfill its long-held promise to repeal and replace Obamacare, according to an audio recording obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  ‘I think at the end of the day we end up with 53, 54 seats. If we can do that, then we can repeal and replace and change the ACA as we know it today,’ he said, referring to the Affordable Care Act, the formal name for Obamacare.” [Washington Examiner, 4/5/18]

Heller Authored Repeal Legislation That Would Have Jacked Up Premiums, Gutted Medicaid And Eliminated Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions

Analysts Agree: Every State Loses Under Graham-Cassidy-Heller Affecting People’s Care. Multiple independent analyses agree that the Graham-Cassidy-Heller repeal bill would cut federal funding to states. Over time, every state loses because Graham-Cassidy-Heller zeroes out its block grants and ratchets down its spending on the Medicaid per capita cap. This means people would not have access to the financial assistance to help lower their health care bills, and federal Medicaid funding would no longer adjust for public health emergencies, prescription drug or other cost spikes, or other unexpected increases in need.

  • Avalere: $4 Trillion Cut To States Over Next Two Decades, Including $39 Billion Cut To Nevadans. Independent analysts at Avalere estimated that states collectively would lose $215 billion from 2020 to 2026 from the plans block grants and Medicaid cap, another $283 billion in 2027 when the block grant funding disappears altogether and $4 trillion over the next two decades. Nevada would see a $2 billion reduction from 2020 to 2026, another $5 billion reduction in 2027 and a $39 billion cut over two decades.

200,583 Nevadans Enrolled Through Medicaid Expansion At Risk. The Graham-Cassidy-Heller bill would eliminate Medicaid expansion, which has helped 200,583 Nevadans receive quality, affordable coverage, and put part of its funding into inadequate block grants. The bill would further punish states that expanded Medicaid by redistributing funds to states that did not expand Medicaid.

Premiums Will Increase 20 Percent in the First Year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Graham-Cassidy-Heller includes provisions that would raise premiums up to 20 percent in the first year.

63,968 Nevadans Who Receive Marketplace Tax Credits Could Pay More. Because the Graham-Cassidy-Heller bill eliminates block grant funding in 2027 with no guarantee of any other funding to take its place, that means there would be no funding Marketplace tax credits that help people pay for their premiums, which currently benefits 63,968 Nevadans.

Graham-Cassidy-Heller Would Raise Costs For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. Graham-Cassidy-Heller would allow states to let insurance companies once again charge people with pre-existing conditions more, which could raise costs for up to 1,215,300 Nevadans that have a pre-existing condition. For example, an individual with asthma would face a premium surcharge of $4,340. The surcharge for pregnancy would be $17,320, while it would be $142,650 more for patients with metastatic cancer.

242,000 Nevadans Could See Lifetime And Annual Limits Again. Allowing states to opt out of the Essential Health Benefits coverage means that insurance companies could once again put lifetime and annual limits on the amount of care you receive, even impacting people with coverage from their employer. Up to 242,000 Nevadans with employer-sponsored coverage would lose these protections.

Graham-Cassidy-Heller Could Lead to An Age Tax, Meaning 60 Year Old Nevadans Could Pay Up To $16,458 More. The Graham-Cassidy-Heller bill would allow states to let insurers charge people over 50 high premiums without limits. The AARP said, “The Graham/Cassidy/Heller/Johnson bill would result in an age tax for older Americans who would see their health care costs increase under this bill.” AARP estimates that 60-year-old Nevadans could pay as much as a $16,458 more in higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs in 2020.

Millions of Women Could Face Higher Costs or Lose Access to Care. Graham-Cassidy-Heller would end Medicaid expansion, which has allowed 3.9 million women to gain access to care. It would end provisions that helped lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for 9 million women. Graham-Cassidy-Heller slashes Medicaid, on which one in five women of reproductive age rely. The bill would defund Planned Parenthood and would allow states to let insurers forgo maternity coverage.

Dean Heller’s Repeal-and-Sabotage Votes:

2010: Heller Voted Against Passage Of The ACA. As a member of the House, Heller voted against initial passage of the Affordable Care Act.   [HR 3590, Roll Call Vote #165, 3/21/10]

2015: Heller Voted To Repeal Most Of The ACA.  Heller voted for legislation that gutted the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the insurance exchanges and subsidies, and repealing the Medicaid expansion accepted by 30 states, including Nevada.  [HR 3762, Roll Call Vote #114, 12/3/15]

2017: Heller Voted For “Skinny Repeal” Of The ACA. Dean Heller voted for “Skinny Repeal” of the ACA, which repealed the individual mandate and delayed the employer mandate while leaving most of the rest of the law in place.  [HR 1628, Roll Call Vote #179, 7/28/17]

According To  CBO, Skinny Repeal Would Have Resulted In The Largest Coverage Loss in American History:

    • At minimum, 15 million Americans would lose coverage in 2018.  This would have been the biggest one-year increase in our nation’s history.
    • Premiums would go up by roughly 20 percent.

2017: Heller Voted for the Republican Tax Bill That Hurts Nevadans Health and Gives Tax Breaks to Giant Insurance Companies and Drug Companies

  • Tax Bill Means Higher Costs, Especially for Older Nevadans. One estimate shows in Nevada alone, family premiums in the marketplace will increase on average by $1,730 in 2019. The AARP estimates a 64-year-old Nevadan will have to pay $1,286 more in premiums because of health repeal, essentially an age tax for people over 50.
  • Tax Bill Hurts Rural Nevadans Health Care. An LA Times analysis found that the health repeal provision in the Senate Republican tax scheme would “derail insurance markets in conservative, rural swaths of the country…That could leave consumers in these regions — including most or all of Alaska, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as parts of many other states — with either no options for coverage or health plans that are prohibitively expensive.”
  • 112,000 Nevadans Could Lose Coverage. As a result of the tax bill, an estimated 112,000 Nevadans will lose coverage by 2025.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

protectourcare
In News, Capitol Hill

Advocates, Elected Officials Fight Trump’s Junk Plans on All Fronts

New Lawsuit Filed by Health Care Organizations Seeks to Invalidate Trump’s Harmful Junk Plan Rule

New House Resolution, Mirroring One in the Senate, Would Override The Trump Administration’s Rule To Stop Junk Plans

Washington, D.C. – On the heels of the Trump Administration expanding junk plans that can deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, that are not required to cover key benefits, such as cancer treatments and prescription drug coverage, and that can refuse to pay for costs after a person gets sick, health care advocates and Democrats in Congress are fighting back.

Today, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP), National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Mental Health America, American Psychiatric Association (APA), AIDS United, National Partnership for Women & Families, and Little Lobbyists filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to invalidate the Trump Administration’s short-term junk plan rule issued last month. This lawsuit comes just after Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D-FL-14) introduced a resolution that would override the Trump Administration’s rule to allow insurance companies to sell junk plans that charge people more money for less care. The Senate has a companion resolution that is awaiting any Republican support.

Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care issued the following statement in response to the multi-front fight against junk plans:

“The Trump Administration’s never-ending war on health care is not going unanswered. It is facing resistance on the Hill, resistance in the courts and — as poll after poll shows — resistance from the public. House and Senate Democrats have entered the arena to fight for hard-working Americans. Now, it’s time for Republicans to join them.”

House Republicans Who Claim to Support Pre-existing Conditions Protections Should Prove It and Join Castor’s Resolution:

Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ): “Rep. McSally Is Committed To Ensuring That Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions Have Access To Affordable Coverage Options And Cannot Be Denied Health Insurance.” “Rep. McSally is committed to ensuring that individuals with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable coverage options and cannot be denied health insurance. She will work to ensure the House reform package includes these protections.” [Tucson Weekly Dispatch, 3/1/17]

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL): “We’re Keeping The Things That Work, Like Guaranteed Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions.” “We’re keeping the things that work, like guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, allowing young people to remain on their parents’ plans until the age of 26, and prohibiting discrimination against women.” [Sunshine State News, 3/11/17]

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL): “We Also Need To Ensure That Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions Won’t Be Denied Coverage.” “We also need to ensure that patients with pre-existing conditions won’t be denied coverage and that those who rely on Medicaid have access to quality care.” [Palm Beach Post, 3/9/17]

Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME): Rep. Poliquin Would Only Support A Repeal Of The ACA If The Replacement Includes Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions.” “Poliquin would support a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but only if the alternative plan includes coverage for pre-existing conditions, allows young adults to remain on their parents’ plans until the age of 26, and doesn’t immediately end Obamacare exchange policies.” [WABI TV5, 1/24/17]

Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN): “Rep. [Erik] Paulsen has long supported protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and he continues to do so,” a spokesman for Paulsen, the Republican representing Minnesota’s Third Congressional District, said in a statement. [Star Tribune, 6/23/18]

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX): “Health Care Should Be Accessible For All, Regardless Of Pre-Existing Conditions Or Past Illnesses.” [Rep. Culberson Website Content Current as of 4/20/17]

Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA): Rep. Brat Stresses Care Would Continue For Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.” “He calmed nerves, for some, by stressing care would continue for those with preexisting conditions.” [CBS WTVR 6 News, 2/21/17]

Rep. Scott Taylor (R-VA): “We Will Protect Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.” “We will protect those with preexisting conditions, we will work help those who can’t help themselves, work to get more access and more people covered.” [Republican Party of Virginia, 3/10/17]

 

protectourcare
In News, Capitol Hill

Protect Our Care Calls on Senate Republicans to Support Sen. Baldwin’s Resolution and Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

Resolution’s Passage Would Stop Junk Plans and Protect Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions

Washington, D.C. – Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has garnered enough support to force a vote on her resolution to block insurers from selling the Trump Administration’s short-term, junk insurance plans, with 45 Senators signing onto the bill. Now, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, calls on the full Senate to support and pass this bill, which is supported by over a dozen health care and patient advocacy groups.:

“By gathering enormous support for this resolution, Senator Baldwin and her colleagues are once again showing the American people who is fighting for them. Now it’s time for Senate Republicans who all of the sudden claim to be protectors of people with pre-existing conditions to put up or shut up. If the GOP truly cared about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions, they would join their colleagues on this resolution in taking concrete action to preserve the protections and essential health benefits that tens of millions of Americans depend on — and they would do so immediately. Republicans’ silence on this resolution is complicity in Trump’s assault on people with pre-existing conditions through the promotion of junk insurance plans.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Right Now, The GOP is Actively Pushing A Bill to Weaken Pre-existing Conditions Protections

  • Twenty-eight Patient Groups – Including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, March of Dimes – Oppose the GOP Senate Bill. Writing in opposition to the bill, the groups explain, “it would not ban pre-existing condition exclusions and would remove rating restrictions based on age, gender, tobacco use, or occupation. This means that many individuals could still face higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs and, even if enrollees paid the increased premiums for many months, they could still be denied benefits because of a pre-existing condition. In short, this bill would not replace critical protections in current law.”
  • Americans Could Be On The Hook For Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars Should Existing Pre-Existing Conditions Laws Be Replaced With Those Proposed By Republicans. According to a report in Vox, “An easy illustration: CMS says that lung cancer costs roughly 12 times as much as the average premiums. So if the average premium is $1,000 per month, then lung cancer treatment costs about $12,000 every month. Sickle-cell anemia is eight times the average premium. So is multiple sclerosis. Cystic fibrosis treatment is expected to cost $14,000 if the average premium is $1,000. Those numbers are hypothetical, to be clear, but you get the idea. Americans could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars if their health insurance no longer has to cover their preexisting conditions.”

GOP Senators Have Also Refused to Defend Pre-existing Conditions from the Trump-GOP Lawsuit

  • Not One GOP Senator Has Signed On To Sen. Manchin’s Resolution That Would Allow The Senate To Defend Pre-existing Condition Protections In Court. 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. Last month, Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to intervene in the lawsuit and defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Senator Collins refuses to support the resolution.

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.

ashoup
In News, Capitol Hill

Paul Ryan Latest Republican to Call for Return to Health Care Repeal

Last night, Paul Ryan became the latest Republican to call for a return to full health repeal:

Paul Ryan: Good reforms mean that we can better fulfill the mission of these important programs, health and retirement security, without bankrupting the country. And that’s why the kind of reforms we’ve been talking about I think are so necessary.

Jeff Mayers: Ok, but that would depend upon – I mean, the Senate didn’t even agree with you. That would depend on having broader control of Congress than you’ve had.

Ryan: We failed to pass our budget, our entitlement reform bill on health care by one vote in the Senate, that’s correct.

Mayers: So I guess what are the prospects of reigning that in, because –

Ryan: I think the election will have to determine that because, based upon our vote count in the Senate. We keep the House majority in the house, which I think we will, and then you have to have enough of a majority in the Senate to be able to pass heath care reform.

Mayers: But do people in Janesville, do people in Wisconsin – is that what they want? Do they really want their benefits taken away or curtailed?

Ryan: Did I say that?

Mayers: No, I know, but do they –

Ryan: I think they want to see an end to double-digit premium increases. I think they want to see that we have Medicare on a path to solvency. I don’t think they want to see 200 million people get added to Medicare to accelerate its bankruptcy, which is what a lot of people are running for, like Tammy and others. I think if you take a look at our proposals, they would have lowered health care premiums, it would have still protected pre-existing conditions, it would’ve done more to give people more choices.

As a reminder, the so-called American Health Care Act would have:

  • Raised Premiums By Double Digits. ​The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that a key part of the American Health Care Act, repealing the requirement that most people have health insurance and was enacted as part of the GOP tax bill, will premiums 10 percent next year.
  • Imposed An Age Tax – Older Americans Would Have Paid Nearly $12,000 More. ​The American Health Care Act would have imposed what the AARP calls an “age tax” on older Americans by cutting the amount of assistance older people receive and by allowing insurers to charge people over 50 fives times more. Nationally, out-of-pocket costs for older people could have increased by as much as $11,917 by 2026.
  • Increased Premiums for People With Pre-Existing Conditions by Up to $150,000. ​The American Health Care Act would have allowed states to eliminate community rating, meaning insurers would be able to charge people with pre-existing conditions more. This surcharge could have been 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.
  • 23 Million Americans Would Have Lost Coverage. ​By 2026, 23 million U.S. residents would have lost coverage under this bill.
protectourcare
In News, Administration, Capitol Hill

New Census Report: Trump-GOP Halts Progress of Improved Health Coverage

Things Will Go From Bad to Worse as Trump-GOP Doubles Down on Its Repeal-and-Sabotage Agenda

Washington, D.C. – The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans have remained consistent in their crusade against access to affordable health care, and the latest Census data confirms that after annual declines between 2013 and 2016, it has stopped hard-won progress in reducing the number of uninsured Americans in its tracks. And with GOP House Whip Steve Scalise today joining Vice President Mike Pence and Congressional Republicans in pledging to bring health care repeal back for a vote the minute they get a chance, it’s clear that Trump-GOP sabotage will only continue to wreak havoc on seniors, children, people with disabilities, women and working families across America.

Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response:

“Make no mistake, the Trump Administration and GOP have actively tried to rip health coverage away from millions of Americans and his alarming data will only get worse over time.  Republicans sabotaged open enrollment, created chaos in the insurance markets, and raised health care costs for millions.and pledge to continue to take health care away from millions moving forward. As long as the Trump-GOP war on health care continues, the American people will once again be left to suffer.”

protectourcare
In Administration, Capitol Hill

Shot/Chaser: Senator Collins’ Deciding Vote For The GOP Tax Bill Could Mean End of Protections for People with Pre-Existing Conditions

“If the Republicans on this case succeed in taking health care away from millions of Americans, Susan Collins owns it,” said Leslie Dach, campaign chair of Protect Our Care.

SHOT: Sen. Collins and Republicans in Congress voted for a tax bill that opened the door for 20 Republican attorneys general and governors — all of them hellbent on overturning our health care — to use to the courts to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions in a lawsuit heard by conservative U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor yesterday.

  • Modern Healthcare: “O’Connor gave only cursory treatment to the baseline question of whether the individual mandate without an accompanying penalty could stand as constitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision to uphold the ACA through the mandate as a tax.”
  • Axios: “O’Connor even wondered if this might have been Republicans’ endgame all along — that they zeroed out the mandate penalty secure in the knowledge that it could reopen the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision upholding the mandate.”

CHASER: If Judge O’Connor rules in favor of the 20 Republican state officials, Sen. Collins and every House and Senate Republican who voted for the GOP tax bill will own the consequences to the American people. And those consequences are serious. Critical Affordable Care Act protections could vanish overnight, unleashing — as the Trump Administration itself admitted — “chaos” in our entire health care system.

  • 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, would be gone.
  • The Medicaid expansion, currently covering 15 million people, could vanish.
  • Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs, would be eliminated.
  • No longer would kids be allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26
  • Ban on annual and lifetime limits? Gone.
  • Ban on insurance discrimination against women and people over age 50? Nope.
  • Limits on out-of-pocket costs would be eliminated.
  • Small business tax credits would be gone.
  • Marketplace tax credits for up to 9 million people? Not anymore.

 

protectourcare
In News, Administration, Capitol Hill

Three Things Gov. Scott Refuses To Do To Protect People With Pre-Existing Conditions

Though Gov. Rick Scott has claimed he does “not agree with efforts to remove pre-existing conditions” and thinks it is “important to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions,” he has turned his back on Floridians at every opportunity to do so.]

 

  1. Gov. Scott has refused to oppose 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. Gov. Scott has refused to come out against the lawsuit or to call on Attorney General Pam Bondi to withdraw from the suit.
  2. Gov. Scott refuses to take action at the state level to protect against the Trump administration’s junk plan rule that lets insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. In August, the Trump Administration finalized a rule that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Experts warn that this move 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. Several states, including Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, Illinois, Washington, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon have proposed or finalized rules that protect consumers against junk plans. Gov. Scott refuses to make similar protections.
  3. He has also refused to come out against Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. As cases to overturn the Affordable Care Act make their way through the courts, Gov. Scott still has not come out against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the court. Instead, he 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.

 

BONUS: He also helped design Republican repeal efforts that would jeopardize protections for 7.8 million Floridians. Gov. Scott was an advisor to the Trump Administration on plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and continued to push for its repeal even after it failed in the Senate. A full repeal of the ACA would eliminate protections that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more if someone has a pre-existing condition.

ashoup
In News, Capitol Hill

Health Care Advocates Travel to D.C. to Urge Rejection of Brett Kavanaugh

Advocates from Arizona, Nevada, and Tennessee Discuss Looming Threats to Health Care

Washington, D.C. – Today, health care advocates from Arizona, Nevada, and Tennessee arrived in Washington, D.C., urging the Senate to reject the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Cancer survivors Jeff Jeans of Arizona and Joseph Merlino of Nevada, and Air Force Veteran Kelly Gregory of Tennessee, currently battling terminal breast cancer, visited Capitol Hill, met with senators, and attended the nomination hearing, to discuss the threat Judge Kavanaugh represents to their health health care and that of millions of Americans.

“This judge literally has the power to take us backward in time to the days when people like me were priced out of insurance because of our medical history,” said Gregory, an Air Force veteran from Tennessee currently battling stage four breast cancer, who was mentioned by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) during today’s confirmation hearing. “Let me be be the last person to die because of a lack of access to health care.”

Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated a vocal hostility to health care. Just last year he criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. He has been consistently hostile towards women’s health, previously arguing that employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control and attempting to force a young woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. And he was approved by the Federalist Society, which has been advocating against the ACA since before it was signed into law.

“As I fought a rare throat cancer, I relied on coverage that I got through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid. If it weren’t for that, I surely wouldn’t be here right now,” said Joseph Merlino, a survivor of cancer in his larynx, who met with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) this afternoon and urged her to reject the nomination. “Brett Kavanaugh’s hostility towards the ACA and Medicaid is a direct threat to millions of Americans like me who rely on it.”

Tomorrow, oral arguments begin in Texas v. United States, a lawsuit attempting to overturn the benefits provided by the ACA, including those for Americans with pre-existing conditions, brought by 20 Republican state Attorneys General and governors and backed by the Trump Administration in an unprecedented move. While these Republicans spend the afternoon arguing to strip the protections relied on by 130 million Americans, these health care advocates will be meeting with lawmakers, speaking at rallies, and conducting interviews, all to urge Senators to protect Americans’ care and reject Kavanaugh’s nomination.

“I was a Republican who was against the ACA. It took cancer and my having to face my own death to bring compassion for others into my heart, and to understand why the ACA was needed,” said Jeff Jeans of Arizona. “I implore all Senators to find in them the compassion and courage that my former Senator John McCain had and use the power we’ve entrusted to them to fight back against any attempt to take away our health care.”

ashoup
In News, Capitol Hill

Protect Our Care On PhRMA Lobbyist Jon Kyl Finishing Senator John McCain’s Term

“Now We Will Have Yet Another Senator Whose Priorities Lie with Big Insurance and Drug Companies,” says Brad Woodhouse

Washington, D.C. – Following the announcement that Arizona Governor Doug Ducey will name former Senator and current Big Pharma lobbyist Jon Kyl to fill the remainder of Sen. John McCain’s term, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, released the following statement:

“By naming a Big Pharma lobbyist who repeatedly voted against the Affordable Care Act and has continued to call for its repeal to serve the remainder of Sen. McCain’s term, Gov. Ducey has assured we will have yet another Senator whose priorities lie with insurance and drug companies, not the health and wellbeing of the American people.”

BACKGROUND:

Jon Kyl Infamously Opposed Requirements That Health Plans Cover Essential Benefits Like Maternity Care And Hospitalization — Saying “I Don’t Need Maternity Care.”

Jon Kyl Proposed An Amendment That Would Have Allowed Insurance Companies To Sell Plans Not Required To Cover Certain Benefits, Such As Prescription Drug Coverage, Hospitalization, And Maternity Care. “By a vote of 14 to 9, the committee rejected an amendment by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, that would have prohibited the federal government from defining the specific health benefits that insurers must offer. The government would prescribe a minimum package of benefits under all health bills pending in Congress.” [New York Times, 9/26/09]

Jon Kyl: “I Don’t Need Maternity Care.” “Mr. Kyl said that federal benefit mandates would increase the cost of insurance. Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said such requirements were needed because many insurance policies did not cover important services like maternity care. Mr. Kyl insisted, ‘I don’t need maternity care.’ But Ms. Stabenow said, ‘Your mom probably did.’” [New York Times, 9/26/09]

The Affordable Care Act made comprehensive coverage more available by requiring insurance companies to include “essential health benefits” in their plans, such as maternity care, hospitalization, substance abuse care and prescription drug coverage. Before the ACA, people had to pay extra for separate coverage for these benefits. For example, in 2013, 75 percent of non-group plans did not cover maternity care, 45 percent did not cover substance abuse disorder services, and 38 percent did not cover mental health services. Six percent did not even cover generic drugs. If Jon Kyl had his way, insurance companies would once again be able to refuse coverage for these key health services.

Kyl Strongly Opposed The Affordable Care Act And Called For Its Repeal

HEADLINE:  “Kyl: Health Bill A ‘Stunning Assault On Liberty.’” [The Hill, 9/22/09]

Following The Supreme Court’s Decision Finding The Affordable Care Act Constitutional, Kyl Called On The American People To “Overturn The Law By The Choices They Make In November’s Election.” “Because the Supreme Court did not strike down the most onerous provisions, it appears that the American people themselves will have to overturn the law by the choices they make in November’s election.” [Arizona Daily Star, 6/29/12]

Without the ACA, what would disappear?

    • Protections for 130 million Americans 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
    • Medicaid expansion currently covering 15 million people
    • Rules to hold insurance companies accountable
    • Small business tax credits
    • Marketplace tax credits and coverage for up to 8.7 million people nationally, including 121,000 Arizonans.

Jon Kyl Is A Major Pharmaceutical Lobbyist

PhRMA Has Paid Jon Kyl’s Lobbying Firm, Covington & Burling, More Than Any Other Lobby Shop. “Since 1998, pharmaceutical companies have paid Covington & Burling roughly $19 million to lobby on their behalf, making the industry Covington & Burling’s second-largest customer, according to a Tarbell analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Pharmaceutical companies have paid the firm more than oil and gas, finance and insurance companies combined. And since Kyl arrived, the pharmaceutical industry has accounted for a greater share of Covington & Burling’s lobbying, Tarbell’s analysis shows. In the past three years, PhRMA itself has paid Covington & Burling nearly $3 million — more than it has paid any other lobby shop.” [Tarbell, 11/14/17]

Major pharmaceutical companies have reaped benefits from Republican policy. Here’s how:

Pharmaceutical Companies Have The Highest Profits In The Health Industry. With earnings from only 85 of 118 health care companies announced, profit is already higher for Q2 than it has been for any quarter in the past year. So far, health companies have announced $47 billion in global profit, with pharmaceutical companies making the highest profit margins. Why the sudden growth? In large part, because of Republican corporate tax breaks.

Republican Tax Cut Fueling Pharmaceutical Profits. As Axios reports: “But the larger earnings also stemmed from Republicans’ massive cut in corporate taxes. The income tax expense for drug giant AbbVie, for example, was 93% lower in the second quarter of this year compared to the same period last year.”

At The Same Time, Pharmaceutical Companies Also Reaping Profits By Charging Higher Prices. Between February 1st and July 15th, drug companies raised prices on 255 drugs. As Bloomberg notes, “For all..categories of drugs, list prices rose far faster than inflation. Prices for 10 commonly used diabetes drugs rose 25.6 percent, on average, while average prices for rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune treatments rose 40.1 percent.” To learn more the high costs of drug prices, check out a handy explainer video from the Center for American Progress.

ashoup
In Capitol Hill, News

FRAUD ALERT: New GOP Proposal Falsely Claims to Protect People With Pre-Existing Conditions

Last week, 10 Senate Republicans falsely claimed they had a new bill that would ensure protections for people with pre-existing conditions in the Affordable Care Act survive a Trump-GOP lawsuit to dismantle them.

In reality, the bill doesn’t. In fact, it says that if you have a pre-existing condition like cancer, asthma, or diabetes, insurance companies can specifically refuse to cover the health care you need. As The Hill points out, “[…]the bill would allow insurers to exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions. Premiums could also vary based on age, gender, or occupation — all of which is currently prohibited under [the ACA].”

Policy Experts Agree the New GOP Bill — Drafted by Three Chief Architects of Senate Repeal (Senators Cassidy, Graham, and Heller) — Will Not Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions:

Larry Levitt, Kaiser Family Foundation: Bill “A Mirage.” “‘If the goal is to protect people with pre-existing conditions, the bill is a bit of a mirage,’ said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care research group… Under the bill, insurers could not decline coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, Levitt said, but it would allow insurers to exclude coverage for anything related to those conditions. ‘You don’t have to be real creative to imagine how this might work. These pre-existing condition exclusions were typical before the ACA.’” [Charlotte News & Observer, 8/24]

Aisling McDonough, Senate Health Policy Adviser: “Let’s Say You Have Cancer. Under This Bill, You Can Buy Health Insurance, But That Plan Doesn’t Have To Cover Your Treatment.” [Twitter, 8/24]

Levitt: “The Big Loophole Is That It Would Allow Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions.” “‘It prohibits individual premiums from varying based on health, but allows them to vary based on age, gender, occupation, and leisure activities. It would allow premium variation based on health in the small business market,” Levitt said in an e-mail. ‘The big loophole is that it would allow pre-existing condition exclusions, which were common in individual market plans before the ACA. An insurer would have to give you insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, but it could exclude any services associated with your pre-existing condition,’ he said. ‘This would make protections for people with pre-existing conditions a bit of a mirage.’” [Insurance Journal, 8/27]

Levitt: Even Prescription Drug Coverage Could Be Denied. “Under the measure, insurers would still be able to refuse to cover certain services or prescription drugs for patients with pre-existing conditions, said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president for health reform at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.” [Roll Call, 8/24]

Chris Sloan, Avalere Health: Bill Allows Insurance Companies To “Effectively Discriminate.” “Really this just prevents insurance companies from saying ‘no you can’t buy this coverage’ but this allows the opportunity to say no through price or through benefits… You can make a product so expensive based on medical history, based on gender, based on age, or based on not covering something that someone needs that they can’t afford — then you’ve effectively discriminated against them.” [ThinkProgress, 8/24]

So, Let’s Call This Bill What It Is:

“A mirage,” says Larry Levitt with the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“An election season scam,” says Protect Our Care.

“Shameful,” says Health Care For America Now.

“A fraud,” writes Jeffrey Young for the Huffington Post.

Instead of Pushing Scam Bills, Senators Could Actually Support People with Pre-existing Conditions By Doing the Following:

  1. Support the Senate Democrats’ resolution that would allow the Senate to defend pre-existing condition protections in court. 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. Last month, Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to intervene in the lawsuit and defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
  2. Join the Senate Democrats’ effort to overturn Trump administration’s junk plan rule that lets insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration finalized a rule that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Experts warn that this move 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. Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would overturn Trump’s rule.
  3. Oppose Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. As cases to overturn the Affordable Care Act make their way through the courts, Senators should come out against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the court, since he has previously criticized Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
Close Menu