Health Care Archives — Page 3 of 11

protectourcare In Capitol Hill, Administration

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 Capitol Hill, News

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.

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.

Sean England In News

POLL: Voters Strongly Support Medicaid, Oppose Any Cuts

To: Interested Parties

From: Jim Williams, Public Policy Polling

Subject: Voters Strongly Support Medicaid, Oppose Any Cuts

Date: 4-24-18

A new national Public Policy Polling survey finds that voters nationally strongly support Medicaid and are opposed to cutting it, especially to fund tax breaks. 66% of voters oppose cutting Medicaid, as opposed to just 19% who support cuts.

74% of Democrats and Independents oppose cutting Medicaid, while a plurality of Republicans, 49%, also oppose cuts.
Only 34% of Republicans support cutting Medicaid.

71% of voters overall say they are opposed to cutting Medicaid to fund the Republican tax plan passed last year – including 82% of Democrats, 70% of Independents and 60% of Republicans. Rather than cut Medicaid, a majority of voters (52%) want to see it expanded, compared to just 35% who don’t.

Learning that Medicaid covers 6 in 10 nursing home residents, and 40 percent of costs for long-term care that seniors depend on, made voters 63% less likely to support cuts.
Voters were 53% less likely to support cuts after learning that if Medicaid funding is cut, 1 in 5 Americans—seniors, children, and individuals with disabilities—will be at risk of losing access to healthcare.

When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, 66% say they want to keep what works about the law and fix what doesn’t, while just 29% say they want to repeal it and start over with a new healthcare law. 82% of Democrats and 68% of Independents want to keep and fix the law and , 44% of Republicans want to keep what works about the ACA.

Public Policy Polling interviewed 741 national registered voters on April 18-19, 2018. The margin of error for the survey is +/-2.1%. This survey was conducted using automated telephone interviews. The poll was conducted jointly for Protect our Care and SEIU.

ashoup In Capitol Hill, Administration, News

New KFF Poll Confirms Hidden Cost of Sabotage

Anxiety About Health Care Mounts Due to Destructive Republican Rhetoric

Washington, DC – After new polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation confirmed Americans’ mounting anxiety about Republican health care sabotage, Protect Our Care Campaign Director Brad Woodhouse released the following statement:

“Despite everything Republicans have thrown at it, the Affordable Care Act still protects every single American with health insurance and connects millions of previously uninsured people with coverage – but you wouldn’t know it listening to Trump and Republicans in Congress. Republicans need to realize that misleading the public, sabotaging the law and spreading fear has real and damaging consequences. Whether you’re a person with a pre-existing condition or the parent of a sick kid, you deserve elected officials who make life easier, not scarier. The constant anxiety Americans now face is yet another hidden cost of Republicans’ relentless repeal-and-sabotage campaign against our health care.”

Key takeaways from the survey:

About half the public overall believes the ACA marketplaces are “collapsing,” including six in ten of those with coverage purchased through these marketplaces. This belief reflects the ongoing uncertainty caused by Republican sabotage and Trump’s divisive rhetoric, but contradicts what the President’s own economic advisors have confirmed about the stability and strength of the individual market.
Because of Republican sabotage, the number of people who are “very worried” or “somewhat worried” that rate hikes will make coverage unaffordable has skyrocketed to 67%, compared with 38% in October 2017.
- People are more worried about copays and deductibles – up from 42% to 69%.
- People are more worried that insurance companies will stop selling plans – up from 34% to 49%.
- People are more worried that there won’t be any plans in their area – up from 33% to 51%.
One-third (34 percent) of shoppers in the individual market say the individual mandate that Republicans repealed was a “major reason” why they chose to buy insurance, and one in ten say they will not buy coverage without it. Research indicates that those most likely to drop coverage are “young invincibles,” who balance the risk pool and act as a downward pressure on premiums. Because of Republicans’ individual mandate repeal, CBO forecasts that average premiums in the nongroup market will increase by 10% in most years of the coming decade.

ashoup In Administration, News

Health Care Remains Top Issue Heading Into Midterms

To: Interested Parties

From: Brad Woodhouse, Protect Our Care Campaign Director

Date: May 3, 2018

Re: Health Care Remains Top Issue Heading Into Midterms

Throughout the Trump presidency, one issue has consistently stood out as the top priority for voters, critical to how Americans will cast their ballots in the midterm elections: health care.

Health care is a top issue in nearly every major issue-ranked poll in 2018;
Voters overwhelmingly trust Democrats over Republicans on health care; and
Voters resoundingly reject President Trump and Congressional Republicans’ repeal-and-sabotage campaign against the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid.

These polls, conducted by nonpartisan news outlets and by research firms from a wide array of ideological backgrounds, have shown consistent results despite asking differently-framed questions amid a turbulent political landscape. Clearly, health care is a dominant issue that will remain potent through the midterm elections, and the consistent partisan trust divide indicates that it should be a major focus for Democratic candidates in virtually every race in the country.

HEALTH CARE REMAINS A TOP ISSUE FOR AMERICAN VOTERS

Throughout 2018, poll after poll has surveyed which issues are top-of-mind for voters and nearly every time health care has been at the top of the list.

For example, a February CNN poll found that health care was voters’ top priority. Among its findings:

83% of voters said health care was extremely important or very important, the highest among all issues.
53% of voters said health care was extremely important, the highest among all issues – a 20% increase from August of 2010, a year when health care played a major factor in midterm elections.
78% of independent voters said health care was important, tied with the economy as their top issue.
At least 70% of voters in every demographic category said health care was important – a trend that stretches across gender, age, income level, education level, ideology, and party affiliation.

These results were echoed by a March Pew Research Center survey, which found health care is the number-one pocketbook issue for Americans across all income brackets:

More than half of those surveyed said that health care affects their household’s financial situation “a lot,” the only issue which more than half of Americans rated a key economic issue.

Health care is “a top household financial issue” across all income levels, with 53% of those earning more than $100,000 and 52% of those earning $30,000 or less saying it has a large effect.

An April HuffPost/YouGov poll found that health care was a top issue for voters, with, 28% of those surveyed listing health care as their top the top issue, leaving the Huffington Post to conclude:

“Heading into the midterm elections, American voters are more likely to say they’re focused about health care than any other issue.”

A March Gallup survey asked Americans about the issues they are most worried about and, 78% of those surveyed named health care as a worry, more than any other issue, leading Newsweek to frame its coverage of the poll, “Health Care Is A Bigger Concern Than Terrorism”:

“Americans are more concerned about health care than they are about terrorism, according to a poll released on Monday. The Gallup survey rated health care as the top concern among Americans, with 55 percent of respondents noting they were “a great deal” concerned about the availability and affordability of health care. Twenty-three percent were “a fair amount” concerned about the topic. It is the fifth year running that health care has topped Gallup’s list of concerns for Americans. It’s the 13th time overall that the issue has been a top concern. Democrats were more concerned about health care than Republicans, although 39 percent of Republicans still expressed concerns about the issue.”

A survey leaked in March from America First Policies using President Trump’s own pollsters found that health care was the top issue for voters, with 41% saying lowering health care costs should be Congress’ top priority. On the other side of the spectrum, a February poll from Priorities USA also found that independent voters continue to hold major concerns about President Trump’s war on health care:

“Donald Trump’s policies are adding to the economic burdens of average families by raising the cost of health care and driving up insurance premiums. And Trump has broken his promise to crack down on excessive drug prices. Instead, he has given the big drug companies huge tax breaks while allowing them to charge as much as they want, without any controls or negotiation. 60% of voters have major concerns, including 71% among independents.”

HEALTH CARE IS DRIVING DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT

Health care is not just a top concern for voters – it’s also a deciding factor for voters, and drives widespread support of Democrats.

On March 13, voters in Pennsylvania’s eighteenth district went to the polls and selected Conor Lamb over pro-repeal candidate Rick Saccone in a district which had gone for Donald Trump by nearly twenty points. A telephone exit poll of those who cast ballots found that:

Health care was a top issue for voters, with 52% listing it as important and only 19% deeming it not important. Among voters who said health care was the most important issue, Lamb beat Saccone 64-36, and among voters who said it was either the most important or a very important issue, Lamb beat Saccone 62-38.
On health care, voters said Lamb better reflected their views by 7 points, 45-38. Among independents, that gap widened to 16 points, with 50% saying Lamb’s health care views were more in line with theirs to only 34% for Saccone.
Voters were less likely to support Saccone because of the Republican health care agenda. Saccone’s support of the Republican health care agenda made 41% of voters less likely to vote for him and only 28% more likely to support him.

On April 24, Hiral Tipirneni nearly upset Republican Debbie Lasko in Arizona’s eighth district, a “closer-than-expected” result in a district Donald Trump carried by 21 points. A telephone exit poll of those who cast ballots similarly found that:

Health care was a top issue to voters, and these voters favored Tipirneni. Health care was ranked as a top issue for 58% of voters, with only 17% saying it was not that important or not important at all. Among these voters, Tipirneni beat Lesko 65-33.
On health care, voters said Tipirneni better reflected their views. Overall, voters said Tipirneni better reflected their views by 2 points, 45-43, over Lesko. Among independents, the gap widened to 30 points, 57-27 in favor of saying Tipirneni.
Voters were less likely to support Lesko because of the Republican health care agenda. Lesko’s support of the Republican health care agenda made 40% of voters less likely to vote for her and only 33% more likely to support her.

These were not special occurrences, either. A March 21 PPP poll among voters in battleground states found voters supporting pro-health care candidates and rejecting those favoring repeal:

In Arizona, health care is a top issue for 68% of voters, with 21% saying it is the most important issue. In a hypothetical Senate election, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema leads pro-repeal candidate Martha McSally 46-41
In Nevada, health care is a top issue for 65% of voters, with 27% saying it is the most important issue. In a hypothetical Senate election, Democrat Jacky Rosen leads pro-repeal Dean Heller 44-39.
In Pennsylvania, health care is a top issue for 71% of voters, with 25% saying it is the most important issue. In a hypothetical Senate election, Democrat Bob Casey leads pro-repeal candidate Lou Barletta 54-36.
In Tennessee, health care is a top issue for 71% of voters, with 31% saying it is the most important issue. In a hypothetical Senate election, Democrat Phil Bredesen leads pro-repeal candidate Marsha Blackburn 46-41.
In Wisconsin, health care is a top issue for 72% of voters, with 25% saying it is the most important issue. In a hypothetical Senate election, Democrat Tammy Baldwin leads pro-repeal candidates Leah Vukmir and Kevin Nicholson 51-39 and 51-38, respectively.

And in November, in what analysts deemed the election most seen as a bellwether for the rest of the country, exit polling from Virginia, where Democrats had their best performance in decades, found health care to be far-and-away the most important issue:

Asked whether health care, immigration, gun policy, taxes, or abortion was the most decisive issue, 39% of voters said health care was the issue which mattered most.
Among those who selected health care, 77% backed Democrat Ralph Northam.

VOTERS REJECT THE REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE AGENDA

Ultimately, Americans don’t support or trust the GOP when it comes to health care.

A February PPP poll found Americans placing blame for rising health care costs on President Trump’s sabotage of the law. Among its findings:

Over half of voters know Republicans are sabotaging health care, with 51% stating that the Trump administration is actively taking steps that will raise people’s health care costs.
60% of voters want to keep the ACA in place and make fixes as necessary, with just 34% favoring repeal.

This rang true in Pennsylvania’s eighteenth district, with polling showing not just support for Conor Lamb based on his health care stance, but also a rejection of Rick Saccone for his pro-repeal views:

Voters in this heavily-Republican district disapproved of the Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act by 14 points, 53% to 39%.
59% of those surveyed said the Affordable Care Act should be kept in place with fixes made to it as necessary, while just 38% of those surveyed said the best path forward on health care was to repeal the ACA.
Among independent voters, the disparity is even wider, with 63% of independent voters opposing the GOP’s health care efforts and just 33% supporting them.

This was also the case in Arizona’s eighth district. Although Tipirneni was not able to pull off the upset, polling showed health care was a boost for her, and once again showed the ACA’s growing popularity:

Voters in this heavily Republican district disapproved of the Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act by 5 points (49% to 44%).
Only 41% of voters think the best path forward on health care is to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to 54% who think it should be kept in place with fixes made to it as necessary.

In fact, even the Trump-backed poll finds that voters don’t trust the GOP’s health care agenda. The America First Policies poll also found:

By 17 points, voters disapprove of Trump’s “handling of health care and health insurance” with only 38% approving (16% strongly) and 55% disapproving (44% strongly).
Among the 41% of voters who say lowering health care costs should be the top priority, 68% want Congress to either leave the Affordable Care Act as it is or work to fix it, with just 31% backing repeal.

And let’s not forget – in direct opposition of the Republican health care agenda, the popularity of the ACA continues to rise:

In the PPP poll, approval for the Affordable Care Act 12 was points above water, 47% approval to 35% disapproval, a dramatic reversal from trends before Trump took office.
In the PA-18 exit polling, a deeply-red district, 44% of voters supported for the ACA while just 42% opposed it.
And in the latest Kaiser tracking poll, 50% of voters expressed their support for the ACA to just 43% who disapproved, reflecting the long-term upward trend of support for the ACA that reached an all-time high in February at 54-42 approve/disapprove.

Ultimately, the message could not be more explicit: voters from all backgrounds and in states across the country are telling the GOP that enough is enough – it’s time for Republicans to end their war on health care and cease their repeal and sabotage agenda. As polls and election results have made clear, if Republicans continue their war on health care and Democrats call them on it, the opposition party will continue to widen its advantage in the midterm elections.

ashoup In Stories, News

Iowa Republicans Prioritize Insurance Company Profits Over Iowans’ Health

In response to Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signing legislation which allows for the sale of association health plans and ‘benefit plans’ which don’t meet Affordable Care Act requirements, Protect Our Care Chair Leslie Dach released the following statement:

“The legislation takes Iowa back to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions and refuse to cover essential health benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs, paving the way for even higher premiums and further market destabilization. This legislation will allow insurance companies to sell junk plans without proper oversight – precisely the kind of abuses the Affordable Care Act was designed to stop.”

BACKGROUND

Protect Our Care [3/30/18]: Association Health Plans Endanger Consumers

Washington Post [4/2/18]: Iowa tries another end run around the Affordable Care Act
As a growing number of Republican-led states look for end runs around the Affordable Care Act, Iowa is embracing a strategy that contends not all health plans are actually health insurance. Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) is scheduled Monday to sign into law a bill allowing the century-old Iowa Farm Bureau to collaborate with the state’s dominant insurer to sell “health benefit plans,” which are expected to cost health customers less than ACA coverage because they will not have to comply with federal requirements.

ashoup In News

Association Health Plans Endanger Consumers

NATIONALLY, ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS HAVE A HISTORY OF FRAUD AND UNPAID CLAIMS

Between 2000 and 2002, AHPs Left 200,000 Policyholders with $252 Million In Unpaid Medical Bills. “There have been several documented cycles of large-scale scams. According to the GAO, between 1988 and 1991, multiple employer entities left 400,000 people with medical bills exceeding $123 million. The most recent cycle was between 2000 and 2002, as 144 entities left 200,000 policyholders with $252 million in unpaid medical bills.” [United Hospital Fund, 3/6/18]

[GAO, February 2004]

Former Insurance Fraud Investigator: “Fraudulent Association Health Plans Have Left Hundreds Of Thousands Of People With Unpaid Claims.” “Marc I. Machiz, who investigated insurance fraud as a Labor Department lawyer for more than 20 years, said the executive order was ‘summoning back demons from the deep.’ ‘Fraudulent association health plans have left hundreds of thousands of people with unpaid claims,’ he said. ‘They operate in a regulatory never-never land between the Department of Labor and state insurance regulators.’” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

Dr. James Madara, CEO of the American Medical Association: Association Health Plans Have Potential To Threaten Health And Financial Stability. “Fraudsters prey upon areas of regulatory ambiguity and may challenge such authority in courts to further delay enforcement, which allows more time to increase unpaid medical claims…Without proper oversight to account for insolvency and fraud, AHPs have the potential to … (threaten) patients’ health and financial security and the financial stability of physician practices and other providers.” [Modern Healthcare, 3/7/18]

INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS AGREE THAT ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS ARE BAD FOR CONSUMERS

National Association of Insurance Commissioners: Association Health Plans Are Bad For Consumers. “AHPs would fragment and destabilize the small group market, resulting in higher premiums for many small businesses…AHPs would be exempt from state solvency requirements, patient protections, and oversight exposing consumers to significant harm.” [NAIC]

Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Concerned About Potential For Consumer Harm Under AHPs. “The proposed rule would also loosen existing commonality of interest requirements to allow associations to form simply based on membership in the same trade, industry or profession..If a self funded MEWA were permitted to form in a neighboring state and to sell to Pennsylvania association members under the metro area provision, Pennsylvania regulators would not have the ability to assist a Pennsylvania resident if problems arise with the other state’s association, including claim denials, or, worse yet, in the event of insolvency or fraud.” [PA Insurance Commissioner Jessica Altman, 3/6/18]

California Insurance Commissioner: “The Proposed Rule Is A Perfect Storm Of Bad Ideas.” “The AHPs proposed by this rule will harm consumers by degrading the individual and small group health insurance markets through adverse selection, and will impinge upon states’ rights while opening the door to fraud, insolvency and abuse…The proposed rule in no way limits the ability of states to regulate MEWAs, insurers offering coverage through MEWAs, and insurance producers marketing that coverage to employers. However, the checkered history of MEWAs instructs that unscrupulous actors will try and exploit any change which can be mischaracterized as constituting ERISA preemption.” [CA Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, 3/6/18]

PATIENT GROUPS, HOSPITALS, AND KEY HEALTH STAKEHOLDERS CONDEMN AHPs

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: “We Are Also Concerned About The Proliferation Of AHPs Because Of Their History Of Fraud And Financial Instability.” “For a long time, these products were not traditionally subject to the same state insurance solvency and licensing requirements that allowed regulators to maintain necessary oversight.5 If an AHP lacked the financial resources to pay claims, then enrollees were left with no coverage and high out-of-pocket costs. Even in cases of well-meaning AHP sponsors, insolvencies led to millions of dollars in unpaid claims.” [ACS-CAN, 3/6/18]

American Hospital Association: AHPs “Ultimately Decreas[e] Access To Affordable Coverage.” “We are concerned that this rule fails to protect against discriminatory insurance practices and could contribute to instability in the individual and small group market, ultimately decreasing access to affordable coverage.” [American Hospital Association, 3/6/18]

Coalition Of 118 Patient And Community Organizations Urges Department Of Labor To Reconsider AHPs. “We believe that the proposed changes would negatively impact access to quality, affordable care for consumers, disrupt the individual and small business marketplace, and further strain the limited resources of state regulators…The intent of the President’s executive order was to increase consumer choice while curbing costs, however we believe that AHPs as proposed would invariably weaken the individual and small group markets leading to higher healthcare costs for all; higher premiums for those who stay in the marketplace, and high out of-pocket costs for those who are covered by AHPs for unexpected medical needs.” [Coalition Of 118 Patient And Community Organizations, 3/6/18]

AHPs ARE HOTSPOTS FOR FRAUD IN STATES:

Florida

A Labor Department Lawsuit Revealed An AHP Had Concealed Financial Problems And Left $3.6 Million In Unpaid Claims. “The Labor Department filed suit last year against a Florida woman and her company to recover $1.2 million that it said had been improperly diverted from a health plan serving dozens of employers. The defendants concealed the plan’s financial problems from plan participants and left more than $3.6 million in unpaid claims, the department said in court papers.” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

In Florida, A Man Pleaded Guilty To Embezzling $700,000 In Premiums From the AHP He Ran in 2004 To Help Build A Home For Himself And Was Sentenced To 57 Months In Prison. “A Florida man was sentenced to 57 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to embezzling about $700,000 in premiums from a health plan that he had marketed to small businesses. The Labor Department and the Justice Department said he had used some of the plan premiums to build a home for himself.” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

In 2004, A Florida Woman Was Left With $500,000 In Unpaid Medical Bills While She Was Covered By Association Health Plan. “Joan Piantadosi, a small business owner bought health insurance from Employers Mutual LLC through an association for herself, her family, and her employees. She was left with more than $500,000 in unpaid medical bills for her husband’s treatment during the time she was covered by Employers Mutual LLC. On top of that, her husband needed a liver transplant to live. In her own words, “[W]e were informed that since we lacked insurance coverage, we would have to pay a deposit of $150,000 before my husband could enter the hospital’s Liver Transplant Inpatient program. We simply did not have $150,000 to cover the deposit. Consequently, my husband was removed from the recipient list…We feared, among other things, that my husband might die while we were attempting to deal with the predicament of being uninsured despite having paid premiums to what appeared to be a legitimate health insurer.” [United Hospital Fund, 3/6/18]

Louisiana

In Louisiana, Two People Pleaded Guilty To Using Money From The AHP For Spa Treatments, Diamond Cuff Links, Foreign Travel And Other Personal Expenses. “And in Louisiana, two people pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges after the government found that they had taken money from the medical benefit fund of a trade association and used it to pay for spa treatments, diamond cuff links, evening gowns, foreign travel and other personal expenses.” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

Texas

In Texas, Patients Thought They Were Insured Until Told Otherwise In A Moment Of Crisis. “Robert Loiseau, who represented fraud victims in Texas, recalled their shock when they tried to receive care. ‘People bought insurance coverage because it was cheap and seemed to provide them with coverage they needed,’ he said. ‘It had a veneer of legitimacy. But when they went to the doctor, they found out all of a sudden that their insurance company, their perceived insurance company, was in receivership and that they had no coverage.’” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

Between 2001 And 2003, Texas Shut Down 129 Unauthorized Insurance Operations. “In the last two years, the Texas Insurance Department shut down 129 unauthorized insurance companies, affiliates, operators, and their agents whose illegal actions affected more than 20,000 Texans.” [The Commonwealth Fund, August 2003]

New Jersey

In 2002, An AHP Became Insolvent With $15 Million In Outstanding Claims. “For example, when a long-standing AHP in New Jersey that covered 20,000 people became insolvent in 2002, it had $15 million in outstanding medical bills. This left participating businesses and their employees’ claims unpaid even though employers paid premiums to the AHP.” [Commonwealth Fund, 10/10/17]

A Health Plan For New Jersey Small Businesses Collapsed With $7 Million In Unpaid Claims. “In another case, a federal appeals court found that a health plan for small businesses in New Jersey was ‘aggressively marketed but inadequately funded.’ The plan collapsed with more than $7 million in unpaid claims.” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

South Carolina

In South Carolina, A Man Pleaded Guilty To Diverting Nearly $1 Million From An AHP For Churches And Small Businesses, Leaving $1.7 Million In Unpaid Claims. “A South Carolina man pleaded guilty after the government found that he had diverted more than $970,000 in insurance premiums from a health plan for churches and small businesses. ‘His embezzlement and the plan’s consequent failure left behind approximately $1.7 million in unpaid medical claims,’ the Labor Department said.” [New York Times, 10/21/17]

Across State Lines: North Carolina, Maryland, And Beyond

One AHP Scheme Shows How AHPs Can Move From State To State. Families USA chronicled an AHP scheme involving the American Trade Association, Smart Data Solutions, and Serve America Assurance. They found:

“Even after one state identifies a problem, the company may continue to operate for years in other states. North Carolina issued a cease and desist order to stop many of the players in this case from selling insurance in 2008.”
“But by June 2010, when Maryland issued a cease and desist order, the plans sold by these players had been identified in at least 23 states. Estimates of total premiums paid to these companies for unauthorized, unlicensed plans range from $14 million to $100 million.”
“This particular scheme operated through associations that went by many different names. (At least one of the players in this case was involved in a previous case concerned with fraudulent insurance sold through an association of employers in 2001-2002.)”
“Consumers are often ill-protected when they buy coverage through an association, and the web of relationships among salespeople, associations, administrators, and actual insurers can be difficult for regulators to unravel and oversee. Consumers may be encouraged to join fake associations to buy health insurance so they have an illusion of coverage—and the insurers collect membership dues and premiums while illegally avoiding state oversight).” [Families USA, October 2010]

GAO Report In 1992 Showed Similar AHPs Left At Least 398,000 Participants With More Than $123 Million In Unpaid Claims And More Than 600 Plans In Almost Every State Failed To Comply With State Laws. “Back in 1992, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report on these multiple employer welfare arrangements (known as MEWAs; they’re pronounced “mee-wahs”) in which small businesses could pool funds to get the lower-cost insurance typically available only to large employers. These MEWAs, said the government, left at least 398,000 participants and their beneficiaries with more than $123 million in unpaid claims between January 1988 and June 1991. Furthermore, states reported massive and widespread problems with MEWAs. More than 600 plans in nearly every U.S. state failed to comply with insurance laws. Thirty-three states said enrollees were sometimes left without health coverage when MEWAs disbanded…’MEWAs have proven to be a source of regulatory confusion, enforcement problems and, in some instances, fraud,’ the GAO wrote at the time.” [Washington Post, 10/12/17]

ashoup In Administration, News

AARP Study: Trump’s Junk Plan Rule Punishes Older Americans

60-year-olds set to pay $2000 more in premiums next year after latest Trump sabotage

According to a new study by the AARP, the Trump Administration’s plot to let insurance companies sell junk plans would cause premiums for older Americans to jump by double digits next year, with the average 60-year-old paying an average of 16.6% more for individual-market coverage. In response, Protect Our Care Campaign Director Brad Woodhouse released the following statement:

“Too many older Americans are already getting squeezed, and now a new AARP study proves that Trump’s new junk health insurance proposal would not only hurt those stuck with junk coverage, but would also drive up costs for people over age 50 who buy real insurance. If the Trump Administration’s junk plan proposal moves forward, older Americans will face an eye-popping average increase of over $2000 in annual premiums next year. This latest attack in the Trump Administration’s health care sabotage campaign must be stopped before it drives rates even higher, leaving older Americans struggling to pay the price.”

STATE-BY-STATE AARP ESTIMATES