Skip to main content
Tag

Pre-existing Conditions

Here We Go Again: Mike Braun Rewriting His Own History During Senate Debate

Washington, DC – Last night, Mike Braun continued his desperate attempt to convince Hoosiers that he would defend protections for people with pre-existing during his debate against Senator Joe Donnelly, a true leader who has worked tirelessly to protect health care for all Americans. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to Bruan’s claims, which were called out by AP factcheckers during debate:

 

“Once again, Mike Braun isn’t being honest with the people of Indiana, who want their leaders to protect health care. Braun ought to get four-pinocchios everytime he mentions keeping protections for people with pre-existing conditions since he has consistently tried to gut protections for people with conditions like cancer, diabetes or heart disease. Let’s be clear, the facts are the facts. Braun has one goal and one goal only — to end health care for all Hoosiers, no matter the cost.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

 

What Braun Said:

“I would never be for any replacement of the Affordable Care Act unless it covered pre-existing conditions.” [AP, 10/9/2018]

 

What Braun Has Done:

Braun Is Campaigning On The Repeal Of The Affordable Care Act. On the subject of the ACA, his website reads, “There is no repairing this broken law; the only option is to repeal and replace every word and regulation.” [Braun For Indiana, Accessed 8/14/18]

 

  • Braun: “We Must Repeal Obamacare, Not Repair It.”  “Government is not the driver of new job creation or economic prosperity. And too often it gets in the way with onerous regulations and sky-high taxes. President Trump’s work to remove burdensome red tape and lower taxes for families and businesses are a start, but now is the time to double down on empowering the private sector and job creators. We need a tax code that is simple and fair. We must repeal Obamacare, not repair it, to rein in costs and expand healthcare options.” [Braun for Indiana, accessed 5/15/18]

 

Braun, June 2018: I Will “Fully Repeal” Obamacare. “In the Senate, I will use my business experience and work with President Trump to fully repeal Obamacare and implement free-market solutions that will provide better healthcare for Hoosiers.” [City-County Observer, 7/26/18]

 

May 2018: The Tea Party Has Endorsed Braun, In Part Because He Supports “Repealing Obamacare.” “Our supporters were proud to endorse Mike, because he is a strong supporter of the Penny Plan, term limits, repealing Obamacare.” [Tea Party, 5/9/18]

 

Mike Braun Supports The GOP Lawsuit to Eliminate Pre-existing Conditions Protections:  “Sure, Anything That’s Going To Actually Get Rid Of It, Yes.” “‘Sure, anything that’s going to actually get rid of it, yes,’ said Indiana GOP Senate nominee Mike Braun of the GOP lawsuit to gut the law in an interview in Mishawaka. ‘And then be ready to come back and talk about what you’re ready to do about pre-existing conditions and no limits on coverage. That’s where you don’t hear much conservative talk.'” [Politico, 8/17/18]

  • 2,745,700 Hoosiers Live With A Pre-Existing Condition. About one in two Hoosiers, 50 percent, lives with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

 

  • 1,382,000 Indiana Women And Girls Have A Pre-Existing Condition. Approximately 1,382,000 women and girls in Indiana live with a pre-existing condition. [CAP & National Partnership For Women and Families, June 2018]

 

  • 377,100 Indiana Children Already Have A Pre-Existing Condition. Roughly 377,000 Hoosiers below age 18 live with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

 

  • 643,800 Older Hoosiers Live With A Pre-Existing Condition. 643,800 Indiana adults between the ages of 55 and 64 live with at least one pre-existing condition, meaning attacks on these protections significantly threaten Hoosiers approaching Medicare age. [CAP, 4/5/17]

 

 

House Republicans Scramble To Rewrite History On Pre-existing Conditions

Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to Republicans desperate attempt to disown their war on health care:

“Republicans are getting clobbered because of their constant attacks on people with pre-existing conditions like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. But in order to survive the midterms, Republicans are trying to rewrite history as if their repeal and sabotage agenda never existed. These phony attempts prove that Republicans know the deficit they’ve created for themselves on health care is too steep to climb. Let’s not forget, these are the same people who tried to slash coverage for millions of Americans and gut all protections for pre-existing conditions. We all know Republicans are no defenders of health care and the American people aren’t going to let them flip the script.”

Republicans are scrambling to rewrite their history of opposing protections for pre-existing conditions now that they have been caught for their years of supporting health care repeal and sabotage. In addition to scrubbing their websites of mentions of repeal, House Republicans are trying to hide behind figleafs — a bill (H.R. 1121), a House resolution (H. Res. 1066), and another resolution (H.Res. 1089)— that they falsely claim are evidence that they are on the right side of this issue.

These pieces of legislation are nothing more than hollow promises that read well but in reality fail to protect people with pre-existing conditions from attacks by the Trump administration and their own earlier votes. Here’s what you need to know:

In reality, none of these actually protects people with pre-existing conditions. The language of Young’s resolution and of Sessions’ resolution, both intentionally vague, include no specifics on exactly which protections should be preserved. Though H.R. 1121 prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage or reinstating annual and lifetime limits that insurers use to restrict the amount of coverage someone can use, and it does not preserve the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, essentially allowing insurers to sell plans exempt from covering basic services like maternity care, hospitalization, and prescription drugs. Absent such protections, an insurance company could sell coverage to a cancer patient, but charge them more and drop their coverage once they reach their lifetime limit.

Two thirds of those who signed on to Rep. Young’s House resolution (H.Res. 1066) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the 28 members of the House who have signed on to the resolution expressing support for pre-existing condition protections, 19 voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer. Last year’s repeal bill, the AHCA, would have dramatically weakened protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition, allowing insurance companies to charge people more when they get sick, for instance up to $140,510 more for people battling metastatic cancer.

All but two co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ House resolution (H.Res. 1089) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the eighteen co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ resolution, sixteen voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer, which would have allowed insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

All but eight co-sponsors of the House bill (H.R. 1121) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and weaken pre-existing condition protections last summer. Of the 75 cosponsors who voted on the AHCA last summer, 67 voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and weakening protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition. Their vote would have allowed insurance companies to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage.

None of the co-sponsors of the bill or either resolution have shown they oppose the Republican lawsuit backed by the Trump Administration that would completely gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Two thirds of those who signed on to Rep. Young’s House resolution (H.Res. 1066) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the 28 members of the House who have signed on to the resolution expressing support for pre-existing condition protections, 19 voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer. Last year’s repeal bill, the AHCA, would have dramatically weakened protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition, allowing insurance companies to charge people more when they get sick, for instance up to $140,510 more for people battling metastatic cancer.

All but two co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ House resolution (H.Res. 1089) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last summer. Of the eighteen co-sponsors of Rep. Sessions’ resolution, sixteen voted for the Republican repeal bill last summer, which would have allowed insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

All but eight co-sponsors of the House bill (H.R. 1121) voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and weaken pre-existing condition protections last summer. Of the 75 cosponsors who voted on the AHCA last summer, 67 voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and weakening protections for 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition. Their vote would have allowed insurance companies to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage.

None of the co-sponsors of the bill or either resolution have shown they oppose the Republican lawsuit backed by the Trump Administration that would completely gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

If House members really wanted to defend people with pre-existing conditions, here are two concrete actions they could take:

  • Support the House Democrats’ resolution that would allow the House to defend pre-existing condition protections in court. This summer, the Trump Administration refused to defend against a lawsuit brought by 20 conservative states aimed at overturning the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. In July, House Democrats introduced a resolution that would authorize the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to intervene in the lawsuit and defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Not a single Republican has offered support.
  • Join the House effort to overturn Trump administration’s junk plan rule that lets insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, 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. House Democrats introduced legislation that would override Trump’s rule, but not a single Republican has signed on.

 

 

Blackburn Can’t Hide From Her Shameful Record On Health Care

“Make no mistake, Blackburn’s idea of healthcare means Americans get ZERO while Big Pharma takes all,” said Brad Woodhouse, chair of Protect Our Care

Tonight in Johnson City, Tennessee, President Trump will stump for Marsha Blackburn in her run for Senate. Blackburn has come under fire for her repeal-and-sabotage health care record, as well as the moves she has made to weaken the DEA’s opioid enforcement at a time when deaths due to the opioid epidemic in Tennessee were twice the national average. Said Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, in response to Blackburn’s Senate run:

“Blackburn’s heartless record of ripping health care away from people while doing favors for big drug companies disqualifies her from a promotion to the U.S. Senate. With Blackburn in the Senate, there’d be no more protections for people with pre-existing conditions and insurance companies could once again charge Americans over 50 more for their coverage. Make no mistake, Blackburn’s idea of health care would mean Americans get zero while Big Pharma takes all, at a time when their profits are higher than ever.”

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

Although Marsha Blackburn Has Claimed To Support Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions, the Truth Is:

BLACKBURN VOTED TO REPEAL PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND MORE

2011:  Blackburn Voted To Repeal And Defund The ACA.  Blackburn voted for the fiscal 2012 budget that would have repealed and defunded the Affordable Care Act. [HCR 34, Roll Call Vote #277, 4/15/11]

2013:  Blackburn Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Blackburn voted for HR 45, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” [HR 45, Roll Call Vote #154, 5/16/13]

2015:  Blackburn  Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Blackburn voted for HR 596, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.”  The bill also ordered House committees to develop a replacement that would “provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage,” but provided no specifics. [HR 596, Roll Call Vote #58, 2/3/15]

 

What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act Eliminate in Tennessee?

  • Protections for 2.7 million Tennesseans  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 200,000 Tennesseans

 

BLACKBURN VOTED TO STRIP COVERAGE FROM TENNESSEANS AND GUT COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

2017: Blackburn Voted For AHCA. Blackburn voted for passage of the American Health Care Act.  [HR 1628, Roll Call Vote #256, 5/4/17]

What Did AHCA Mean for Tennessee?

  • In 2026, more than 630,000 Tennesseans would lose coverage under this bill.
  • The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the American Health Care Act would have raised premiums 20 percent in 2018.
  • AHCA imposed what the AARP calls an “age tax” on older Americans. In Tennessee, out-of-pocket costs for older people could increase by as much as $12,325  by 2026.
  • The negative economic impact of the American Health Care Act would cause 32,241 Tennesseans to lose their jobs by 2022.

What Did AHCA Mean For Pre-Existing Conditions?

  • The American Health Care Act weakens key protections of the Affordable Care Act by allowing states to let insurers charge people with pre-existing conditions more, among other provisions. The bill would also make it more likely insurers would cherrypick young and healthier people, causing costs to skyrocket for older, sicker people.
  • 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.
  • Politifact found that AHCA “would weaken protections” for those with pre-existing conditions and “would allow states to give insurers the power to charge people significantly more.”

2018: Blackburn Said She Remains Committed To Repealing The Affordable Care Act.  “Last year, the Senate failed its promise to the American people when it refused to repeal the law, but Marsha remains committed to returning health care to a patient-centered system where families and doctors can make their decisions.” [Marsha for Senate, accessed 9/28/18]

 

Trump and Hawley Lie About Their Record on Pre-existing Conditions Protections

Washington, DC Following a campaign stop with Josh Hawley, President Trump continued to

flat-out lie about his Administration’s plan to gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions.  Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, said in response:

“It’s ludicrous for Donald Trump to say he and Josh Hawley want to protect people with pre-existing conditions when they have literally gone to court to take those protections away. Just last month, Hawley said replacing the ACA would be “a top priority” for him in the Senate and right now Donald Trump is in the process of jamming a rubber stamp on his anti-health care agenda on the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans like Josh Hawley and Donald Trump  present a real and present danger to the health care of Americans and people don’t need to look any further than their own words and actions for proof.”

FACT CHECK: SCOTT WALKER PUTS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS PROTECTIONS AT RISK

In response to a disingenuous new ad from the Scott Walker campaign, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“We know Scott Walker supports gutting protections for pre-existing conditions because he authorized a lawsuit that would eliminate these protections entirely. Scott Walker’s plan for health care would literally turn the clock backward by bringing back discrimination against pre-existing conditions through his lawsuit and by reviving Wisconsin’s high-risk pool, which has been panned by experts because it drives up costs and restricts coverage. In fact, in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society specifically criticized Wisconsin’s high risk pool for the deadly waiting periods it imposed on people who needed care when they got sick. I’ll say it again: if Scott Walker wants to show he stands up for people with pre-existing conditions, he’ll withdraw his lawsuit to take away the protections we have in current law away.”

SCOTT WALKER’S LAWSUIT WOULD REVERSE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS PROTECTIONS, THREATENING 2.4 MILLION WISCONSINITES’ CARE

2,435,700 Wisconsinites Live With A Pre-Existing Condition. About one in two Wisconsinites, 51 percent, lives with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

1,187,000 Wisconsin Women And Girls Have A Pre-Existing Condition. Approximately 1,187,000 women and girls in Wisconsin live with a pre-existing condition. [CAP & National Partnership For Women and Families, June 2018]

308,100 Wisconsin Children Already Have A Pre-Existing Condition. Roughly 308,000 Wisconsinites below age 18 live with a pre-existing condition. [CAP, 4/5/17]

616,900 Older Wisconsinites Live With A Pre-Existing Condition. 616,900 Wisconsin adults between the ages of 55 and 64 live with at least one pre-existing condition, meaning attacks on these protections significantly threaten Wisconsinites approaching Medicare age. [CAP, 4/5/17]

IT IS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT OUTLAWS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

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 Rescind Coverage Because of Illness. Because of the ACA, insurance companies can no longer rescind or cancel someone’s coverage arbitrarily if they get sick.

HIGH RISK POOLS IMPOSE HIGH PREMIUMS & DEDUCTIBLES …

Premiums For Coverage In High Risk Pools Were As Much As 200 Percent Higher Than The Average Rate But Covered Less Care. “High-risk pool enrollees faced substantially higher premiums than people in the normal individual market, often by as much as 150 percent to 200 percent, although some pools did offer subsidies to low-income enrollees…And stunningly, the overwhelming majority of state high-risk pools actually refused to pay for services associated with a patient’s pre-existing conditions in the first months of their enrollment.” [Center for American Progress, 2/16/17]

Deductibles For High Risk Pool Enrollees Were Well Above Maximum Allowed By ACA. ”Fourteen states had plans with deductibles of $10,000 per year or higher, substantially greater than the current maximum $7,150 deductible for catastrophic plans in the marketplaces. Thirty states imposed maximum lifetime limits; others had annual coverage limits as low as $75,000 per year.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]

… COST TAXPAYERS MORE …

Despite High Premiums, High Risk Pools Could Still Cost The American People Over $90 Billion Annually. “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently estimated that up to 17,875,000 people with preexisting conditions were uninsured in 2010. Had all of them been covered by high-risk pools, the cost would have been $194.8 billion in 2010 dollars, with premiums covering only $103.3 billion. Thus, states and the federal government would have needed to find $91.5 billion in additional funding to cover them all—much more than the up to $10 billion per year in federal assistance to states recently proposed by congressional Republicans.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]

An Analysis Of High Risk Pools Under The ACHA Finds Such Pools Would Cost The Government Between $37 and $56 Billion Annually. “Government costs for supporting the high-risk pool using ACA-like coverage and subsidies would range from $37 to $56 billion in 2020 and $437 to $656 billion over 10 years (2020–2029), depending upon the eligibility rules used.” [The Urban Institute, May 2017]

Even Conservatives Estimated High Risk Pools Would Cost $15-$20 Billion Annually. “For comparison, conservative experts James Capretta and Tom Miller have estimated that $15 billion to $20 billion per year, or $150 billion to $200 billion over 10 years, would be needed to fully finance high-risk pools even if they covered only 2 million to 4 million people.” [Center For American Progress, 2/16/17]

Premiums For High Risk Pool Coverage Paid Just 53 Percent Of Program Costs. “Premiums ranged from 125 percent to 200 percent of average premiums in the individual market, yet covered only about 53 percent of claims and administrative costs nationally (Wisconsin allowed premiums up to 200 percent of average).” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]

… AND RESTRICT COVERAGE

High Risk Pools Typically Had Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions And Limited Benefits. Many such pools had pre-existing condition exclusion periods, limited benefits, and enrollment limits; all of these characteristics served to reduce the value of the coverage, creating high financial burdens for enrollees and limiting the number of people who could access the coverage.” [Health Affairs, 3/15/16]

Most State High Risk Pools Had Lifetime And Annual Limits On Coverage.  “Thirty-three pools [out of 35 states] imposed lifetime dollar limits on covered services, most ranging from $1 million to $2 million. In addition, six pools imposed annual dollar limits on all covered services while 13 others imposed annual dollar limits on specific benefits such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment, or rehabilitation.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2/22/17]

High Risk Pools Typically Had Waiting Periods. “There were 35 state high-risk pools before the Affordable Care Act passed. To control costs, they would often do things like charge higher premiums than the individual market. Most had waiting periods before they would pay claims on members’ pre-existing conditions, meaning a cancer patient would need to pay premiums for six months or a year before the high-risk pool would cover her chemotherapy treatments.” [Vox, 5/3/17]

High Risk Pools Mean Delayed Or Forgone Care. “Even once they were in a high-risk pool, the high costs and limited benefits prompted some people to delay or forgo care, leading to poorer health outcomes and even more spending. And many families accrued substantial medical debt, even with the coverage.” [Stateline, 2/16/17]

HIGH RISK POOL = MORE PEOPLE UNINSURED

Limited Coverage And High Costs Cause People To Remain Uninsured. Some patients also delayed care to save money, exacerbating their health conditions, and only entered the pools when their conditions became emergencies.” [Stateline, 2/16/17]

CMS: One-Third Of Uninsurable Were Unable To Afford High Risk Pool Coverage. A 2004-05 study by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that “nationally, high-risk pool premiums are above 25 percent of family income (i.e., are unaffordable) for 10 percent of all individuals, 18 percent of the uninsured, and 29 percent of the uninsurable. By these standards, almost one-third of the uninsurable are unable to afford high-risk pool coverage…” [CMS, Health Care Financing Review, Winter 2004-2005]

HIGH RISK POOLS HAVE BEEN TRIED & FAILED

In Wisconsin, “Cancer Doesn’t Wait” For High Risk Pool Waiting Periods. “The benefit waiting periods used by Wisconsin’s and other states’ high-risk pools are a big concern for patient advocates and provider groups. ‘A six-month exclusionary period is a serious issue,’ said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, who also testified at the House hearing. ‘Cancer doesn’t wait.’” [Modern Healthcare, 2/13/17]

California High Risk Pool Led To Waiting Lists, High Premiums, And Lifetime Limits. “For example, California’s high-risk pool imposed a shorter-than-average, three-month waiting period before enrollees could receive treatment for pre-existing conditions—but also imposed a $75,000 annual limit on benefits along with a $750,000 lifetime limit. In addition, the state capped enrollment, resulting in long waiting lists of people unable to enroll; at the same time, the pool’s high premiums proved difficult for enrollees to afford, leading some to drop out.” [Center for American Progress, 2/16/17]

Premiums in Florida’s High Risk Pool Were Twice The Normal Rate. Many states starved high-risk pools of cash. Florida’s contained only about 200 people in 2011. Premiums were commonly twice the normal rate. Many states had enrollment caps, meaning that even people willing to fork over were not guaranteed coverage.” [The Economist, 1/16/17]

In Utah, High Risk Pools Were Limited In Size, And Offered Sub-Par, Delayed Coverage. “Stevenson said only 3,000 people signed up for Utah’s risk pool plan while 200,000 Utahns are signed up for insurance through Obamacare. ‘Utah’s past high risk pool plan had many limitations too,’ he said. People with pre-existing conditions had to wait six months before using their coverage. Pregnant women had a 10 month waiting period before they had any coverage for them or their baby. ‘The measure of success for a program is how many people it helps and if you are only covering 3,000 people and leaving tens of thousands uninsured, I don’t think that’s a good thing to go back to,’ he said.” [CBS KUTV, 3/9/17]

High Risk Pools Mean Higher Costs, Higher Uninsured, And Less Coverage. The reality is that high-risk pool coverage was prohibitively expensive and there is little evidence to suggest that the existence of such pools made coverage less costly for others in the individual insurance market. Without substantially more federal funding than currently proposed, these facts are not likely to change. People with preexisting conditions may have “access” to coverage, but most will not be able to afford it and those who can will face limited benefits and extremely high deductibles and out-of-pocket payments.” [Commonwealth Fund, 3/29/17]

 

FACT CHECK: HERE ARE ALL THE WAYS KEVIN CRAMER DOESN’T STAND UP FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response to a bogus new ad from the Kevin Cramer campaign:

“Kevin Cramer’s new ad is another unbelievably desperate attempt to sweep his own record under the rug. Make no mistake, Cramer has voted numerous times to eliminate pre-existing conditions protections hundreds of thousands of North Dakotans rely upon, he’s refused to take action to oppose the Trump-GOP lawsuit that would eliminate pre-existing conditions protections and he’s done nothing to fight the junk insurance plans promoted by the Trump Administration that don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions and can drop coverage for people when they get sick. If Kevin Cramer thinks he can fool the people of North Dakota about his record against pre-existing conditions protections, he’s got another thing coming.”

REP. KEVIN CRAMER VOTED TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WHICH WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

2013:  Cramer Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Cramer voted for HR 45, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” [HR 45, Roll Call Vote #154, 5/16/13]

2015:  Cramer Voted For A Total Repeal Of The ACA.  Cramer voted for HR 596, an act “to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.”  The bill also ordered House committees to develop a replacement that would “provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage,” but provided no specifics. [HR 596, Roll Call Vote #58, 2/3/15]

 

  • Cramer Said The Bill Would “Repeal The Affordable Care Act In Its Entirety.” “Today Congressman Kevin Cramer voted with the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.” [Cramer Website, 2/3/15]

 

What would full repeal of the Affordable Care Act eliminate?

    • Protections for 316,000 North Dakotans 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 20,000 North Dakotans.

REP. KEVIN CRAMER VOTED FOR THE HOUSE HEALTH REPEAL BILL WHICH WOULD GUT PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

2017: Cramer Voted For AHCA.  Cramer voted for passage of the American Health Care Act.  [HR 1628, Roll Call Vote #256, 5/4/17]

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 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.” “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 AMA urges the Senate and the Administration to work with physician, patient, hospital and other provider groups to craft bipartisan solutions so all American families can access affordable and meaningful coverage, while preserving the safety net for vulnerable populations.” [AMA, 5/4/17]

American College Of Physicians: “This Vote Makes Coverage Unaffordable For People With Pre-Existing Conditions.” “The American College of Physicians (ACP) is extremely disappointed that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) today. This vote makes coverage unaffordable for people with pre-existing conditions,  allows insurers to opt-out of covering essential benefits like cancer screening, mental health, and maternity care, and cuts and caps the federal contribution to Medicaid while sunsetting Medicaid expansion…The House action is by no means the end of the story, however.  ACP will continue to do all that it can to ensure continued coverage and access for the millions of patients who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act. In a strongly worded letter to the United States Senate also sent today, ACP urged Senators to reject this harmful legislation and begin anew to craft bipartisan solutions to improve coverage and access for all Americans.” [ACP, 5/4/17]

American Association Of Family Physicians: AHCA “Allow[s] For Discrimination Against Patients Based On Their Gender, Age, And Health Status.” “The American Academy of Family Physicians is deeply disappointed with the U.S. House of Representatives passage of the American Health Care Act. 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. Its provision allowing annual and lifetime caps on benefits diminishes the value of every policy sold in the future.” [AAFP, 5/4/17]

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: AHCA “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. “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.” [ACS CAN, 5/4/17]

AARP: AHCA “Now Puts At Risk The 25 Million Older Adults With Pre-Existing Conditions…Who Would Likely Find Health Coverage Unaffordable Or Unavailable To Them.” “AARP is deeply disappointed in today’s vote by the House to pass this deeply flawed health bill. The bill will put an Age Tax on us as we age, harming millions of American families with health insurance, forcing many to lose coverage or pay thousands of dollars more for health care.  In addition, the bill now puts at risk the 25 million older adults with pre-existing conditions, such as cancer and diabetes, who would likely find health care unaffordable or unavailable to them.” [AARP, 5/4/17]

Consumers Union: “In A Field Where ‘Do No Harm’ Is The Standard, This Bill Does Nothing But Harm American Families.” “Elizabeth Imholz, Special Projects Director for Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, said, ‘The House of Representatives today failed their constituents and the American health system by passing the American Health Care Act. In a field where ‘do no harm’ is the standard, this bill does nothing but harm American families. Taking insurance away from 24 million people, devastating Medicaid, rolling back protections for preexisting conditions and older consumers, increasing out-of-pocket costs, encouraging junk insurance plans without any meaningful coverage, ​and even allowing the elimination of out-of-pocket cost caps and reinstating lifetime limits for the nearly half of all Americans who get their coverage through their employers — these are the real consequences of the AHCA. Each iteration has only made this bad bill worse.’” [Consumers Union, 5/4/17]

America’s Health Insurance Plans: “AHIP Believes That Every American Deserves Coverage And Care That Is Affordable And Accessible, Including Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.” “AHIP believes that every American deserves coverage and care that is affordable and accessible, including those with pre-existing conditions. The American Health Care Act needs important improvements to better protect low- and moderate-income families who rely on Medicaid or buy their own coverage. We stand ready to work with members of the Senate and all policymakers, offering our recommendations for how this bill can be improved to ensure the private market delivers affordable coverage for all Americans.” [AHIP, 5/4/17]

REP. KEVIN CRAMER SUPPORTS A CONSERVATIVE LAWSUIT TO REPEAL THE ACA ALONG WITH ITS PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

Cramer refuses 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. Cramer has come out in support of the lawsuit. [Politico, 8/17/18]

REP. KEVIN CRAMER WON’T WORK TO OVERTURN JUNK PLANS THAT ALLOW INSURERS TO DENY COVERAGE BECAUSE OF A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION

Cramer refuses to join the House effort to overturn Trump administration’s junk plan rule that lets insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. This summer, 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. House Democrats introduced legislation that would block Trump’s rule, but Cramer has not signed on.

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.

Yet Another Poll Confirms The Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions and Trust Democrats More than Republicans on the Issue

More Evidence that Health Care is The Issue in 2018

Washington, D.C. – This morning, a new Morning Consult/POLITICO poll was released, finding that 81 percent of voters say it should not be legal for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and 71 percent saying it should not be legal for insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions. The findings are only the latest to find that voters strongly oppose the Trump-GOP war on health care. In response to the poll, Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement:

“Overwhelming majorities of voters believe insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, but that’s exactly what Republicans in Congress voted for, what the Trump-backed lawsuit would do, and what numerous health insurance regulations enacted by the Trump Administration allow. Here’s yet another poll showing Republicans are in hot water because of their own deeply unpopular war on health care.”

Among the new Morning Consult/POLITICO poll’s findings:

  • 81 percent of voters say it should not be legal for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and 71 percent say it should not be legal for insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions;
  • On the question of pre-existing conditions, voters trust Democrats in Congress over Republicans in Congress by 22 points (42-20), including by 17 points among voters aged 65 and older (41-24);
  • Voters trust Democrats in Congress over Republicans in Congress on health care by 15 points (46-31) including by 18 points (41-23) with independent men and 11 points (31-20) with independent women, and
  • While Trump’s overall job approval is -15 (41-56), among people who say health care is their number one issue it falls to -43 (27-70).

The Morning Consult/POLITICO poll is the Latest Evidence that Health Care Will be a Major Liability for Republicans:

  • Kaiser Tracking Poll Finds Health Care To Be A Top Issue For Voters.  The poll found that 81 percent of voters consider health care to be either the most important or a very important issue for 2018 candidates to talk about. The next highest vote earner, corruption in Washington, was considered the most or a very important issue by 77 percent of those surveyed. (September 2018)
  • Fox News Poll Finds Majority Of Americans Hold Favorable Opinion Of Affordable Care Act. The poll found that 51 percent of voters held favorable views the Affordable Care Act, compared to only 40 percent who held favorable views of the Republican tax bill. (August 2018)
  • NBC News/ Wall Street Journal Survey Finds Democrats Have 18 Point Advantage In Dealing With Health Care. The survey found that 45 percent of voters polled think democrats would do a better job dealing with health care, compared to only 27 percent of voters who say Republicans would do a better job. (August 2018)
  • Kaiser Tracking Poll Finds Almost Six In Ten Americans Say They Think President Trump And His Administration Are Trying To Make The ACA Fail, Most Say This Is A Bad Thing. “Almost six in ten (56 percent) Americans say they think President Trump and his administration are trying to make the ACA fail while one-third (32 percent) say they are trying to make the law work. Most of those who say they think the Trump administration is trying to make the law fail think this is a “bad thing” (47 percent of the public). In addition, most (58 percent) say since President Trump and Republicans in Congress have made changes to the ACA, they are responsible for any problems with it moving forward.” [Kaiser Family Foundation (July 2018)
  • Kaiser Tracking Poll Finds A Candidates’ Continued Support For Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions Is The Single Most Important Health Position For Voters. Fourteen percent of voters said cited protections for people with pre-existing conditions as the most important factor. Sixty-six percent of voters said it was very important, if not the most important, health care issue to them. (June 2018)

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.

“I’m Honestly Concerned and Very Scared”: Alaskan Visits Washington, D.C. to Tell Sen. Lisa Murkowski Her Fears Over Kavanaugh’s Nomination

Yesterday, a young Alaskan woman traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with Sen. Lisa Murkowski  following her meeting with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Leighan Gonazales was born with a heart condition that required open heart surgery at five months old – a pre-existing condition protected by the Affordable Care Act. She traveled 14 hours from Alaska this week to meet with her Senator to express her fears that, if confirmed, Kavanaugh would rubber stamp the Republican war on health care and overturn protections for 326,000 Alaskans with pre-existing conditions.

Alaska Public Media, “Alaskans Press Murkowski on Kavanaugh”: Some 30 Alaskans flew to the nation’s capital mid-week to urge Murkowski to vote no. Among them was Leighan Gonzales, a student at UAA. “I made a very personal appeal and I asked her to vote no on his nomination because I’m honestly concerned and very scared of this person being on the Supreme Court,” Gonzales said. Gonzales was born with a heart condition that required surgery. She said Kavanaugh is hostile to a key promise of the Affordable Care Act: that people with pre-existing conditions won’t be denied insurance coverage.[…] Gonzales said Murkowski seemed receptive to her message on Thursday. “I brought a picture, a baby picture post-surgery, with this giant scar on my tiny baby chest,” Gonzales said. “She was really moved by that, and I felt very optimistic.”

KDXF (Fairbanks), “Alaskans Ask Murkowski to Vote Against Kavanaugh for Supreme Court Justice”: Leighan Gonzales of Anchorage, who was born with a heart condition, is worried that thousands of Alaskans will lose protections in the current ACA if Murkowski votes in favor of the supreme court nominee.”The biggest concern and the reason I asked her to vote no on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is the pre-existing protections that were brought forward in the ACA. There have been a lot of attacks on the Affordable Care Act recently. And these are issues that we know in Alaska are so much closer to home and bigger than in other states where we discuss healthcare accessibility,” said Gonzales.

KTUU (Anchorage), “Murkowski Meets with Kavanaugh as Alaskans Weigh In”: Alaskan activists flew to the Capitol overnight to tell Murkowski what they thought of Kavanaugh’s nomination. Leighan Gonzales, says she wants Murkowski to consider people like her with pre-existing conditions – she was born with a hole in her heart. She’s worried about the impact Kavanaugh could have on health care laws. “I’m concerned about not knowing enough about his record and that the hearings are being pushed forward too quickly,” Gonzales said.

Concerned Alaskans have held 12 press calls, press conferences, and events across the state in the six weeks since Kavanaugh’s nomination was announced. In each instance, Alaskans relying on protections for pre-existing conditions or expanded Medicaid services created by the Affordable Care Act have made clear that Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination