High-Risk Pools, Pre-Existing Conditions and Other Lies: Why Tomorrow’s Health Care Vote Matters

dXvSVWord this evening is that the House Republican leadership has set a vote for tomorrow on the latest version of “Repeal and Replace.” Insiders and observers are saying that this is a sign Speaker Ryan and his whips have found the requisite number of “yeas” to get the bill out of the House and on to the Senate.

On the one hand, tomorrow’s vote doesn’t really matter. Whatever Frankenbill they cobbled together won’t last a day in the Senate before it gets shredded. And, whatever the Senate sends back to the House will be a non-starter for the lower house. So tomorrow is a little meaningless skirmish in a larger war. It will give the Umber Jackhole residing at 1600 Pennsylvania an empty victory he will claim in Tweet and incoherent interview alike but nothing much else.

On the other hand, the hand I care about this evening, tomorrow’s vote matters a lot. The Republican legislation – to the extent anyone knows what’s actually in it – substantially weakens the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The authors of the bill know this. The administration knows this. Donald Trump doesn’t care what it does as long as it passes.

And yet all of these people are saying just the opposite and are thus perpetrating a fraud on the American people and on that basis, tomorrow’s vote matters very much. It is a test of whether our system still works, an opportunity to say, “Hell no” to this level of mendacity and grifter behavior.

If you’re already convinced on this point, you can skip the rest of this post and simply stop here with this call to action: Please call, email or visit your Congressperson tomorrow. Do it more than once. The main phone number is (202) 224-3121. You can find a list of Congressional offices (most with links to their direct phone numbers and emails) here. Don’t know how your Representative is? Look it up here.  Tweet at them, post on their Facebook pages. Share this with your friends and ask them to do the same. Ask your Representative to reject this legislation.

If, however, you’re unconvinced that tomorrow’s vote is worth your time or if some of your friends need more than just an ask from some random person on their Facebook feed, the rest of this post is for you and them.

At the core of the bill being voted on tomorrow is a set of changes that will allow insurers to return to many of their pre-ACA behaviors including greater price discrimination by age, the promotion of substandard plans, as well as cuts to Medicaid and – as has been much discussed – will create a pathway for the elimination of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

As I understand the proposed legislation, if a state asks the federal government for a waiver, insurers in that state can refuse to cover pre-existing conditions if 1) the insured person lets his or her coverage lapse and 2) the state sets up a “high-risk” pool or reinsurance program as a safety net. This is pretty much the way things worked in the pre-ACA days when – according to the New York Times – 35 states had such mechanisms.

So…let’s contemplate for a second how many Republican governors there are – 33. How many state legislatures are controlled by the GOP – 32. How many of those politicians have pledged their undying, unyielding hatred of Obamacare. Suddenly, that hurdle doesn’t seem so high.

The process for granting a waiver? Under the current Trump administration, I’m guessing that will be something that can be completed on a postcard and approved with a “looks good to me” review.

I’ll leave it to you to contemplate all the ways you can lose coverage in today’s world of economic dislocation. Suffice it to say shit happens.

“But wait! Wait,” the apologists will claim. Even if you’re right, those people will still have access to care. Through the high-risk pools.

Yeah, let’s talk about that idea.

Historically, as the Times article notes, those pools have been wildly underfunded, charged participants much, much higher premiums than the prevailing market, were capped in terms of how many people they would accept and how much they would pay out either in a year or a lifetime. As the Times noted, California had an annual cap of $75,000 per person and across all the plans – in all 35 states – a grand total of 230,000 people were able to get coverage.

230,000 people out of 321,000,000. Less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the population.

Needless to say the number of people with pre-existing conditions is substantially bigger than 1/10th of 1 percent. How much bigger? Try 270 times bigger. And, depending on where you live, a lot bigger.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s actual verified data, the stuff we used to call “facts” in the old days. Based on an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 27 percent of the people under 65 have a pre-existing condition. Add it all up, according to Kaiser, and you come up with more than 52,000,000 people who might find themselves with no coverage, unaffordable coverage or substandard coverage.

And, of course, as you get older, the prevalence of pre-existing conditions increases. The graphic from AARP below illustrates, the percentage of people in the 50-64 age bracket with a pre-existing condition ranges from 32 percent on the low end to 52 percent on the high end.

Map

You might not have a pre-existing condition, but if you live in a family of four chances are someone in your family does. If your block has 12 families on it, three of them might be uninsurable under a loosened standard of coverage and could be bankrupted by the cost of care. As Jimmy Kimmel tearfully noted, even newborns come with pre-existing conditions and a family without insurance – or an insurance plan with a lifetime or annual cap – can find itself have to choose between caring for their newborn or sending him to college, owning a home or a retirement.

In case you’re interested in exactly what constitutes a pre-existing condition, you might be surprised to learn that you could pretty easily fall in that category. Pre-ACA, the list of conditions considered pre-existing included:

 

  • AIDS/HIV
  • Alcohol and drug abuse
  • Alzheimer’s/dementia
  • Arthritis (rheumatoid), fibromyalgia, other inflammatory joint disease
  • Cancer
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/emphysema
  • Congestive heart failure
  • Coronary artery/heart disease, bypass surgery
  • Crohn’s disease/ ulcerative colitis
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Epilepsy
  • Hemophilia
  • Hepatitis
  • Kidney disease, renal failure
  • Lupus
  • Mental disorders (severe, e.g. bipolar, eating disorder)
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplant
  • Paralysis
  • Paraplegia
  • Parkinson’s disease
  • Pending surgery or hospitalization
  • Pneumocystic pneumonia
  • Pregnancy or expectant parent
  • Sleep apnea
  • Stroke
  • Transsexualism

Pre-existing conditions could also injuries, previous surgical procedures and more.

I’m not alone in opposing this, of course, and neither is it a liberal thing. The famously conservative American Medical Association? Against it. Also the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. So too is the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, JDRF, March of Dimes, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the National MS Society and others. The American Hospital Association? A no vote. Ditto for the Children’s Hospital Association and AARP. For too many reasons to enumerate, these organizations know the scam that’s being pulled and are screaming about it:

“None of the legislative tweaks under consideration changes the serious harm to patients and the health care delivery system if AHCA passes. Proposed changes to the bill tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill – that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.

“High-risk pools are not a new idea. Prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 35 states operated high-risk pools, and they were not a panacea for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. The history of high-risk pools demonstrates that Americans with pre-existing conditions will be stuck in second-class health care coverage – if they are able to obtain coverage at all.

“Not only would the AHCA eliminate health insurance coverage for millions of Americans, the legislation would, in many cases, eliminate the ban against charging those with underlying medical conditions vastly more for their coverage.”

– American Medical Association President Andrew W. Gurman, M.D

Again, the authors of this bill also know all this. They know that they’re opening an easy pathway to exclusion of pre-existing conditions. They know the money they’ve set aside to support high-risk pools is inadequate for its intended purpose. They know the extra $8 billion they dramatically added to the bill today does nothing to change these calculations.

And yet they look us in the eye and tell us exactly the opposite. We cannot, should not, let this go unnoticed and unopposed. To the contrary, I hope that every Member of Congress goes to vote tomorrow with the credo of Anonymous echoing in his or her mind: We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

That’s why tomorrow’s vote is important. Spread the word.

  • Austin

 

 

 

7 thoughts on “High-Risk Pools, Pre-Existing Conditions and Other Lies: Why Tomorrow’s Health Care Vote Matters

  1. Dennis Lang says:

    This is a fabulous, wonderfully informative essay on an incredibly significant subject that touches all of our lives in the most profound way. We can only hope that Congress doesn’t totally lose touch with the basic humanity of its decision. Sadly, it seems to me individual lives too often become just some vague abstraction in the formation of policy.(Maybe that’s inevitable.)
    Thank you.

  2. Ellen Mrja says:

    This was an exceptional explanation of this complex problem..probably the best I’ve read. The House just passed the bill..tRump to speak at 3:30.
    (P.S. I had 2 or 3 of the “pre-existing conditions.” Good thing I was pregnant 29 years ago or I’d have another tick on the ledger.)

    On the CBS Morning News this past week, a couple who voted for tRump was interviewed. Yes, they still support their vote and the p. (Can’t quite come to the place where I capitalize that word.) He stays alive with breathing apparatus because his work in the coal mines destroyed his lungs. She went to the pharmacy to get her husband’s prescriptions and CBS went along. The total bill for his medicines was $6,000. BUT, because of “Obamacare” – I’ll say that proudly – their bill came to $0.00. Yes, that’s right. $0.00. What will these people get now?

  3. I think high risk pools are a practical solution to the market premium problem provided the majority that passes it is serious about it being a fix. IE, theres enough money thrown at it.

    As a Republican, I do think there’s reason to doubt the Republicans are serious…

    In other news, I’m not persuaded that with Republican rule we have a future in this country that mirrors The Handmaiden’s Tale. I’m not seeing it.

    1. I agree with you on both points: The House Republicans know that under many scenarios – including many that are perfectly possible – there isn’t nearly enough money in this bill to make high-risk pools viable for either the states or participants (actually it would be an either-or situation). Honest to God, I took a long car trip today and I listened to Republicans interviewed about why they were supporting the legislation. To a person, their best argument was “I don’t think it will be used so it doesn’t matter.”

      As far as the Handmaiden’s Tale thing, I’m with you. Trump’s a buffoon and he’s surrounded by opportunists who are happy to tolerate him if they think there’s a chance of him enacting their survey-level social and financial engineering schemes, but this is not the end times. If anything, Mr. Trump and his enablers are going to destroy the Republican brand for a generation of voters; historians will mark this time as the beginning of the end of the GOP in the same way that the Antebellum period and the debate over slavery marked the beginning of the end of the Whigs.

      1. pm1956 says:

        OK so far, but along which fault lines do you think the GOP will split? Will it be the one traditionally identified (social conservatives vs. everyone else)? More of a Regional split (southeast vs. west)? Mainstreet/Chamber of Commerce types vs. blue collar/Reagan Dems (cultural Republicans)?

        My money is on the latter, with the libertarians left adrift (as always in the GOP–they provide the ideas, and not much else.

        1. I think it might be a bad fracture: “business and mainstreet” Republican in one camp, social/fiscal conservatives in another, the “burn it all down” faction – which is not strictly a conservative movement – in a third, the libertarians in a fourth.

          I there’s a real possibility of a centrist realignment emerging under something of a “Unity” party label. The 1/3 of the GOP that is moderate and the 2/3s of the Dems that martch up pretty well with them. Socially tolerant, globally minded, slightly hawkish on defense and foreign policy, fiscally practical, see government as an important counterweight to capitalism but neither a threat nor a panacea.

          A party like that could claim majorities in both houses of Congress and in a majority of the electoral college. It could do entitlement reform and infrastructure and be a stabilizing force to the entire body politic.

          A boy can dream.

Comments are closed.