W

ASHINGTON — As Republicans confront the thorny realities of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, groups representing patients with the most serious diseases fear those plans could return the US health care system to one in which sick people are not guaranteed health insurance.

It comes down to the individual mandate, the law’s most unpopular provision, which required every American to buy insurance or face a penalty.

Republicans want it gone. But if they nix the mandate, it becomes exceedingly difficult to keep the popular insurance reforms — including the requirement that health plans cover everybody, even people with costly preexisting conditions, without charging those people more. President Trump and other Republicans have sworn they would keep that provision, which ended discrimination against America’s sickest patients.

advertisement

So Congress is trying to figure out how to end the mandate while still guaranteeing affordable coverage to everybody. One prominent idea is known as continuous coverage. It would require insurers to cover people, no matter their health history, as long as they never have a lapse in coverage. In theory, it keeps the protection for people with preexisting conditions while also urging people to buy insurance so they aren’t at risk of being locked or priced out of coverage.

Think of it as an attempt to achieve the same effect as the mandate, which helps provide health plans with healthy as well as sick customers so their finances work, without actually having a mandate.

The problem, according to patient advocates, is the concept isn’t foolproof. If a sick person does have a lapse in coverage, they wouldn’t have the same protections that the ACA currently provides.

“We have not yet seen a continuous coverage provision that is fair to patients,” said Dick Woodruff, the vice president for federal relations at the American Cancer Society. The group’s deputy chief medical officer testified before an important House committee last week on the issue, warning that such a policy “imposes an undue cost burden on individuals.”

Other prominent patient groups are aligned with the cancer society on the issue. Last month, along with American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, they sent a letter to Congress expressing concern about continuous coverage and their patients’ ability to reenter the market if they lose coverage.

Consumers who go without insurance for a given period of time (60 days, for example) could be denied coverage or their insurer could hike their premiums based on their health status. That, experts say, would leave patients who exit the market for unexpected reasons like losing their job in an impossible situation.

“Instead of paying a tax penalty, you would pay a penalty in terms of not being able to get coverage when you next try to come back in,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “But people lose health insurance for lots of reasons that make it difficult for people to immediately get coverage back.”

The debate is in the early stages, and many of the details within a continuous coverage provision remain unspecified. Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, caught flak from Democrats last week for releasing an early draft bill with a section titled “Continuous Coverage Incentive.” Below the title: The world “placeholder” and a blank page.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that 27 percent of Americans between 18 and 65 have a preexisting condition, and Republicans have insisted their reforms will allow those consumers to remain in the market.

“Our goal is to make sure that patients can access care no matter how healthy or sick they may be,” an Energy and Commerce Committee spokesperson said in response to STAT’s inquiry. “This means making sure patients have protections from preexisting condition benefit exclusions as well as from underwriting based on health status. It’s only fair.”

The idea of a continuous coverage provision isn’t inherently objectionable, Woodruff said, but crafting one that lets patients who have recently become sick, lost their job, or face an unexpected new financial burden to reenter the health care market is a tall order.

“I suppose that we could be supportive of a continuous coverage provision, provided that it allowed sufficient opportunities for people who do not have insurance to buy it when they need it,” Woodruff said. “And that if, for some reason, they do lose insurance that’s beyond their control — if you get cancer and you lose your job because you’re too sick to work — those people have to be able to get back into the market without being penalized.”

Georgia Representative Tom Price, the Republican likely to be confirmed this week as secretary of Health and Human Services, is also expected to play a major role in shaping an ACA replacement. A longtime critic of the law, Price introduced a replacement bill in 2015 that would allow insurers to hike rates by 50 percent for up to three years for patients who had not maintained continuous coverage for the past 18 months.

Newsletters

Sign up for our D.C. Diagnosis newsletter

Please enter a valid email address.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the right-leaning American Action Forum, told the Energy and Commerce Committee that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate has been ineffective in stabilizing risk pools and suggested ways that the patient groups’ concerns could be addressed in the ACA replacement plans.

“Everyone who is currently uninsured, whether having a preexisting condition or not, would be provided a one-time open enrollment period to gain coverage so they, too, could receive the benefit,” he told the committee last week.

However, Allison Miller, a spokesperson for the American Cancer Society, said the one-time enrollment wouldn’t cut it for cancer patients.

“A one-time chance to enter the market without penalty doesn’t adequately protect people like cancer patients who may have various gaps in coverage due to the nature of their cancer, its treatment and long-term side effects, or potential secondary or recurrent cancers,” she said.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Health care for people is not the underlying issue but who or which provider stands to profit the most. Selfish greed is a factor that leaves humanity to waste away without thought or compassion. As the needy gets poorer and the sick get sicker we grabble on and on until the grim reaper threatens to show up at our your doorstep. Then all hell breaks out, yeah!

  • This administration claims to be all about business and deals, but it seems that nobody’s doing the math.

    They want to trade the “onerous” mandate of the ACA, which inflicts relatively small monetary penalties for non-compliance, with the catastrophic consequences of the exclusion of large numbers of people who will not be able to afford private insurance from time to time, for reasons described in the article.

    In the years leading up to the ACA, millions found themselves locked out of the insurance market because of pre-existing conditions. Catastrophic medical expenses became the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the early years of the 21st century.

    In 2000, I myself developed a serious illness that lead to disability. My long-time insurer dropped me like a hot potato. In those days, insurers could do that!

    The only insurance I could get with my now-pre-existing condition was a national company whose premium for sick people of my age was $1250 per month (in today’s dollars, about $1740). My medications, which were not covered, cost an equal amount. So I was paying, in today’s dollars, over $3,000 a month. Bankruptcy soon followed, because even doctors run out of money when they can’t go to work because they’re sick.

    President Obama’s vision was to stem the tide of preventable bankruptcies due to illness. No matter whether you agree with his other policies, no matter whether you agree with the “how” of the ACA, the numbers show that it works.

    The burden that uninsured illness has on society is phenomenal. Think about it: If sick people don’t have insurance that they pay for (or that’s partially subsidized by you and me), then you and I get to pay for ALL of it. Doctors and hospitals have to adjust their rates to account for unpaid bills. So the cost of medical services gets driven up when there are a lot of people who can’t pay. Insurance premiums go up, because hospital charges go up.

    People who can’t pay for medical care often end up not coming in for care until they’re very sick, because they can’t afford regular visits. Diabetics, for instance, need regular medical attention, medications, devices…and they can get very sick indeed if not properly cared for. People who would otherwise be productive citizens with diabetes can lose their vision, their limbs, and their kidneys without proper care. Do the math!

    Before the ACA there was a lot of patient “dumping” going on: If a patient showed up in an ambulance, and didn’t have insurance, the hospital would just send them to a different hospital. The expansion of Medicaid in most states had a huge impact on decreasing bad debt, resultant bankruptcies, and dumping. Private insurance became much more affordable for working families. Many people who work two or more part time jobs, none that pay benefits, are able to purchase insurance on the exchanges. Do the math…..

    The real bottom line is that hurting healthcare hurts not only the people who end up uninsured, but also…well, it hurts all of us. We pay more in premiums. We pay more in taxes. And we pay in ways that most people don’t realize. For instance, good prenatal care prevents prematurity and its consequences, which include lifelong medical and learning disabilities. The math?

    One measure of the greatness of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable populations. If we are to make America great, we need to sit down, do the math, and understand that it’s not only a moral imperative, but an economic imperative.

    Do the math. It’s good for all of us!

Sign up for our Morning Rounds newsletter

Your daily dose of news in health and medicine.