WASHINGTON — As Republicans frantically scramble to find votes to pass their health care bill, the most important debate may be about one issue: essential health benefits.

That is the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health insurance plans sold to individuals and small groups cover 10 types of services, from prescription drugs to substance abuse treatment to maternity care.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • Repealing the EHBs may add cheaper coverage options to the Affordable Care Act, but for clarity they should keep the ACA levels of coverage with their names (Brass, Silver, Gold and Platinum), and just add a few more levels with fitting names such as Tin, Lead, Stone, and Dirt.

    • Dennis, note that some the consequences of removing EHB are more insidious than appear superficially.

      As with a lot of individual insurance issues, at least half of people, and half of insurers, will game the system as best they can, and this forces serious failures (really high premiums), even for people not gaming the system. Also all insurers wind up having to game the system.

      (You really kind of have to think through various economic mechanisms, and often they’re not obvious, so you even have to have the failures pointed out to you. Then if you have a quantitative grip on insurance pools and such, you can confirm each pointed-out problem.)

      This nice recent NY Times Upshot article does a good job, using many consulted experts, to point out the problems resulting from no EHB, even for people looking to by full EHB insurance:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/upshot/late-gop-proposal-could-mean-plans-that-cover-aromatherapy-but-not-chemotherapy.html

Comments are closed.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy