
Cartoon – Signs of a Layoff




Who are the GOP senators who worked on the American Health Care Act behind closed doors? You’ve likely heard they are all white men chosen by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Here are some of their vital stats that may have influenced the outcome.

Issue: Prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), people with preexisting health conditions could be denied insurance coverage or charged higher rates. If the law is repealed, these protections could be diluted or lost altogether.
Goals: Assess the ACA’s impact on coverage and access for people with preexisting conditions and compare their coverage gains with state high-risk-pool enrollment pre-ACA.
Methods: Analysis of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for the period 2011–13 to 2015.
Key Findings and Conclusions: Between 2013 and 2015, 16.5 million nonelderly adults gained coverage following full ACA implementation. Of those, 2.6 million had preexisting conditions that could have otherwise precluded them from coverage because of discriminatory denials and pricing; 9.4 million had conditions that could have otherwise affected insurance cost. We found strong correlations between these coverage gains and access to care. Coverage and access gains for people with preexisting conditions were unrelated to the size or existence of the state high-risk pools that 35 states funded for such individuals pre-ACA. Our findings suggest that proposals to replace current protections for people with preexisting conditions with high-risk pools are unlikely to be sufficient to maintain the ACA’s gains.
Americans with chronic health conditions are at the center of the debate over access to health care coverage. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) estimates the number of Americans with such “preexisting conditions” ranges from 19 percent to 50 percent of all nonelderly Americans.1,2 This range represents the difference between conditions that fit into a “narrow” definition of preexisting conditions (19%), and a “broad” definition (50%). The narrow definition includes very costly health conditions that would cause insurers to refuse coverage absent the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) provisions; the broad definition includes slightly less expensive chronic health conditions that could nevertheless make the cost of insurance in the individual market without the ACA largely unaffordable for most patients.
In 2016, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, in its review of pre-ACA medical underwriting practices, estimated that 27 percent of nonelderly American adults had health conditions that “would likely leave them uninsurable if they applied for individual market coverage.”3 Similarly, a Commonwealth Fund study found that, in 2010, 36 percent of adults ages 19 to 64 who had tried to buy a plan in the individual market over the prior three years were turned down, charged a higher price, or had a condition excluded from their coverage because of a health problem.4
The presence of preexisting conditions is particularly important for the millions of Americans who have gained coverage under the ACA, which Congress and the Trump administration are seeking to repeal.5 The Commonwealth Fund study found significant improvements in the ability of people with health problems to purchase plans on their own in 2016 relative to 2010.6
In this issue brief, we observe whether the coverage gains for people with preexisting conditions also have resulted in better access to care. Better access is defined as a greater likelihood of having a regular health care provider (whether one or more than one clinician) and having less trouble seeing a provider because of the cost.
Prior to passage of the ACA, many states had high-risk pools that sought to provide coverage to individuals locked out of the individual insurance market because of expensive preexisting conditions. Between 2010 and 2013, the ACA funded the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Program, a set of federally funded high-risk pools to provide interim coverage for those with such conditions. If these pools had been successful in addressing coverage for those with preexisting conditions, we would expect to see a smaller gain in access to care for this population in those states that had previously enrolled substantial shares of the nongroup market in the pools.
For this brief, we considered both the narrow and broad definitions of preexisting conditions. Among the general population surveyed between 2011 and 2015, data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) indicate that 20 percent of Americans have preexisting conditions under the narrow definition and 61 percent of Americans have these conditions under the broader definition. Using the BRFSS data, we estimate that 16.5 million more people were insured in 2015 than in the 2011–2013 period.7 Among this newly insured group, 2.6 million had one or more preexisting conditions under the narrow definition and 9.4 million had one or more under the broader definition (Exhibit 1).
Click to access SENATEHEALTHCARE.pdf
![]()
A discussion draft of the Senate bill has been posted. The full text of the 142-page bill can be read here.
The Senate draft includes deep cuts to Medicaid and would fundamentally reshape it from an open-ended government commitment to a system of capped federal payments that limit federal spending.
The bill repeals billions of dollars ObamaCare taxes used to raise money for the law’s coverage expansion and also abolishes the law’s mandates to buy coverage.
The health law’s tax credits to help people buy private coverage would be kept, but would be reshaped so that they are less generous and cost the government less money.
It also phases out the federal funding for ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid over four years — from 2020 to 2024 –less than the seven-year phase out favored by more moderate Republicans.
A draft of the long-awaited Senate healthcare bill, crafted behind closed doors, will be publicly unveiled on Thursday.
Just a day before the bill’s scheduled release, some senators said they still didn’t know the details of some key provisions, creating uncertainty as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushes toward a vote next week.
Here’s what to watch for.

Insurers hit a major deadline Wednesday: They must inform regulators in 39 states whether they will sell insurance on many Affordable Care Act marketplaces and, if so, how much they would like to charge.
It’s something of a moment of truth for the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, whose health depends in large part on the participation of private insurers. And so far, states are seeing mixed results: One major insurer has made a big pullout, while a different one announced it would expand into new states.
Insurance giant Anthem announced it would leave the marketplaces — also called exchanges — where individuals can use federal subsidies to buy health plans in two states in 2018, Indiana and Wisconsin. Oscar Health, a start-up company that was co-founded by Ivanka Trump’s brother-in-law, announced it would expand in Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Tennessee, California and New York.
The deadline applies to all 39 states whose marketplaces are run by the federal government. An evolving map by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing which counties are at risk of having no insurance options next year highlights 44 counties in four states, where about 30,000 people buy insurance through the marketplaces.
People who buy individual insurance plans in the marketplaces can take advantage of federal tax credits that are pegged to income and reduce monthly premium payments. To date, there has not been a county with zero insurers selling policies on its marketplaces, and it’s not totally clear what will happen if a county is left without any plans. It’s possible, however, that without a functional exchange, would-be participants would have to shoulder the full costs of their health insurance — or go without.
The future of the marketplaces has become a major political talking point, with the White House declaring the marketplaces a failure. Democrats blame the struggles of the market on Republicans’ failure to offer insurers reasonable clarity about the future. In particular, insurers have complained that decision-making has been difficult without certainty that cost-sharing reduction subsidies, federal payments that help bring down the out-of-pocket costs for lower-income Americans, will be paid next year.
The business of selling health coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces has become “difficult due to a shrinking and deteriorating individual market, as well as continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations, rules and guidance, including cost sharing reduction subsidies and the restoration of taxes on fully insured coverage,” Anthem said in a statement announcing the decision.
“When the dust settles, there is more work to be done on the regulatory side to make sure it will be stable, but I’m confident we will see a stable market there,” Schlosser said.
MDwise Marketplace, an insurer in Indiana also announced it would leave that state’s exchange. That could put four counties at possible risk of having no insurer next year, according to Kaiser, although that is uncertain because a different insurer, Centene, has announced it is expanding in the state. A spokeswoman for Centene said the company was still working through the filing process and would not share information until it was complete.
Kaiser found counties in Ohio, Missouri and Washington are at risk of having no insurers.

