Ads for short-term plans may be confusing

https://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2019/rwjf451339?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for short term health insurance

People Googling for ACA coverage often found results that were actually trying to sell them skimpier short-term health plans, according to a report from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute.

Why it matters: Consumer confusion is one of the things regulators worried about most when the Trump administration expanded access to “short-term” coverage.

  • For some people, especially those who do only need coverage for a short time, one of these more bare-bones options might be a better choice than the comprehensive policies sold under the ACA.
  • But if you don’t realize you’re signing up for a plan with incredibly limited coverage and the right to drop you once you get sick, you could be in for a catastrophic surprise.
  • That’s why HHS mandated a disclosure statement about the plans’ limited benefits.

Details: Researchers Googled terms including “cheap health insurance” and “Obamacare plans” and looked at the first 4 results — which are usually ads.

  • Sites that included short-term plans “dominated the results,” though some of those sites also sell ACA-compliant plans. Sites varied in how much information they provided about the differences between the two types of plans.

 

Pre-existing conditions at House Ways and Means panel’s first policy hearing

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/427484-dems-hit-gop-on-pre-existing-conditions-at-panels-first-policy-hearing

Dems hit GOP on pre-existing conditions at panel's first policy hearing

The powerful House Ways and Means Committee used its first policy hearing of the new Congress to hammer Republicans on pre-existing conditions, an issue that helped propel Democrats into the majority during the 2018 midterm elections.

Democratic panel members highlighted actions by the Trump administration that they argue have hurt people with pre-existing conditions, like the expansion of non-ObamaCare plans that could draw healthy people from the markets, raising premiums for those left behind.

The administration has expanded access to association and short-term health plans, which cost less than ObamaCare plans but cover fewer services. Republicans say they provide an off-ramp for consumers who can’t afford ObamaCare plans.

The witness invited by Republicans, Rob Robertson with the Nebraska Farm Bureau, said its newly developed association health plan “meets the needs of our members,” who can’t afford ObamaCare plans.

“We’re in this for the long term,” he told lawmakers. “We want to reduce costs, and the costs in the individual market are very, very high.”

ObamaCare’s popular consumer protections became the centerpiece of the November midterms after 20 Republican-led states sued to overturn the 2010 health care law, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Democrats tied congressional Republicans to the lawsuit after the Trump administration declined to defend ObamaCare and argued that those protections are unconstitutional.

Republicans say there are different ways to cover people with pre-existing conditions, like high-risk pools, which were banned after ObamaCare was implemented. Some pools had caps on coverage and long-waiting lists.

GOP committee members called Tuesday’s hearing political theatre, arguing they also support pre-existing protections but want to lower ObamaCare’s costs.

“Everyone up here wants protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Always have, always will,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), ranking member of the health subcommittee. “We should be careful that we’re not stoking fear that someone is going to lose their health insurance. We have a responsibility to come up with a better health care system because ObamaCare is not the solution.”

Democrats on Tuesday said the GOP proposals aren’t serious.

Republicans have “political amnesia” and have “forgotten what it was like before the ACA,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), chairman of the health subcommittee. “Those with a diagnosis of a serious disease would also get a diagnosis of financial ruin. There were no protections for them before the ACA.”

Some Democratic panel members appealed to the emotional side of the health care debate, with one lawmaker announcing her cancer diagnosis at the hearing.

“This is a cancer I will live with for the rest of my life, but, because of my high-quality healthcare and insurance coverage, it is not a cancer I will die from,” said Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), 67.

Tensions ran high at times during Tuesday’s hearing, with members re-litigating the 2010 passage of ObamaCare and repeated GOP efforts to repeal it.

“Not one Republican up here supports pre-existing protections for the American people,” said Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), who at times pounded his fist on the dais.

That drew a testy response from Rep. Tom Reed (R-Pa.), who said Republicans “heard the voices and the fear” from voters in the 2018 midterms when “this issue became the centerpiece.”

“We listened to this American people, as Republicans,” he said.

 

 

 

KFF Health Tracking Poll – January 2019: The Public On Next Steps For The ACA And Proposals To Expand Coverage

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2019/?utm_source=The+Weekly+Gist&utm_campaign=457a985c2e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_25_01_56&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_edba0bcee7-457a985c2e-41271793

Key Findings:

  • Half of the public disapproves of the recent decision in Texas v. United States, in which a federal judge ruled that the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional and should not be in effect. While the judge’s ruling is broader than eliminating the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions, this particular issue continues to resonate with the public. Continuing the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions ranks among the public’s top health care priorities for the new Congress, along with lowering prescription drug costs.
  • This month’s KFF Health Tracking Poll continues to find majority support (driven by Democrats and independents) for the federal government doing more to help provide health insurance for more Americans. One way for lawmakers to expand coverage is by broadening the role of public programs. Nearly six in ten (56 percent) favor a national Medicare-for-all plan, but overall net favorability towards such a plan ranges as high as +45 and as low as -44 after people hear common arguments about this proposal.

    Poll: Majorities favor a range of proposed options to expand public health coverage, including Medicare buy-in and #MedicareForAll 

  • Larger majorities of the public favor more incremental changes to the health care system such as a Medicare buy-in plan for adults between the ages of 50 and 64 (77 percent), a Medicaid buy-in plan for individuals who don’t receive health coverage through their employer (75 percent), and an optional program similar to Medicare for those who want it (74 percent). Both the Medicare buy-in plan and Medicaid buy-in plan also garner majority support from Republicans (69 percent and 64 percent­).

 

Figure 1: Most Americans Are Unaware Of Federal Judge’s Ruling That ACA Is No Longer Valid

Texas v. United States: The Future of the Affordable Care Act

On December 14, 2018, a federal district court judge in Texas issued a ruling challenging the future of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA).The judge sided with Republican state attorneys general and ruled that, since the 2017 tax bill passed by Congress zeroed out the penalty for not having health insurance, the ACA is invalid. Democrat attorneys general have already taken actions to appeal the judge’s ruling in the case and, due to the government shutdown, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has paused the case. Currently, the ACA remains the law of the land. If this ruling is upheld, the consequences will be far-reaching.1 Less than half of the public (44 percent) are aware of the judge’s ruling that the ACA is unconstitutional and most (55 percent) either incorrectly say that the judge ruled in favor of the ACA (20 percent) or are unsure (35 percent).

Overall, a larger share of the public disapprove (51 percent) than approve (41 percent) of the judge’s ruling that the ACA is not constitutional. This is largely divided by party identification with a majority of Republicans (81 percent) approving of the decision while a majority of Democrats disapproving (84 percent). Independents are closely divided (49 percent disapprove v. 44 percent approve).

Figure 2: Partisans Divided On Whether They Approve Or Disapprove Of Federal Judge’s Ruling That The ACA Is No Longer Valid

The Trump administration had originally announced that as part of Texas v. United States, it would no longer defend the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. While the judge’s ruling was broader than just the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections, KFF polling finds attitudes can shift when the public hears that these protections may no longer exist. Among those who originally approve of the federal judge’s ruling, about three in ten (13 percent of the public overall) change their mind after hearing that this means that people with pre-existing conditions may have to pay more for coverage or could be denied coverage, bringing the share who disapprove of the judge’s ruling to nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the public.2

Fewer – but still about one-fifth (8 percent of total) – change their minds after hearing that as a result of this decision, young adults would no longer be able to stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26, bringing the total share who disapprove of the judge’s ruling to 60 percent.

Figure 3: Majorities Disapprove Of Judge’s Ruling After Hearing How It Impacts Protections For Pre-Existing Conditions And Young Adults

Overall, a slight majority of the public hold a favorable view of the ACA (51 percent) while four in ten continue to hold unfavorable views. (INTERACTIVE)

Public’s Views of Democratic Health Care Agenda

With the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, this month’s KFF Health Tracking Poll examines the public’s view of Congressional health care priorities including a national health plan.

Proposals to Expand Health Care Coverage

Most of the public favor the federal government doing more to help provide health insurance for more Americans and one way for lawmakers to expand coverage is by broadening the role of public programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The Kaiser Family Foundation has been tracking public opinion on the idea of a national health plan since 1998 (see slideshow). More than twenty years ago, about four in ten Americans (42 percent) favored a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan. In the decades that followed, there has been a modest increase in support – especially since the 2016 presidential election and Bernie Sanders’ rallying cry for “Medicare-for-all.” The most recent KFF Health Tracking Poll finds 56 percent of the public favor “a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, where all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan” with four in ten (42 percent) opposing such a plan.

Figure 5: Majorities Across Partisans Favor Medicare Buy-In And Medicaid Buy-In

MALLEABILITY IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN AND LINGERING CONFUSION ABOUT POSSIBLE IMPACTS

This month’s KFF Health Tracking Poll finds the net favorability of attitudes towards a national Medicare-for-all plan can swing significantly, depending on what arguments the public hears.

Depending on what arguments people hear, the public’s views of #MedicareForAll can swing from 71% in favor to 70% opposed highlighting the importance of any future legislative debate 

Net favorability towards a national Medicare-for-all plan (measured as the share in favor minus the share opposed) starts at +14 percentage points and ranges as high as +45 percentage points when people hear the argument that this type of plan would guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans. Net favorability is also high (+37 percentage points) when people hear that this type of plan would eliminate all premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs. Yet, on the other side of the debate, net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments. Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).

Figure 8: Four In Ten Say Medicare-For-All Plan Would Not Have Much Impact On People Like Them

MEDICARE-FOR-ALL AND SENIORS

On October 10th, 2018, President Trump wrote an op-ed in USA Today arguing that a Medicare-for-all plan would “end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits they have paid for their entire lives.”3 One-fourth of adults 65 and older (26 percent) say seniors who currently get their insurance through Medicare would be “worse off” if a national Medicare-for-all plan was put into place. Four in ten Republicans, ages 65 and older, say seniors who currently get health coverage through Medicare would be “worse off” under a national Medicare-for-all plan. Overall, a larger share of the public say a Medicare-for-all plan will “not have much impact” on seniors (39 percent) or say that they would be “better off” (33 percent) than say seniors would be “worse off” (21 percent).

Figure 10: Democrats Want House Democrats To Focus On Improving And Protecting The ACA Rather Than Passing Medicare-For-All

PARTISANS HAVE DIFFERENT HEALTH PRIORITIES FOR CONGRESS, EXCEPT FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES

A majority of the public say it is either “extremely important” or “very important” that Congress work on lowering prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible (82 percent), making sure the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing health conditions continue (73 percent), and protecting people with health insurance from surprise high out-of-network medical bills (70 percent). Fewer – about four in ten – say repealing and replacing the ACA (43 percent) and implementing a national Medicare-for-all plan (40 percent) are an “extremely important” or “very important” priority. When forced to choose the top Congressional health care priorities, the public chooses continuing the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections (21 percent) and lowering prescription drug cost (20 percent) as the most important priorities for Congress to work on. Smaller shares choose implementing a national Medicare-for-all plan (11 percent), repealing and replacing the ACA (11 percent), or protecting people from surprise medical bills (9 percent) as a top priority. One-fourth said none of these health care issues was their top priority for Congress to work on.

Figure 11: Continuing ACA Pre-Existing Conditions Protections And Prescription Drug Costs Top Public’s Priorities For Congress

Continuing the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections is the top priority for Democrats (31 percent) and ranks among the top priorities for independents (24 percent) along with lowering prescription drug costs, but ranks lower among Republicans (11 percent). Similar to previous KFF Tracking Polls, repealing and replacing the ACA remains one of the top priority for Republicans (27 percent) along with prescription drug costs (20 percent).

Table 1: Pre-Existing Condition Protections and Prescription Drug Costs Top Public’s Health Care Priorities for Congress; Republicans Still Focused on ACA Repeal
Percent who say the following is the top priority for Congress to work on: Total Democrats Independents Republicans
Making sure the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections continue 21% 31% 24% 11%
Lowering prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible 20 20 20 20
Implementing a national Medicare-for-all plan 11 20 8 3
Repealing and replacing the ACA 11 3 7 27
Protecting people from surprise high out-of-network medical bills 9 4 10 8
Note: If more than one priority was chosen as “extremely important,” respondent was forced to choose which priority was the “most important.”

The Role of Independents in the Democratic Health Care Debate

One of the major narratives coming out of the 2018 midterm elections was the role that health care was playing in giving Democratic candidates the advantage in close Congressional races. Consistently throughout the election cycle, KFF polling found health care as the top campaign issue for both Democratic and independent voters. While a majority of Democrats want the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to focus on improving and protecting the ACA, Democratic-leaning independents have more divided opinions of the future of 2010 health care law. These individuals – who tend to be younger and male – would rather Democrats in Congress focus efforts on passing a national Medicare-for-all plan (54 percent) than improving the ACA (39 percent) – which is counter to what Democrats overall report. In addition, when asked whether House Democrats owe it to their voters to begin debating proposals aimed at passing a national health plan or work on health care legislation that can be passed with a divided Congress and a Republican President, Democrats are divided (49 percent v. 44 percent) while Democratic-leaning independents prioritize House Democrats working on bipartisan health care legislation (53 percent) over debating national health plan proposals (39 percent).

 

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to Four-Year High

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246134/uninsured-rate-rises-four-year-high.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Line graph. The percentage of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown steadily since 2016.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The U.S. uninsured rate has risen steadily since 2016
  • Women, younger adults, the lower-income have the greatest increases
  • All regions except for the East reported increases

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. adult uninsured rate stood at 13.7% in the fourth quarter of 2018, according to Americans’ reports of their own health insurance coverage, its highest level since the first quarter of 2014. While still below the 18% high point recorded before implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s individual health insurance mandate in 2014, today’s level is the highest in more than four years, and well above the low point of 10.9% reached in 2016. The 2.8-percentage-point increase since that low represents a net increase of about seven million adults without health insurance.

Nationwide, the uninsured rate climbed from 10.9% in the third and fourth quarters of 2016 to 12.2% by the final quarter of 2017; it has risen steadily each quarter since that time. Since Gallup’s measurement began in 2008, the national uninsured rate reached its highest point in the third quarter of 2013 at 18.0%, and thus, the current rate of 13.7% — although it continues a rising trend — remains well below the peak level.

These data, collected as part of the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index, are based on Americans’ answers to the question, “Do you have health insurance coverage?” Sample sizes of randomly selected adults in 2018 were around 28,000 per quarter.

The ACA marketplace exchanges opened on Oct. 1, 2013, and most new insurance plans purchased during the last quarter of that year began their coverage on Jan. 1, 2014. Medicaid expansion among 24 states (and the District of Columbia) also began at the beginning of 2014, with 12 more states expanding Medicaid since that time. Expanded Medicaid coverage as a part of the ACA broadens the number of low-income Americans who qualify for it to those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. The onset of these two major mechanisms of the ACA at the beginning of 2014 makes the uninsured rate in the third quarter of 2013 the natural benchmark for comparison to measure the effects of that policy.

Uninsured Rates Increase Most Among Women, Young Adults, the Lower-Income

The uninsured rate rose for most subgroups in the fourth quarter of 2018 compared with the same quarter in 2016, when the uninsured rate was lowest. Women, those living in households with annual incomes of less than $48,000 per year, and young adults under the age of 35 reported the greatest increases. Those younger than 35 reported an uninsured rate of over 21%, a 4.8-point increase from two years earlier. And the rate among women — while still below that of men — is among the fastest rising, increasing from 8.9% in late 2016 to 12.8% at the end of 2018.

At 7.1%, the East region, which has in recent years maintained the lowest uninsured rate in the nation, is the only one of the four regions nationally whose rate is effectively unchanged since the end of 2016. Respondents from the West, Midwest and South regions all reported uninsured rates for the fourth quarter of 2018 that represent increases of over 3.0 points. The South, which has always had the highest uninsured rate in the U.S. but has seen some of the greatest declines at the state level, has had a 3.8-point increase to 19.6%.

Implications

A number of factors have likely played a role in the steady increase in the uninsured rate over the past two years. One may be an increase in the rates of insurance premiums in many states for some of the more popular ACA insurance plans in 2018 (although most states saw premiums stabilize for 2019). For enrollees with incomes that do not qualify for government subsidies, the resulting hike in rates could have had the effect of driving them out of the marketplace. Insurers have also increasingly withdrawn from the ACA exchanges altogether, resulting in fewer choices and less competition in many states.

Other factors could be a result of policy decisions. The open enrollment periods since 2018 have been characterized by a significant reduction in public marketing and shortened enrollment periods of under seven weeks, about half of previous periods. Funding for ACA “navigators” who assist consumers in ACA enrollment has also been reduced in 2018 to $10 million, compared with $63 million in 2016. Overall, after open enrollment in the ACA federal insurance marketplace (i.e., healthcare.gov) peaked in 2016 at 9.6 million consumers, it declined by approximately 12.5%, to 8.4 million in 2019, based on recently released figures.

Other potential factors include political forces that may have increased uncertainty surrounding the ACA marketplace. Early in his presidency, for example, President Donald Trump announced, “I want people to know Obamacare is dead; it’s a dead healthcare plan.” Congressional Republicans made numerous high-profile attempts in 2017 to repeal and replace the plan. Although none fully succeeded legislatively, the elimination of the ACA’s individual mandate penalty as part of the December 2017 Republican tax reform law may have reduced participation in the insurance marketplace in the most recent open enrollment period.

Trump’s decision in October 2017 to end cost-sharing reduction could also potentially have affected the uninsured rate. The cost-sharing payments were made to insurers in the marketplace exchanges to offset some of their costs for offering lower-cost plans to lower-income Americans. The Trump administration had previously renewed the payments on a month-by-month basis but later concluded that such payments were unlawful. In April 2018, a federal court granted a request for a class-action lawsuit by health insurers to sue the federal government for failing to make the payments. Such lawsuits continue to be litigated.

 

 

 

 

CMS cuts ACA exchange fees, floats proposal to end silver-loading

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cms-cuts-aca-exchange-fees-floats-proposal-to-end-silver-loading/546399/

Image result for silver

Dive Brief:

  • CMS proposed in its 2020 Payment Notice on Thursday a reduction to exchange user fees and is asking for feedback on a proposals to potentially eliminate auto-reenrollment and “silver-loading,” a strategy used by payers where they pack the ACA’s subsidy-rich silver tier plans in order to make up for losses incurred by the elimination of cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments.
  • The agency is proposing to drop the exchange fee to 3% from 3.5% of premiums for plans sold on the federal exchange and to 2.5% from 3% for plans sold on state exchanges. If finalized as-is, the rule would also increase the annual cost-sharing limit for self-only coverage to $8,200 from $7,900 and to $16,400 from $15,800 for family coverage.
  • While rule’s intentions are to lower premiums, critics have argued it would trigger the opposite. Former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt warned through a series of tweets that the rule is an “act of sabotage” that would cut coverage for 2 million Americans, “significantly increase premiums, and raise out of pocket costs.”

Dive Insight:

CMS has presented the rule as another step toward deregulating healthcare and lowering costs for consumers. Consumers, the agency argues, will ultimately save money on premiums, savings that will theoretically trickle down from insurers, who will pay less in exchange user fees once the proposal is finalized.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement that the rule is aligned with the Trump administration’s healthcare goals, which include lowered premiums, reduced regulations, market stability, consumerism and protection for taxpayers.

While no regulations limiting or banning auto-enrollment and silver-loading are contained in the rule, CMS has requested public comment on the two issues for consideration in future rules before 2021.

The Administration supports a legislative solution that would appropriate CSR payments and end silver loading,” the proposed rule states. “There is a concern that automatic re-enrollment eliminates an opportunity for consumers to update their coverage and premium tax credit eligibility as their personal circumstances change, potentially leading to eligibility errors, tax credit miscalculations, unrecoverable federal spending on the credits, and general consumer confusion.”

Critics called it the latest act of “sabotage” on the ACA.

Ending auto-enrollment, a key feature of the ACA, would result in lost coverage for a number of Americans.

The end of silver-loading, a tactic many health plans resorted to in 2018 after the elimination of the law’s cost sharing reductions, could wreak havoc for insurers in the exchanges.

Opponents of the rule believe cracking down on silver-loading would do little more than boost premiums for consumers, as insurers would have no other mechanism to mitigate subsidy losses. 

President Trump, Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a statement. is “hurting families left and right.” Murray is the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

“Even 27 days into the shutdown he caused, President Trump has somehow found time to further sabotage health care for patients, families, and women —this time by proposing what would amount to a health care tax on patients and families across the country,” Murray said.

America’s Health Insurance Plans praised the reduced user fee, adding the proposed rule focuses on “stability in the individual market.” But it is unclear where the insurance lobby stands on the proposals to potentially end auto-reenrollment and the practice of silver-loading.

Public comments on the rule are due February 19. 

 

 

Fifth Circuit Hits Pause on ACA Lawsuit Over Government Shutdown

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/fifth-circuit-hits-pause-aca-lawsuit-over-government-shutdown

At the urging of the Trump administration, an appellate judge put legal wrangling over the Obama-era law’s constitutionality on hold until the partial government shutdown ends.

The appeals process to review a ruling that declared the entire Affordable Care Act invalid will have to wait until attorneys for the federal government have funding to proceed.

Fifth Circuit Court Judge Leslie H. Southwick issued a stay in the case Friday, granting a request filed earlier in the week by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The pause comes three weeks into a partial government shutdown that’s poised to become this weekend the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump insists that Congress authorize $5.7 billion for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and Democrats refuse to do so.


While most of the federal government was funded by earlier legislation, this shutdown affects about 800,000 federal workers and inhibits the work of several agencies that handle health-related tasks.

Both the plaintiffs and federal defendants agreed that a stay would be appropriate. But the California-led coalition of Democratic state attorneys general challenging the lower court’s decision and the U.S. House of Representatives—which, newly under Democratic control, is seeking to intervene in the case to defend the ACA—opposed the stay request.

 

 

 

 

ACA lawsuit puts GOP in an awkward position

https://www.axios.com/affordable-care-act-lawsuit-republicans-2c0aff0e-e870-49af-a15e-554d34d3ad62.html

Image result for aca lawsuit

A lawsuit that threatens to kill the entire Affordable Care Act could be a political disaster for the GOP, but most Republicans aren’t trying to stop it — and some openly want it to succeed.

Between the lines: The GOP just lost the House to Democrats who campaigned heavily on health care, particularly protecting people with pre-existing conditions, but the party’s base still isn’t ready to accept the ACA as the law of the land.

The big picture: A district judge ruled last month that the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the whole law must fall along with it. That decision is being appealed.

  • A victory for the Republican attorneys general who filed the lawsuit — or for the Trump administration’s position — would likely cause millions of people with pre-existing conditions to lose their coverage or see their costs skyrocket.

Some Republicans want the lawsuit to go away.

  • Rep. Greg Walden, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, supports fully repealing the ACA’s individual mandate, which the 2017 tax law nullified. That’s what sparked this lawsuit, and formal repeal would likely put the legal challenge to rest.
  • Sen. Susan Collins laughed when I asked her whether she hopes the plaintiffs win the case. “No. What a question,” she said.

But other Republicans say they see an opportunity.

  • If the lawsuit prevails, “it means that we could rebuild and make sure that we have a health care system that is going to ensure that individuals are in charge of their health care,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers said.
  • Sen. David Perdue said that “of course” he wants the challengers to win, which would “give us an opportunity to get at the real problem, and that is the cost side of health care.”
  • Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she views the lawsuit “as an opportunity for us to assure pre-existing conditions and make sure that we fix some of the broken problems,” but that she doesn’t know if it’d be good if the plaintiffs win.

The bottom line: “The longer we’re talking about preexisting conditions, the longer we’re losing. We need to focus on a message that can win us voters in 2020. The debate of preexisting conditions was a stone-cold loser for us in 2018,” said Matt Gorman, the communications director for House Republicans’ campaign arm during the 2018 cycle.