GOP resolution would protect pre-existing conditions
Rep. Pete Sessions says it was the failure of the ACA to offer true health insurance that led to the Republicans’ latest concept.
With a month to go before midterm Congressional elections, the state of health insurance for American voters has become a hot potato. The problem for the Republican Party: the Democrats have a corner on asbestos gloves.
The GOP’s latest attempt to demonstrate concern for those with pre-existing medical conditions is House Resolution 1089. Crafted by Rep. Pete Sessions—who happens to be facing a tough race in Texas—the short resolution is designed to address the many polls that have found that most Americans think pre-existing medical conditions should be fully and affordably covered.
In earlier attempts to overturn the Affordable Care Act, the GOP had blithely been prepared to remove the ACA’s protections for those with existing conditions.
With the polls’ results irrefutably supporting pre-existing coverage, Sessions and other have cast about for a way to distance themselves from that position. Thus we have Res. 1089, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a replacement for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should have certain features,” including generous coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The resolution enumerates such protection in an almost point-by-point regurgitation of the coverage already provided by the ACA, with some “improvements” such as less expensive coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. It places the burden for implementation of the reform elements on states, thus allowing the GOP to wash its hands nationally of unpleasant details that could arise.
Sessions, in unveiling his “plan” in September, said it was the failure of the ACA to offer true health insurance that led to the Republicans’ latest concept.
“It is painfully obvious that Obamacare has failed the American people. From sky-rocketing premiums to failed markets, this one-size fits all so-called plan has not accomplished any of the lofty goals Democrats promised it would. In my healthcare plan, I made sure to preserve patient protections, especially ones to prevent anyone from discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions,” Sessions said in a statement describing his objectives for reform.
One of the major flaws cited by critics of this draft of a health strategy lies buried below the generous allowances the resolution endorses for covering pre-existing conditions. States can “ask for and receive broad authority to reform their individual health insurance markets provided that any such reform” as long as the plan that emerges “has an impact on Federal finances that is budget neutral.”
Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, told Bloomberg it’s crucial to examine the fine print on resolutions like Sessions to see whether such a plan would offer true coverage.
“The details matter enormously in insurance regulation,” he said.
Pre-existing condition directives don’t work without specific ways to expand participation and fund the costly coverage.
“It’s remarkable how much the ACA and the efforts to repeal it have made protections for people with pre-existing conditions something of a political third rail,” Levitt told Bloomberg. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a candidate running for office right now who says they’re against protections for pre-existing conditions, but whether they support actual polices to make that protection a reality is a different question.”
Read more: