Obamacare repeal path raises worries
Health care industry urges smooth transition
One by one, key health care industry groups are telling the incoming Republican administration and Congress that it’s not a good idea to repeal the 2010 health care law without clear plans to address the consequences.
Hospitals, insurers and actuaries — bean counters who make long-range economic estimates — weighed in recently and more interest groups are expected to make their views known soon. Representing patients, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network reminded lawmakers that lives are at stake.
The concerns go beyond the obvious potential hardship for 20 million people covered by subsidized private insurance and expanded Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s signature law. Hospitals say a stand-alone repeal would cost them billions, compromising their ability to serve local communities. Insurers say Congress must be careful not to create even more uncertainty and instability. Actuaries worry that the mere promise of an eventual replacement won’t be enough to sustain the individual health insurance market.
And the anti-cancer network is concerned that protection for people with pre-existing health conditions might be undermined or lost. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was common for insurers to deny coverage to people with a cancer diagnosis, even if successfully treated, or to charge them more. Also, uninsured people with cancer are more likely to be diagnosed late, when there’s less chance of a cure.
“Replacement health care legislation that accompanies repeal needs to provide recognized patient protections that currently exist,” Chris Hansen, the group’s president, said in a statement.
Republicans say they remain resolute in their determination to repeal “Obamacare,” but some also seem mindful of the potential political risks.
The basic plan under GOP consideration involves repealing the health law next year, but delaying the effective date to allow Congress time to pass a replacement. That replacement presumably would do many of the things the Affordable Care Act does, such as subsidizing coverage and protecting people in poor health, but with less government regulation and without the unpopular “individual mandate” for most Americans to have coverage or risk fines.
However, replacement legislation that covers a comparable number of people would still require billions in government financing and extensive regulations, a stumbling block for the most conservative Republicans.
The path forward is complicated by the dynamics of the 2016 political campaign, which centered on personalities rath-
er than policy. Presidentelect Donald Trump promised to repeal “Obamacare,” but his ideas for a replacement plan were more talking points than an actual plan.
“Public opinion seems to be shifting,” said John Rother, president of the National Coalition on Health Care, an umbrella organization that includes doctors, businesses, unions and religious groups. “It’s not clear when people say they want to ‘repeal’ what they mean by that. It may mean they just want to get rid of the individual mandate.”
The two main hospital lobbies — the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals — released studies indicating more than $200 billion in potential losses for their members
if the health law is repealed without restoring funding cuts that were used to finance coverage expansion. “Losses of this magnitude cannot be sustained and will ... decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies ... and result in massive job losses,” the groups said in a letter to Trump.
America’s Health Insurance Plans, the biggest insurer lobby, said its members need time, as well as an assurance that federal dollars will continue to flow, to successfully transition to a new system under different rules. It took the better part of three years once Obama’s health law was passed to launch its major coverage expansion, and that was anything but smooth. Insurers said the new administration and Congress need to “send strong signals” that they’re willing to maintain the current market through at least Jan. 1, 2019.