Health care in­dus­try groups warn of con­se­quences to nix­ing ACA

The Denver Post - - FRONT PAGE - By Ri­cardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Bi­par­ti­san groups warn the in­com­ing Repub­li­can ad­min­is­tra­tion and Congress against re­peal­ing the Af­ford­able Care Act with­out a clear plan to ad­dress the con­se­quences.

wash­ing­ton» 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 — bean­coun­ters who make long-range eco­nomic es­ti­mates — weighed in and more in­ter­est groups are ex­pected to share their views soon. 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 pre­ex­ist­ing 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.

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 re­quire bil­lions in gov­ern­ment fi­nanc­ing and ex­ten­sive reg­u­la­tions, a stum­bling block for the most con­ser­va­tive Repub­li­cans.

Pres­i­dent-elect 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.”

In­dus­try groups are giv­ing law­mak­ers plenty to con­sider:

• 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.

• Amer­ica’s Health In­sur­ance Plans, the big­gest in­surer lobby, 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.

• Per­haps the most sober­ing as­sess­ment comes from the Amer­i­can Acad­emy of Ac­tu­ar­ies, who un­like hos­pi­tals and in­sur­ers, don’t have a di­rect fi­nan­cial stake in the fu­ture of the health law. The group said de­lay­ing the ef­fec­tive date of a re­peal while a re­place­ment is worked out could cre­ate such un­cer­tainty that it trig­gers a cri­sis for the in­di­vid­ual health in­sur­ance mar­ket. That’s where peo­ple who don’t have job-based cov­er­age can buy poli­cies, in­clud­ing more than 10 mil­lion in gov­ern­ment mar­kets like Health­ and an es­ti­mated 9 mil­lion who pur­chase their plans in­de­pen­dently.

Protesters on both sides have been voic­ing their opin­ion. Re­place­ment leg­is­la­tion that cov­ers a com­pa­ra­ble num­ber of peo­ple would re­quire bil­lions in gov­ern­ment fi­nanc­ing and ex­ten­sive reg­u­la­tions. Man­del Ngan, AFP (left); Jac­que­lyn Martin, The As­so­ci­ated Press

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.