Tran’s daughter, An Tran, who has a doctorate in business administration and teaches marketing at the University of La Verne in California, did what she thought was necessary to ensure medical coverage for her then-65-year-old father during the pandemic. But the only option for a visitor on a tourist visa was travel insurance. In early March 2020, An Tran found and purchased a policy, for about $350 a month, from a company called Seven Corners.

She might as well not have bothered.

The elder Tran had been staying at An’s home in Diamond Bar, California, about a year when he told his daughter he was having trouble seeing out of his right eye. A visit to an ophthalmologist produced a solemn verdict: Tran had severe glaucoma and would quickly go blind unless he got surgery.

Seven Corners gave written preapproval for the procedures recommended by Dr. Brian Chen. To be safe, An Tran called the insurer “many times” to confirm it would cover the expense, but no one she spoke with would give her a definitive answer, she said. Chen, however, assured An that insurance companies typically covered the treatment, which was pretty routine.

On April 19, Tran underwent the first of three eye surgeries to resolve the glaucoma. The surgeries — the last was on July 19 — were successful. And then on Aug. 5, Seven Corners sent An Tran a denial of service letter.

The company’s policy excluded coverage for any “preexisting condition,” by which it meant any condition “whether or not previously manifested, symptomatic, known, diagnosed, treated or disclosed,” the letter said.

An Tran and her father were on the hook for nearly $38,000 in medical bills, although Seven Corners had preauthorized the surgery and she had paid around $6,000 for the insurance over the previous year and a half.

As for the bill, “my dad obviously can’t pay it,” Tran said. His $260 monthly pension from the Vietnamese government isn’t enough even for him to live on in Vietnam, she said.

The surgical procedures Duy Hoa Tran received are quite routine in the United States, said Dr. Davinder Grover, an ophthalmologist in the Dallas area and clinical spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Medicare would generally pay about a quarter of the $37,896.83 Tran was billed for the surgeries, Grover said. If Tran’s daughter had known beforehand that insurance wouldn’t cover the procedures, the physician’s practice might have been willing to charge something like $12,000, he said.

The policy An Tran purchased had no deductible and offered coverage of up to $100,000 in medical bills, including covid care. But travel insurance generally covers only emergency or urgent medical expenses, according to the California state insurance commission, which regulates policies in the state.

Megan Moncrief, chief marketing officer for Squaremouth, which aggregates various companies’ travel insurance plans — including some from Seven Corners — and offers them through its website, said the policy language was not unusual for travel insurance. She noted the policy’s stipulation that it covered some acute conditions only if the patient sought treatment within 24 hours of the initial symptoms.

Moncrief said the fact that Tran did not seek treatment immediately may be the reason his surgeries weren’t covered. (Seven Corners refused all comment on the case.) She acknowledged it was hardly surprising he hadn’t dashed to the doctor at the first sign of discomfort: “I don’t know that I would have done that either, if I just had blurry vision.”

As for Seven Corners’ refusal to pay despite precertification, this is not uncommon, she said. By precertifying, the insurer verifies that a procedure is a covered benefit but doesn’t guarantee the insurer will cover it for that particular patient.

Travel insurance typically offers little protection for any health problem linked to a preexisting condition, regardless of whether that condition has ever been diagnosed, says Susan Yates, general manager in the U.S. for Falck Global Assistance, an international insurer.

“For visitors to the U.S., especially those who are not permanent residents or citizens, it can be difficult to obtain health insurance,” she said. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t cover tourists, though some resident noncitizens can buy coverage.

“It’s usually better for a visitor to buy travel insurance from their country of origin, but in some countries (Vietnam being one), the insurance market is not developed,” Yates wrote in an email.

Tran had tried unsuccessfully for months to fly home to his town near Ho Chi Minh City, where his wife lives with another grandchild. On 14 occasions, An bought him tickets on regular commercial flights that were subsequently canceled. He was also unable to get a seat on charter flights arranged by the Vietnamese government; those tickets generally were available only through third parties charging up to $10,000.

The eye surgeon, Chen, offered to discuss the case with KHN, but his medical group’s counsel said it had a policy against discussing insurance issues with reporters, even with the patient’s consent.

After KHN approached him to discuss the issue, Chen told An Tran that he was waiving his $8,144 fee for the surgeries. The Acuity Eye Group, where he practices, would not immediately confirm Chen’s offer, but told An Tran they were seeking approvals to waive his fee and all other charges as well.

On Sept. 15, Duy Hoa Tran finally managed to get on a charter flight back to Vietnam. He’s happy to be home, An Tran said.

Under s, she could be liable for his remaining bills.

This story was produced by , which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But Bloechl, now 31, didn’t know much about health insurance. So when the broker told him a UnitedHealthcare Golden Rule plan would cover him for a year for less than his marketplace plan — “Unless you like throwing money away, this is the plan you should buy,” he recalls the agent saying — he signed up.

That was December 2016. A month later Bloechl was diagnosed with after an MRI showed tumors on his spine.

To Bloechl’s dismay, he soon learned that none of the expensive care he needed would be covered by his health plan. Instead of a comprehensive plan that complied with the ACA, he had purchased a bundle of four short-term plans with three-month terms that provided only limited benefits and didn’t cover preexisting conditions.

Because they tend to be less expensive, short-term plans continue to find buyers, and they have been championed by the Trump administration, which has loosened restrictions on them, as an alternative for consumers.

With this year’s open enrollment period well underway, millions of people are looking for coverage on the federal and state marketplaces. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between comprehensive plans sold there and “junk” plans with limited benefits and coverage restrictions.

“These plans continue to proliferate,” said Cheryl Fish-Parcham, director of access initiatives at Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy organization. “People need to be careful, whether they’re buying by phone or on a website.”

Bloechl assumed he was buying a comprehensive plan that would cover him for a life-threatening illness, although at the time he had no inkling he was sick. But when doctors said Bloechl needed a stem cell transplant, Golden Rule denied the request.

The reason: He had visited a chiropractor for back pain before he bought the plan. Bloechl had blamed the pain on the heavy lifting that came with running his Chicago landscaping business. But Golden Rule argued that he had sought medical treatment for a preexisting condition — cancer — so the plan didn’t have to cover it. It didn’t matter that he hadn’t been diagnosed when he purchased it.

The insurer didn’t cover any of his other bills for chemo and radiation either. Bloechl appealed the decision, but his appeals failed. He had more than $800,000 in bills for care — and that’s before the stem cell transplant he desperately needed.

“It’s just disgusting that these companies expect Joe Schmo or a guy like me to interpret [these policies] and then get screwed in the end,” Bloechl said.

UnitedHealthcare refused to discuss this case with KHN unless Bloechl signed a statement waiving his right to privacy. But he told KHN he did not feel comfortable signing a legal document provided by the insurer.

“Our agents work with individuals to help them understand their health insurance options and select a plan that best meets their needs,” said UnitedHealthcare’s communications director, Maria Gordon Shydlo, in an email. “We inform each individual of their coverage options, including associated costs, network size and if the selected plan covers pre-existing conditions. We adhere to a stringent application process that helps ensure consumers understand the plan they are purchasing before they make a final decision.”

Consumer advocates have long sounded alarm bells about short-term and other plans that don’t comply with the Affordable Care Act rules that require plans to provide comprehensive benefits to all comers, regardless of their health, and prohibit placing annual or lifetime dollar limits on coverage. ACA-compliant plans can also be purchased outside the marketplace, however, and that’s where shoppers may run into trouble, thinking they’re buying comprehensive coverage when they’re actually buying something much more limited.

“It’s a little bit of the Wild West out there,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “We often get calls about these products, and sometimes it can be challenging to figure out what they even are.”

Short-term plans have garnered much attention in recent years. In 2017, the Obama administration limited their duration to less than three months to discourage people from relying on these limited plans for primary coverage rather than as a temporary coverage bridge for people switching plans, as intended. But these plans were championed by the Trump administration as a cheaper option for consumers, and it issued in 2018 that permitted short-term plans with terms of up to 364 days, with an option to renew for up to 36 months. The rule requires short-term plan materials to explain that the plans are not comprehensive insurance and may not cover some medical costs.

Such plans can be appealing to healthy people who don’t expect to need medical care. But as Bloechl’s experience shows, life can throw curveballs.

“Our patients are often young and healthy,” said Ryan Holeywell, senior director of advocacy communications at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Some states the sale of short-term plans on the individual market.

But these short-term plans are just the tip of the iceberg.

There are fixed indemnity plans that pay out a certain amount — $100 a day for a limited hospital stay or $150 for an OB-GYN visit, for example — that the actual costs.

Accident and critical illness plans provide lump-sum cash benefits when people experience medical emergencies like a heart attack or stroke under certain circumstances.

Cancer-only plans may provide hospitalization coverage but not cover other services. “You may be treated with chemo and radiation but never go to the hospital,” said Anna Howard, a policy principal at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “So, the policy may never pay out.”

Then there are that combine options, such as a short-term plan along with a prescription drug discount card and cancer coverage.

Unfortunately, consumers can’t always rely on insurance brokers to give them accurate information or steer them to comprehensive coverage, as Sam Bloechl discovered.

In August, the federal Government Accountability Office about the experiences of “secret shoppers” who called 31 health insurance sales representatives and asked about plans, saying they had preexisting conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. In more than a quarter of cases, the sales reps “engaged in potentially deceptive marketing practices,” the report found, including falsely claiming that drugs such as insulin were covered, or offering a plan that didn’t cover preexisting conditions.

One reason brokers might encourage consumers to buy non-ACA plans: higher commissions.

“In our , they do report they pay higher commissions than ACA plans,” Corlette said. Some brokers reported they avoid noncompliant plans, however, because they pose risks for consumers.

The National Association of Health Underwriters, an organization for health insurance and employee benefits professionals, did not respond to a request for information and comment.

Consumers can be sure they’re getting a comprehensive, ACA-compliant plan if they buy it from marketplaces set up by that health law, Howard said.

Brokers can help people understand their options and buy a plan, including plans that comply with the ACA, but picking a broker can be challenging.

“Ideally go to someone in a brick-and-mortar building who has to bump into you in the grocery store,” Corlette said.

After his experience with Golden Rule, Sam Bloechl decided his best option was to offer a group plan to workers at his small landscaping company that he could also enroll in. He worked with a different broker, and he had lawyers look over the policies he was considering. He wanted to be sure that whatever plan he bought would cover his stem cell transplant.

The new plan did cover it. And by the time he went to work out payment on his $800,000-plus bill, his income had declined so much because of his illness that he qualified for charity care. The hospital wrote off his bill.

His cancer is in remission.

But the experience with the short-term policy still rankles. “Charity care picked up the one bill and [UnitedHealthcare Golden Rule’s] competitor paid for the transplant,” he said. “They got off the hook without paying a dime.”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Ellos se unen al club de los estadounidenses con condiciones preexistentes.

¿Qué tipo de plan es mejor para alguien con un problema médico continuo e impredecible? Esa pregunta está apareciendo en los chats de pacientes, y entre las personas que buscan ayuda para adquirir un seguro de salud.

“Estamos escuchando a muchas personas que han tenido COVID y quieren poder lidiar con los efectos a largo plazo que todavía están sufriendo”, dijo Mark Van Arnam, director del North Carolina Navigator Consortium, un grupo de organizaciones que ofrece ayuda gratuita a los residentes del estado que se inscriben para conseguir cobertura médica.

La buena noticia para quienes buscan su propia cobertura es que la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) prohíbe a las aseguradoras discriminar a las personas con afecciones médicas o cobrarles más que a los consumidores más saludables.

Los ex pacientes de COVID podrían enfrentar una variedad de efectos físicos o mentales, que incluyen daño pulmonar, problemas cardíacos o neurológicos, ansiedad y depresión. Si bien algunos de estos problemas desaparecerán con el tiempo, otros pueden convertirse en afecciones de larga data.

Por eso, hay que inscribirse y tener seguro ya. En la mayoría de los estados, la inscripción abierta en los planes de ACA termina el 15 de diciembre, aunque en los 14 estados y el Distrito de Columbia que gerencian sus propios mercados cierra más tarde.

Estos son algunos consejos si tuviste COVID y estás buscando un seguro de salud:

Asegúrate de seleccionar un plan calificado por ACA

Puede resultar tentador considerar otros tipos de cobertura, por ejemplo los planes de salud de corto plazo, en sitios web privados. Pero los planes que no son de ACA ofrecen una cobertura menos completa, no cubren muchos servicios, y no son elegibles para recibir subsidios federales para ayudar a pagar las primas.

Estos son factores clave para los pacientes que experimentan problemas médicos después de luchar contra el coronavirus.

Por ejemplo, los planes de corto plazo y de duración limitada son más baratos, pero las aseguradoras que los ofrecen no tienen que aceptar a personas con afecciones preexistentes o, si inscriben a esas personas, los planes no cubren los gastos médicos de los miembros. Muchos planes de corto plazo no cubren beneficios como medicamentos recetados o atención de salud mental.

Otro tipo de plan que no cumple con los requisitos de ACA son los “ministerios compartidos”, en los que los miembros acuerdan pagar las facturas médicas de los demás. Pero dichos pagos no están garantizados y muchos no cubren nada que se considere preexistente.

Compara los planes de ACA disponibles en tu área

Esto puede ayudarte a conseguir un plan que cubre tus necesidades médicas después de haber tenido COVID.

La comparación también permite a los consumidores ajustar la información sobre sus ingresos, que puede haber cambiado con respecto al año pasado, especialmente después de haber estado enfermo, y podría afectar los niveles de subsidios para aquellos que son elegibles para recibir asistencia para comprar un plan.

Según ACA, los están disponibles en una escala móvil para las personas que ganan entre el 100% y el 400% del nivel federal de pobreza. Este rango el próximo año es de $12,760 a $ 51,040 para una persona y de $26,200 a $104,800 para una familia de cuatro.

Averigua si tu médico forma parte de la red

Debes conocer a fondo los médicos, especialistas y hospitales de tu plan. Además, consulta el vademecum del plan para ver si los medicamentos recetados que tomas están cubiertos.

Si usas un médico o centro de salud que está fuera de la red, puedes recibir cuentas sorpresa altísimas.

Este subconjunto de pacientes de COVID que informan problemas de salud persistentes puede necesitar ver a una variedad de especialistas, incluidos neumólogos, cardiólogos, neurólogos, reumatólogos y profesionales de salud mental.

“Entonces, ya estás hablando de cinco o seis”, dijo Erika Sward, vicepresidenta asistente de defensa nacional de la Asociación Americana del Pulmón.

Para verificar el estado de la red de proveedores médicos, visita el sitio web cuidadodesalud.gov. Si tu estado no usa esta plataforma federal, habrá un link que te llevará al mercado en tu estado.

Ingresa tu código postal y otra información para comenzar a buscar planes disponibles.

Ajusta la búsqueda usando el botón “agregar proveedores médicos” en cuidadodesalud.gov, o accede al “directorio de proveedores” de cada plan para ver qué médicos y hospitales específicos están incluidos.

Para estar seguro, dijo Sward, llama a cada consultorio para confirmar que el médico que necesitarás ver forme parte de la red de proveedores de tu aseguradora el próximo año.

No solo mires el costo de las primas: los deducibles también son importantes

Los consumidores deben pagar deducibles, un determinado monto, antes que la aseguradora comience a pagar. Puede ser un golpe fuerte al bolsillo, especialmente para aquéllos que necesitan atención de largo plazo, como muchos pacientes que tuvieron COVID.

Los deducibles promedio varían entre los diferentes “niveles” de los planes de ACA, alcanzando los $6,992 para los planes bronce; $4,879 para los planes plata y $ 1,533 para los planes oro, según .

Generalmente, los planes con deducibles más altos tienen primas mensuales más bajas. Pero superar el deducible es un desafío para muchos.

Lo que es mejor para las personas con problemas de salud en curso depende de las circunstancias individuales.

“Equilibrar los deducibles y las primas es una consideración realmente importante para los consumidores”, dijo Laurie Whitsel, vicepresidenta de investigación y traducción de pólizas de la Asociación Americana del Corazón.

Los consumidores también deben sopesar los gastos de bolsillo que pueden llegar a tener si necesitan atención recurrente.

Aunque ACA impone un límite anual para este gasto, los usuarios frecuentes de servicios de salud pueden descubrir que los planes que inicialmente parecen menos costosos, basándose ​​únicamente en la prima o el deducible, pueden costar más una vez que se consideran todos los factores de desembolso personal.

Finalmente, las aseguradoras en algunos mercados están promocionando planes sin deducible.

En lugar de un deducible anual, estas pólizas tienen montos de copago o coseguro más altos cada vez que un paciente ve a un médico, se hace una prueba o se somete a una cirugía.

Estos pueden oscilar entre $50 y más de $1,000, según la visita, la prueba o atención proporcionada. Aún así, para algunos servicios costosos, esos pagos pueden ser menos que pagar un deducible.

El corridor de seguros John Dodd, de Columbus, Ohio, dijo que estos planes atraen a algunas personas que no quieren tener que desembolsar miles de dólares en pagos de deducibles antes de que su seguro cubra la mayor parte de los costos médicos.

Aun así, advirtió que muchos de los planes sin deducible tienen lo que puede ser un gasto de bolsillo considerable (cientos o incluso miles de dólares) para medicamentos recetados de marca. Algo que los pacientes que tienen problemas médicos como consecuencia de COVID pueden necesitar con más frecuencia.

Lee la letra pequeña, porque hay otros costos

Si bien los planes pueden promocionar primas similares, sus estructuras diferentes podrían afectar la cantidad que un consumidor desembolsará en copagos fijos en dólares o coseguro porcentual para ver a un médico, recoger una receta, hacerse un análisis de sangre o pasar la noche en el hospital. Esto es, nuevamente, algo en lo que los transportistas de larga distancia deben enfocarse.

Estos detalles se detallan en el “resumen de beneficios” del plan, un documento obligatorio según la ACA, que se puede encontrar en healthcare.gov o en los sitios web de las aseguradoras.

Aún así, los planes ACA limitan cuánto debe pagar un consumidor de su bolsillo durante el año. El próximo año, el máximo es $ 8.550 para un plan individual o $ 17.100 para un plan familiar.

Pide ayuda

Si bien servicios como el programa de navegación de Van Arman han experimentado fuertes recortes presupuestarios durante los últimos años, los consumidores allí y en muchos estados todavía tienen acceso a ayuda en línea o telefónica. Cuidadodesalud.gov tiene un botón para “buscar ayuda local” que puede derivar a las personas a navegadores, asistentes y agentes, en base a su código postal.

Finalmente, aquellos afectados por COVID que no cumplan con la fecha límite de inscripción abierta pueden solicitar una extensión bajo las reglas que permiten la inscripción especial para emergencias o desastres.

“No es una garantía y hay que llamar al centro de llamadas y solicitarlo”, dijo Karen Pollitz, investigadora principal de KFF.

Aún así, agregó, es mejor registrarse antes del 15 de diciembre.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

What type of plan is best for someone with an unpredictable, ongoing medical concern? That question is popping up on online chat sites dedicated to long haulers and among people reaching out for assistance in selecting insurance coverage.

“We are hearing from a lot of people who have had COVID and want to be able to deal with the long-term effects they are still suffering,” said Mark Van Arnam, director of the North Carolina Navigator Consortium, a group of organizations that offer free help to state residents enrolling in insurance.

The good news for those shopping for their own coverage is that the Affordable Care Act bars insurers from discriminating against people with medical conditions or charging them more than healthier policyholders. Former COVID patients could face a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurological concerns, anxiety and depression. Although some of these issues will dissipate with time, others may turn out to be long-standing problems.

So sign up, said Van Arnam and others to whom KHN reached out for tips on what people with post-COVID-19 should consider when selecting coverage. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but they all emphasized the need to consider a wide range of factors.

But don’t delay. Open enrollment in ACA plans is ongoing until Dec. 15 in most states — longer in some of the 14 states and the District of Columbia that run their own marketplaces.

Here are tips if you are shopping for health insurance, especially if you are a COVID long hauler or have other health issues:

Make sure to select an ACA-qualified plan.

It may be tempting to consider other, often far less expensive types of coverage offered by insurers, brokers, organizations and private websites. But those non-ACA plans offer less comprehensive coverage — and are not eligible for federal subsidies to help people who qualify cover the cost of the premiums. These are key factors for patients experiencing medical problems after battling the coronavirus.

Short-term, limited-duration plans, for example, are cheaper, but the insurers offering them don’t have to accept people with preexisting conditions — or, if they do enroll those people, the plans don’t cover the members’ medical conditions. Many short-term plans don’t cover benefits such as prescription drugs or mental health care.

Another type of plan that doesn’t meet ACA requirements are “sharing ministries,” in which members agree to pay one another’s medical bills. But such payments aren’t guaranteed — and many don’t cover anything considered preexisting.

Shop around to consider all the ACA plans available in your region.

This will help you meet your post-COVID medical needs while also getting the best buy.

Comparison-shopping also lets consumers adjust their income information, which may have changed from last year, especially after being sick, and could affect subsidy levels for those eligible for assistance in purchasing a plan.

Under the ACA, are available on a sliding scale for people who earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. That range next year is $12,760 to $51,040 for an individual and $26,200 to $104,800 for a family of four.

Networks matter. Look for your doctor or hospital in the plan.

One of the first things to do once you’ve narrowed down your choices of plans is to dig deeper to see if the doctors, specialists and hospitals you use are included in those plans’ networks. Also, check plan formularies to see if the prescription medications you take are covered.

Many insurance plans don’t have out-of-network benefits, except for emergency care. That means if a doctor or hospital doesn’t participate in the network, consumers must switch medical providers or risk huge bills by receiving out-of-network care. This should be a concern for long haulers.

This subset of COVID patients who report lingering health concerns may need to see a range of specialists, including pulmonologists, cardiologists, neurologists, rheumatologists and mental health professionals.

“So, you are already talking about five or six,” said Erika Sward, assistant vice president for national advocacy at the American Lung Association.

To check the network status of medical providers, go to the healthcare.gov website, which will direct you to your state site if you are in one of the 14 states or the District of Columbia, which run their own. Enter a ZIP code and some other information to start looking for available plans.

Narrow the search using the “add your medical providers” button on healthcare.gov, or access each plan’s “provider directory” under plan documents to see which specific doctors and hospitals are included. To be safe, Sward said, call each office to make sure they are participating with that insurer next year.

Don’t just look at premium costs: Deductibles also matter.

Consumers must pay deductible amounts before the bulk of financial assistance kicks in. That can be a big hit, especially for those who need complex care all at once or very expensive prescription drugs. Long haulers, as well as others with chronic health conditions, often fall into this category.

Median deductibles — the mark at which half cost more and half cost less — vary across the different “tiers” of ACA plans, hitting $6,992 for bronze plans; $4,879 for silver plans and $1,533 for gold plans, according to an .

Generally, plans with higher deductibles have lower monthly premiums. But getting past the deductible is a challenge for many.

What’s best for those with ongoing health conditions depends on individual circumstances.

“Balancing the deductibles and premiums is a really important consideration for consumers,” said Laurie Whitsel, vice president of policy research and translation at the American Heart Association.

Those with ongoing health conditions need to carefully weigh the expected annual out-of-pocket costs for various health plans, given that they may well be moderate to high users of health services. Healthcare.gov has a financial estimator tool that can help with the decision. Consumers can select whether they think they will have low, medium or high medical use next year to see the estimated total annual costs of each plan.

Frequent users of health services may discover that plans that initially seem least expensive, based solely on the premium or the deductible, may be costlier once all out-of-pocket factors are considered.

Finally, insurers in some markets are touting zero-deductible plans.

Instead of an annual deductible, such policies have higher copayment or coinsurance amounts each time a patient sees a doctor, gets a test or has surgery. Those can range from $50 to more than $1,000, depending on the visit, test or service provided. Still, for some costly services, those payments may amount to less than paying a deductible.

Broker John Dodd in Columbus, Ohio, said such plans appeal to some people who don’t want to have to shell out thousands of dollars in deductible payments before their insurance picks up the bulk of medical costs.

Still, he cautioned that many of the zero-deductible plans do have what can be a sizable deductible — hundreds or even thousands of dollars — for brand-name prescription drugs.

Long haulers should weigh those factors carefully, as such zero-deductible plans may be more suited to those who don’t expect to use a lot of medical care.

Read the fine print, because there are other costs.

While plans may tout similar premiums, their dissimilar structures could affect how much a consumer will shell out in flat-dollar copayments or percentage coinsurance to see a doctor, pick up a prescription, get a blood test or spend the night in the hospital. This is, again, something long haulers should focus on.

These details are spelled out in the plan’s “summary of benefits,” a required document under the ACA, which can be found on healthcare.gov or insurers’ websites.

Still, ACA plans limit how much a consumer must pay out-of-pocket for the year. Next year, the maximum is $8,550 for an individual or $17,100 for a family plan.

Ask for help.

While services such as Van Arman’s navigator program have seen stiff budget cuts during the past few years, consumers there and in many states still have access to online or phone help. Healthcare.gov has a “find local help” button that can refer people by ZIP code to navigators, assisters and brokers.

Finally, those affected by COVID who miss the open enrollment deadline can request an extension under rules that allow special enrollment for emergencies or disasters.

“It’s not a guarantee and you have to telephone the call center and ask for it,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF.

Still, she said, it’s best to sign up before Dec. 15.

“Just get it done,” Pollitz said.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Por lo general, es tarea del gobierno federal defender una ley federal, pero la Administración Trump quiere que ACA, también conocida como Obamacare, se revoque.

Por eso, el fiscal general de California, Xavier Becerra, respaldado por más de 20 estados, defiende la ley contra el desafío presentado hace dos años por una coalición de funcionarios estatales republicanos.

Becerra ha sido uno de los adversarios más formidables de Trump: ha llevado a la administración a los tribunales decenas de veces por sus políticas, que van desde la inmigración y el control de la natalidad hasta el cambio climático. Se le considera uno de los principales contendientes para llenar la vacante del Senado que se abrirá ahora que la senadora por California Kamala Harris ha sido elegida vicepresidenta.

“Tan enérgicamente como un presidente y su administración están luchando para destruir la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, nosotros estamos luchando para salvarla para todos los estadounidenses”, dijo Becerra a los periodistas en una conferencia de prensa el lunes 9.

Si el tribunal anula toda la ley, el impacto se sentiría ampliamente. La ley proporciona seguro médico a más de 23 millones de estadounidenses. Permite a las personas que califican comprar seguros a través de los mercados estatales y el federal, y recibir subsidios.

También ha recomendado  a los estados expandir sus programas de Medicaid a más personas; previene que las compañías de seguros nieguen cobertura a personas con afecciones médicas preexistentes; prohíbe los límites de por vida en la cobertura; agrega beneficios a Medicare; y permite que los hijos permanezcan en los planes de sus padres hasta los 26 años.

El tema central en es la multa fiscal federal por no tener seguro médico, como exige la ley. En 2017, el Congreso liderado por los republicanos redujo esta multa a cero, pero mantuvo intacta al resto de la ley, una medida que, según Becerra y otros expertos en leyes, muestra la intención del Congreso de apoyarla.

Sin embargo, funcionarios estatales republicanos dicen que la pérdida de la penalidad invalida el mandato de tener un seguro, así como toda la ley.

Becerra dijo que es posible que el tribunal determine que los impugnadores no tienen legitimidad para demandar al gobierno porque nadie ha sido perjudicado por una multa que cuesta cero.

Aunque la corte ha ratificado dos veces esta ley, la composición de la corte ha cambiado desde su último fallo sobre ACA en 2015. Desde entonces, Trump ha nombrado a tres jueces conservadores. Dos reemplazaron a otros conservadores, pero Amy Coney Barrett, quien fue confirmada a fines de octubre, ocupa el asiento de un ícono liberal, la jueza Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Abbe Gluck, directora del Centro Salomón de Derecho y Políticas de Salud de la Escuela de Derecho de Yale, dijo que si el tribunal cree que el requisito del seguro médico es inconstitucional sin la penalidad, debería simplemente declarar inválida esa sección de la ley, pero no anularla por completo.

Pero “he aprendido que nunca se puede predecir lo que sucede en la corte cuando se trata de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio”, dijo Gluck. “Por eso hay más preocupación, porque el estatuto se ha vuelto tan fundamentalmente importante para una quinta parte de nuestra economía y para la atención médica de prácticamente todos los estadounidenses”.

Becerra habló con Samantha Young de California Healthline sobre su defensa del Obamacare y el enorme alcance de la influencia de la ley. La entrevista ha sido editada por extension, y para mayor claridad.

¿Cuáles son las posibilidades de que la Corte Suprema derogue la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio?

Confiamos en que no solo verán la lógica legal detrás de esto, sino también la sabiduría y el éxito práctico de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, lo cual pesa mucho a favor de que los jueces reconozcan no solo que es legal, sino indispensable. Cuando los jueces examinen los fundamentos de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, encontrarán que es constitucional.

La composición de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ha cambiado desde la última vez que se pronunció sobre ACA. ¿Por qué cree que estos jueces decidirán de la misma manera?

Eso no debería cambiar el hecho de que los fundamentos de la ley siguen siendo los mismos. Los fundamentos de ACA son sólidos y funcionan. Espero que nueve jueces que revisan la misma ley observen ese precedente.

¿A qué debe prestar atención el público durante los argumentos orales?

Algo interesante de observar es cómo la corte interpreta las acciones tomadas por el Congreso en 2017, cuando aprobaron el proyecto de ley de exención de impuestos y redujeron a cero la tarifa o multa por el mandato individual. Ahora, estamos ante un presidente y al menos una cámara en el Congreso que está preparada para defender la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio. ¿Cómo podría considerar el tribunal el hecho de que otro Congreso podría restablecer parte de ese mandato?

¿Cómo se relaciona esto con el argumento legal de que haber reducido a cero el mandato de alguna manera provocó la inconstitucionalidad de toda la ley? Creo que es una cuestión que el tribunal tendrá que examinar.

¿Qué pasará si la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos declara inconstitucional la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio?

Volverán las preocupaciones. La atención preventiva de Medicare desaparecería. Los días en que los estadounidenses no tenían que preocuparse por la bancarrota por haber pisado un hospital prácticamente se esfumarían.

Tengo tres hijas. Hubo un tiempo que, como adultas, las tres estaban en nuestra cobertura de atención médica. Eso desaparecería porque la disposición que permite que los hijos adultos menores de 26 años permanezcan en la cobertura de los padres desaparecería. Y podría seguir y seguir.

¿Podrían los estados, incluido California, darse el lujo de intervenir por su cuenta?

No sé si hay algún estado que tenga la capacidad de reemplazar lo que hace la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio. Es casi imposible. Parte de eso se debe a que no podemos replicar algunas de las cosas que puede hacer el gobierno federal. No tenemos esa jurisdicción federal, no tenemos esa amplitud y profundidad de alcance.

Si el tribunal anula ACA, ¿el Congreso no puede aprobar protecciones parciales que cuenten con el apoyo de los republicanos, como la cobertura de afecciones preexistentes?

Hemos escuchado a los republicanos decir “revocar y reemplazar” durante más de 10 años, y ha sido una retórica vacía desde el principio. Para los padres que tienen hijos con afecciones médicas preexistentes, no es reconfortante que alguien les prometa que reemplazarán un derecho que saben que ahora tienen para que sus hijo vayan al hospital. Y, ¿por qué desecharías eso por una promesa vacía que ya lleva 10 años?

La mayoría de los estadounidenses dirían: sigue construyendo sobre la base de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio. Mejorémosla, pero no descartemos lo que ha funcionado.

¿Cómo sabe que la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio está funcionando?

Mi antiguo distrito congresional en Los Ángeles se encontraba entre los distritos congresionales con más cantidad de personas sin seguro de salud de la nación. En cuestión de años, una vez que entró en vigor la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, la tasa de personas sin seguro en ese distrito se redujo en un 50%. Fue simplemente astronómico.

La Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio hizo posible que las familias trabajadoras pudieran obtener cobertura y eso es enorme. Ese es el tipo de carga que se quita del alma.

¿Cree que tener a Joe Biden como presidente y a Kamala Harris como vicepresidenta en la Casa Blanca llevará a una mejora en la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio?

Como candidato a presidente, Joe Biden dijo que se basaría en el éxito de la presidencia de Obama-Biden y se aseguraría que sigamos aumentando el número de estadounidenses con acceso a una atención médica asequible. Lo bueno es que finalmente tienes a alguien en la parte superior del tótem que dice que lo vamos a mejorar. Por eso esta elección fue tan importante.

Esta historia de KHN fue publicada primero en , un servicio de la .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s usually the federal government’s job to defend a federal law, but President Donald Trump’s administration wants this law, also known as Obamacare, to be overturned.

So California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, backed by more than 20 other states, is defending the law against the challenge brought by a coalition of Republican state officials two years ago.

Becerra has been one of Trump’s most formidable adversaries, taking the administration to court scores of times over its policies, ranging from immigration and birth control to climate change. He is considered one of the leading contenders to fill the Senate vacancy that will open now that Sen. Kamala Harris of California has been elected vice president.

“Just as vigorously as a president and his administration are fighting to destroy the Affordable Care Act, we are fighting to save it for every American,” Becerra told reporters in a press conference Monday.

Should the court overturn the entire law, the impact would be felt widely. The law provides health insurance to more than 23 million Americans. It allows qualified people to buy subsidized insurance through federal or state insurance exchanges; permits states to expand their Medicaid programs to more people; prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions; bans lifetime limits on coverage; adds benefits to Medicare; and allows children to stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26.

At issue in is the federal tax penalty for not having health insurance, as the law requires. The Republican-led Congress in 2017 zeroed out the penalty but kept the rest of the health law intact, a move Becerra and some other legal experts say shows congressional intent to support the law. The Republican state officials, however, say the loss of the tax invalidates the mandate to have insurance — as well as the entire law.

Becerra said it’s possible the court may determine that the challengers don’t have standing to sue the government because no one has been harmed by a zero-tax penalty.

Although the court has twice upheld the federal health care law, the composition of the court has changed since its last ACA ruling in 2015. Trump has appointed three conservative judges since then. Two replaced other conservatives, but Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed in late October, took the seat of a liberal icon, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Abbe Gluck, faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, said that if the court believes the health insurance requirement is unconstitutional without the penalty, it should just hold that section of the law invalid but not overturn the entire law.

But “I have learned that you can never predict what happens in court when it comes to the Affordable Care Act,” Gluck said. “And that is why there is this heightened sense of concern, because the statute has become so fundamentally important to one-fifth of our economy and the health care of virtually all Americans.”

Becerra talked to California Healthline’s Samantha Young about his defense of Obamacare and the far-reaching influence of the law. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What are the chances the Supreme Court could overturn the Affordable Care Act?

We’re confident they will see not just the legal logic behind it, but the wisdom and the practical success of the Affordable Care Act — all of which weigh heavily in favor of the justices recognizing that it’s not only legal but indispensable. When the justices look to the fundamentals of the Affordable Care Act, they’re going to find that it is constitutional.

Q: The makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court has changed since it last ruled on the ACA. Why do you think these justices will rule the same way?

That shouldn’t change the fact that the fundamentals of the law have remained the same. The fundamentals of the ACA are grounded, they’re solid, and they work. I would hope that nine justices reviewing the same law would look at that precedent.

Q: What should the public pay attention to during the oral arguments?

One thing interesting to watch is how the court interprets the actions taken by Congress in 2017 when they passed the tax break bill and zeroed out the individual mandate fee or penalty. Now, we’re looking at a president and at least one house in Congress that’s prepared to defend the Affordable Care Act. How might the court look at the fact that another Congress could reinstitute part of that mandate?

What does that do to the legal argument that having zeroed out the mandate somehow triggered the unconstitutionality of the entire law? I think that’s a question the court will have to examine.

Q: What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court declares the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional?

The worries return. Preventative care under Medicare would be gone. The days when Americans don’t have to worry about going personally bankrupt for having visited a hospital would pretty much be gone.

I’ve got three daughters. There was a time when all three of them as adults were on our health care coverage. That would be gone because the provision that allows adult children under the age of 26 to remain on a parent’s coverage would disappear. I could go on and on.

Q: Could states, including California, afford to step in on their own?

I don’t know if there’s any state who has the capacity to replace what the Affordable Care Act does. It’d be almost insurmountable. Part of that is because we can’t replicate some of the things that the federal government can do. We don’t have that federal jurisdiction, we don’t have that breadth and depth of reach.

Q: If the court overturns the ACA, can’t Congress pass piecemeal protections that have Republican support, such as coverage for preexisting conditions?

We have heard Republicans say “repeal and replace” for more than 10 years, and it’s been empty rhetoric from the beginning. I’ve gotta tell you that for parents who have children with preexisting medical conditions, it is no comfort to have someone promise you that they will replace a right that you know you now have for your child to visit a hospital. And, why would you throw that away for an empty promise that’s 10 years old?

Most Americans would say, Keep building on the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it better, but don’t scrap what’s worked.

Q: How do you know the Affordable Care Act is working?

My former congressional district in Los Angeles ranked among the most uninsured congressional districts in the nation. In a matter of years, once the Affordable Care Act took place, the uninsured rate in that congressional district had gone down by 50%. It was just astronomical.

The Affordable Care Act made it possible for working families to secure coverage and that’s huge. That’s the kind of burden that’s lifted off your soul.

Q: Do you think having a President Joe Biden and a Vice President Kamala Harris in the White House will lead to an improved Affordable Care Act?

As a candidate for president, Joe Biden said that he would build on the success of the Obama-Biden presidency and make sure that we continue to increase the number of Americans who have access to affordable health care. The good thing is you finally have someone at the top of the totem pole who says we’re going to make it better. And that’s why this election was so important.

This story was produced by , which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Not having a replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act may be just fine with many of his supporters and conservatives. Most Republicans don’t want the federal government to remake the nation’s health system, said Grace-Marie Turner, of the conservative Galen Institute. “It’s a different philosophy from Democrats, who think it needs to be a big program,” she said. “Conservatives, we think of it in a more targeted way.”

Trump, of course, repeatedly promises something big. “We will have Healthcare which is FAR BETTER than ObamaCare, at a FAR LOWER COST – BIG PREMIUM REDUCTION,” Oct. 12 — hardly the first time he’s made a similar promise. “PEOPLE WITH PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL BE PROTECTED AT AN EVEN HIGHER LEVEL THAN NOW. HIGHLY UNPOPULAR AND UNFAIR INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ALREADY TERMINATED. YOU’RE WELCOME!”

But Trump needs a contingency plan if the Supreme Court accepts his argument that the ACA should be overturned. The justices are scheduled to hear the case the week after Election Day. Administration health officials have pledged to have an alternative if the high court does as they ask. But any details.

In September, Trump unveiled a package of health care proposals at a speech in North Carolina. The “” is less than an actual plan, though. It’s a vague set of claims about things that have not happened yet — like bringing down prescription drug prices — along with a laundry list of some of his administration’s lesser accomplishments on health issues, such as the and efforts to improve the availability of health care in rural areas.

As part of that overall health plan, Trump issued an declaring “it has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States … to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.” But there is nothing in the order — or in the broader outline — to ensure that would be the case if the ACA were struck down. It would take congressional action to guarantee that.

The current court controversy over the ACA arose because Congress in its 2017 tax bill eliminated the financial penalty for not having health insurance. But Congress didn’t have the votes to get rid of the mandate itself under the rules for the tax bill. Republican state officials then sued, arguing that since the Supreme Court had once upheld the ACA’s mandate, calling it a tax, once the penalty was gone, the law should also be invalidated.

Trump frequently heralds his actions, erroneously saying he killed the mandate and arguing that he got rid of the most detested part of the law.

“He likes to use words, but I don’t think there’s been a substantive policy yet,” said Len Nichols, a health policy professor at George Mason University. “I have no clue what he would do” in a second term “other than trying to repeal the ACA.”

One thing Trump accomplished in his first term is a set of potentially far-reaching regulatory actions, many of which have been challenged in federal courts. Those include allowing states to implement for people who receive Medicaid health benefits and requiring hospitals and other health providers to .

Legal analysts have doubted the administration’s authority to implement many changes Trump has proposed. But considering Trump has appointed hundreds of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, the legal landscape may be changing and more of those proposals could be allowed to proceed.

Still, Trump faces uphill battles on some of his preferred health initiatives, even if Republicans control Congress.

For example, said Dan Mendelson of the consulting group Avalere Health, “I would expect that if he’s reelected there would be a drug pricing agenda he continues to push.” Among his proposals is having Medicare pay for drugs based on what the medicines sell for in countries that negotiate prices. That would be complicated, Mendelson said, by the fact that “the broader Republican Party doesn’t want to move to a regulatory model in this country.”

But the Galen Institute’s Turner said not to discount the changes Trump has made, such as allowing broader sales of short-term health plans that are less expensive but offer fewer benefits than ACA plans. She said to expect actions in a similar vein in a second term. “He really has done a lot, using his executive authority, based on trying to make markets work better and give people more choice,” she said. “They are strategic, targeted approaches to specific problems.”

He’ll certainly have a specific problem if the ACA is struck down. Americans losing their insurance won’t want to wait to find out if he has a plan.

HealthBent, a regular feature of Kaiser Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KHN’s chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Los hallazgos, de la , indican que los votantes no confían en las garantías del presidente de que protegerá a las personas con condiciones preexistentes de las compañías de seguros si la Corte Suprema anulara la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

Un mes antes de que el tribunal escuche los argumentos de los fiscales generales republicanos y la administración Trump a favor de revocar la ley, la encuesta muestra que el 79% del público no quiere que el Supremo cancele las protecciones de cobertura para los estadounidenses con afecciones preexistentes. La mayoría de los republicanos, el 66%, dijo que no quiere que se anulen esas garantías.

Además de dejar a unos 21 millones de estadounidenses sin seguro, revocar ACA podría permitir a las compañías de seguros cobrar más o negar cobertura a las personas porque tienen condiciones preexistentes, una práctica común antes que se estableciera la ley, y que reveló en 2017 que podría afectar hasta a 133 millones de estadounidenses.

Casi 6 de cada 10 personas dijeron que tenían un familiar con una condición preexistente o crónica, como diabetes, hipertensión, o cáncer, y aproximadamente la mitad dijo que les preocupa que un ser querido no pueda pagar la cobertura, o la pierda por completo, si se anulara la ley.

La encuesta revela una preferencia sorprendente por Biden sobre Trump cuando se trata de proteger a las personas con condiciones preexistentes, un tema que el 94% de los votantes dijo que ayudaría a decidir por quién votar. Biden tiene una ventaja de 20 puntos: un 56% prefiere su enfoque, contra un 36% para Trump.

De hecho, el sondeo muestra una preferencia por Biden en todos los problemas de atención médica que se plantean, incluso entre los mayores de 65 años y en temas que Trump ha dicho que eran sus prioridades mientras estuviera en el cargo, lo que indica que los votantes no están satisfechos con el trabajo del presidente para reducir los costos de la atención médica, en particular. El apoyo a los esfuerzos de Trump para reducir el precio de los medicamentos recetados ha disminuido, y los votantes ahora prefieren el enfoque de Biden, del 50% al 43%.

La mayoría de los votantes dijeron que prefieren el plan de Biden para lidiar con el brote de COVID-19, 55% a 39%, y para desarrollar y distribuir una vacuna para COVID, 51% a 42%. Trump ha delegado en gran medida la gestión de la pandemia a los funcionarios estatales y locales, al tiempo que prometió que los científicos desafiarían las expectativas y producirían una vacuna antes del día de las elecciones.

Cuando se les preguntó qué tema era más importante para decidir por quién votar, la mayoría de los encuestados señaló a la atención médica. El 18% eligió el brote de COVID-19 y el 12% mencionó el cuidado de salud en general. Casi una proporción igual, el 29%, optó por la economía.

La encuesta se realizó del 7 al 12 de octubre, después del primer debate presidencial y el anuncio de Trump de que había dado positivo para COVID-19. El margen de error es más o menos 3 puntos porcentuales para la muestra completa y 4 puntos porcentuales para los votantes.

(KHN es un programa editorialmente independiente de KFF).

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The findings, from , signal that voters do not trust assurances from the president that he will protect people with preexisting conditions from being penalized by insurance companies if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Coming a month before the court will hear arguments from Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration that the health law should be overturned, the poll shows 79% of the public does not want the court to cancel coverage protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. A majority of Republicans, 66%, said they do not want those safeguards overturned.

In addition to leaving about 21 million Americans uninsured, overturning the ACA could allow insurance companies to charge more or deny coverage to individuals because they have preexisting conditions — a common practice before the law was established, and one that said in 2017 could affect as many as 133 million Americans.

Nearly 6 in 10 people said they have a family member with a preexisting or chronic condition, such as diabetes or cancer, and about half said they worry about a relative being unable to afford coverage, or lose it outright, if the law is overturned.

The poll reveals a striking preference for Biden over Trump when it comes to protecting preexisting conditions, an issue that 94% of voters said would help decide who they vote for. Biden has a 20-point advantage, with voters preferring his approach 56% to 36% for Trump.

In fact, it shows a preference for Biden on every health care issue posed, including among those age 65 and older and on issues that Trump has said were his priorities while in office — signaling voters are not satisfied with the president’s work to lower health care costs, in particular. Support for Trump’s efforts to lower prescription drug costs has been slipping, with voters now preferring Biden’s approach, 50% to 43%.

A majority of voters said they prefer Biden’s plan for dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak, 55% to 39%, and for developing and distributing a vaccine for COVID-19, 51% to 42%. Trump has largely left it up to state and local officials to manage the outbreak, while promising that scientists would defy expectations and produce a vaccine before Election Day.

Asked which issue is most important to deciding whom to vote for, most pointed to health care issues, with 18% choosing the COVID-19 outbreak and 12% saying health care overall. Nearly an equal share, 29%, selected the economy.

The survey was conducted Oct. 7-12, after the first presidential debate and Trump’s announcement that he had tested positive for COVID-19. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample and 4 percentage points for voters.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s no surprise, then, that protections for people who have chronic health problems like diabetes and cancer have become a focal point for candidates nationwide — among them, Matt Rosendale, the Republican contender for Montana’s only U.S. House seat.

On Sept. 22, Rosendale’s campaign hit airwaves and online streaming services with , whose son was diagnosed with a life-threatening disease. Sandee told the story of how Rosendale came to her family’s aid, concluding that “Matt fights for everyone with a preexisting condition.”

As is often the case with health care policy, however, the truth is far from simple. Rosendale and many other Republican congressional candidates face the challenge of convincing voters they support these safeguards even as they oppose the Affordable Care Act, which codifies those safeguards.

Polls show for keeping the ACA’s preexisting condition protections.

We decided to investigate.

Rosendale is up against Democrat Kathleen Williams for the congressional seat now occupied by Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte, who has entered the state’s gubernatorial race. The open seat has been controlled by the GOP for the past 12 terms, but this year’s race is expected to be close. Williams, who also ran for the seat in 2018, has made health care her top campaign issue.

We contacted the Rosendale campaign to find out the basis for his ad’s claim. Campaign spokesperson Shelby DeMars listed a range of that would help people with preexisting conditions directly or indirectly by holding down health care costs. She specifically pointed to Rosendale’s work on the state’s reinsurance program as Montana’s state auditor and insurance commissioner, a post he was elected to in 2016.

“Matt Rosendale is a champion for those with pre-existing conditions and he has the record to prove it,” DeMars said via email. “It is because of the Reinsurance program he implemented that Montanans with pre-existing conditions can access the affordable healthcare coverage they need.”

Examining Reinsurance

In a nutshell, is designed to help insurers cover costly medical claims with a mix of federal pass-through dollars and funding generated by a premium tax on all major medical policies in the state. Gov. Steve Bullock announced the formation of in fall 2018, and the state’s legislature approved the plan in 2019, allowing Rosendale to under the Affordable Care Act.

indicated the idea worked. In-state insurers credited the program with lowering premiums by 8% to 14% for 2020. As shortly after the 2019 legislative session, “It allows the insurance companies to have rate stabilization for those really big claims, the ones that are the earthquakes in health insurance.” He went on to say that this stability “brings the cost down for the consumer.” More to the point, that reinsurance not only serves to subsidize high-cost patients but “protects patients with pre-existing conditions.”

But there’s a rub.

The reinsurance program that Rosendale touts wouldn’t exist without a state innovation waiver created by the ACA, which . That effort will doubtless continue to fuel pitched battles in Congress, and how the U.S. Supreme Court may rule on a pending ACA challenge . One thing is clear, though: If the entire ACA is thrown out, , along with Montana’s Medicaid expansion and the ban on insurers excluding people with health problems from affordable coverage.

When asked about the resulting elimination of the reinsurance program, DeMars emphasized that Rosendale’s work as auditor has created a system that will ensure protections for preexisting conditions “regardless of what happens to the ACA.” She did not elaborate or explain what protections would remain if the ACA were repealed.

The Short-Term Plan Component

In defending his stance on preexisting conditions, Rosendale continues to be haunted by another health care policy specter from his political past. During his unsuccessful challenge against Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester in 2018, Rosendale for promoting short-term, limited-duration health insurance plans. Unlike plans offered on the individual marketplace, these short-term plans are exempt from the ACA’s ban on excluding people with preexisting conditions. And, under a 2018 regulatory change pushed by the Trump administration, from three months to 12, with the potential to renew for up to three years.

As state auditor, Rosendale included those plans in . They often exclude coverage for a variety of higher-cost benefits. In Montana, for example, found that of four short-term plans available in Billings in 2018, none offered coverage for maternity care, mental health, substance abuse or prescription drug services. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Historically, short-term plans were designed to help individuals fill gaps in health coverage. According to Dania Palanker, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, the role short-term plans play on today’s health insurance landscape is to attract younger, healthier individuals seeking low-cost options to cover catastrophic events. That splits insurers into two pools — those who are less likely to incur medical expenses, and those who are more likely to incur them. Costs on the individual market go up as a result, leaving people with preexisting conditions no other option than to pay higher premiums. Short-term plans are, Palanker said, “actively hurting people with preexisting conditions.”

“Promoting short-term plans and stumping on supporting protections for preexisting conditions are mutually exclusive,” she continued.

Asked whether the cost-lowering effect of a reinsurance program would be enough to offset the effects of short-term plans, Palanker said the only way such an offset would be enough is if the program encompassed short-term plans. She hasn’t seen that happen anywhere.

Our Ruling

A campaign ad says Rosendale “fights for everyone with a preexisting condition.” While it is true that health insurance premiums have dropped during Rosendale’s tenure as state auditor, the choice to establish Montana’s reinsurance program ultimately fell to decision-makers in the state’s legislature and the governor’s office. Since his ad’s claim simply states that he “fights” for people with preexisting conditions, his testimony in support of that program and role in securing the state waiver do seem to fit the bill.

In the long-term, however, Rosendale’s positions begin to run counter to the claim. His support for short-term, limited-duration plans poses a considerable threat to keeping health insurance affordable for all, and absent a solid plan from Congress to ensure that state reinsurance programs survive, his stated goal of repealing the ACA would actually serve to unravel the very protection he’s built his case on.

We rate this statement as Mostly False.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).