Patient Advocates & Healthcare Providers: Updated Republican Health Care Bill “Would Make Access To Health Coverage Worse For Those With Pre-Existing Conditions”

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, March of Dimes, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Council, National Organization for Rare Disorders, WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease:

“Under the amendment, insurance companies would be allowed to charge higher premiums to people based on their health status—in addition to opting out of other patient protections in current law, such as the guarantee of essential health benefits and the prohibition on annual and lifetime coverage caps. Separating healthy enrollees from those with pre-existing conditions will also lead to severe instability of the insurance market. This is unacceptable for our patients.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network President Chris Hansen:

“The latest proposed changes to the Senate health care bill would make access to health coverage worse for those with pre-existing conditions like cancer. The reluctance by senators to include patient feedback and other relevant stakeholder perspectives in the process is preventing the development of a reasonable, bipartisan consensus that could improve the law and pass the Senate. This bill would leave patients and those with pre-existing conditions paying more for less coverage and would substantially erode the progress our nation has been trying to make in providing affordable, adequate and meaningful coverage to all Americans.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

American Lung Association President Harold Wimmer:

"The American Lung Association is very disappointed to see that the revised Better Care Reconciliation Act does not address the major concerns about quality and affordable healthcare previously outlined by the American Lung Association and therefore, our organization must still oppose this bill. The legislation would still make devastating cuts to Medicaid, which will harm many patients living with a lung disease. It would also still result in removing key patient protections, including for patients with pre-existing conditions. The American Lung Association is particularly troubled by the Cruz Amendment, which would result in higher, not lower, premiums for people with serious and chronic conditions.  The American Lung Association has long stated that any healthcare legislation must be adequate, affordable and accessible. This bill still fails to meet this standard. The American Lung Association urges Senators to vote no on both the motion to proceed and the underlying bill. Instead, the Senate should start over with a bipartisan process aimed at improving healthcare for all Americans." [Press Release, 7/13/17]

American Hospital Association President Rick Pollack:

“If enacted, BCRA would mean real consequences for real people – among them people with chronic conditions such as cancer, individuals with disabilities who need long-term services and support, and the elderly.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond:

“This bill may have changed but the results are the same:  higher costs and less coverage for older Americans. We urge the Senate to vote ‘NO’ and start from scratch on a new health bill that lowers costs and maintains vital protections and coverage that millions of Americans count on. AARP reiterates our opposition to the Age Tax which would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times more than everyone else for the same coverage while reducing tax credits that help make insurance affordable, and we strongly oppose increasing costs for people with pre-existing conditions.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

Association of American Medical Colleges President and CEO Darrell G. Kirch, MD:

“The changes do nothing to address provisions that would cripple Medicaid and put added financial pressure on state budgets and health care providers. Additionally, allowing insurers to sell plans without meaningful coverage will hurt those with preexisting conditions and further destabilize insurance markets.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

University of Virginia Public Policy Professor Christopher Ruhm:

“From everything I can see, this would be a huge step backward,” said Christopher Ruhm, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia. “It would increase the number of uninsured, particularly people with pre-existing conditions.” [LA Times, 7/14/17]

Medicare Rights Center President Joe Baker:

“Today’s release of the updated Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) confirms what we already knew: this broken bill can’t be fixed. This tweaked BCRA still ends Medicaid as we know it, and it still yanks health coverage out from under millions of Americans, including older adults, people with disabilities, and those with pre-existing conditions.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

American Society of Clinical Oncology President Bruce Johnson, MD, FASCO:

“As cancer care providers, we are especially concerned with provisions that would erode critical protections for patients with cancer by allowing insurers to sell products that do not meet their needs, including coverage for essential screening services. Additionally, a six-month waiting period for those that fail to obtain continuous coverage could leave many cancer patients and survivors without access to needed care.” [Letter, 7/13/17]

American Psychological Association President Antonio E. Puente, PhD:

“While the new bill would add $45 billion over nine years in grant funding for states to combat the opioid epidemic, that sum is woefully inadequate, Puente said. “Not only is the amount insufficient to meet the need, a grant program is no substitute for reliable Medicaid or other insurance coverage.” Puente said. “The $45 billion is extremely inadequate compared to the deep cuts this bill would have on people’s access to treatment services.” [Statement, 7/13/17]

Catholic Health Association of the United States:

“Additionally, this bill will harm older Americans who will face significantly higher costs through age rating and undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions by allowing insurance companies to waive essential health benefits and make coverage for pre-existing conditions unaffordable.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

HEAL Trafficking Executive Director Hanni Stoklosa, MD, MPH & President of the Board of Directors Susie Baldwin, MD, MPH, FACPM:

“Medicaid is life-saving for victims of trafficking. Trafficking victims need medical care to treat ailments including opioid addiction, PTSD, HIV and other STDs, malnutrition, broken bones, pregnancy, untreated chronic disease, psychiatric illness, and disability from injuries. Medicaid pays for treatment for all of these conditions, all of which greatly impact health and quality of life. Without the services Medicaid provides, many victims will be unable to heal from their trauma and live healthy and productive lives…We as HEAL Trafficking oppose the BRCA, the AHCA, or any attempt to rollback or curtail the Affordable Care Act. Cutting Medicaid hurts human trafficking victims, plain and simple.” [Letter, 7/13/17]

America’s Essential Hospitals President Bruce Siegel, MD, MPH:

“Making a bad bill worse, the Senate added measures that would destabilize the private market by creating a two-tiered system that funnels the sick and others most in need of affordable coverage into the highest-cost plans.” [Press Release, 7/13/17]

JUST DAYS AGO, SENATE REPUBLICANS AGREED THAT THE CRUZ AMENDMENT, “WOULD MAKE IT TOO DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS TO GET COVERAGE.” 

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV):

“I think that reopens an issue that I can’t support, that it would make it too difficult for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage.” [Charleston Gazette-Mail, 7/8/17]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):

“I have a lot of concerns about Sen. Cruz's amendment,” she said. “It would erode protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and it is simply not the answer. I think it would cause premiums to go up for a lot of people.” [Washington Examiner, 7/11/17]

“His proposal would lead to unaffordable rates for people with pre-existing conditions. It would result in the re-imposition of annual caps on how much your insurance will cover, which will be devastating for people who develop or have a chronic, expensive disease to treat. And it would call into question whether someone with preexisting conditions could even buy insurance, so I do not support his plan.” [AP, 7/10/17]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):

“There’s a real feeling that that’s subterfuge to get around pre-existing conditions,” says Grassley. “If it is subterfuge and it has the effect of annihilating the pre-existing condition requirement that we have in the existing bill, than obviously I would object to that.” [Iowa Public Radio, 7/5/17]

###