Fact Check: Rumors, Claims and Context on G.O.P. Health Bill
This appeared to follow the publication of an article on Rawstory: “Trumpcare could make sexual assault a pre-existing condition again — depending on where you live.” While the Rawstory headline is nuanced, the claims it may have inspired rarely are and thus often are less accurate.
Before the Affordable Care Act, insurers could practice “health status underwriting” or review health records to assess medical risk, and they could charge higher prices, or even deny coverage, for conditions deemed to be more costly.
Insurers did not typically directly ask about sexual assault, or consider it in calculating insurance premiums. But they may have charged more “if they see that you’ve been screened for S.T.D.s, had treatment for an S.T.D., taken H.I.V.-preventive medication, had more than annual pelvic exams or had other follow-up encounters with the medical system,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown’s Health Policy Institute.
The Affordable Care Act then mandated “community rating” (charging the same price regardless of health status) and “guaranteed issue” (offering coverage to any applicant).
The Republican health care bill that passed the House would allow states to apply for a waiver from the community-rating rule for those who haven’t maintained continuous coverage, effectively allowing health status underwriting again, if the Department of Health and Human Services grants the waiver. (The bill also requires states to provide other health care or cost-sharing options in lieu of community rating.) But the bill does not allow states to waive guaranteed issue.
So if a state chooses to waive the regulation, insurers could charge much more for pre-existing conditions like H.I.V. and trauma — not rape on its own — but they cannot deny coverage outright because of them.
Some websites, like Distractify, also claimed domestic abuse was a pre-existing condition under the bill.
“The New AHCA Bill Lists Sexual Assault And Domestic Abuse As ‘Pre-Existing Conditions’”
THIS NEEDS CONTEXT. Before the Affordable Care Act, several states did not have laws that prohibited insurers from counting domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. But it’s unclear if insurers actually did deny coverage to victims of domestic violence in the years that immediately preceded passage of the health law.
Five states — Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and Wyoming — do not bar insurers from considering domestic violence a declinable pre-existing condition, said Gretchen Borchelt, the vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center. Many insurers did deny coverage to domestic violence victims in the 1990s, . When PolitiFact examined the issue in 2009, it found no evidence this was an ongoing or widespread practice.
Others, like the People for Bernie Sanders, shared an image claiming the bill would “end” insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.
“217 Republicans voted today to end your healthcare if you suffer from” a range of medical issues including AIDS/H.I.V., acne, depression, heartburn and ulcers.
THIS NEEDS CONTEXT. Many of the medical issues specified by the image, courtesy of Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, were considered pre-existing conditions before the Affordable Care Act. But the bill would not literally “end” coverage because of them as it does not remove the act’s rule on guaranteed issue and requires the state waiver process.
Of all the conditions listed, the Kaiser Family Foundation found evidence that before the Affordable Care Act, about three dozen of them were declinable — from AIDS/H.I.V. and lupus to severe obesity and diabetes. Others such as acne, allergies, migraines and ear infections could trigger higher costs or fewer benefits.
Kaiser also stated that the vast majority of people with these conditions have insurance through employers or other public options like Medicaid.
Again, this doesn’t mean that the Republican bill gives insurers a free pass to deny coverage because of these conditions, though people who, for example, cannot afford higher costs could lose insurance in states that receive a waiver from community ratings.
The bill could lead to “astronomically high premium increases for people with many of these conditions, if they buy insurance on their own and have a gap in coverage,” said Larry Levitt, an executive with Kaiser. “Even if states seek a waiver, not everyone with these conditions would lose insurance, but some certainly would.”
Continue reading the main story