Delivering remarks on shock medical billing, which is a priority that has drawn bipartisan curiosity, President Donald Trump waded into one other high-profile well being situation: ensuring insurance coverage protects individuals who have preexisting well being circumstances.
[khn_slabs slabs=”950563″ view=”inline”]
Delivering remarks on shock medical billing, which is a priority that has drawn bipartisan curiosity, President Donald Trump waded into one other high-profile well being situation: ensuring insurance coverage protects individuals who have preexisting well being circumstances.
[partner-box]“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, very importantly,” Trump mentioned on May 9.
It’s pure Trump would need to make this declare.
Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation means that such protections, which prohibit particular person insurance policy from charging folks extra primarily based on their medical historical past, are a prime precedence for Americans and among the many hottest provisions of the Affordable Care Act. (KHN is an editorially unbiased program of the inspiration.)
With that context, we determined to place a microscope to the president’s declare.
We requested White House workers to level us to the insurance policies or proposals on which Trump’s assertion was primarily based. They declined to supply specifics however reiterated the president’s assertion.
[khn_slabs slabs=”790331″ view=”inline”]
Texas V. Azar, And A Health Policy Vacuum
Interviews with 4 separate specialists, although, instructed that the administration’s stance on a pending lawsuit that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act runs counter to Trump’s declare.
The case, often called Texas v. Azar, comes from a gaggle of Republican attorneys normal who argue that the whole well being regulation ought to be struck as a result of the 2017 tax invoice gutted Obamacare’s requirement to have insurance coverage, usually referred to as the person mandate. In December, a Texas decide agreed.
The case is now earlier than the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And, most related right here, the Department of Justice — that’s, the Trump administration’s authorized arm — has refused to defend the ACA in these proceedings.
It’s extremely uncommon for an administration to say no to defend a federal regulation in court docket.
“This is a case when the department can make strong arguments in defense of the statute. Refusing to defend in those circumstances is almost unprecedented,” mentioned Nicholas Bagley, a regulation professor on the University of Michigan.
[khn_slabs slabs=”950560″]
Initially, the Trump administration’s place on the lawsuit centered on the person mandate, arguing that with out it the ACA’s preexisting situation protections ought to be struck down, too. In submitting a quick to the appellate court docket, although, the DOJ joined the plaintiffs to argue the regulation ought to be scrapped totally. This end result would additionally get rid of the regulation’s protections for folks with preexisting well being circumstances.
In that context, “there is real cause for skepticism” about Trump’s assertion, mentioned Wendy Netter Epstein, a regulation professor at DePaul University.
The most beneficiant evaluation got here from Jonathan Adler, a well being regulation knowledgeable at Case Western Reserve University. Adler has supported earlier Obamacare challenges, but he argued that this one is legally unsound.
He agreed that the White House’s precise actions are “at odds with the president’s promise.”
But, Adler mentioned, the construction of Trump’s declare — promising what his administration “will” do, fairly than commenting on what it has executed — leaves open the opportunity of taking different steps to maintain preexisting situation protections in place.
That’s true, different specialists acknowledged. So far, the White House has postponed a legislative push till after the 2020 election — leaving a vacuum if the courts do wipe out the well being regulation.
And, the GOP payments the White House has supported to this point — together with the so-called Graham-Cassidy laws first proposed in 2017, which the administration once more endorsed in its 2019 budget proposal — would fall quick, a number of specialists mentioned.
Unlike the ACA, Graham-Cassidy permits states to redefine which core advantages — an inventory that features protections for folks with well being issues — insurance policy should cowl, which might make these particular protections optionally available. (For extra on Graham-Cassidy, right here’s another PolitiFact check from final fall.)
Plus, specialists mentioned, even when the White House had a plan, the chances of it gaining passage are slim with a divided Congress.
That makes safeguarding the ACA in court docket “the only show in town” if the administration is severe about defending customers who’ve preexisting circumstances, Bagley mentioned.
There’s one loophole that conservatives — the White House included — would possibly lean on, instructed Sabrina Corlette, a professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. It depends on what folks imply once they discuss “protections.”
Some specialists additionally level out that the administration has issued rules that run opposite to Trump’s declare. In specific, it just lately issued a rule loosening restrictions on the size of so-called short-term health plans, which supporters mentioned would carry a extra inexpensive choice to the person insurance coverage market. But these plans, which, due to the rule change, can final a 12 months as an alternative of three months, are thought-about bare-bones and should not required to supply preexisting situation protections.
Our Ruling
Trump mentioned his administration will “always protect patients with preexisting conditions.”
But the White House’s coverage trajectory does precisely the alternative. The DOJ’s stance, which displays a coverage in place on the identical second the president made this declare, would get rid of the one regulation guaranteeing that folks with preexisting circumstances each obtain well being protection and wouldn’t have to pay extra for it.
And on the regulatory entrance, the administration has superior a medical insurance possibility that’s not required to incorporate these protections.
Furthermore, the administration has not put forth any plan that may preserve these ensures in place. Every substitute well being invoice it has endorsed has provided protections much less beneficiant than these provided by the ACA. And it has taken additional steps that might make it tougher for folks with preexisting circumstances to get inexpensive protection.
This assertion just isn’t correct and makes a declare in direct opposition to what’s really occurring. We charge it False.
This story could be republished at no cost (details). “We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, very importantly,” Trump mentioned on May 9.
It’s pure Trump would need to make this declare.
Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation means that such protections, which prohibit particular person insurance policy from charging folks extra primarily based on their medical historical past, are a prime precedence for Americans and among the many hottest provisions of the Affordable Care Act. (KHN is an editorially unbiased program of the inspiration.)
With that context, we determined to place a microscope to the president’s declare.
We requested White House workers to level us to the insurance policies or proposals on which Trump’s assertion was primarily based. They declined to supply specifics however reiterated the president’s assertion.
Texas V. Azar, And A Health Policy Vacuum
Interviews with 4 separate specialists, although, instructed that the administration’s stance on a pending lawsuit that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act runs counter to Trump’s declare.
The case, often called Texas v. Azar, comes from a gaggle of Republican attorneys normal who argue that the whole well being regulation ought to be struck as a result of the 2017 tax invoice gutted Obamacare’s requirement to have insurance coverage, usually referred to as the person mandate. In December, a Texas decide agreed.
The case is now earlier than the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And, most related right here, the Department of Justice — that’s, the Trump administration’s authorized arm — has refused to defend the ACA in these proceedings.
It’s extremely uncommon for an administration to say no to defend a federal regulation in court docket.
“This is a case when the department can make strong arguments in defense of the statute. Refusing to defend in those circumstances is almost unprecedented,” mentioned Nicholas Bagley, a regulation professor on the University of Michigan.
Initially, the Trump administration’s place on the lawsuit centered on the person mandate, arguing that with out it the ACA’s preexisting situation protections ought to be struck down, too. In submitting a quick to the appellate court docket, although, the DOJ joined the plaintiffs to argue the regulation ought to be scrapped totally. This end result would additionally get rid of the regulation’s protections for folks with preexisting well being circumstances.
In that context, “there is real cause for skepticism” about Trump’s assertion, mentioned Wendy Netter Epstein, a regulation professor at DePaul University.
The most beneficiant evaluation got here from Jonathan Adler, a well being regulation knowledgeable at Case Western Reserve University. Adler has supported earlier Obamacare challenges, but he argued that this one is legally unsound.
He agreed that the White House’s precise actions are “at odds with the president’s promise.”
But, Adler mentioned, the construction of Trump’s declare — promising what his administration “will” do, fairly than commenting on what it has executed — leaves open the opportunity of taking different steps to maintain preexisting situation protections in place.
That’s true, different specialists acknowledged. So far, the White House has postponed a legislative push till after the 2020 election — leaving a vacuum if the courts do wipe out the well being regulation.
And, the GOP payments the White House has supported to this point — together with the so-called Graham-Cassidy laws first proposed in 2017, which the administration once more endorsed in its 2019 budget proposal — would fall quick, a number of specialists mentioned.
Unlike the ACA, Graham-Cassidy permits states to redefine which core advantages — an inventory that features protections for folks with well being issues — insurance policy should cowl, which might make these particular protections optionally available. (For extra on Graham-Cassidy, right here’s another PolitiFact check from final fall.)
Plus, specialists mentioned, even when the White House had a plan, the chances of it gaining passage are slim with a divided Congress.
That makes safeguarding the ACA in court docket “the only show in town” if the administration is severe about defending customers who’ve preexisting circumstances, Bagley mentioned.
There’s one loophole that conservatives — the White House included — would possibly lean on, instructed Sabrina Corlette, a professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. It depends on what folks imply once they discuss “protections.”
Some specialists additionally level out that the administration has issued rules that run opposite to Trump’s declare. In specific, it just lately issued a rule loosening restrictions on the size of so-called short-term health plans, which supporters mentioned would carry a extra inexpensive choice to the person insurance coverage market. But these plans, which, due to the rule change, can final a 12 months as an alternative of three months, are thought-about bare-bones and should not required to supply preexisting situation protections.
Our Ruling
Trump mentioned his administration will “always protect patients with preexisting conditions.”
But the White House’s coverage trajectory does precisely the alternative. The DOJ’s stance, which displays a coverage in place on the identical second the president made this declare, would get rid of the one regulation guaranteeing that folks with preexisting circumstances each obtain well being protection and wouldn’t have to pay extra for it.
And on the regulatory entrance, the administration has superior a medical insurance possibility that’s not required to incorporate these protections.
Furthermore, the administration has not put forth any plan that may preserve these ensures in place. Every substitute well being invoice it has endorsed has provided protections much less beneficiant than these provided by the ACA. And it has taken additional steps that might make it tougher for folks with preexisting circumstances to get inexpensive protection.
This assertion just isn’t correct and makes a declare in direct opposition to what’s really occurring. We charge it False.