Health Insurers Discussed Delaying Covering Children with Pre-Existing Conditions

by LAS

According to a March 28 story in the New York Times, and just days after President Obama signed the historic healthcare bill into law, insurance companies were insistent that they did not have to provide coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. President Obama called that element of the healthcare bill a 'centerpiece' of the new law.

President Obama, speaking at a rally in Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

This provision of the reform bill was meant to protect youngsters who suffer from conditions such as leukemia, cystic fibrosis, birth defects, sickle cell disease, etc from being denied coverage under current business practices.

But the insurance industry tries to redefine what 'is' is, and what 'coverage' and 'insurance' mean.

While insurers agree that if they write a policy for a child, that they must cover pre-existing conditions. However, they still feel that they are not compelled to write a policy for a given child, and that at any rate this provision does not go into effect until 2014.

A few days after expressing their reluctance to implement this provision of the healthcare reform bill, the industry was compelled to announce that they would, in fact, observe this feature of the new law. But that came only after public outrage at insurance industry statements, including criticism from Senator John D. Rockefeller, among others.

According to the New York Times: Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then. This is what ignited the firestorm of protest and criticism from those in Congress and the reform movement.

SOURCE:
Pear, Robert, Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print, March 28, 2010, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

Your Health Insurance Industry Spent $38 Million NOT on Health Care, but on LOBBYING Congress; and, Pre-existing Conditions Covered Only for Minors?

by L.A.S.

There is no recession in the lobbying industry. In fact, you might be cheered to note that the major insurers increased their lobbying budgets by anywhere from 7 to 80 percent. Yes, I said 80 percent. Little-big Humana upped its investment (ahem) in our Congress by 80 precent, to hit a mere $3.2 million dollars that might have paid for a life-saving surgery or two.

The increase looks large because their budget is tiny compared to America's Health Insurance Plans(AHIP), which spent a total of $8.9 million on lobbyists.

And what would YOU have done with that money? Probably spend it on worthless stuff like groceries and gas and rent -- nothing that helps the real economy grow.

But that is water under the bridge now and money gone down the tubes. It is spent, and we have to buckle down and make our voices heard above the din.

One of the things that has been quietly dropped in this season of healthcare reform is the notion of covering everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Now we find that only minors will be guaranteed that right. Yes, slipped in between the cracks of the newest version of reform poroposals is one that says children 19 and under will be guaranteed coverage without regard to any pre-existing conditions. According to another story on Alternet:

“The challenge for Democrats: a ban on denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions went hand-in-hand with a requirement that all Americans carry insurance. Insurance companies conceded that they would accept all patients, regardless of health history, but only if everyone was required to have insurance, which would spread the cost of insuring the sick across a wider pool. Without an insurance mandate, a pre-existing ban would mean that premiums would almost certainly rise.”

Whoa. Wasn't that going to be UNIVERSAL, in those heady days when we thought that a major reform bill might get pushed through?
Insurers wanted that provision to be linked to mandatory purchase of insurance by everyone; that was the only way that risk could be spread out among the whole population.

Details of any reforms for this year (if any) are sketchy at best. But if this is the best that can be done for America, then I wonder if it is worth all the paper it will be printed on.

See whole stories at the AlterNet website at --
http://www.alternet.org/story/145389/are_democrats_dropping_the_ban_on_preexisting_conditions http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/01/25/health-insurers-spent-38-million-lobbying-congress-in-2009/