Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 6898

Should Health Insurers Be Required to Cover Pre-Existing Conditions?

Argument in favor

It’s clear that America’s healthcare system needs significant reform in the future, but one thing that shouldn’t change is that insurers should be required to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Dave's Opinion
···
11/01/2018
Single payer healthcare and get rid of the insurance for profit Pyramid scheme $$$$$$ and cover all! Ever notice how many insurance companies own buildings and Real estate! Right now Merck is pulling out of agreement to supply life-saving vaccine to millions of kids in African countries and sell it to China instead, to Make more money from China! Most likely Trump defund aid to medical support, just like ACA or Obamacare for Americans, to pay for the tax cuts. Their is no such thing as of benevolent company, they are dictatorship and not a government ran by a democratic republic. If you want a country run like a business go live under a dictatorship! There are only five countries in the world that doesn’t have healthcare for all; some in Africa, Iraq and America. There is a lot of money in insurance as middlemen. Never seen insurance company go bankrupt! Also at the rate we are going on healthcare, we will be the only country in the world, that doesn't have health care for all! Keep voting red we be number 1 for last place.
Like (290)
Follow
Share
TheJacobin's Opinion
···
11/01/2018
Single payer is the way to go. For now, continue to insure pre-existing conditions.
Like (173)
Follow
Share
Marc's Opinion
···
11/01/2018
Yes, but they already are required to do this. Every republican is, right now, lying to every voter that they support pre existing conditions. But they are on lawsuits to repeal the aca which guarantees this right. And, they have voted 72 times to repeal the aca with no replacement.
Like (149)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill is an attempt by Republicans to deflect attention from their votes to undermine Obamacare and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It’s an empty political gesture.

Steven's Opinion
···
11/01/2018
Government has no constitutional authority to FORCE a PRIVATE business (ie. Insurance companies) to do anything. As long as the business is not breaking laws or violations.
Like (22)
Follow
Share
Roger's Opinion
···
11/02/2018
Private enterprise should not be forced at gun point by government to adhere to a political economic philosophy that is abhorrent to the American economic model. Socialistic and communistic economic models are not compatible with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Socialized medicine is a failed practice that lowers the standards of care, increases taxes and takes choice away from free citizens.
Like (19)
Follow
Share
Noah's Opinion
···
11/02/2018
Insurance is people pre-emptively pooling their resources in case an unforeseen disaster happens to one or some of them. Treating pre-existing conditions *is not* insurance, it is medical treatment. Deliberately confusing the two means destroying the freedom to organize for the unexpected because all that money will now go to johnnys-come-lately who had no incentive to take care of themselves and didn’t. Even people who just draw the short stick—getting the mysterious Crohn’s disease—have no right to everyone else’s money to treat them.
Like (6)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Committee on Ways and Means
    IntroducedSeptember 26th, 2018

What is House Bill H.R. 6898?

This bill would require that health insurance providers in the individual and group markets accept individuals with pre-existing conditions who apply for coverage. Insurers could only charge beneficiaries higher premiums based on age, tobacco use, the plan’s rating (e.g. a silver plan), and whether the plan covers an individual or family. It would also prohibit insurers from discriminating against participants in a health plan based on their health status and other factors described below.

Specifically, a health insurance plan couldn’t discriminate against participants by charging them higher premiums based on their:

  • Health status;

  • Medical condition (both physical and mental illnesses);

  • Claims experience;

  • Receipt of healthcare;

  • Medical history;

  • Genetic information;

  • Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence);

  • Disability;

  • Any other health status-related factor considered appropriate by the Health and Human Services Secretary.

A health insurance issuer would only be allowed to deny coverage to an individual or employer if it has demonstrated to state regulators that it doesn’t have capacity to deliver services adequately to those enrolled. The issuer would have to apply that standard uniformly to all employers and individuals without regard to their claims history or any health status-related factor.

Group health plans and health insurers would be prohibited from requesting or requiring a plan participant or their family member to undergo a genetic test. An exception would be made to ask a beneficiary to participate in voluntary genetic research, but that information would be prohibited from impacting their policy or premiums and the research would have to be in compliance with all relevant regulations.

Health plans would be able to offer premium discounts or rebates to participants in wellness programs that reimburse their memberships at fitness centers, reward participation in a diagnostic testing program, encourages preventive care through deductible waivers, or cover the costs of smoking cessation.


Impact

Health insurance consumers in the individual and group markets; their employers; health insurance providers; state regulators; and HHS.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 6898

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Rep. Steve Knight (R-CA) introduced this bill to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can access affordable health insurance plans without facing higher premiums as the debate over healthcare reform plays out in the future:

“As premiums, drug costs, and other health costs continue to rise, it’s clear to me that the status quo is unsustainable and our healthcare system must be reformed. However, fundamental disagreements with many parts of the ACA should not blind us from realizing that the law did take certain steps in the right direction in specific areas, particularly in protecting patients with pre-existing conditions and ensuring people won’t be denied coverage because of their health status. A genetic condition, cancer, or other unavoidable situation should not bar an individual from receiving health insurance or treatment that they would otherwise have had access to. A central principle we must adhere to while addressing healthcare policy is increasing competition and choices for patients to drive costs down and quality of care up. At the same time, we should keep in place the insurance protections that patients with any and all health conditions have relied on for the past several years.”

Joel Ario, former director of HHS’s Office of Health Insurance Exchanges, told the Washington Post that Republican proposals such as this are an attempt to deflect attention from their votes to repeal Obamacare, including the elimination of the individual mandate:

“Anybody who voted for the mandate repeal voted against people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans are trying to play into public support for protecting pre-existing conditions… [and are] ignoring the fact that their previous action disadvantaged people with pre-existing conditions.”

This legislation has the support of 14 Republican cosponsors.


Of Note: The individual mandate to buy health insurance imposed by Obamacare was repealed by the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: iStock.com / MIND_AND_I)

AKA

Maintaining Protections for Patients with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2018

Official Title

To amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act to ensure coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and for other purposes.

    Single payer healthcare and get rid of the insurance for profit Pyramid scheme $$$$$$ and cover all! Ever notice how many insurance companies own buildings and Real estate! Right now Merck is pulling out of agreement to supply life-saving vaccine to millions of kids in African countries and sell it to China instead, to Make more money from China! Most likely Trump defund aid to medical support, just like ACA or Obamacare for Americans, to pay for the tax cuts. Their is no such thing as of benevolent company, they are dictatorship and not a government ran by a democratic republic. If you want a country run like a business go live under a dictatorship! There are only five countries in the world that doesn’t have healthcare for all; some in Africa, Iraq and America. There is a lot of money in insurance as middlemen. Never seen insurance company go bankrupt! Also at the rate we are going on healthcare, we will be the only country in the world, that doesn't have health care for all! Keep voting red we be number 1 for last place.
    Like (290)
    Follow
    Share
    It’s a business not charity
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    Single payer is the way to go. For now, continue to insure pre-existing conditions.
    Like (173)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, but they already are required to do this. Every republican is, right now, lying to every voter that they support pre existing conditions. But they are on lawsuits to repeal the aca which guarantees this right. And, they have voted 72 times to repeal the aca with no replacement.
    Like (149)
    Follow
    Share
    It’s being a basic genuine human being here. I don’t mind having a little more of my taxes taken out so that the person who needs surgery can get it or the senior citizen that needs medication has a better chance at getting it. You can pay for better or faster coverage, but every person at least deserves a chance at getting the care they need, and that should be a right.
    Like (92)
    Follow
    Share
    As a disabled person, we can’t control pre-existing conditions and we need insurance to cover us. It’s expensive to be disabled and no one asks for it. Insurance companies are already difficult to deal with and just because I have a pre-existing condition does not mean that I shouldn’t receive coverage.
    Like (79)
    Follow
    Share
    40% of all Americans have pre-existing conditions. Health Insurance is the vehicle that enables us to get care for these and other conditions. Excluding conditions exposes people who are acting responsibly trying to take care of themselves to potentially catastrophic financial liability. Please do not let the insurance lobby make America sick and poor.
    Like (60)
    Follow
    Share
    Medicare for all!
    Like (51)
    Follow
    Share
    get rid of private health insurance. universal health care for all
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    If insurance companies can chose wether or not to insure a person's medical cost based on their condition, then they have the power to deny poeple who actually need healthcare
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, pre existing conditions should absolutely be covered. A lot of these people cannot help themselves or make enough money to cover medical.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Government has no constitutional authority to FORCE a PRIVATE business (ie. Insurance companies) to do anything. As long as the business is not breaking laws or violations.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Private enterprise should not be forced at gun point by government to adhere to a political economic philosophy that is abhorrent to the American economic model. Socialistic and communistic economic models are not compatible with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Socialized medicine is a failed practice that lowers the standards of care, increases taxes and takes choice away from free citizens.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    To not cover pre-existing conditions, it’s a dangerous position to take in this country. Many people struggle with chronic illnesses that the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are already putting in danger with the high class of prescriptions.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    At any of your town hall meetings, simply ask you constituents: please rise if you or a loved one have a pre-existing condition?
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems the fair and smart thing to do.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Life is a pre-existing condition.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course! Someone shouldn't be punished for being born with or coming down with an illness/disease. This is the only developed country where we force people into bankruptcy due to illness.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    As a person with cancer and COPD on SS and Medicare we need to keep pre existing conditions covered! To take it away just puts money in the pockets of insurance and sick people in graves!
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    It’s absurd that we are still debating this issue. Every other modern economy has solved healthcare for the common good. We have single payer in the U.S. for anyone over age 65. The most challenging demographic! And we can’t do for everyone under 65??? Why??? Stop with the cowardice and fear of socialized medicine... we already have it; it’s called Medicare!!! Now let’s be real and have Medicare for all... or baby steps and just improve on Obamacare. But anyone trying to dismantle AHCA is simply either doing special interest bidding or lacks the empathy required to be in public office.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE