We use cookies, including third-party cookies from Google to serve personalized ads through AdSense, to operate this site and understand how it is used. By continuing to browse, you accept this use. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for details, including how to opt out of personalized advertising.
Accept
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
  • Health
    • Mental Health
  • Policy and Law
    • Global Healthcare
    • Medical Ethics
  • Medical Innovations
  • News
  • Wellness
  • Tech
Search
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: A New Protection for Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions?
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
Font ResizerAa
Search
Follow US
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Health Works Collective > Policy & Law > Health Reform > A New Protection for Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions?
Health ReformPolicy & LawPublic Health

A New Protection for Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions?

Brad Wright
Brad Wright
Share
6 Min Read
pre-existing condition
SHARE

A theme you may have detected from my previous post is that much of what the GOP has proposed in its latest plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is already contained in the ACA itself. The difference is that the GOP proposal tends to water down the substance of the ACA. It’s a bit of an attempt to have one’s cake (appear to retain popular aspects of the ACA) and eat it too (subtly alter those provisions in ways that significantly undermine the original reason for their inclusion in the ACA). Today’s topic is no exception.

A theme you may have detected from my previous post is that much of what the GOP has proposed in its latest plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is already contained in the ACA itself. The difference is that the GOP proposal tends to water down the substance of the ACA. It’s a bit of an attempt to have one’s cake (appear to retain popular aspects of the ACA) and eat it too (subtly alter those provisions in ways that significantly undermine the original reason for their inclusion in the ACA). Today’s topic is no exception. Senators Burr and Hatch along with Representative Upton write “Under our plan, no one can be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.” That sounds a lot like the ACA. But there’s a major difference, which is that under the ACA, the phrase “no one” literally means “no one,” while in the Burr-Hatch-Upton proposal it means “no one who is continuously enrolled in a health plan offering at least catastrophic coverage following a one-time open enrollment period.” Let me explain.

pre-existing conditionIndividuals with a pre-existing condition are expected to use more health care. That means that, at a minimum, health insurers charge them substantially more for coverage. In some cases, they were charging them so much that it essentially priced the coverage out of the individuals’ reach. In other cases, the health insurers simply said “we refuse to issue you a policy.” Now, that could happen in a couple of different ways. First, you could be uninsured, have a medical condition, and be denied coverage, or second, you could be insured, develop a medical condition, and have your coverage renewal denied. In either case, you went without insurance because you were sick. There was also the issue that people who left or lost their job might end up unable to get new coverage. To help with that, Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which allowed people to remain covered when switching jobs, as long as they maintained continuous coverage. At the time, the provisions contained in HIPAA were a definite step forward, but they were limited to individuals with group coverage and did nothing to help people who for a variety of reasons had–or wanted to have–coverage via the individual market.

The ACA made “guaranteed issue” the law of the land, meaning that no insurance company could deny anyone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Of course, the laws of health economics require that if insurers are obligated to “guaranteed issue”, individuals must be required to purchase a plan–even if they are healthy. Otherwise, people would wait until they got sick and “needed” insurance, knowing that they could not be denied coverage. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that that would drastically drive up the cost of insurance, as people go from buying a policy they “might” need to buying a policy they know they need and fully intend to use right away.

More Read

empowered patients webinar
Monitoring to Change Behavior: Does It Work?
Mobile Health Around the Globe: Apple Video is a Testament to mHealth’s Global Impact
Fundamental Facts About Patient Education
Building Smarter Care Teams: Aligning Roles, Structure, and Clinical Expertise
Grading Media Coverage: Gary Schwitzer Holds Health Journalists’ Feet to the Fire

Because guaranteed issue is popular, but the corresponding individual mandate to purchase insurance is not (the public also loves to have it’s cake and eat it too), the GOP replace plan wants to move away from the ACA and back towards the HIPAA-style protections, which are less protective. In short, under the proposed plan, if you have insurance, you’d better make sure you keep it, because if you don’t, you may not be able to be insured again in the future. And, if you don’t have insurance, you’d better take advantage of the special “one time” open enrollment period envisioned by the proposed plan. If you don’t get covered then, the plan says that you would still be able to obtain coverage during an annual open enrollment period, but you “would not be able to avail [yourself] of the continuous coverage protections.” Translation: If you miss the boat, prepare to get soaked by the insurance industry.

pre-existing condition / shutterstock

Share This Article
Facebook Copy Link Print
Share

Stay Connected

1.5KFollowersLike
4.5KFollowersFollow
2.8KFollowersPin
136KSubscribersSubscribe

Latest News

Flat editorial illustration: A health-editorial scene of a first pain-management visit, bringing together attentive consultation,
What to Expect at Your First Pain Management Appointment
Therapies Wellness
October 29, 2026
Flat editorial illustration: The core relationship is medication-only coverage versus coverage for a supervised clinical program.
Medical Weight Loss as a Workplace Benefit: The Questions I Would Want Asked
Weight Loss Wellness
October 29, 2026
Common Questions About Tirzepatide and Medical Monitoring -- AI-generated illustration
Common Questions About Tirzepatide and Medical Monitoring
Health
October 26, 2026
How Road Trauma Injuries Place Demands on Healthcare That Go Beyond the Examination Room  -- AI-generated illustration
How Road Trauma Injuries Place Demands on Healthcare That Go Beyond the Examination Room 
Global Healthcare Policy & Law
October 15, 2026

You Might also Like

How Health IT Enables Safer Medical Travel and Tourism

June 12, 2015

Patient Care Over There: A Talk About Global Radiology Practices

August 10, 2014

COPD Patients Can Improve Condition with Physical Activity

July 15, 2011
Post Acute Care Follow Up Communications
BusinessHospital AdministrationPublic Health

Reducing Avoidable Readmissions: Care Transitions

April 2, 2015
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Follow US
© 2008-2026 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?