Proposed GOP replacement plans for ACA are deficient

Published 11:46 am Thursday, February 9, 2017

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, has outlined a possible replacement for the Affordable Care Act to be implemented upon repeal of the law.

That is certainly a step forward, but there are serious questions relative to the specifics of his plan that need to be addressed in order to examine whether it is a quality replacement that provides the protections currently found in the ACA.

Paul’s proposal would eliminate the minimum health service standards an insurance plan must cover. Republicans argue this would allow for cheaper, less comprehensive plans.

What it actually would allow for is junk policies that provide very little protection for the person covered. This should be an absolute showstopper.

Another important factor is pre-existing conditions. The ACA is very clear on the issue of these conditions. They cannot be a factor when applying for insurance and cannot be a factor in cost of coverage.

Paul proposes a two-year period where people with pre-existing conditions could get coverage. After that, people with these conditions would only be protected if they continuously maintained coverage.

What is continuous coverage? Does it mean you must stay with the same provider?

What if continuity of coverage is not maintained due to loss of employment? Does a preexisting condition affect cost of coverage?

This is a very dangerous aspect of Paul’s plan.

Finally, his proposal uses tax credits tied to health savings accounts to pay for medical care. These concepts are good ways to support the cost of healthcare if you have the appropriate income to support them, but they are meaningless for low-income individuals making just enough money to pay for housing and food.

The other plans that Republicans have proposed, including the one being co-sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, share the weaknesses of Paul’s plan, as well as many others.

The trouble with the so-called “replacement” plans is that all the Republicans want is something that is a little less expensive, but grossly inadequate.

When the system blows up, they can then blame it on people not buying their lousy solution, not on the fact they broke the system.

 

SHARI DEL MARIANI

Stevensville