FierceHealthcareFierceHealthITFierceHealthFinanceFierceEMRHospital ImpactFierceMobileHealthcare   FiercePharma

Politicians declare war on pre-existing condition exclusions

February 26, 2009 — 1:41pm ET | By Anne Zieger
Tools
Tags
Pre-Existing Conditions
health insurers
New Jersey
Kaiser family foundation
Obama
universal coverage

In recent days, President Obama has been decrying the use of pre-existing conditions by health insurers to exclude some patients from individual coverage. In doing so, he's become one of a growing number of political figures who have declared war on the practice, which infuriates consumers and has met with challenges from some policy analysts.

Right now, 44 states allow insurers to deny coverage or charge higher prices for individuals and families due to pre-existing conditions, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the few states barring insurers from denying coverage on these grounds is New Jersey, where rates have soared to two or three times the pricing found elsewhere.

As for insurers, they say that they're willing to consider dropping such rules, but only if coverage becomes universal, as such requirements would help insurers avoid ending up only with the sickest people in a population. However, it's not clear whether such rules are likely to be implemented, as reviews are mixed on how successful the state of Massachusetts' pioneering universal coverage law has been.

To learn more about this issue:
- read this piece from The Philadelphia Inquirer

Related Articles:
BCBS of MI promoting coverage pool for individuals
U.S. health plans propose to boost individual coverage

Bookmark and Share
Get Your FREE FierceHealthcare Email Newsletter:
Comments (7) | Post a comment

Comments

By Anonymous | Posted 5:10pm | February 26, 2009

This will spell the end of the insurance industry.
How about auto insurance? If I am a terrible driver will I get the same rates as a driver with a perfect record?
This can only mean that those of us who take care of ourselves will pay higher premiums to offset those who do not.
This proposal rewards less than healthy lifestyles.

By Anonymous | Posted 10:34am | February 27, 2009

What about people with pre existing disorders that are genetic, they cannot control that so you are saying they shouldn't be covered?

By Anonymous | Posted 7:37pm | September 1, 2009

Well gee, since I inherited epilepsy from my grandfather, maybe I should have decided to be born into a different family.

By Brent P. | Posted 3:58pm | September 2, 2009

And herein lies the problem: some have suggested to differentiate between genetically inherited afflications, and those that are brought upon by our own volition. But where to draw the lines? Are you obese because you eat too much, or because of your thyroid? Are you an alcoholic because you love to drink, or because of the residual effects of fetal alcohol syndrome? The lines will always be blurred when someone has something to gain and someone else has something to lose. The very nature of health care reform guarantees there will be no quick and painless solution. Some will benefit who do not deserve it, some who deserve it will be left behind. But in a massive undertaking such as this, unfortunately the only real winners are your elected officials, whose own health insurance is far superior to yours in every way - and I hear they get a pretty good deal on it too.

By Anonymous | Posted 6:49pm | February 26, 2009

If you have a pre-existing condition, it does not mean that you have followed a less-than-healthy lifestyle. True, there are some habits that will result in more diseases - obesity, alcoholism, smoking. But some are struck with unfortunate diseases that they have no cotnrol over: leukemia, multiple sclerosis, etc. Failing to insure those with pre-existing conditions will make it impossible to receive ongoing care, and contrary to the previous comment will not save the public any cost, because the costs of the uninsured are ultimately borne by everyone. In fact they will be higher because they will occur in patiuents who have not received ongoing care and have become more seriously ill.

I also hope that President Obama and the politicians take a long hard look at a related issue, that of the insurers charging different premiums for different sized groups versus individuals. When we were on COBRA, our health insurance premiums were several hundred dollars less per month than now when my husband is self employed. We are the same people, our use of the health care system is low and yet we pay close to $1400/month for coverage that does not even pay if we go out of network. By the time we pay for health insurance, we cant afford to use the system and make the copayments.

By Roseann Dentice | Posted 3:57pm | March 1, 2009

I have what the insurance call a pre exsisting condition. But I feel they are wrong. I was in a car accident in 72 I broke my ankle a long time went by and I worked everyday without missing work ..never tried to get disability.was in no pain to do so.
Now in December I started feeling some pain in my heel..it was said from the dr I had rheumatoid arthritis I never was diagnosed before by any dr I had this..this is the first time..it happens with age this arthritis..how can they say it is pre exsisting? I was never diagnosed with it. anyone have a answer to this? I need help.

By Anonymous | Posted 9:44pm | July 30, 2009

see, people don't think about those of us who have diesease that are not their faults. MS, Lupus, RA, Epilepsy...

we are the forgotten in this health care debate.

Unless of course, they find a way to blame us for having the above mentioned diseases.

which I'm sure they will.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

To combat spam, please enter the code in the image.