As originally reported in NewsRoom, the US’s political volatility over the past years has thrown many policies and legislation into debate. While switching the party in both the executive and legislative branches is bound to cause policies to turn in different directions, the legislation surrounding healthcare has been particularly unstable. In 2010, President Obama put into law the comprehensive and inclusive health care plan, the Affordable Care Act, which has provided the widest healthcare coverage in American history. Such a major change is bound to cause backlash, and already many lawsuits have come to the courts to challenge aspects of the new legislation. President Trump´s administration is on board to take down the policy.
In the meantime, patients ask what this will mean in relation to their healthcare options and costs in the future. Healthcare can be wildly expensive. There is certainly a dire need for healthcare, but also great uncertainty in how patients will be paying. Patients advocacy groups explain that the patients and health insurers must know every change in the law so they can budget and determine pricing. These patients groups have now published a joint statement as a amicus curiae, a friend of the court brief, to call on the courts to make a decision so that patients can plan their healthcare futures.
The Case Challenging the Affordable Care Act
Most recently, an appeals court case Texas vs. US has presented a challenge to the entire law’s constitutionality, which the Supreme Court must decide whether to address. If the Supreme Court takes the case, the entire legislation could be ruled unconstitutional. Alternatively, they may leave it unaddressed at the federal level, and let the relevant lower courts make their decisions.
The challenge is politically contentious. Republicans have contested the act’s individual mandate. This individual mandate was originally deemed unconstitutional by the courts, which required all Americans to have health insurance or incur a fee. Instead, it was re-interpreted to be considered a tax, making it legal. This fee was reduced to zero dollars as a compromise for the Republicans, essentially taking away the penalty. However, this created the sticking point for Republicans, who claim that this means it’s no longer a tax. Democrats are alternatively claiming this to be political nitpicking for Republicans, who are simply trying to find a reason to take down a policy they don´t like.
Response from Patient Groups
This political uncertainty leaves patients, notably rare disease patients, in the stress of unknown. It is unclear what will happen with their coverage, but meanwhile, the fogginess of the future causes chaos with patients unsure if and how they will afford access in the future.
In response, patient groups have united to share their opinion. A statement was published on behalf of a long list of patient groups for both major diseases such as the American Cancer Society, American Lung Society, and American Heart Society; as well as the rare disease networks, like the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, National Hemophilia Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and many more.
Patient Groups’ Joint Statement
They describe the detrimental impact of the uncertainty both on the ability of patients to access affordable healthcare and for insurance markets to plan their policies. This means patients do not know how much of what they need will be included or what their coverage will look like, and patients with pre-existing conditions do not know if they will continue to be offered coverage, or if it will be taken away again.
In the statement, they wrote, ¨The health care law has expanded access to comprehensive health coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans. The connection between health coverage and health outcomes is clear. Without affordable, comprehensive health insurance, patients, survivors, and their families risk later stage diagnoses—if they can get care at all—and an increased risk of serious financial strain. Americans need to know what coverage options will be available as soon as possible, which underscores the need for an expedited final ruling in this case.¨
Find the joint statement published here.
