In case you missed it yesterday, the ACA survived the first of what will undoubtedly be many attempts to nip at the edges of its authority. The issue at hand this time was the provision that insurers would be prohibited from denying to coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. The goal and spirit of the law was ensure that these children would be guaranteed access to coverage as well as the full range of benefits of that coverage. This is to take effect six months after the signing of the law, well in advance of the 2014 date for guaranteed access for everyone else.
Not surprisingly, though, the insurance companies and their high-priced lawyers had a different take on the wording of the law. According to their interpretation, they would have to grant full coverage to children already in plans, but would not yet be forced to accept new customers, even children, with pre-existing conditions. Republicans took this as proof that the bill was shoddily written. Other conspiracy-minded individuals took this as proof that the administration had a hidden agenda to aid the insurance industry. Sane-minded people were just outraged that lawyers would take what they commonly do — look for loopholes in laws — and apply it to this situation.
In response, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter on Monday to Karen Ignagni, the head of AHIP, the insurer’s trade association, that basically said, “You don’t want to do this.” She also stated that she would issue regulations clarifying the letter of the law. Ignagni responded Monday night with a letter of her own that essentially said, “You’re right. We’ll do what you say.”
The fight was obviously not very long, nor was it over an issue that would effect a great deal of people. However, it did highlight one of the big problems facing anyone bent on repealing almost any part of the Affordable Care Act — it ain’t gonna look good. The insurance companies were fighting for their right to deny coverage to sick kids. That’s not exactly a great PR move. Trying to undo just about any other part of the law would likely put the repealers in an equally unappealing position. I say, “Bring it on.”