PROTECT OUR CARE ** WEEKLY WRAP UP ** [ July 14-20, 2018 ]

= [Read Protect Our Care’s new report]

Protect Our Care Releases New Report Highlighting Trump Administration’s “Summer of Sabotage”

As the one-year anniversary of bipartisan defeat of Affordable Care Act repeal in the United States Senate approaches, Protect Our Care today released a detailed report, Summer of Sabotage, which comprehensively lays out the extensive campaign the Trump Administration has undertaken to sabotage health care just in the last few months. The report covers every act of administrative sabotage since May, from the proliferation of junk plans and slashing funding for enrollment assistance to the nomination of an anti-health care judge to the Supreme Court.

Read the report here.

“The Summer of Sabotage report lays out exactly what the president has done and how it will hurt patients,” said U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. “This is a critical time in this fight because if the president and his backers get their way, insurance companies will once again be able to jack up prices – or even deny care – to people with a pre-existing health condition. The American people need to know, so they can stand up and fight back.”

In addition to providing a status report on the premium increases insurance companies have filed this summer, the report analyzes a number of actions the Trump administration has undertaken to sabotage our care, including: ● Arguing against protections for people with pre-existing conditions in federal court; ● Encouraging Americans to sign up for junk plans, which would bring back discrimination against women, people with pre-existing conditions and people over age 50; ● Nominating Brett Kavanaugh, an extreme anti-health care judge, to the Supreme Court; ● Slashing funding for navigators that help Americans obtain insurance; ● Restricting access to Medicaid; ● Making it harder to find information about the ACA online, and ● Freezing the risk adjustment program, which could unnecessarily drive up premiums.

Check out how the report was covered in the Connecticut Post:

● Connecticut Post: Murphy Highlights ‘Sabotage’ plan to repeal Affordable Care Act.

Senate Democrats Launch Historic Defense of Protections for People With Pre- existing Conditions. Will Republicans Step Up?

President Trump recently joined Republican attorneys general and governors in 20 states to use the courts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and strike down protections for people with pre-existing conditions, women, and people over 50. In response, Democratic Senators Joe Manchin, Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray introduced a resolution to demand the Senate go to court and defend our health care law and protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, issued the following statement in response:

“Republicans have repeatedly said they care about people with pre-existing conditions, but every chance they get they turn a blind eye to the Trump Administration’s campaign to repeal protections for them in the law or, worse, they vote to take these protections away. Now, Republicans have a chance to make it right. The Trump administration has gone to court to try to strike down protections for the 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions including cancer, diabetes and asthma. If Republicans in Congress won’t endorse this resolution, they will once again make clear they’re on the side of insurance companies, not Americans who work for a living. Thank goodness Democrats will not stop fighting for the protections that prevent insurance companies from jacking up premiums for people with pre-existing conditions — or denying us care altogether — because if Democrats stopped fighting, these protections would be long gone by now.”

BACKGROUND

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “We must continue to prohibit insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions.” [Murkowski Remarks to Alaska State Legislature, 2/22/17]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): “My concern is to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions.” [Letter to Attorney General, 6/27/18]

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): “The last thing we need to happen is to have people who have coverage now, to have that coverage that coverage yanked out from under them. Every plan that has been put forward that I will support continues to support those with pre-existing conditions having continued coverage. That’s important.” [Town Hall, 12:40-13:10, 4/13/2017]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “Everybody I know in the Senate — everybody — is in favor of maintaining coverage for pre-existing conditions.” [Politico, 6/12/18]

Senate Democrats Pressure GOP To Oppose Trump's Pre-existing Strikedown Lawsuit

In June, President Trump’s Department of Justice announced that it would go to court in support of a lawsuit to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Yesterday, Senate Democrats, including Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Bob Casey (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Jon Tester (MT), Sherrod Brown (OH) and Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), fought back by introducing a resolution that would authorize the Senate to step up to defend protections for pre-existing conditions in court. While all 49 Senate Democrats sponsored the resolution, not a single Republican has signed on despite many paying lip service to the importance of protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Here’s how it was covered:

The Hill: Dems Pressure GOP To Take Legal Action Supporting Pre-Existing Conditions. “Senate Democrats are targeting Republicans on health care, urging them to sign on to a resolution that would allow the Senate to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the legality of ObamaCare. The resolution, introduced Thursday, would allow the Office of Senate Legal Counsel to intervene in a case brought by Republican attorneys general that argues ObamaCare is now unconstitutional since Congress repealed the 2010 law's individual mandate last year.” [The Hill, 7/19/18]

WV MetroNews: Manchin Leads Democrats On Resolution Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions Coverage. “Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced a resolution Thursday asking for the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the legislative chamber in Texas v. United States — a lawsuit involving West Virginia and 19 other states — in defense of “Obamacare” and its provisions, specifically the guarantee of health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions...Manchin said 800,000 West Virginians would be at risk of losing insurance coverage if protections for pre-existing conditions were eliminated.” [WV MetroNews, 7/19/18]

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: McCaskill Co-Sponsors Senate Move To Oppose Hawley Backed Lawsuit Challenging Obamacare. “Sen. Claire McCaskill is co-sponsoring a resolution that would direct Senate lawyers to defend against a lawsuit trying to kill the Affordable Care Act, a move that has virtually no chance of passing but highlights the great divide between her and Attorney General Josh Hawley on a key issue in Missouri’s nationally watched Senate race. McCaskill, D-Mo., along with Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Thursday they would introduce the resolution.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7/19/18]

WBIW: Donnelly Continues To Fight To Protect Hoosiers with Pre-Existing Conditions. “U.S. Senator Joe Donnelly continued his fight for quality, affordable health care coverage for Hoosiers with pre-existing conditions by joining a resolution that would allow the Senate's Legal Counsel to represent the Senate in Texas v. United States. This would enable the Senate to defend protections for Americans with pre-existing condition against the current lawsuit seeking to make this provision unconstitutional.” [WBIW, 7/20/18]

Newsmax: “Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and a cadre of Democrats are taking steps to protect the healthcare coverage of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions.” “Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and a cadre of Democrats are taking steps to protect the healthcare coverage of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. Nelson et al filed a resolution Thursday authorizing the Senate Legal Counsel to take up defense of a federal lawsuit, Texas v. United States, which would undo protections for those with preexisting conditions.” [Newsmax, 7/20/18]

Roll Call: Democrats Push Senate To Take Legal Action Backing Pre-existing Condition Protections. “Democratic senators want the chamber to go to court to defend health insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions...Manchin and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., are among those leading the introduction of a Senate resolution that would authorize the Senate to take legal action to intervene in litigation led by Texas that could undercut the protections on the health insurance exchanges and in the broader market. Morrisey and Hawley have signed on to the lawsuit, so it is no surprise that the Democratic Senate incumbents they’re challenging in 2018 would take the lead on the new legislative effort.” [Roll Call, 7/19/18]

Washington Examiner: “Senate Democrats Want To Intervene In A Lawsuit That Would End Obamacare’s Protections For Pre-existing Conditions.” “Senate Democrats want to intervene in a lawsuit that would end Obamacare’s protections for pre-existing conditions after the Trump administration declined to defend the healthcare law. A group of Democratic senators introduced a resolution on Thursday that would have the Senate intervene in a lawsuit brought by Texas and 19 other states against Obamacare. The lawsuit would gut the law’s protections for pre-existing conditions.” [Washington Examiner, 7/19/18]

Washington Times: Senate Democrats Offer Resolution To Protect Obamacare. “All 49 members of the Democratic caucus signed onto a resolution that would compel the Senate’s Office of Legal Counsel to intervene in the case, effectively daring the GOP to choose between President Trump’s hands-off position or a spirited defense of the most popular parts of the 2010 health care law, as the midterm campaign season heats up.” [Washington Times, 7/19/18]

House Republicans Push Meaningless 'Health Care' Bills Ahead of Recess

Leader Kevin McCarthy announced that next week will be “health care week” in the chamber that gloated about repealing protections for people with pre-existing conditions, jacking up premiums and reducing coverage.

Here’s what the Republican so-called ‘health care’ agenda has done: raised premiums, gutted protections for people with pre-existing conditions and handed billions of dollars in tax breaks to insurance companies and drug companies while they jacked up costs and raked in record profits. Republicans know that when they face their constituents this fall, they will be facing a political mess of their own making. Next week is a year to the day that Americans rose up to defeat health care repeal in the Senate, and all this time later, poll after poll shows health care to still be the top issue for American voters. These bills do nothing to fix the problems they created and are an obvious attempt to create political cover they know they desperately need. These bill are designed to distract from the fact that every chance they get, Republicans vote to repeal protections for people with pre-existing conditions, jack up premiums, reduce coverage and give kickbacks to insurance companies, drug companies and the wealthy.

Protect Our Care Launched ‘What’s At Stake’ Week To Highlight How Kavanaugh Could Harm Health Care If Confirmed

As the Trump Administration continues its unrelenting assault on the Americans’ health care, the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh threatens to raise the stakes even higher. With “What’s At Stake” week, running from Monday, June 16 through Sunday, June 22, the Protect Our Care continues to shine a light on the dire repercussions Americans face if the pro-health care majority in the Senate does not act to stop Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Here’s what’s at stake: protections for the 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, women’s health and rights, Medicaid coverage for low-income families, and so much more. Rather than be a check on the President, Brett Kavanaugh would be a rubber stamp on President Trump’s extreme agenda of of ripping health care away from millions of people and returning to an era when women and doctors are criminals. The pro-health care majority in the Senate must recognize what’s at stake and reject Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Since Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was announced, Protect Our Care and its allies have held events in fourteen states: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Throughout What’s At Stake Week, advocates in these states will build upon the week of activism following Kavanaugh’s nomination last week, continuing to shine a light on the issues at risk, including:

● Protections for the 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition, who could be charged much higher rates or denied coverage entirely; ● Protections for women and Americans over 50, who could see premium increases of up to 50 percent; ● Women’s health care, including access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, access to Planned Parenthood and coverage for nursing moms. ● Medicaid eligibility, Medicaid expansion

How Kavanaugh’s Position On The Supreme Court Could Threaten Americans’ Health Care

The Trump administration and its Republican allies have relentlessly attacked the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the past 18 months. Not content with their Congressional efforts to repeal the bill and its key protections, Republicans have turned to executive action, regulatory decisions, and the courts to do everything in their power to take health care away from people and raise their premiums. With President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Americans’ health care is in severe danger. If confirmed, Kavanaugh could greenlight many of the administration’s attempts to gut the law, restricting Americans’ access to health care for years to come.

Could Nullify Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions, Women, And People Over 50 With Texas v. United States. Eighteen Republican state Attorney Generals and two Republican governors have challenged the Affordable Care Act in court, arguing that because Congress repealed the individual mandate, the law is now unconstitutional. President Trump has said that he wants this lawsuit to succeed. Former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Orrin Hatch has said that no matter what happens with this particular lawsuit, the ACA will continue to be litigated, saying, “The Affordable Care Act is one of the broad, inclusive bills that you’ll ever see. And anybody who thinks it’s not going to be litigated sometime in the future is nuts.”

As recently as October 2017, Kavanaugh has criticized Chief Justice Roberts’ previous decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

● Key Legal Issue: The case alleges that the rest of the ACA is not severable from the individual mandate, and thus is invalid. In what experts see as a highly political move, the Department of Justice joined the lawsuit, arguing that guaranteed issue and community rating, which protect people with pre-existing conditions, women, and older people, must be overturned. ● What’s At Stake: Should the court side with Texas and DOJ, insurance companies would once again be allowed to discriminate against the more than 130 million Americans with a pre-existing condition by charging them more for care and in some cases, denying coverage altogether. Similarly, if the court sides with Texas, insurance companies will once again be able to charge people over 50 up to five times more for the same coverage as a younger adult, and will be able to charge women up to 50 percent more just because they are women.

Could Rubber Stamp Regulatory Attacks On ACA. The Trump administration has launched several regulatory attacks on the Affordable Care Act. It has finalized a rule for “association health plans” and is working on a rule to extend “short- term health plans” which would extend access to such plans for up to one year — both rules make it easier for insurance companies and other payers to offer bare bones coverage that is exempt from covering essential health benefits, such as prescription drug coverage and maternity care. Both types of plans were severely restricted by the Affordable Care Act. If permitted, these plans would drive up insurance costs for people with pre-existing conditions and older Americans. Kavanaugh has a track record of siding with Republicans, with vote polarization more than double the rate of his colleagues. The Washington Post goes so far as to call him a “partisan warrier,” noting that even his citations have a Republican slant.

● Key Legal Issue: The key legal issue at play here is whether agencies can issue rules that subvert Congress’s intentions. In other words, can the Administration enact policies that run contrary to laws passed by Congress? ● What’s At Stake: If confirmed, Kavanaugh could be in a position to rule on the expansion of association and short-term health plans, which are widely opposed by health groups and experts, and will make it more expensive to access comprehensive health care, particularly for people with pre-existing conditions and older Americans..

Could Restrict Access To Medicaid For Nearly 70 Million People. Earlier this year, states began submitting requests to impose burdensome work requirements on people with health care through the program. So far, the administration has approved such requests in four states, and is considering similar proposals in seven other states. Abbe Gluck, Yale professor of health law, warns that she could see Kavanaugh “opening the door to more restrictions on Medicaid.”

● Key Legal Issue: These requirements are being challenged in court, with opponents arguing that they are not consistent with Medicaid’s fundamental objectives. In June, a federal judge blocked Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirements, but the case is expected to continue its way through the courts. ● What’s At Stake: Upholding the legality of Medicaid work requirements would fundamentally alter the purpose of the program, and pave the way for states to impose burdensome administrative hurdles designed to kick people off of their coverage.

Could Let States Deny Medicaid Patients From Obtaining Services From Planned Parenthood, And Prohibit Individuals And Providers From Suing State Medicaid Programs To Force Them To Provide Coverage Required By Law. Several states, including Louisiana, Texas, and Kansas, have attempted to bar patients with coverage through Medicaid from receiving coverage at Planned Parenthood.

● Key Legal Issue: At issue in these cases is whether courts can hear a challenge to states’ decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Lower courts are split on whether individuals and providers have the right to go to court in these cases. ● What’s At Stake: What’s at stake in these cases is twofold — in addition to threatening women’s access to care at Planned Parenthood, where one in five women will seek care in their lives, these challenges also jeopardize the rights of individuals and providers to sue state Medicaid programs when states are not complying withthe Medicaid statute. Timothy Jost, law professor at Washington and Lee, anticipates that Kavanaugh could make a huge difference in cases involving the rights of poor people to sue to enforce the Medicaid statute. If the court decides that providers and individuals are not allowed to sue, experts, including George Washington University law professor Sara Rosenbaum warn that states may start hacking away at the program.

Could Deny Women’s Access To Safe And Legal Abortion. Twelve cases involving abortion are making their way through the federal courts of appeals, which is particularly dangerous considering President Trump’s campaign promise to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh has previously issued rulings designed to make it harder for women to access safe and legal abortions. In 2017, Kavanaugh tried to force a young woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. One of Kavanaugh’s former clerks, Sarah Pitlyk, recently wrote that, “no court of appeals judge in the nation has a stronger more consistent record' than Kavanaugh on 'protecting religious liberty and enforcing restrictions on abortion.”

● Key Legal Issue: Key issues in cases involving abortion center around the legality of abortion and barriers that states have imposed in efforts to make it harder for women to access abortion. ● What’s At Stake: Women’s access to safe and legal abortion. By age 45, one in four women in the U.S. has had an abortion, for reasons that are deeply personal.

Could Restrict Birth Control Coverage. Three courts of appeals are considering the Trump Administration's roll back of the birth control benefit under the ACA, allowing any employer to deny coverage. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in which he sided with employers over women, arguing that they be able to deny women coverage for birth control.

● Key Legal Issue: At issue is whether employers can claim exemptions in order to refuse women access to the birth control benefit guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act.

● What’s At Stake: Should employers be allowed to select plans for their employees that do not cover birth control, 62.4 million women who now have access to birth control with no out-of-pocket costs stand to lose. Women saved $1.4 billion on birth control pills alone in 2013.

Could Restrict Coverage For Nursing Moms. The Affordable Care Act helped give new moms access to lactation consultants, breast pumps, and time and space at work to pump their milk until as late as a year after birth. Now, cases involving access to coverage for nursing mothers are making their way through the courts.

● Key Legal Issue: The Supreme Court could consider a case looking at access to coverage for nursing mothers. Briscoe v. Health Care Service Corp and Condry v. UnitedHealth Group would determine whether and what breast-feeding services are covered under the ACA’s preventive care, and therefore available to women at no cost. ● What’s At Stake: Following the ACA, rates of women breastfeeding 12 months after giving birth rose from 27 to 34 percent. If decided that health insurance companies and other payers can deny women coverage for nursing, these gains would be in jeopardy, as would support for nursing moms.

PDF available here.

Army of Grassroots Activists Oppose Kavanaugh

With polls showing that Brett Kavanaugh heads into his nomination hearings with the weakest approval ratings since doomed nominee Harriet Miers, it’s clear that the ground-game urging Kavanaugh’s defeat is working. Since day one of his nomination, health care advocates geared up in opposition to Kavanaugh, an activist judge who was hand-picked to rubber-stamp President Trump and Congressional Republicans’ war on health care.

Here are some highlights, with more activity on the ground happening today.

In Alaska, Protect Our Care was joined by health care advocates, Alaska Native leaders, and former Alaska Superior Court Judge John Reese to urge Sen. Lisa Murkowski to do what is best for Alaska and reject a justice who won’t protect Alaskans’ care.

● Anchorage Daily News: Protesters rally at Murkowski’s office over Supreme Court pick ● KTVA: Alaskans rally against Trump nominee before choice is made public ● KTUU: Activists call on Lisa Murkowski to carefully vet new Supreme Court nominee

In Maine, Protect Our Care was joined by the Maine Women’s Lobby and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in calling on Sen. Susan Collins to preserve protections for people with pre-existing conditions and women’s access to health care.

● Washington Post: With Trump’s nominee announced, the battle for the court begins

In Arizona, Jeff Jeans, a cancer survivor joined state Rep. Athena Salman, and representatives from Planned Parenthood and ACLU Arizona urged Senator Flake to stand up for Arizonans’ care.

● Arizona Republic: Arizona groups speak about Supreme Court vacancy, Roe v. Wade

In Montana, Protect Our Care was joined by NARAL Pro-Choice Montana and Anna Whiting Sorrell, an Indian health care leader and former director of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, in sounding the alarm about Kavanaugh’s appointment.

● Missoula Current: Missoula women’s, pro-choice groups decry Trump’s Supreme Court pick

In Nevada, Protect Our Care and Laura Packard, a health care advocate living with cancer, Cyndy Hernandez of NARAL Pro-Choice Nevada, and Sam Shaw of SEIU Nevada Local 1107 urged Sen. Dean Heller to stand up and protect Nevadans’ health care.

● Nevada Current: Kavenaugh nomination presents election opportunity — but for whom?

In North Dakota, a media tour with former Congressman Earl Pomeroy and former Acting Deputy Secretary of the Health and Human Services Mary Wakefield highlighted the the harms tens of thousands of North Dakotans would face if a rubber stamp on Trump’s anti-health care agenda reaches the Supreme Court.

● Minot Daily News: Dems Rally Grassroots on Healthcare ● Grand Forks Herald: Pomeroy and Wakefield Effort to Keep Obamacare Protections ● WDAY Newswire: Pomeroy Questions Lawsuit ● KFGO: Pomeroy and Wakefield on the ACA We Made Things Better ● Jamestown Sun: North Dakota Leaders Effort to Keep Protections ● High Plains Reader: War on Health, Death by a 1000 Cuts ● WDAY Radio: Earl Pomeroy and Mary Wakefield on Pre-Existing Conditions ● Fargo Forum: Former ND National Leaders Effort to Keep Obamacare ● KVRR TV (FOX): Dakotans for Health Warns Lawsuit Could Leave 40k NDs Uninsured ● WDAY TV (ABC): ND Former Insurance Commissioner Questions Major Lawsuit ● Rapid City Journal: Coverage at risk for those with pre-existing conditions ● Dakota Free Press: A rising tide lifts all boats ● Watertown Public Opinion: Make informed decisions

In Ohio, Protect Our Care Ohio joined with Innovation Ohio, the Physicians Action Network, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio highlighted the current and long-term threats to health care under a conservative Supreme Court.

In Tennessee, Protect Our Care was joined by a coalition of concerned citizens including Jen Yamin, the mother of a son with pre-existing conditions, Kristen Grimm, the mother of child with special needs, and Anna Carella, Co-Chair of Healthy and Free Tennessee, outside Sen. Bob Corker’s Nashville office.

In West Virginia, Protect Our Care advocates went on the record to make it clear that they want their senators to stand up health care.

● WOWK: West Virginians Weigh Impact of Trump Supreme Court

Californians And Nutmeggers Become Latest Victims Of GOP Sabotage

Emphasizing the importance of Rate Watch, this week preliminary rate filings in California and Connecticut for 2019 plans were announced, and they included potential double-digit premium increases. Why? Here’s what insurance companies and departments have said in the two states:

(CA) Peter Lee, Executive Director of Covered California: Rate Changes Should Have Been Much Lower. “It is unfortunate when a rate change of nearly 9 percent is generally viewed as good news, when the rate change could — and should — have been much lower.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/19/18]

(CA) Covered California Director Says That California Insurance Companies Added Between 2.5 And 6 Percent To Their Rates Because Of Republican Sabotage. “Lee said the elimination of the penalty for those who choose not to buy health insurance had a negative impact on rates for 2019. Carriers added between 2.5 and 6 percent to their rates, with an average of 3.5 percent, due to concerns that the removal of the penalty will lead to a less healthy and costlier consumer pool. Covered California estimates the 3.5 percent increase added to the rates will mean Californians will be spending more than $400 million more on their health care coverage in 2019.” [Covered California, 7/19/18]

(CT) Katharine Wade, Connecticut Insurance Commissioner: Ongoing Uncertainty In Washington Is Of Concern. “Of concern, however, is the ongoing uncertainty in Washington that threatens to destabilize the health insurance markets, particularly for individuals. The Department is pressing for clarity and guidance from the federal government so that we can finalize the rates for 2019.” [Connecticut Insurance Department, 7/20/18]

(CT) ConnectiCare: End Of Individual Mandate Increases Costs. “The individual mandate penalty has been reduced to zero for years after 2018...Without such a mandate, individuals – typically younger and healthier – do not participate in the insurance pool to the extent they would if the mandate were in force. This lack of participation increases the cost of the insurance pool.” [ConnectiCare, 7/16/18]

(CT) In Light Of Federal Uncertainty, ConnectiCare Reserves The Right To Withdraw Products From Market And Further Increase Rates. “In light of current legislative efforts at the federal level, and the ongoing litigation over CSR payments and Risk Transfer payment, the federal and state regulatory environment has been and remains fluid. Given the uncertainties of the current regulatory environment, CBI reserves the right to withdraw its products from the individual market or request a change to all, or any portion, of these rate filings.” [ConnectiCare, 7/16/18]

Local Headlines

Check out what coverage health care received in local areas nationwide. Below are some highlights:

Arkansas ● TBP: AG Rutledge part of Texas lawsuit to end Affordable Care Act

Connecticut ● Connecticut Post: Murphy Highlights 'Sabotage' Plan To Repeal Affordable Care Act

California ● San Francisco Chronicle editorial: President Trump Is Sabotaging The Affordable Care Act

Kentucky ● Lexington Herald-Leader: In a surprise move, state restores dental, vision coverage for Medicaid recipients ● Insider Louisville: Feds' Action On Affordable Care Act Will Mean Higher Premiums In Kentucky Experts Say

Michigan ● Crain's Detroit Business: Health Insurance Rates Could Rise With Freeze On Insurer Payments

Minnesota ● Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial: Trump Administration Takes Aim At Affordable Care Act But Harms Private Insurance Market Instead ● Minneapolis Star Tribune: For Health Insurers, Latest Affordable Care Act Move Creates More Unknowns

Nevada ● The Nevada independent: Nevada’s health insurance exchange boosts enrollment assistance funding as federal government scales back in other states

New Mexico ● Santa Fe New Mexican: New Mexico Lawsuit Puts 'Obamacare' Provision On Chopping Block

Ohio ● WOSU: DeWine Defends Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions, But Not In Court

South Carolina ● Charlotte Observer: Another Trump Attack On The Affordable Care Act

Texas ● Houston Public Media: Groups Helping Texans Sign Up For ACA Set To Lose 86 Percent Of Federal Funds

In Case You Missed It

● The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a new report on how expanding skimpy health plans would hurt farmers and farm workers: ○ Expanding Skimpy Health Plans Is The Wrong Solution For Uninsured Farmers And Farm Workers [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/17/18]