Thread by @mfcannon

#DCCircuit affirms district court, rules against private insurers seeking to crush their competitors by stripping coverage from patients with #PreexistingConditions.

cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini… #STLDI #ACAPvTreasury #CatoHealth @CatoInstitute @TheBuckeyeInst @jrovner @StephArmour1

Appellants are @safetynetplans -- i.e., #ACA-participating private insurance companies.

They complain competition from short-term, limited duration health plans--#STLDI, which Congress exempts from #ObamaCare's costly regulations--are hurting their revenues.

These #ACA plans literally asked the court to block their competitors from offering a product because many consumers would like their competitors' products better than #ObamaCare coverage.

It's even worse than that.

The remedy these private insurance companies requested was for the court to cancel coverage for all #STLDI enrollees after three months -- leaving patients who had developed expensive medical conditions with NO COVERAGE for up to 12 months.

That's what the @NAIC said would happen under the rule ACAP wants.

As the @CatoInstitute and @TheBuckeyeInst explain in our amicus brief (cato.org/sites/cato.org…), that's what DID happen to 63yo AZ resident Jeanne Balvin when ACAP's desired rule was in place in 2016.

Oops. Make that 2017.

Balvin bought an #STLDI plan in 2017 for 1/3 the cost of an #ACA plan. It covered her emergency surgery w/o a hitch. But the rule ACAP wants to reimpose then threw her out of her plan after just three months.

She ended up in the hospital two more times, but had no coverage.

ACAP was asking the #DCCircuit to reimpose a rule that stripped Jeanne Balvin of her coverage, and left her with $97,000 in hospital bills as well as an uninsured and uninsurable #PreexistingCondition.

consumerreports.org/health-insuran…

Here's the thing.

ACAP wasn't asking the court to reimpose the 3mo limit on #STLDI plans *in spite of* the fact that doing so would strip coverage from people with #PreexistingConditions.

ACAP wants to reimpose the 3mo limit *because* it would strip coverage from the sick.

ACAP's est'd standing in this case bc #STLDI plans are a competitive threat that hurt its members' revenues. It wants to reimpose the 3mo limit bc doing so would remedy that "injury"--i.e., stripping coverage from sick STLDI enrollees would scare people into choosing ACAP plans.

Happily, the court denied this attempt by pvt insurers to pad their bottom lines and cripple their competitors by stripping coverage from the sick.

If you wanna see how messed up the politics of the #ACA is, just watch as health reporters now spin this as a defeat for patients.

The #DCCircuit even acknowledged that under the rule ACAP seeks, patients "could be 'subject to re-underwriting' every three months, could see a 'greatly increased' premium, [and] could be denied a new policy 'based on preexisting medical conditions.'”

cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…

But the most significant part of the #DCCircuit's opinion in #ACAPvTreasury may be:

"Nothing in HIPAA prevents insurers from renewing expired #STLDI policies."

IOW, Congress created no barrier to STLDI operating as a free market for health insurance alongside the #ACA.