PHOENIX — Legislation to bar insurance companies from denying coverage for those with preexisting medical conditions is headed to the full state Senate for a vote.
But some people who would be affected said there’s less there than meets the eye.
Senate Bill 1397 is designed to be a fallback for Arizona residents if and when the U.S. Supreme Court voids the federal Affordable Care Act. That 2010 law provided health coverage to millions who lacked insurance and required plans to cover a list of essential health benefits.
Potentially most significant for some, it precludes insurance companies from denying coverage for those who already have medical conditions.
There are indications that the law, informally known as Obamacare, will be struck down because a central provision of the act — the requirement of individuals to purchase health insurance — has effectively been repealed. That undermines an earlier Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the law on the basis that the purchase requirement fits within the power of Congress to impose taxes.
Opposition to the law has been led by Republicans, including Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich who signed onto legal briefs asking the justices to void the statute.
But that, in turn, has created a potential political problem for the Republicans given the popularity of the provision on preexisting conditions. So last year, Brnovich, along with Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, and Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler, announced they would craft something to fill the gap should the Affordable Care Act go away.
On paper, SB 1397 does that. It spells out that if the Affordable Care Act is invalidated, insurance companies could not decline to offer coverage to any individual or impose limits on preexisting conditions.
But Cindy Komar, who said her son suffers from severe hemophilia, said a simple promise of coverage, absent some limits on premiums and deductibles that are part of the federal law, isn’t really any help at all.
And Kimberly Dorris, who told lawmakers she suffers from Graves’ disease, suggested this legislation appears to be little more than a bid by Republicans to save political face now that they’re on the verge of killing a popular law.
Mesnard said he wants to “stay narrow,” warning that any effort to impose additional requirements on insurance companies on the coverages they provide — and what they can charge for them — is unlikely to get the necessary votes for approval in the Republican-controlled Legislature.
What’s missing in SB 1397, Komar told lawmakers, is the “affordable” part. She said the medication her son takes to ensure his blood can clot costs $40,000 a month.
Komar said that while SB 1397 would guarantee she could get an individual health insurance policy for her son, a company could decide to impose a $10,000-a-month deductible. “We cannot afford that,” she said.
She said that, absent some requirement for an affordable policy, her son might go without insurance. And if he has an incident, he would wind up in the emergency room where the bill could end up being $2 million, which the state would have to pay, she said.
Things like limits on deductibles and lifetime caps are needed, Komar said. “Go back and do some more work on it,” she urged.
Dorris said, “You can pass a law that forces insurers to sell us a policy. But will it cover specialists, lab tests and medications? Will premiums be deliberately set at unaffordable rates?”
Mesnard said he’s willing to listen to ideas to improve the measure when it goes to the full Senate, “within reason.”
Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Tempe, agreed to support the measure, calling it “better than nothing.”
The bill passed the Senate Finance Committee unanimously on Wednesday.
