The New York Times, in its obsession with reporting that the truth is somewhere in the middle no matter what the facts say (FAIR.org, 5/3/17), is now downplaying the risk to sick children posed by elimination of the Affordable Care Act.
In a “Fact Check” on the Affordable Care Act, the Times’ Linda Qiu (5/3/17) was careful to call into question two Republican and two Democratic statements. One of the Democratic statements was from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:
up to 17 million children who have pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers.
First Qiu rephrased Pelosi’s statement, removing her qualification (“up to”):
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said the Affordable Care Act insured 17 million children with pre-existing conditions.
Then she debunked not Pelosi’s actual statement, but her own paraphrase of Pelosi’s statement:
This is misleading. Ms. Pelosi’s office cited a 2011 Department of Health and Human Services report, but the 17 million figure is the upper limit of the department’s estimates. The report’s lower figure, four million, is a fraction of that, and most of those children already had coverage before the Affordable Care Act.
Obviously, it is not misleading to cite an upper limit with the phrase “up to”—that’s what “up to” means.
But when you read the HHS report that Pelosi was referencing, the Times’ “factcheck” is even more deceptive. The 4 million and 17 million figures are not the low and high estimates of the government about the same phenomenon; they’re counting two separate things, and the first figure intentionally leaves out massive numbers of kids with pre-existing conditions.
The HHS report states:
Because pre-existing conditions are determined by insurer practices which vary, two estimates of the number of non-elderly individuals likely to be denied coverage in the individual market were constructed. The first includes only conditions that were identified using eligibility guidelines from state-run high-risk pools that predated the Affordable Care Act. These programs generally insure individuals who are rejected by private insurers. As such, the “lower bound” estimates are people with a health problem likely to lead to a denial or significant mark-up or carve-out of benefits.
The second includes additional common health and mental health conditions (e.g., arthritis, asthma, high cholesterol, hypertension and obesity) that would result in an automatic denial of coverage, exclusion of the condition or higher premiums according to major health insurers’ underwriting guidelines identified using internet searches. Individuals with these conditions would at least get charged a higher premium but could also have benefits carved out or be denied coverage altogether.
So the first, lower estimate used “eligibility guidelines from state-run high-risk pools”; the second, higher estimate—the one Pelosi cited—is based on “major health insurers’ underwriting guidelines.” The pre-existing conditions identified by insurance companies themselves as resulting in denial of coverage, reduced benefits or higher premiums are clearly a better gauge of what conditions require the ACA’s protection than state high-risk pool guidelines.
Pelosi’s statement is not misleading. What is misleading, and dangerously so, is the New York Times’ effort to minimize the dangers ACA repeal poses to sick children in order to maintain its self-image as evenhandedly critical of both major parties.
Factcheck Glosses Over AHCA’s Threat to Abuse Survivors
—Adam Johnson
The Washington Post (5/6/17) and other factcheckers rushed to “debunk” a popular talking point leveled by critics of the American Health Care Act that the law would make rape a “pre-existing condition.” In doing so, the factcheckers chose literal-minded precision over the material effects of the law.
The thrust of Michelle Ye Hee Lee’s “debunking” was that the AHCA does not specifically name rape. But the AHCA does lifts restrictions on what health insurance companies can choose to categorize as a pre-existing condition, including protections for sexual abuse victims.
Before the ACA, insurance companies often considered rape, as well as domestic violence and pregnancy, as pre-existing conditions for the purpose of raising rates or denying coverage (CNN, 5/4/17)—which is why the ACA included these protections in the first place.
Lee also points out that current state laws provide some layer of protection—on paper, at least. But once insurers are allowed once again to discriminate against sick people, any of the many health consequences of sexual assault—from mental health issues to STDs—can be used to price health insurance out of reach (Bustle, 5/11/17).
