Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Stay on top of the latest market trends

Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Sports news worthy of your time

Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tech news worthy of your time

Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Get the inside stories

Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Mel Evans / AP

Every news article I read about the House GOP health care compromise suggests that it would allow states to waive the Affordable Care Act's pre-existing condition protections. That is not what the amendment would do. Nor would it allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for people with a health condition in all cases.

All the amendment would do is to allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for individual market customers with a health condition, but only in cases where they did not maintain "continuous coverage." And it's critical to understand the difference.

The back story: Under the ACA, insurance companies are prohibited from developing premium rates based on an individual's health condition. Premium rates can only vary by age, by tobacco use, by geography, and by family size. These rules apply to individual market plans and "group" plans offered by small employers.

What the amendment really does: Previous discussions of a possible compromise between Reps. Tom MacArthur, a leader of the moderate Tuesday Group, and Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows suggested that states would be able to let insurers charge higher premiums for all individual market plan holders with a health condition.

But the actual amendment doesn't do that. Instead, the amendment would give states the option to allow the insurance companies to charge higher premiums for a person with a health condition only if they (1) lose their health coverage and (2) fail to obtain new health coverage within 63 days.

This means that the protections against being charged higher premiums for a health condition are preserved for every individual market plan holder who maintains continuous coverage. These protections would also be in place for new enrollees (so long as they maintain continuous coverage going forward).

The safety net: Some have argued that if insurance companies can charge higher premiums for a health condition, vulnerable people would be "priced out of the market" by making their health coverage unaffordable. I agree with this argument. And, it appears that MacArthur and Meadows agree as well.

Which is why the MacArthur-Meadows amendment says a state can only let insurers charge higher premiums if it establishes a "high-risk pool" or participates in an "invisible high-risk pool" program (which compensates insurers for covering expensive patients and would be funded at $15 billion).

Why is this significant? Because for those people with health conditions — who do not maintain continuous coverage, and who are therefore charged higher premium rates — they will always have "access" to health coverage, even if they are "priced out of the market."

I recognize that high-risk pools have been problematic in the past. Historically, high-risk pools have had funding deficiencies. In addition, the coverage offered through a high-risk pool has sometimes been inadequate.

And therefore, it is reasonable to oppose this new compromise amendment because — based on past precedent — high-risk pools haven't worked. (Although the GOP bill does provide $100 billion for the Patient and State Stability Fund, to set up high-risk pools, and an additional $15 billion for maternity care/newborn coverage and mental health/substance use disorders).

But to claim that the MacArthur-Meadows amendment takes away protections for people with pre-existing conditions — and fails to protect people with a health condition — is incorrect.

Go deeper

52 mins ago - Axios on HBO

Preview: "Axios on HBO" interviews White House Senior Advisor Cedric Richmond

On the next episode of "Axios on HBO," Axios co-founder Mike Allen interviews White House Senior Advisor Cedric Richmond.

  • Catch the full interview and much more on Sunday, February 28 at 6 pm. ET/PT on all HBO platforms.
2 hours ago - World

Italy tightens COVID restrictions as experts warn of growing prevalence of variants

Health workers prepare vaccine doses in Iseo, Italy. Photo: Stefano Nicoli/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Italy on Saturday announced it was tightening restrictions in five of the country's 20 regions in an effort curb the spread of the coronavirus.

Driving the news: The announcement comes as health experts and scientists warn of the more transmissible coronavirus variants, per Reuters.

3 hours ago - Health

Health care in the New Washington

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

As America emerges from the pandemic, here's a special Axios AM Deep Dive on the Biden administration's health care agenda.