Skip to main content

Support fearless, independent journalism

The election is here and the stakes are higher than ever. At Vox, we strive to bring clarity in uncertain times and help you understand what really matters. We know the impact of this election will be huge, and we believe you deserve to understand how the outcome will affect your life.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Support Vox

CBO: The Republican health bill would hurt people with pre-existing conditions

President Trump promised the bill wouldn’t do that

President Trump Speaks At The White House After The House Voted On Health Care Bill
President Trump Speaks At The White House After The House Voted On Health Care Bill
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Before they voted to pass the American Health Care Act, House Republicans repeatedly promised the bill would not hurt Americans with preexisting health conditions — that those patients would not lose coverage or pay more for insurance, even though the bill allows states to waive federal regulations meant to protect them.

As House Speaker Paul Ryan put it in late April, “People will be better off with preexisting conditions under our plan.” A couple of days later, President Trump said the bill “guarantees” coverage for those patients. “Preexisting conditions are in the bill,” he told CBS. “And I mandate it.”

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

In its analysis of the AHCA published on Wednesday — which Ryan and other Republicans did not wait on before voting on the bill early this month — the CBO devotes a full paragraph to the question of how patients with preexisting conditions would fare in states that chose to opt out of federal regulations on “community rating,” which are the ones meant to protect those patients.

The language is clear (emphasis added):

Community-rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all—despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs. That instability would cause some people who would have been insured in the nongroup market under current law to be uninsured.

The report projects that within 10 years, 23 million fewer Americans would have health care under the bill than under current law. Some of those Americans would be people with preexisting conditions, priced out of their insurance under the new rules of the post-AHCA health landscape. Republicans can challenge that analysis, but they can’t ignore it. It’s not what they said the bill would do.

More in Politics

Are Black voters drifting from Democrats? It’s complicated.Are Black voters drifting from Democrats? It’s complicated.
Politics

An expert on Black voting explains what’s really happening with Black support for Donald Trump.

By Jonquilyn Hill
Why the Pentagon just can’t quit Elon MuskWhy the Pentagon just can’t quit Elon Musk
Defense & Security

How Musk’s SpaceX became too big to fail for US national security.

By Joshua Keating
Were Bad Bunny and Ricky Martin really shadow banned by Instagram and X? Were Bad Bunny and Ricky Martin really shadow banned by Instagram and X? 
Culture

What social media shadow ban rumors tell us about election anxiety.

By Aja Romano
How Americans came to hate each otherHow Americans came to hate each other
Audio
Politics

And how we can make it stop.

By Victoria Chamberlin
It’s not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level threat to democracyIt’s not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level threat to democracy
Policy

Why a second Trump term is a mortal threat to democracy — though perhaps not the way you think.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Supreme Court decides not to toss out thousands of Pennsylvania ballotsThe Supreme Court decides not to toss out thousands of Pennsylvania ballots
Supreme Court

One of the worst ideas in US constitutional law will remain dead.

By Ian Millhiser