Monday, March 29, 2010

So: the health insurers got away with it on the pre-existing condition problem after all? What's going on?

Robert Pear has a shocking article in the New York Times today, March 28, “Coverage now for sick children? Check fine print”, link (web url) here.

The problem is that, while an insurer would have to cover a nouveau “pre-existing” condition of someone it had insured, it apparently still doesn’t have to insure the customer at all in the first place (the article focuses on children). Is this real? Bemusing the whole situation is that the full set of reforms don’t take hold until 2014 (although I thought the pre-existing discrimination ban was starting soon). Michael Moore, where are you today? And Nancy Pelosi, where were you? It's time for AC360's "keeping 'em honest".

Vanity Fair Online today linked to the post in a collage titled “Insurance Companies’ Pre-Existing Condition: Heartlessness”, here.

Update: March 30

Reportedly, the president said that after Sept. 1 no child could be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition, and a health insurance trade organization agreed.

No comments: