Read on Twitter
Today, a lawsuit was filed challenging the legality of Georgia’s 1332 waiver allowing the state to exit http://HealthCare.gov (without replacing it) and forcing people to enroll only through private web brokers, individual agents, or insurers. https://democracyforward.org/press/healthcare-providers-sue-trump-admin-for-approving-unlawful-georgia-1332-plan-to-sabotage-georgias-aca-marketplace/
It lets the state take a pass on marketing and facilitating enrollment. Everything would be privatized, leaving enrollees at the mercy of fragmented private entities instead of having http://HealthCare.gov ’s impartial one-stop shop. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/tens-of-thousands-could-lose-coverage-under-georgias-1332-waiver-proposal
Georgia’s waiver--rushed through by CMS--is patently unlawful because it violates the statute requiring a state to cover “at least a comparable number of its residents” with “coverage that is at least as comprehensive” as ACA coverage. https://www.brookings.edu/research/georgias-latest-1332-proposal-continues-to-violate-the-aca/
Georgia fails both tests. 1) Forcing the 500k ppl using http://HealthCare.gov to sort through web brokers will leave people behind. And even if they find a broker, they may not find the best plan b/c brokers aren’t required to sell every plan. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/direct-enrollment-in-marketplace-coverage-lacks-protections-for-consumers-exposes
2) Consumers will also be vulnerable to being suckered into subpar discount plans that don’t offer comprehensive benefits or cover pre-existing conditions. These plans pay high commissions so the incentives to steer are high.
Not only does the waiver violate the statute, but it isn’t even approvable under the impermissibly low bar set by the Trump Administration in 2018, described by @SarahL202, because it doesn’t maintain the # of ppl covered each year. https://www.cbpp.org/health/commentary-trump-administration-rules-on-health-waivers-weaken-pre-existing-condition
Support for the waiver is tepid, at best. Of 1,826 public comments filed, only 8 supported the waiver. And yet, it sailed through CMS without a comment period on the final proposal and faster than much less complex proposals.
The D.C. District Court should make quick work of this with a straightforward interpretation of the statute and the incoming Biden Admin should act soon to rescind the legally dubious 2018 guidance.
