"The AHCA’s state waivers would have made it much more expensive and, in some cases, effectively impossible for people with pre-existing conditions to obtain coverage," said Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the Center for Health Policy in Brookings Institution’s Economic Studies Program.Email interview, Allison K. Hoffman, a law professor at Penn Law School, Oct. 25, 2018McSally did support an amendment to help reduce over 5 years increased premiums and out-of-pocket expenses that people with pre-existing conditions might face due to a state waiver allowed in the bill.McSally’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. It is the Affordable Care Act that forces insurers to cover pre-existing conditions.The amendment could be helpful to some extent, "but offering a moderate level of financial assistance falls well short of ‘forcing’ insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions," said David Gamage, a law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.U.S. Despite language in the bill to protect people with pre-existing conditions, it included provisions that undermined that coverage and increased premiums for certain people, making insurance unaffordable in some cases, experts said.McSally’s campaign spokeswoman, Torunn Sinclair, said McSally "played a large role" behind the scenes in the American Health Care Act’s amendment process. "The American Health Care Act, on the contrary, weakened coverage protections, experts said.The proposal said nothing in it was to be construed as permitting insurers to limit coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions. The bill directed House committees to offer new proposals, including one that provided people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage.That’s not what her voting record shows. "Email interview, David Gamage, a law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Oct. 25, 2018Health care law experts say McSally’s claim overlooks protections established by the Affordable Care Act, downplays the impact of the American Health Care Act, and overstates the Upton-Long amendment’s reach.The Republican measures would not have forced insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions — they already had to because of the Affordable Care Act.Email interview, Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the Center for Health Policy in Brookings Institution’s Economic Studies Program, Oct. 25, 2018Now is your chance to go on the record as supporting trusted, factual information by joining PolitiFact’s Truth Squad. "The bottom line is that the American Health Care Act undermined the ability of people with pre-existing conditions to be able to maintain adequate coverage at affordable price," said Allison K. Hoffman, a law professor at Penn Law School. "And then amendments like the Upton-Long amendment tried to soften the blow of some of these harms. Rep. Martha McSally is promoting herself to Arizonans as someone who’s led the fight to guarantee insurance coverage for people with pre-existing health conditions.In 2017, McSally voted for the American Health Care Act, a Republican proposal that kept the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing conditions coverage. Claim: Says she’s \"leading the fight\" to \"force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.\"
"It was the Obama-era Affordable Care Act that forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.Analyses and news reports at the time said it was uncertain how many states would apply for the waiver; the number would tell how the $8 billion would be allocated.McSally claimed she’s "leading the fight" to "force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. But experts said that was "vague catch-all language," and that the bill included avenues for states to undermine that coverage.McSally in 2015 voted in favor of a full repeal of the law. McSally in 2015 voted for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
In 2017, she voted for a repeal and replace bill that health care law experts say undermined the Affordable Care Act. The funds were intended to help reduce premiums or other out-of-pocket medical expenses for people with pre-existing conditions whose monthly premiums increased because of the waiver.The Upton-Long amendment "did very little to undo those adverse effects," Fiedler said.