Current enrollees who do not update their information or select an alternative will be automatically reenrolled in their current plan or, if that plan is no longer available, into a plan with similar coverage.

Last year marked a record enrollment of about 21 million people. This time around, consumers will find a few things have changed.

Don’t Fall for Advertising Scams

While some health plans offer small-dollar gift cards or other incentives to encourage participation in wellness efforts, they would not offer cash cards worth thousands of dollars a month to help with groceries, gas, or rent. Even so, social media and online sites are rife with such promises.

Such ads are among the avenues allegedly used by unscrupulous brokers who enroll or switch plans without the express permission of consumers, according to a lawsuit filed in Florida.

Also, be cautious about the websites you use to search for coverage.

Type “Obamacare” or “cheap health insurance” into a search engine and often what pops up first are sponsored private sector websites unaffiliated with the official state or federal government marketplaces for ACA coverage.

While they may try to look official, they are not. Many such sites offer various options, including non-ACA coverage with limited benefits, a “secret shopper” study found in 2023. Such non-ACA coverage would not qualify for federal subsidies to help consumers pay premiums.

The fine print on some websites says that consumers who provide personal information automatically consent to be contacted by sales agents via phone calls, emails, text messages, or automated systems with prerecorded messages.

When exploring plans, always start with the official federal marketplace’s website, healthcare.gov.

Even if you don’t live in one of the 29 states served by the federal marketplace, its website provides the link to your official enrollment site when you select your state, or the District of Columbia, from a drop-down list. The federal and state marketplaces also have call centers and other ways to get enrollment assistance. The “find local help” link on healthcare.gov, for example, gives consumers a choice of finding assisters or sales agents near them.

Is It Real Insurance?

Another concern: Regulators are seeing an increase in complaints from consumers about offers of health coverage requiring consumers to join a limited liability corporation, or otherwise attest they are working for a specific company. Indeed, at least two states — Maryland and Maine — have issued warnings, saying that instead of comprehensive ACA coverage, these are often non-ACA products, amounting to a hodgepodge of discount cards, for example, or limited-indemnity plans. This type of plan pays a flat-dollar amount — say, $50 for a doctor visit or $1,000 for a hospital stay — and is meant to buttress more comprehensive coverage, not replace it.

“Unlike major medical plans, some of these self-funded plans only cover preventive services such as a yearly check-up or annual health screening,” the warning from the Maine Bureau of Insurance says.

Premiums Might Be Higher … and Other New Things

Some insurers will lower premium rates for 2025, but many others are increasing them.

Although final numbers are still being crunched, experts estimate a median increase of 7% for premiums, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Most people who buy ACA coverage are eligible for a subsidy to help with the premiums, which is likely to offset much of the increase, although the higher cost means the government will be paying out more for those subsidies.

Rising health costs — including for hospital care and the new class of weight loss drugs — are contributing to the increase.

Some other changes this open season:

• People often referred to as “Dreamers” because they qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — a federal program offering some protection to those brought to the country as children without proper immigration documentation — can now enroll in ACA coverage and are eligible for subsidies.
• Short-term plans, which are technically not ACA coverage and not subject to its benefit rules and preexisting benefit protections, can be issued for, at most, only four months of coverage, based on a Biden administration action that took effect with plans starting Sept. 1. It walks back a Trump administration rule that loosened requirements to allow insurers to offer coverage that ranged up to 364 days, and allowed insurers the option of renewing the policies for up to two additional years. Existing plans and those issued before Sept. 1 don’t fall under the new rules. But consumers who relied on the longer periods need to check their plans’ details and consider enrolling in an ACA plan instead to avoid a situation in which their short-term plan expires early or midyear, potentially leaving them unable to get coverage elsewhere for the remainder of the year.

The Sign-Up Process Might Take Longer, Too

Federal regulators this year wrestled with a growing number of complaints — 200,000 in the first six months alone — from consumers who were being enrolled into or switched from ACA plans without their express permission by agents seeking to gain commissions.

To thwart such efforts, they put new rules in place.

What does that mean for most consumers? If you are working with a new agent — one who wasn’t already listed on your ACA plan — you will likely need to get on a three-way call with the federal marketplace to confirm that you are, indeed, authorizing that agent to make changes to your policy for the coming year. Plan on this taking additional time. No one knows how busy the call lines will get during open enrollment.

You don’t need to use a broker to enroll. But sorting through the dozens of options on the marketplace is challenging, so most people do seek assistance. Consumers need to weigh not only the monthly premium cost, but also variations in deductibles and copayments for such things as doctor visits, hospitalization, and drugs.

Shop Around

Experts say another consideration when choosing a plan is to check whether its network includes the doctors and hospitals you typically see, as well as whether its formulary covers your prescription medications, and how much it charges for them.

To help with making comparisons, rules kicked in two years ago requiring insurers to include some “standardized plans” as options, which must all have the same deductibles, and costs for such things as doctor visits, emergency room care, and other consumer cost sharing.

Even so, many people have dozens of options available, which can be daunting.

But one piece of advice remains constant: Whether you are enrolling for the first time or have an existing plan, it’s always worth it to shop around. Even if you don’t change plans, you can make sure the one you have is still your best option.

In most states, consumers must enroll by Dec. 15 to get coverage that begins Jan. 1. Heads up in Idaho, where open enrollment starts earlier — Oct. 15 — but also ends sooner, closing on Dec. 15. In California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, residents can enroll through Jan. 31.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Los consumidores que no actualicen su información o seleccionen una alternativa serán automáticamente reinscriptos en su plan actual o, si ese plan ya no está disponible, en uno con cobertura similar.

El año pasado se registró un récord de inscripciones, con unas 21 millones de personas. Esta vez, los consumidores descubrirán que han cambiado algunas cosas.

No seas víctima de estafas publicitarias

Aunque algunos planes de salud ofrecen tarjetas de regalo de poco valor u otros incentivos para fomentar la participación en iniciativas de bienestar, nunca ofrecerían tarjetas en efectivo por valor de miles de dólares al mes para ayudar a pagar las compras, la gasolina o el alquiler. Aun así, las redes sociales y los sitios web están plagados de promesas de este tipo.

Según una demanda presentada en Florida, este tipo de anuncios es una de las vías supuestamente utilizadas por corredores sin escrúpulos que inscriben o cambian de plan sin el permiso expreso de los consumidores.

Además, hay que tener cuidado con los sitios de internet que utilizamos para buscar cobertura.

Si escribes “Obamacare” o “seguro médico barato” en un buscador, a menudo, lo que aparece en primer lugar son sitios web patrocinados por el sector privado no afiliados a los mercados federales o estatales oficiales para la cobertura de ACA.

Aunque intenten parecer oficiales, no lo son. Muchos de estos sitios ofrecen varias opciones, incluida cobertura que no es de ACA con beneficios limitados, según descubrió en 2023 un studio de “comprador secreto”. Con estas coberturas no se pueden obtener subsidios federales para ayudar a los consumidores a pagar las primas.

La letra chica de algunos sitios web dice que los consumidores que facilitan información personal consienten automáticamente que agentes de ventas se pongan en contacto con ellos a través de llamadas telefónicas, correos electrónicos, mensajes de texto o sistemas automatizados con mensajes pregrabados.

Cuando busques un plan, empieza siempre por el sitio web oficial del mercado federal, cuidadodesalud.gov (healthcare.gov).

Incluso si no vives en uno de los 29 estados en los que funciona el mercado federal, el sitio web proporciona el enlace a tu sitio oficial de inscripción cuando seleccionas tu estado, o el Distrito de Columbia, en una lista desplegable.

Los mercados estatales y el federal también tienen centros de llamadas y otras formas de obtener ayuda para la inscripción. Por ejemplo, el enlace “encuentre ayuda local” en cuidadodesaludgov, ofrece a los consumidores la posibilidad de encontrar asistentes o agentes de ventas cerca de sus domicilios.

¿Es un seguro real?

Otra preocupación: los reguladores han observado un aumento en las quejas de los consumidores sobre ofertas de coberturas de salud en las que se les exige que se afilien a una corporación de responsabilidad limitada o que den fe de que trabajan para una empresa concreta.

De hecho, al menos dos estados —Maryland y Maine—- han emitido advertencias, señalando que en lugar de una cobertura completa de ACA, a menudo se trata de productos que no pertenecen a ACA, y que equivalen a cosas como una mezcla de tarjetas de descuento o planes de indemnización limitada.

Este tipo de plan paga una cantidad fija —por ejemplo, $50 por una visita al médico o $1,000 por una hospitalización— y está pensado para reforzar una cobertura más completa, no para sustituirla.

“A diferencia de los planes medicos grandes, algunos de estos planes autofinanciados sólo cubren servicios preventivos, como un chequeo o un examen médico anual”, advierte la Oficina de Seguros de Maine.

Las primas podrían ser más altas… y otras novedades

Algunas aseguradoras reducirán las primas para 2025, pero muchas otras las aumentarán.

Aunque todavía no hay cifras oficiales, los expertos estiman un aumento promedio del 7% para las primas, según un análisis de KFF. La mayoría de las personas que compran cobertura médica en los mercados de seguros de ACA son elegibles para recibir subsidios para ayudar con las primas, lo que probablemente compensará gran parte del aumento, aunque el mayor costo significa que el gobierno pagará más por esos subsidios.

El aumento de los costos de salud —incluida la atención hospitalaria y la nueva clase de medicamentos para adelgazar— contribuye a este incremento.

Otros cambios en esta temporada:

—Las personas a menudo conocidas como “Dreamers” porque calificaron para la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) —un programa federal que ofrece cierta protección a los traídos al país cuando eran niños sin documentación migratoria adecuada— ahora pueden inscribirse en la cobertura de ACA y son elegibles para los subsidios.

—Los planes de corto plazo, que técnicamente no son parte de la cobertura de ACA y no están sujetos a sus normas de beneficios y protecciones de beneficios preexistentes, pueden ser emitidos por sólo cuatro meses de cobertura, como máximo, según lo dispuesto por la administración Biden, que entró en vigencia  con planes que empezaron el 1 de septiembre.  Esto ha revocado una norma de la administración Trump que flexibilizaba los requisitos para permitir a las aseguradoras ofrecer una cobertura de hasta 364 días, con la opción de renovar las pólizas hasta por dos años más. Los planes existentes y los emitidos antes del 1 de septiembre no caen bajo las nuevas reglas. Pero los consumidores que contaban con períodos más largos deben comprobar los detalles de sus planes y considerar la posibilidad de cambiar a un plan de ACA para evitar una situación en la que su plan a corto plazo expire antes de tiempo o a mediados de año, arriesgándose así a no poder obtener otra cobertura por el resto del año.

El proceso de inscripción también podría alargarse

Este año, los reguladores federales han tenido que hacer frente a un número creciente de quejas —200,000 sólo en los primeros seis meses— de consumidores que estaban siendo inscritos o transferidos a otros planes de ACA sin su permiso por agentes que pretendían obtener comisiones.

Para evitarlo, se han establecido nuevas normas.

¿Qué significa esto para la mayoría de los consumidores? Si trabajas con un nuevo agente —uno que no estaba ya en la lista en tu plan de ACA— es probable que tengas que ser parte de una llamada con dos representantes del mercado federal para confirmar que autorizas a ese agente para hacer cambios en tu plan para el próximo año. Esto te llevará más tiempo. Nadie sabe lo ocupadas que estarán las líneas telefónicas durante la inscripción abierta.

No es necesario recurrir a un intermediario para inscribirse. Pero la búsqueda entre las docenas de opciones del mercado es un reto, por lo que la mayoría de las personas busca ayuda. Los consumidores deben sopesar no sólo el costo mensual de la prima, sino también las variaciones en deducibles y copagos por cosas como visitas al médico, hospitalización y medicamentos.

Compara precios

Los expertos señalan que otra consideración a tener en cuenta al elegir un plan es comprobar si tu red incluye los médicos y hospitales a los que sueles acudir, y si se cubren tus medicamentos recetados y cuánto cobran por ellos.

Para facilitar las comparaciones, hace dos años entraron en vigencia unas normas que obligan a las aseguradoras a incluir como opciones algunos “planes estandarizados”, que deben tener los mismos deducibles y costos por conceptos como visitas al médico, atención en urgencias y otros gastos compartidos por el consumidor.

Aun así, muchas personas disponen de docenas de opciones, lo que puede resultar desalentador.

Pero hay un consejo que no cambia: tanto si te inscribes por primera vez, como si ya tienes un plan, vale la pena comparar precios. Aunque no cambies de plan, puedes asegurarte de que el que tienes sigue siendo tu mejor opción.

En la mayoría de los estados, los consumidores deben inscribirse antes del 15 de diciembre para obtener cobertura a partir del 1 de enero. Atención a Idaho, donde la inscripción abierta empieza antes, el 15 de octubre, pero también termina antes, el 15 de diciembre. En California, Nueva Jersey, Nueva York, Rhode Island y el Distrito de Columbia, los residentes pueden inscribirse hasta el 31 de enero.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on “Meet the Press,” Sept. 15

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sept. 15 told viewers of NBC’s “Meet the Press” that former President Donald Trump built up the Affordable Care Act, even though Trump could have chosen to do the opposite.

“Donald Trump had two choices,” Vance, Trump’s running mate, said. “He could have destroyed the program, or he could actually build upon it and make it better so that Americans didn’t lose a lot of health care. He chose to build upon a plan, even though it came from his Democratic predecessor.”

The remarks follow statements the former president made during his Sept. 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris in Philadelphia. Trump said of the ACA, “I saved it.”

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, has grown more popular as Americans have increasingly used it to gain health coverage. More than 20 million people enrolled this year in plans sold through the marketplaces it created. That makes the law a tricky political issue for Republicans, who have largely retreated from their attempts over the past decade to repeal it.

Both Vance’s and Trump’s statements are false. We contacted Vance’s campaign; it provided no additional information. But here’s a review of policies related to Obamacare that Trump pursued as president.

So What Did Trump Do With the ACA?

Most of the Trump administration’s ACA-related actions involved cutting the program, including reducing by millions of dollars funding for marketing and enrollment assistance and backing the many failed efforts in Congress and the courts to overturn the law. In June 2020, for example, the administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the law in a case brought by more than a dozen GOP states. The high court eventually rejected the case.

“The fact the ACA survived the Trump administration is a testament to the strength of the underlying statutory framework, and that the public rallied around it,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Most ACA provisions took effect in 2014, during Barack Obama’s presidential administration.

Average premium costs, already rising when Trump took office, jumped for some plans in 2018, before beginning a modest decline for the rest of his term, according to statistics from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Some of those increases were tied to a 2017 Trump administration decision to stop making payments to insurers, which was intended to reduce deductibles and copayments for people with low to moderate incomes. By law, though, insurers still had to offer the plans.

Two months earlier, the Congressional Budget Office warned that stopping the payments could cause some insurers to leave the ACA marketplace — and that premiums would rise by 20% in the first year.

Most states, however, let insurers make up for the lost payments by increasing monthly premiums. That had the unintended effect of boosting federal subsidies for people who buy Obamacare plans, because the subsidies are tied to the cost of premiums.

“By accident, that gave people cheaper access to better coverage in the exchange plans,” said Joe Antos, a senior fellow emeritus with the American Enterprise Institute.

Some Republicans think Trump deserves credit for this inadvertent improvement.

But Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy, said that wasn’t the Trump administration’s intention.

“The one time when Trump improved the ACA, it was an unintended consequence of an attempt to weaken it,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration expanded access to some kinds of less expensive health coverage that aren’t compliant with ACA rules, including short-term plans that generally have more restrictions on care and can leave consumers with surprise medical bills. Democrats call the plans “junk insurance.”

Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative health research group, said broader access to cheaper, less comprehensive plans helped more people get coverage. The plans’ critics say that if they had attracted too many healthy people from ACA-compliant insurance, increases could have spiked for people who remained.

Trump also supported congressional repeal-and-replace efforts, all of which failed — including on the memorable night when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) helped kill the effort with a thumbs-down vote. The Trump administration never issued its own replacement plan, despite the former president’s many promises that he would.

Trump, during the debate with Harris, said that he has “concepts of a plan” to replace Obamacare and that “you’ll be hearing about it in the not-too-distant future.”

On “Meet the Press,” host Kristen Welker asked Vance when Trump’s plan would be ready. He didn’t answer directly but said it would involve “deregulating the insurance market.”

Critics say that’s code for letting insurers do business as they did pre-ACA, when sick people could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant premiums based on preexisting conditions.

Our Ruling

Vance’s assertion that Trump as president took steps to build upon the ACA and protect the health coverage of 20 million Americans is simply not supported by the record.

Trump administration policies, for example, didn’t buttress the ACA but often undermined enrollment outreach efforts or were advanced to sabotage the insurance marketplace. Also, Trump vocally supported congressional efforts to overturn the law and legal challenges to it.

By the numbers, Affordable Care Act enrollment declined by more than 2 million people during Trump’s presidency, and the number of uninsured Americans rose by 2.3 million, including 726,000 children, from 2016 to 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That includes nearly three years of Trump’s presidency.

We rate Vance’s statement False.

SOURCES:

“Meet the Press” interview with Sen. JD Vance, Sept. 15, 2024.

Brookings Institution, “Six Ways Trump Has Sabotaged the Affordable Care Act,” Oct. 9, 2020.

Vox, “Trump Is Slashing Obamacare’s Advertising Budget by 90%,” Aug. 31, 2017.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Trump Administration Has Cut Navigator Funding by Over 80 Percent Since 2016,” Sept. 13, 2018.

The New York Times, ‘Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Affordable Care Act,” June 26, 2020.

Constitutional Accountability Center, Texas v. United States, accessed Sept. 16, 2024.

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “Quantifying Health Coverage Losses Under Trump,” Nov. 3, 2020.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Uninsured Rate Rose Again In 2019, Further Eroding Earlier Progress,” Sept. 15, 2020.

U.S. Census Bureau, Health Insurance Historical Tables, revised Aug. 22, 2024.

KFF, Marketplace Average Benchmark Premiums, accessed Sept. 16, 2024.

Brookings Institution, “The Case for Replacing ‘Silver Loading,’” May 20, 2021.

KFF Health News, “Trump Administration Loosens Restrictions on Short-Term Health Plans,” Aug. 1, 2018.

The New York Times, “Biden Administration Finalizes Rule Curbing Use of Short-Term Health Plans,” March 28, 2024.

Telephone interview, Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Reforms at Georgetown University, Sept. 16, 2024.

Telephone interview, Joe Antos, senior fellow emeritus, American Enterprise Institute, Sept. 16, 2024.

Email correspondence, Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, Sept. 16, 2024.

Email correspondence, Larry Levitt, KFF executive vice president for health policy, Sept. 18, 2024.

Congressional Budget Office, “The Effects of Terminating Payments for Cost-Sharing Reductions,” Aug. 15, 2017.

USA Today, “Trump To End Cost-Sharing Subsidies to Insurance Companies,” Oct. 12, 2017.

New York magazine, “Vance: Trump’s Health-Care Plan Is To Let Insurers Charge More for Preexisting Conditions,” Sept. 17, 2024.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Topping that list are the ACA’s enhanced subsidies, put in place during the coronavirus pandemic as part of economic recovery legislation and set to expire next year unless Congress acts. The subsidies are credited with enabling more low-income people to qualify for zero-premium coverage and helping boost enrollment to record levels.

If the subsidies expire, millions of Americans will probably see premiums go up, according to a report from KFF. And the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the end of the enhanced subsidies could cause ACA enrollment to fall from a projected 22.8 million in 2025 to 18.9 million in 2026.

But the subsidies cost a lot. The CBO recently estimated that making them permanent would add $335 billion to the budget deficit over 10 years, and some Republicans have said that’s simply too much.

Now the subsidies are part of a larger debate about ACA fraud and enrollment schemes.

At issue is whether people are over- or understating their incomes to qualify for the subsidies. In addition, some lawmakers are concerned about reports that consumers are being enrolled in ACA plans or their coverage is being switched — without their consent — by a subset of unscrupulous brokers eager to gain commissions.

House GOP leaders have called on two watchdog agencies to investigate, while Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) fired off accountability questions in a recent letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Republican outcry — particularly aimed at the subsidies — goes hand in hand with a controversial recent report from a conservative think tank estimating that millions of people or their brokers may be misstating their incomes to qualify for ACA subsidies.

Still, the enhanced subsidies are unlikely to become talking points in either party’s presidential campaigns.

“It’s too complicated,” said Debbie Curtis, a vice president at consultancy McDermott+. “I see what’s happening right now as laying the groundwork for the big fight next year.”

Any debate about the enhanced subsidies is likely to draw in other issues — including the Trump-era tax cuts, whose extension would add an estimated $4.6 trillion to the deficit over 10 years — and must be addressed next year. Other aspects of the ACA are also potentially in play, including a special year-round enrollment period for low-income consumers and whether zero-premium plans will still be available for that group.

“The fate of the enhanced tax credits is dependent on the Democrats holding some majority in Congress and/or winning the presidency and is also tied inextricably to the Trump tax cut expiration,” said Dean Rosen, a partner at Mehlman Consulting and a former senior Republican congressional staffer. That’s because both sides have incentive to extend all or part of the tax cuts, but each will want some kind of compromise on other issues as well.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

New details about the suspensions come in legal filings made late Friday stemming from an effort by the two to regain access to the Obamacare marketplace before the upcoming ACA open enrollment period, which starts Nov. 1.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services wrote in a Sept. 2 letter to the companies that they were suspended after the agency identified “a serious lapse in the security posture” that could have led to marketplace data, including consumers’ personal information, being accessed from overseas.

The letter, included in the court filings, also noted that regulators will audit the two companies because they have “reasonable suspicion” that they are players in a separate problem: signing people up for Obamacare coverage — or changing their policies — without the consumers’ permission.

Whether those legal issues will be resolved before the upcoming enrollment period is an open question. Currently, the concerns raised about the companies remain allegations, with none of the legal challenges or the audit close to a ruling or conclusion.

Still, the larger issue of fraudulent ACA enrollment by rogue insurance agents seeking commissions will continue to pose a headache for regulators, with more than 200,000 complaints filed by consumers in the first six months of 2024. And it has become a political problem for the Biden administration. GOP lawmakers blamed the schemes partly on Biden-backed expanded Obamacare premium subsidies.

President Joe Biden has claimed record-breaking enrollment under the ACA as one of his administration’s major accomplishments, and regulators are looking to thwart deceptive enrollment schemes without slowing legitimate sign-ups. In recent weeks they’ve removed at least 200 agents’ access to the federal ACA marketplace, and in July began requiring, in many circumstances, that brokers participate in three-way calls with their clients and the healthcare.gov help center before changes can be finalized.

The CMS letter now adds another layer. It is the first time this year the agency has called out a company over questionable enrollments, saying it suspects “the Speridian Companies” might have “directed its employees and other agents to change Marketplace enrollees’ coverage and enroll insured and uninsured consumers without the enrollees’ consent.”

California-based Speridian Global Holdings owns the companies in question, which include enrollment platform Benefitalign and TrueCoverage, doing business as the Inshura enrollment site. It has a data center in India.

The now-suspended Benefitalign site handled at least 1.2 million applications for ACA coverage during the last open enrollment period, according to court documents, which would rank it among the largest of the private enrollment sites allowed to integrate with healthcare.gov, the federal marketplace.

Previously, CMS had said publicly only that it suspended the websites for “anomalous activity.”

The suspended companies deny any wrongdoing related to enrollment schemes. Spokesperson Catherine Riedel declined comment beyond their court filings.

In late August they filed a complaint against CMS over the suspensions in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a restraining order. They added to that complaint on Sept. 6, calling CMS’ suspension action “lawless.”

On Aug. 8, CMS suspended the two websites from accessing healthcare.gov information.

It did so, according to the Sept. 2 letter, over concerns that some consumer information “is processed and/or stored” in India, citing “suspicions” that the data is “being accessed from outside of the United States.”

That’s a problem, the letter says, because marketplace data must stay in the U.S. to “eliminate the possibility that foreign powers might obtain access.” Additionally, websites approved by CMS to integrate with the federal marketplace cannot transmit data outside of the U.S. or allow access from outside the country, under the terms of agreements such companies sign to get CMS approval to operate.

CMS did not spell out what consumer information might have been included, but ACA applications can contain information including a person’s name, date of birth, address, and detailed household income information.

Speridian companies were suspended, then reinstated, from the marketplace in prior years over other concerns, including problems with false Social Security Numbers submitted with some TrueCoverage ACA applications in 2018, and for a 2023 effort by Benefitalign to access the federal marketplace’s “software testing environment” from India, according to the CMS letter.

In seeking a restraining order against CMS, the companies argue that the agency’s action to suspend them now is arbitrary and capricious and violates its own regulations as well as the due process clause of the Constitution.

The filing calls the Sept. 2 CMS letter explaining the reasons for the suspensions “a post hoc justification” that includes a litany of “‘concerns,’ suspicions,’ ‘allegations.’” The filing also asserts “these intimations of violations are made without evidence of any actual violation.”

The court documents say the suspensions will prevent the companies from participating in the upcoming open enrollment period, harming them and “the thousands of brokers” and “millions of consumers who count on brokers” using those websites to sign up for ACA coverage.

The suspension remains in place, the CMS letter says, partly because its concerns have not been allayed by information provided by the companies, but also while the audit is conducted.

CMS has “reasonable suspicion, based on credible evidence it has considered,” that the companies were involved in enrolling consumers or changing their coverage without specific permission, the letter stated, noting that such allegations are included in a civil lawsuit filed by private sector lawyers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The firms have previously said the allegations in the civil lawsuit are without merit.

Brokers who have used the suspended websites in the past have other options to enroll clients, including several other websites currently approved to integrate with the federal Obamacare marketplace. Consumers can also go directly to the federal or state ACA websites and enroll themselves or get assistance from call centers associated with those marketplaces.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The unusual step comes as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is under the gun to curb unauthorized enrollment and switching of Affordable Care Act plans by rogue agents. The agency received more than 200,000 complaints in the first six months of the year about such actions.

CMS said in a written statement that it had suspended the two sites — Benefitalign and Inshura — “while the anomalous activity is researched to ensure the EDE partners are in compliance with CMS data standards.” EDE stands for “enhanced direct enrollment” and refers to websites approved to integrate with healthcare.gov.

In a separate development, the two websites, which insurance brokers use instead of the federal healthcare.gov site to enroll clients in Affordable Care Act plans, are mentioned in an ongoing civil lawsuit filed by attorneys representing consumers and agents who claim they’ve been harmed by enrollment schemes.

CMS posted on Aug. 9 an updated list of websites approved to integrate with the federal Obamacare marketplace that no longer included Benefitalign and Inshura. As a result, insurance agents can’t use the websites to enroll customers in or make changes to their Obamacare plans.

Private sector enrollment sites were first allowed to integrate with healthcare.gov data under the Trump administration. About a dozen such sites are now approved to connect with the federal system.

Thwarting enrollment schemes and rogue insurance agents without making it too difficult for consumers and legitimate agents to enroll in health plans has become a political problem for the Biden administration. President Joe Biden has claimed record-breaking enrollment under the ACA as one of his administration’s major accomplishments.

In recent weeks, lawmakers have called on CMS to do more and introduced legislation to increase penalties for agents who enroll people in plans without authorization. The large number of complaints from victims of the schemes have caught the attention of House Republicans, who on June 28 requested investigations by the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services.

KFF Health News began reporting on ACA enrollment schemes early this year.

CMS has since taken actions to short-circuit unscrupulous agents and call centers.

Until last month, agents using the approved private sector enrollment sites could access consumer information via healthcare.gov with only a name, birth date, and state of residence. CMS now requires three-way calls among agents, consumers, and the healthcare.gov helpline when agents new to a policy try to make a change. Many legitimate insurance agents are urging an additional fix used widely by state Obamacare enrollment systems: requiring two-factor authentication before consumer information can be accessed or changed by agents.

Meanwhile, the move to suspend the two enrollment websites baffled the companies, said Catherine Riedel, a spokesperson for TrueCoverage, an insurance call center that also does business as Inshura. TrueCoverage and Benefitalign are subsidiaries of Speridian Global Holdings of California.

“We don’t know what they want us to do differently,” she said.

The websites, she said, are cooperating with CMS, and they conducted an internal review that found no security issues. Very few details, other than “it is related to a potential technical anomaly reported by an outside party” were given, Riedel wrote, and the firms have not been provided “any specific, actionable information related to the alleged anomaly.”

Both firms are mentioned in the lawsuit first filed in April in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges that people and organizations engaged in misleading advertising, or made changes to ACA policies, without the express permission of consumers — all with a goal of racking up commissions.

Late on Aug. 16, that case was amended to add allegations and defendants, including Benefitalign. The other enrollment website, Inshura, is not listed as a defendant, although it is run by TrueCoverage, which is.

Riedel said TrueCoverage disputes the lawsuit’s claims.

The case “is founded on misinformation and technical naivety that seems to have been connected to create a sensational and false narrative,” she said.

The Aug. 16 filing alleges that TrueCoverage or Speridian Technologies, another subsidiary of Speridian Global Holdings, used the Benefitalign or Inshura websites to access U.S. consumers’ personal information, then sent it to marketers in India and Pakistan. The allegation, if true, would violate agreements the private sector websites made with the federal government to gain approval to operate, the suit contends.

Riedel said there is no evidence to support the allegations and that it is technically impossible to move “bulk amounts of consumer data” from the Obamacare marketplace.

“Like many technology companies, some of TrueCoverage’s marketing efforts have been based in India. However, as part of that marketing work, TrueCoverage did not move any customer data out of the EDE platform,” she said.

The 185-page amended complaint added as a defendant Bain Capital Insurance Fund, part of one of the world’s leading private investment companies, saying it “aided and abetted” Florida-based Enhance Health, which describes itself as a large broker of ACA plans. Bain helped launch Enhance with a $150 million investment in 2021 and appointed its CEO.

After initially planning to market Medicare Advantage plans, the lawsuit says, Enhance Health and Bain decided to shift to ACA plans, which were seen as more profitable. The suit alleges Enhance Health participated in unauthorized agent changes or switching of ACA policies.

Bain knew “what was going on” at Enhance “and ultimately supported it,” the lawsuit says, noting that Bain executives sat on Enhance’s board, controlled the hiring of executives, and were often at its Sunrise, Florida, offices. The firm hoped to sell the company once it showed how profitable it could be, the suit alleges.

In a written statement, Enhance Health said that “upholding the highest standards of compliance and controls is a core focus in all aspects of our operation and we will vigorously defend against these baseless claims.”

Bain Capital Insurance did not reply to a request for comment.

The additional allegations expand on the initial April filing, which outlined a complex web of activities aimed at capitalizing changes to the ACA under Biden that resulted in broader availability of zero-premium plans for lower-income applicants. In some cases, consumers were lured to call centers through misleading ads touting nonexistent cash cards. Some call centers or agents filed duplicate coverage for the same individuals, without consumer permission, or split family members among multiple policies, the suit alleges.

Because the customers don’t pay monthly premiums for the plans, they may not notice they’ve been enrolled until they try to obtain care.

Some consumers whose plans were switched lost access to their doctors or medications. Some face tax consequences if they were enrolled in duplicative coverage or in subsidized plans for which they did not qualify.

One victim added to the case, Paula Langley of Texas, initially responded to an advertisement promising a cash card. She called the number advertised and was enrolled in ACA coverage in February 2023 but never received the promised incentive, according to the lawsuit.

She and her husband began receiving multiple insurance cards from different insurers, the suit says. She would show up for a doctor’s visit or to pick up a prescription only to find her coverage had been canceled, leaving her with unpaid medical bills.

All in all, she was switched among plans and agents at least 22 times in just over a year, the lawsuit alleges.

Attorneys Jason Kellogg of Miami and Jason Doss of Atlanta said they amended the lawsuit based on dozens of interviews with former employees of the named firms. They’re seeking class-action status on behalf of affected consumers and agents who have lost business to the unauthorized plan-switching, and the suit alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations — or RICO — Act.

“The scheme is bad enough because it’s so large,” Kellogg said. “But it’s much worse given that it preys upon Americans who are at the lowest levels of the income scale, who may be desperate, are most vulnerable.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Several House Republican leaders have called on two watchdog agencies to investigate, while Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) fired off more than half a dozen questions in a recent letter to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

At issue are the ACA’s enhanced subsidies, put in place during the covid-19 pandemic as part of economic recovery legislation. Grassley said in a recent news release that the subsidies “left Obamacare, a program already riddled with problems, wide open to new waste, fraud and abuse.”

While potential fraud in government programs has always been a rallying cry for conservatives, the recent criticisms are a renewed line of attack on the ACA because repealing it is unlikely, given that more than 21 million people enrolled in marketplace plans for this year.

“I see what’s happening right now as laying the groundwork for the big fight next year,” said Debbie Curtis, a vice president at consulting firm McDermott+.

The enhanced subsidies are set to expire in late 2025. Without them, millions of Americans would likely see their premiums go up.

But the debate will also likely draw in other issues, including Trump-era tax cuts, which also must be addressed next year. Also potentially in play are other aspects of the ACA, including a special year-round enrollment period and zero-premium plans for low-income consumers.

Much of what eventually happens will depend on the makeup of the Senate and House, as well as control of the White House, after the November elections.

“The fate of the enhanced tax credits is dependent on the Democrats holding some majority in Congress and/or winning the presidency and is also tied inextricably to the Trump tax cut expiration,” said Dean Rosen, a partner at Mehlman Consulting and a former senior Republican congressional staffer. That’s because both sides have incentive to extend all or part of the tax cuts, but each will want some kind of compromise on other issues as well.

The growing outcry by Republicans about the subsidies goes hand in hand with a controversial recent report from a conservative think tank that estimates millions of people — or their brokers — may be misstating their incomes and getting the most generous ACA subsidies.

The Paragon Health Institute report estimates that the number of people who enrolled in ACA coverage for this year who projected they would earn between 100% of the federal poverty level and 150% — amounts that qualify them for zero-premium plans and smaller deductibles — likely exceeds the number of people with that level of income, particularly in nine states.

It recommends several changes to the ACA, including letting the enhanced subsidies expire, increasing repayment amounts for people who fail to project their incomes correctly, and ending the Biden-backed initiative that allows very low-income people to enroll in ACA coverage year-round rather than having to wait for the once-a-year general open enrollment period.

The Paragon report was cited by both Grassley and the House GOP lawmakers in their letters to government overseers. It also notes what they consider a related concern: ongoing problems of unscrupulous, commission-seeking agents enrolling people in ACA coverage or switching their plans without their permission, often into highly subsidized plans. KFF Health News uncovered the enrollment and switching schemes in the spring.

Some critics, though, question how the Paragon analysis was done.

For instance, Paragon’s findings rely on two unrelated data sets from different years. Combining them makes many people who are eligible for subsidies appear to be ineligible, said Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and director of research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “The analytic approach is not careful or sophisticated enough to provide accurate or even meaningful results.”

Paragon President Brian Blase, a former senior Trump administration official and a co-author of the report, said it used publicly available data that others could use to confirm its results.

Paragon’s recommendations also drew mixed reactions.

Sabrina Corlette, a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said they “would make coverage less affordable, disproportionately affecting low-income people, and that’s the opposite of the goals of the ACA.”

Another ACA expert, Joseph Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agrees with one of the recommended fixes: changing the structure of the subsidies to limit zero-premium plans.

“Giving health insurance away is the problem,” said Antos, who said it is probably contributing to the unauthorized switching by some rogue brokers, who know if they sign someone up for a free plan without their permission, they’re unlikely to get caught for a while because the person won’t get monthly bills.

Another potential solution to people misstating their income is that “the seven or eight states that still haven’t expanded Medicaid should do that,” Antos said. The expansion would open Medicaid eligibility to more people who earn less than the poverty level, reducing the incentive to overestimate their income to qualify for ACA subsidies.

Among other things, the subsidies are larger now for low-income enrollees. For example, families at the poverty level or just above it ($30,000 to $45,000 for a family of four) can currently qualify for coverage with no monthly premium, whereas before they would have had to pay 2% to 4% of their annual income toward such a plan.

President Joe Biden has pushed to make the subsidies permanent and has often touted the record enrollment in ACA plans under his watch. Across all income groups, nearly 20 million people out of 21 million ACA enrollees this year got at least some subsidy, according to a KFF report.

Subsidies, also called premium tax credits, are generally paid directly to health insurers, and applicants must estimate their income for the coming year to qualify.

Those who incorrectly project their incomes — possibly because they work irregular retail hours, are self-employed and give a best guess of business, or get an unexpected raise or a new job — must pay back all or part of the subsidy, on a sliding scale linked to income.

The cost of the enhanced subsidies has been sharply criticized by some GOP leaders after the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that making them permanent would add $335 billion to the federal budget deficit over 10 years.

Democrats have pointed to another recent CBO report estimating extending the Trump-era tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

The enhanced subsidies “cost a lot less than that and it’s actually helping people,” Curtis said.

Ultimately, “every health care debate comes down to money,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. “There is a trade-off here. Millions of people have gotten coverage and more affordable premiums due to these enhanced subsidies, but extending them would cost the government a lot of money.”

Despite the attention paid by some GOP lawmakers to the fraud concerns, many political observers say they don’t think they will play a direct role during the election campaigns of either party.

“For Republicans, they’ll stay away from health care period. It is not a winning campaign issue for them,” Curtis said. “With Harris’ campaign, we will see a continued drive for affordable coverage being key, particularly drug costs. In neither party will you hear much about the importance of extending the enhanced subsidies. It’s too complicated.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Wyden first promised the bill in May, when he called on federal regulators to do more to combat sketchy Obamacare enrollment schemes. Often, consumers who are targeted don’t know they’ve been enrolled or that their coverage has been switched to a new plan until they lose access to preferred doctors, learn they have different deductibles, or find they owe taxes for ACA insurance premium subsidies.

The schemes exploit the federal health insurance enrollment system, which requires only minimal proof of identity — a name, birth date, and state — for a broker to create or access an account. The lure is monthly commissions paid by insurance companies — amounts that are only about $25 per person but can add up when multiplied across transactions.

“It is critical for these bad actors to be held criminally responsible and implement common sense consumer protections so working families can confidently purchase quality, affordable health insurance that works for them through honest brokers,” Wyden said in a statement.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said July 19 that more than 200,000 people have complained about unauthorized Obamacare enrollment or plan switches this year.

KFF Health News began reporting on Affordable Care Act enrollment schemes this spring.

CMS’ directive last week also detailed new rules aimed at thwarting the problem by blocking agents from making changes to consumers’ coverage unless they are already “associated” with that policyholder’s account, or take other steps to verify that they have consumers’ permission.

Wyden’s proposal, co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Patty Murray of Washington, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, would call on federal regulators to begin verifying that consumers have granted consent to brokers for ACA enrollment or plan switches, and to notify consumers whenever a change is made to their accounts or coverage.

The civil penalties would range from at least $10,000, in cases of straightforward negligence, to as much as $200,000 for agents who “knowingly and willfully” submit fraudulent information.

Wyden’s bill faces a seemingly impossible climb, landing in a very polarized Senate during an election year.

But next year, the ACA will be in the spotlight as Congress must decide whether to extend beyond 2025 enhanced subsidies that help people purchase coverage. Increased subsidies were instituted under the Biden administration at the height of the pandemic and are considered a key factor behind recent record ACA enrollment.

Some Republican lawmakers have demanded investigations of ACA enrollment-switching schemes, which they allege may be part of a larger problem of brokers or consumers misstating their incomes to garner insurance subsidies. Obamacare supporters say the complaint is a partisan effort to stop the enhanced subsidies from becoming permanent.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter July 8 to CMS questioning how federal regulators verify incomes for those who get subsidies and what enforcement efforts are underway related to potential ACA subsidy fraud.

Wyden’s office said his proposal is supported by some insurers and agent groups, including AHIP, the trade association for insurance companies; individual insurers like Centene Corp.; and several disease-specific patient advocacy groups, including the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Health Agents for America, a group that has sought solutions to the issue, supports criminal charges for agents found to be falsely enrolling or switching consumers but stopped short of endorsing Wyden’s bill. Ronnell Nolan, its president and CEO, said her organization would like to see more effort “to hold CMS responsible” for allowing what she views as security loopholes in private sector enrollment websites, and in enforcement actions against bad actors.

“The bottom line is to stop fraud and help the consumer,” she said.

In a July 19 letter to Wyden’s office, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure outlined steps the agency has taken to increase “oversight of agents and brokers to protect consumers” — including suspending 200 agents in recent weeks from enrolling clients in Obamacare plans.

“The numbers being addressed are very low,” said Nolan, who suspects it isn’t just individual rogue agents seeking commissions by changing ACA enrollments, but a larger effort using automation to rapidly enroll or switch consumer policies.

Nolan and other agents say federal regulators should simply require private Obamacare enrollment sites to add layers of security before agents can access consumer accounts.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia run their own ACA marketplaces and require additional security measures, including two-factor authentication, before consumer accounts can be accessed. Two-factor authentication, a common internet security feature, requires people to enter a code — usually sent to their phones — before accessing accounts at banks, social media platforms, and many other services.

The state-run enrollment sites report far fewer problems than the federal marketplace, Nolan and others say. If CMS simply added two-factor authentication to healthcare.gov, Nolan said, “all these other shenanigans would not happen.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Ahora, mientras los demócratas reconstruyen su candidatura presidencial a pocos meses de las elecciones, se esperaría que, de ser la nueva nominada, Harris adoptase una postura agresiva en apoyo al acceso al aborto, atacando al ex presidente Donald Trump en un tema que podría socavar sus posibilidades de victoria.

Biden respaldó a Harris el domingo 21 de julio cuando anunció su decisión de retirarse de la contienda.

Aunque Biden buscaba mantener el aborto como tema central de su campaña de reelección, defensores seguían teniendo dudas de que el presidente, un católico practicante que ha dicho que no es “muy partidario del aborto”, pudiera ser un abanderado efectivo. Especialmente mientras los esfuerzos republicanos erosionan el acceso al aborto y otros servicios de salud para mujeres en todo el país.

Por otro lado, Harris se convirtió en la primera vicepresidenta en visitar una clínica operada por Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Emprendió una gira nacional centrada en los derechos reproductivos. Y cuando el senador JD Vance de Ohio fue nombrado compañero de fórmula de Trump, Harris utilizó su siguiente mitín de campaña para criticarlo por bloquear protecciones para la fertilización in vitro.

“Lo más significativo es que Harris sería el rostro del impulso para proteger el derecho al aborto”, dijo Larry Levitt, vicepresidente ejecutivo de políticas de salud en KFF, organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud de la que KFF Health News es parte, en una entrevista antes de que Biden se retirara. “El acceso al aborto probablemente sería el tema central en su campaña”.

Una postura firme sobre el aborto no es el único gran contraste con el Partido Republicano (GOP) que ofrece Harris: tiene un gran conocimiento en política de salud. De niña, a menudo acompañaba a su madre al laboratorio donde trabajaba los fines de semana, como investigadora del cáncer de mama.

Durante su campaña presidencial en 2019, apoyó el “Medicare para Todos”, una propuesta de seguro de pagador único, que estableció sus credenciales como una voz más progresista en políticas de salud. Y como fiscal general de California, luchó contra la consolidación en la industria de la salud debido a la preocupación de que esto aumentaría los precios.

En abril, defendió una norma de la administración Biden que establece niveles mínimos de personal en los hogares de adultos mayores financiados con fondos federales.

“Se merece crédito, ha hablado de estos temas en la campaña. No veo ningún cambio en las prioridades sobre lo que los demócratas quieren hacer en salud si ella se convierte en la nominada”, dijo Debbie Curtis, vicepresidenta de McDermott + Consulting.

Un enfoque intensificado en la salud de la mujer y el aborto podría ayudar a consolidar a los votantes demócratas en la recta final hacia las elecciones.

Desde que en 2022 los tres jueces de la Corte Suprema nombrados por Trump ayudaron a derogar Roe vs. Wade, la opinión pública se ha vuelto en contra de los republicanos en el tema del aborto, incluso contribuyendo a un resultado inesperadamente pobre en las elecciones intermedias de ese año.

El 32% de los votantes dijeron que solo votarían por un candidato para un cargo importante que compartiera sus opiniones sobre el aborto, según una encuesta de Gallup realizada en mayo. Ese es un récord alto desde que Gallup hizo la pregunta por primera vez en 1992. Casi el doble de votantes que apoyan el aborto, en comparación con aquellos que se oponen al aborto, tienen esa opinión.

El 63% de los adultos dijeron que el aborto debería ser legal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos, según una encuesta realizada en abril por el Pew Research Center. El 36% dijo que debería ser ilegal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos.

Mientras tanto, los republicanos han estado ansiosos por distanciarse de su propia victoria en este tema. Trump enfureció a algunos miembros de su base al decir que dejaría las decisiones sobre el aborto a los estados.

Sin embargo, defensores advierten que la nueva moderación por omisión del GOP en el tema enmascara su postura real, más extrema. Vance ha sido claro en el pasado sobre su apoyo a una prohibición nacional del aborto.

Y aunque la plataforma del GOP adoptada durante la convención del partido hace pocos días puede no pedir explícitamente una prohibición nacional del aborto, el reconocimiento de los líderes del partido de la “personalidad fetal”, la idea de que tan pronto como se fertiliza un óvulo se convierte en una persona con todos los derechos legales, crearía una prohibición automáticamente si la Corte Suprema la encontrara constitucional.

Esas opiniones contrastan con las de muchos republicanos, especialmente mujeres. Alrededor de la mitad de las votantes republicanas creen que el aborto debería ser legal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos, según una encuesta nacional reciente de KFF.

Y la mayoría de las mujeres que votan por el Partido Republicano creen que el aborto debería ser legal en casos de violación, incesto o una emergencia durante el embarazo.

Si Harris encabeza la candidatura, se esperaría que enfatice esos temas en los próximos meses.

“Ha sido uno de los temas principales, si no el principal, que ha remarcado en el último año o dos”, dijo Matthew Baum, profesor Marvin Kalb de comunicaciones globales en la Universidad de Harvard. “Claramente, los republicanos están tratando de desactivar el tema. Ha sido un desastre para ellos”.

Es probable, sin embargo, que los republicanos presenten las opiniones de Harris sobre el aborto como extremistas. Durante el debate presidencial contra Biden, Trump afirmó falsamente que los demócratas apoyan los abortos tardíos en el embarazo, “incluso después del nacimiento”.

Poco después que se diera la noticia de que Biden había respaldado a Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America emitió un comunicado criticando el historial de Harris y ofreciendo una muestra de lo que está por venir. “Mientras Joe Biden tiene problemas para decir la palabra aborto, Kamala Harris la grita”, dijo Marjorie Dannenfelser, presidenta del grupo.

Algunos encuestadores han dicho que Harris tendrá que hacer más que simplemente hacer campaña contra los esfuerzos republicanos para revertir el acceso al aborto para realmente motivar a los votantes: temas como la inflación, la economía y la inmigración, están compitiendo por atención.

“Tiene que decir que está luchando por una ley federal que restablezca Roe vs. Wade”, dijo Robert Blendon, profesor emérito de salud pública en la Universidad de Harvard. “Necesita algo muy específico y claro”.

La elevación de Harris a la cima de la candidatura llegaría en un momento crítico en la lucha por los derechos reproductivos.

La Corte Suprema escuchó dos casos de aborto en el término que acaba de finalizar. Pero los jueces no abordaron los méritos de los temas en ninguno de los casos, fallando en su lugar sobre cuestiones técnicas. Se espera que ambos regresen a la Corte Suprema tan pronto como el próximo año.

Harris también tendría una considerable libertad para hablar sobre lo que se considera los principales logros de la política de salud de la administración Biden.

Estos incluyen mejores subsidios en la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo precio (ACA) destinados a ayudar a los consumidores a obtener seguro de salud, que se extendieron, a través de la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación, hasta 2025, el límite mensual de $35 en copagos que algunos pacientes pagan por la insulina, y la negociación de precios de medicamentos en Medicare.

“Creo que está bien posicionada. Harris es parte central de la administración y podrá atribuirse el mérito de esas cosas”, dijo Dan Mendelson, CEO de Morgan Health, una subsidiaria de J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dicho esto, puede ser difícil para cualquier candidato lograr que los votantes se enfoquen en algunos de esos logros, especialmente en los esfuerzos relacionados con los precios de los medicamentos.

Aunque la administración ha tomado algunos pasos importantes, “nuevos medicamentos costosos siguen saliendo al mercado”, dijo Mendelson. “Así que si miras la percepción de los consumidores, no creen que el costo de los medicamentos esté bajando”.

Joseph Antos, del American Enterprise Institute, dijo que es probable que Harris diga que la administración Biden-Harris “ya le está ahorrando dinero a la gente” en insulina. Pero tendrá que ir más allá de estos logros y redoblar sus esfuerzos en los precios de los medicamentos y otros temas de costo, no hablar únicamente sobre derechos reproductivos.

“Tiene que concentrarse, si quiere ganar, en temas que tengan un amplio atractivo”, dijo Antos. “El costo es uno y el acceso a tratamientos es otro gran tema”.

Samantha Young de KFF Health News contribuyó con este informe.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Now, as Democrats rebuild their presidential ticket just a few months before Election Day, Harris would widely be expected to take an aggressive stance in support of abortion access if she became the party’s new presumptive nominee — hitting former President Donald Trump on an issue that could undermine his chances of victory. Biden endorsed Harris on Sunday when he announced his decision to leave the race.

While Biden sought to keep abortion center stage in his reelection bid, abortion advocates had harbored doubts that the president — a practicing Catholic who has said he is not “big on abortion” — could be an effective standard-bearer as Republican efforts erode access to abortion and other women’s health care around the country.

Harris, on the other hand, became the first vice president to visit a clinic run by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She undertook a nationwide tour focused on reproductive rights. And when Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was named Trump’s running mate, Harris used her next campaign appearance to criticize him for blocking protections for in vitro fertilization.

“Most significantly, Harris would be the face of the drive to protect abortion rights,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, said in an interview before Biden stepped aside. “Abortion access would likely be front and center in her campaign.”

A strong stance on abortion is not the only major contrast to the GOP that Harris offers: She is well versed in health policy. As a child, Harris often accompanied her mother to work on the weekends, visiting the lab where she was studying breast cancer.

While running for president in 2019, she backed “Medicare for All,” a single-payer insurance proposal that established her bona fides as a more progressive voice on health policy. And as California’s attorney general, she fought against consolidation in the health industry over concerns it would drive up prices. 

She stumped for a Biden administration rule setting minimum staffing levels at federally funded nursing homes in April.

“She deserves credit, she’s talked about them on the campaign trail. I don’t see any change there in the priorities on what Democrats want to do on health care if she becomes the nominee,” said Debbie Curtis, vice president at McDermott + Consulting. 

An intensified focus on women’s health and abortion could help galvanize Democratic voters in the final sprint to the election. Since the three Supreme Court justices named by Trump helped overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, public opinion has turned against Republicans on abortion, even contributing to an unexpectedly poor showing in the 2022 midterm elections.

Thirty-two percent of voters said they would vote only for a candidate for a major office who shares their views on abortion, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in May. That’s a record high since Gallup first asked the question in 1992. Nearly twice as many voters who support abortion, compared with those who oppose abortion, hold that view. 

Sixty-three percent of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, based on a poll conducted in April by Pew Research Center. Thirty-six percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Republicans, in turn, have been eager to distance themselves from their own victory on the issue. Trump angered some members of his base by saying he would leave decisions on abortion to the states.

Regardless, advocates caution that the GOP’s new moderation-by-omission on the issue masks their actual, more extreme stance. Vance has been clear in the past about his support for a national abortion ban. And while the GOP platform adopted during the party’s convention last week may not explicitly call for a nationwide ban on abortion, party leaders’ recognition of “fetal personhood,” the idea that as soon as an egg is fertilized it becomes a person with full legal rights, would create such a ban automatically if the Supreme Court found it constitutional.

Those views stand in contrast to those of many Republicans, especially women. About half of Republican women voters think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a recent national survey by KFF. And majorities of women who vote Republican believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or a pregnancy emergency.

If Harris heads the ticket, she would be expected to hammer on those issues in the coming months. 

“It’s been one of if not the main issue she’s emphasized in the last year or two,” said Matthew Baum, Marvin Kalb professor of global communications at Harvard University. “Clearly the Republicans are trying to defang the issue. It’s been a disaster for them.”

It is likely, though, that Republicans would paint Harris’ views on abortion as extremist. During the presidential debate against Biden, Trump falsely claimed Democrats support abortions late in pregnancy, “even after birth.”

Shortly after news broke that Biden had endorsed Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America issued a statement calling out Harris’ record and offering evidence of what is to come. “While Joe Biden has trouble saying the word abortion, Kamala Harris shouts it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president.

Some pollsters have said Harris would have to do more than just campaign against Republican efforts to roll back abortion access to truly motivate voters because so many issues, such as inflation, the economy, and immigration, are competing for attention.

“She has to say she is running for a federal law that will bring back Roe v. Wade,” said Robert Blendon, an emeritus public health professor at Harvard University. “She needs something very specific and clear.”

Harris’ elevation to the top of the ticket would come at a critical juncture in the fight over reproductive rights.

The Supreme Court heard two abortion cases in the term that ended this month. But the justices did not address the merits of the issues in either case, ruling instead on technicalities. Both are expected to return to the high court as soon as next year.

In one case, challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, the justices ruled that the group of anti-abortion medical professionals who challenged the drug lacked standing to sue because they failed to show they were personally injured by its availability. 

The other abortion-related case pitted a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care against Idaho’s strict ban, which allows abortions when a pregnant patient’s life is in danger — but not in cases in which it is necessary to protect her health, including future fertility.

Harris would also have substantial leeway to talk about what are considered to be the Biden administration’s core health policy accomplishments. These include enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits aimed at helping consumers get health insurance coverage, which were extended through the Inflation Reduction Act into 2025, the $35 monthly cap on copays some patients pay for insulin, and drug price negotiation in Medicare.

“I think she is well positioned. She is core to the administration and will be able to take credit for those things,” said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health, a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).