Insurance plans would help middle-income Kansans who need health care

Recently, The Kansas City Star Editorial Board attacked legislation I am presenting that would give better protection to those with short-term health insurance plans, and implied I would personally benefit from the legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Every two years, politicians campaign on providing affordable health coverage for middle-income Americans while also protecting those with pre-existing conditions. The media sings the same tune.

Those are noble goals, but where are the actual solutions to achieve that objective? Paralyzed by private insurance companies that do not want competition on one side and ideologues who want nothing short of a single-payer system on the other, legislators do not take action on behalf of the consumer who is suffering under the weight of bad policy and simply wants more options.

The regulations of the Affordable Care Act have had a devastating impact on the ability of some Americans to afford private insurance, particularly for those in the middle class. For instance, a bronze federal marketplace plan could cost a 40-year-old male $375 a month plus medical expenses of $8,550, totaling $13,000 annual potential costs.

It forces such Americans into a Hobson’s choice of going into debt or going uninsured. Many opt for the latter, taking a risk they will not face a sudden acute medical situation that pops up, such as kidney stones or gall bladder surgery.

However, short-term plans provide an affordable option for up to 12 months and cover major services. For instance, that 40-year-old male could pay $190 a month for a plan that pays all covered expenses after his $2,500 deductible, for a total of $4,800 in potential costs. These plans can start as early as the next day and during that 12 months, you can’t be dropped or see your premium raised because a new health condition. Yet you can drop your plan at any time.

Short-term plans have been allowed in our state for decades, yet they are not right for everyone and few people know about them. In fact, according to the Kansas Insurance Department, only about 1,800 state residents have one.

SB 199 simply seeks to provide those who buy these plans with better protection against pre-existing conditions should an expensive condition arise while on one of these plans.

One year of coverage is not enough for everyone. When a current short-term plan is ended, the individual may buy a new 12- month plan. But in that second year, any condition that occurred in the first 12 months is considered pre-existing and not covered in the second year.

SB 199 would address that problem by adopting federal regulations that allow a short-term plan to be renewed twice without being subject to underwriting. That means conditions developed during the first and second year of the plans would still be covered in the third year, extending the length of time a short-term policy could help Kansans from one to three years.

It is important to note that the policy contained within SB 199 has already been adopted by our neighbors: Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Oklahoma. This bill merely allows us to do so.

Finally, I want to address the personal attacks in the editorial. It directly implied I am offering this legislation to benefit myself, as I am a licensed health insurance agent in Kansas. This is hogwash.

First, we are not creating a new product. Second, of the 100-plus Kansans that I help annually with selecting a policy, few choose the short-term plans. In fact, I wrote only 17 of these plans all of last year — hardly a windfall. More important, Kansas has a citizen legislature where each of us offer expertise guided by our experience and our professions. While the public certainly deserves full disclosure of any potential conflicts, none exists here. To be clear, I merely identified that we could better protect Kansans with short-term health plans by simply adopting the flexibility that the federal government allows.