Currently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton are fighting to overturn the ACA. Governor Abbott, a pro-life politician, has said, “Texas has become the national leader in defending life. As governor, I will fight for every child to have a chance at life." But as I sit with my son Raphael, who has complex medical needs, I wonder—how is Texas defending life when it attempts to pull the ACA and Medicaid protections away from my son and many others like him?

I remember my pregnancy with Raphael: At five months pregnant, my husband and I are staring at a whiteboard. A world-class doctor has just finished writing our baby’s health issues on the board. He tells us it’s time to make a tough choice, and that if I were his daughter, he wouldn’t let my baby be born. We disagree—this baby is loved more than anything. We had tried for years to get pregnant, and had dreamed of the love we would show our baby. I dreamed of baby snuggles and laughs, and watching our child grow.

Fast forward eight months. My son, Raphael, has survived three months in the NICU, two surgeries, and countless medical procedures. We adjusted to life in the NICU, and I learned how to take care of my son’s medical needs. Every month on his “monthday” we would throw little NICU parties, complete with party hats and banners. Each night, we’d read him books and cuddle him to sleep. I learned infant massage and used oil to massage his tiny body.

We’d been home for a week when I woke up to see him lying limp and cold. In the scariest moments of my life, I performed CPR. Now I was at a different children’s hospital, in a trauma room, watching swarms of medical professionals surround my Raphael’s tiny, lifeless body as they worked to bring him back. The doctor told the team to work faster, that “this baby isn’t responding.” My heart nearly stopped—all I wanted was my son, alive.

For weeks after that horrible day, we sat by our son’s bedside, watching him slowly improve and stabilize. At this point, our medical bills (despite my excellent private health care plan) were skyrocketing—we received our first bill, for thousands of dollars, and panicked—how would we pay this on top of the hundreds of dollars we had been paying for weeks to park at the hospital?  When you are inpatient, everything is more expensive: food, gas to get to the hospital each day, and all of the specialists. Because my pregnancy had been so complicated, we had already spent all of our flexible spending account funds.

At some point in those hazy hospital days, a social worker helped us walk through the paperwork so our son would qualify for a Medicaid waiver—state-federal secondary insurance coverage expanded in our state as a result of the ACA to protect more little Texans with complex medical needs. Without the ACA and Medicaid, my son’s life and our livelihood would be at risk. Raphael needs monthly shipments of medical supplies and multiple therapy visits per week, which are covered by Medicaid. He gets sick easily, and when he does, he tends to get REALLY sick. Those additional health costs are covered. Medicaid provides home nursing that keeps Raphael healthy and allows my husband and I to work at jobs that matter to us and provide for our family.  

Raphael is now three. He loves playing soccer, going to swim class, and convincing his dad and me to take him to Chuck E. Cheese. He is supremely inquisitive (he’s teaching himself Spanish!) and incredibly loving; he adores his little sister and loves to shop with his shopping cart. Without Medicaid, Raphael would not be the thriving toddler he is today.

Both the ACA and Medicaid protect Raphael’s right to health care. Due to his complex medical needs, Raphael would not qualify for health insurance without the ACA’s guaranteed coverage of pre-existing conditions. Without the ACA and Medicaid, Raphael would have maxed out his lifetime health care cap long before his third birthday.

So, I sit with Raphael and wonder – how will he, and so many children like him, continue to survive and thrive if Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton succeed in taking away his health care rights? 

[image description: Mom Gillian with Raphael and his baby sister and dad seated together in front of a window]

My 14-year-old son Victor is a really social guy. He loves baseball, arts & crafts, the pool, and listens to any music that helps him get his groove on, especially the Beastie Boys, and Johnny Cash. 

Yet worry has engulfed me, I’m on edge and uncertain for Victor’s future because he also has complex medical needs and disabilities. A lot of things interrupt my sleep at night … these days, anything to do with how things shape up or slim down in American health care. Health care really stresses me out! 

Managing Victor’s medical care has been an obstacle course since 2005, when my husband and I began our journey with Victor. In and out of the hospital, we had to learn about and cope with Vic's daily seizures – at one point 50 or more per day. 

If that weren’t stressful enough, there were his medical bills. During those early years, at the bottom of every insurance “Explanation of Benefits” form, the number showing how close we were to Vic’s lifetime limit kept increasing (by age 3 he reached over $600,000). I’d point this out to my husband, who’d try to keep me calm. At that time we had a decent employer insurance plan, but I still had to fight regularly with our insurance company over denials. Back then, we had no private duty nursing, we paid thousands of dollars out of pocket each year, and I had to itemize EVERYTHING so we could claim our medical costs on our taxes to recoup something (By the way, the Republican’s 2018 Tax Bill will no longer allow medical deductions after 2019!).

Vic's care became more complicated over time. We routinely visited specialists searching for answers, I took Vic to multiple therapists, and I enrolled him in a birth to three early intervention program, which required my attendance. Victor's multiple medical procedures added up, including the feeding tubes he still needs today. 

When Victor was 4 years old the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed. I cried tears of joy, the relief I felt was so real! The ACA meant that my son's life mattered: that his medical care would not be denied by insurance companies because he had multiple pre-existing conditions. The ACA told every disabled person that they mattered, too. States have had the option to expand Medicaid since the ACA passed, but it took awhile for them to fully grasp the importance of making that leap.  Today. many states with a high uninsured rate have begun to reap the benefits (like keeping hospitals open) of Medicaid expansion .  

Vic is now on a Medicaid waiver in our state of Texas. This waiver covers much of his care, including private duty nursing that most employer-based insurance does not cover. However, when Vic turns 20 he will age out, and in Texas - which still chooses to turn away from Medicaid expansion – Medicaid waivers for adults do not cover private duty nursing, thereby creating another layer of worry and uncertainty for Vic’s future. 

Even worse, Texas is suing the U.S. Government over the Affordable Care Act. If the state prevails in Texas v. U.S., the ACA will be declared unconstitutional everywhere. No health organization agrees with an ACA repeal, and neither Texas nor congressional Republicans have a replacement plan. Our health care protections will simply be gone.

I know the ACA is not perfect. Despite subsidies, insurance policies are expensive – in large part because President Trump has refused to defend or uphold the ACA, resulting in fewer sign-ups and forcing many companies to leave the exchanges and driving up costs for everyone. 

But the ACA is more than a group of health insurance policies. The ACA represents the ideal that every American should have health care coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions or disability. The ACA put an end to lifetime caps, provides emergency care without pre-authorization, and expanded Medicaid – all of which are essential for families like mine! 

The truth is that, regardless of who takes office after the 2020 Presidential campaign, even in a best-case scenario it would take years to transition to a universal health care system. The issue we should all care about most TODAY is the lawsuit in court now; EVERY American's health care future is on the line! 

I feel the heavy weight of the Texas v. U.S. lawsuit. I know my son's life and our family’s financial future are on the line. Today, I will do my best to keep it together, to focus on what we have now, and to hope and to pray that the Texas lawsuit is thrown out of court, or ruled in favor of preservation of the ACA. Afterall, the Affordable Care Act is all any of us has to #ProtectOurCare!

Victor and his dad embrace during a recent hospital stay.

It's the eleven year anniversary of my diabetes diagnosis and the government still wants me dead!

My brand of insulin costs $340 if I were to be uninsured. That's $0.34 a unit. A unit is ONE HUNDREDTH of a mL. If something seems wrong about that to you, that's because it is. (1)

Technological advances has increased to the point where human and analog insulin can be produced for under SEVEN DOLLARS a vial. For anyone following along at home, that's a nearly 5,000% increase in cost. (2)

It's estimated by the World Health Organization that the average diabetic will use 40 units of insulin a day. At the current price point, without decent health insurance, living a single day costs about $14. A week $95. A month $432. A year comes in at just under $5,000. (1)

There are no "generic" insulin brands on the market, no older options like "pork" or "beef," so to say, animal-based insulins, available in the United States any longer. This is due to "evergreening," a technique used by the big three insulin producers (Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk) slightly tweaking the formulas for their insulin before their patents can expire, thus extending the patent. (3, 4)

That's why a drug that has been around since the 1920s is still so expensive. While, yes, progress has obviously been made, the Big 3 have slowed the process of change, with Sanofi filing a lawsuit against two producers, Merck and Mylan, from introducing a generic form of Sanofi's primary insulin. (4)

Now, you may be saying "if it costs so much, just suck it up and get health insurance. It's not the government's fault that you don't -" yeah, I’m gonna need you to stop. Because this is where the issue of Big Pharma and the American government's lax health care collide.

This past year, TWENTY STATES filed a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act (which in March of 2010 made it so that insurance companies couldn't penalize those of us with preexisting conditions by refusing us health care) that moved to revoke the protections in place for us. Texas vs Azar went so far as to say that the protection placed on pre-existing conditions was "unconstitutional." I guess they missed the "life" part of that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" bit. (5)

Not only have legislators tried to take away something that keeps people with pre-existing conditions from, often, a painful, PREVENTABLE death, we've had to watch them mock us in the media. Mo Brooks (R-AL) decided that we simply weren't "living the right way." Or Mick Mulvaney (Officer of Budget and Management for the Trump Administration) declaring "that doesn’t mean that we want to take care of the person, or should be required to take care of the person, who sits home, drinks Coca-Cola, no offense, drinks sugary drinks, and doesn’t exercise, and eats poorly and gets diabetes." Which not only shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on diabetes, but a lack of empathy as well. (6, 7)

While the ACA has yet to be repealed, the window to apply for insurance through the ACA has been shortened from 90 days to 45 days and the awareness budget has been slashed by 90%. Now, there's also the option for Medicaid, which at base-country wide level, will offer coverage if you're under the 138% poverty mark- with individual states having the option to expand coverage to under that point.

I make under $9,000 a year and I only fall at the 73% poverty point, to help put things into perspective. And a basic plan at that rate, without Medicaid, runs on the national average (for me, a single household 21 year old nonsmoker) between $230 and $370 dollars. That's more than my rent if you were curious. (8)

All this to say, health insurance, even with aid, still isn't cheap. And when the cost of insulin is so high, there are still out of pocket charges you have to pay monthly. I know diabetics who have gone without insulin because they just can't afford it; they can't afford insulin; they're trying to save their parents' money. (9)

Diabetes affects over 30 million Americans, with 1.2 million having Type 1 specifically. There are, on average, 1.5 million new cases diagnosed each year. In 2017, the nationwide total cost of diagnosed diabetes came in at 327 BILLION dollars. It comes as no surprise that diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in America. (10)

I'm 21 years old, and today, I've been diabetic for eleven years. The average life expectancy for a Type 1 diabetic is 15 years shorter than that of the average person. For a woman in the United States, the average is 81. (11)

That means for me, that average is 66. According to statistics, I've got 45 years left. And I'll be damned if the government takes a single year of it.

So do me a favor for my anniversary, keep health care in mind when you vote.

The author of this post, Jodi Aleshire

---

SOURCES:

1- https://www.goodrx.com/…/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compar…/

2- https://beyondtype1.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-produce-i…/

3- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1411398

4- https://health.usnews.com/…/whats-behind-the-rising-costs-o…

5- https://www.forbes.com/…/possible-removal-of-pre-existing…/…

6- https://insulinnation.com/…/trumps-omb-director-wasnt-alon…/

7-https://www.chicagotribune.com/…/ct-health-care-pre-existin…

8- https://www.kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

9- https://www.cnn.com/…/30/health/rising-drug-costs/index.html

10- http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/

https://jdrf.org.uk/…/about-…/complications/life-expectancy/

11- https://www.statista.com/…/life-expectancy-in-north-america/

On January 3, 2019, the 116th Congress was sworn in, with Democratic party leadership.  At 4am I had yet to close my eyes, even though I had a full day ahead of me. I couldn’t sleep because January 3rd was the day we had worked for two years to reach.  The day the Nancy Pelosi regained reclaimed the gave and became Speaker of the House. This was the day that ended the Republican majority in all three branches of Federal Government.  We made it. Checks and balances have been brought back to the US Government.

Americans with pre-existing conditions, families with medically complex children and adults, people who are chronically ill and in need of sufficient healthcare, all relaxed just a bit, knowing that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will not be repealed by legislation for now.  I was one of them. My daughter Emma, a former 28 week micro-preemie twin along with her sister Sara, relies on the protections against pre-existing condition exclusions and the lifetime coverage limits the ACA put a stop to…

When Speaker Pelosi reclaimed her gavel I breathed a little easier knowing that the Republican party agenda to repeal the ACA  without a replacement cannot pass while the Democratic party leads one of the chambers of Congress. We saw that the GOP could not repeal the ACA even  when Republicans held the majority in both chambers, but the devastating threat constantly loomed. With Democrats in the majority of the House, the threat has been somewhat neutralized for now.  Instead of being on the defensive, we can resume and expand our plans to improve the framework and execution of the ACA instead of fighting off its demise.

I have never, in my 40+ years of life, followed politics so closely as I have over the past two years.  I have never been so personally impacted or attacked by members of my own government and my fellow citizens who support an agenda that includes removing healthcare and Medicaid supports for millions of families, including my own.  That is why I joined forces with the Little Lobbyists. I could not sit and remain silent as Emma’s right to access healthcare was attacked, belittled and dismissed as unimportant. My daughter is not expendable. None of our children should be thought of as a budget line item.

I was astounded when Speaker Pelosi shared credit for the Democrat’s victory with “our Little Lobbyists,” in her first speech as Speaker to House Members and the American public. When she credited part of the progress we have made during these scary and tumultuous times to the Little Lobbyists it hit a lot of us like a lightning bolt!  It served as validation that the innumerable hours, late nights at our kitchen tables, butterflies as we approach the microphone to speak, or write to share stories about our families have, in fact, made a difference. In those early morning hours, between enteral tube feeds, checking ventilator settings, covering for another missed nursing shift, emergency room visits and lengthy inpatient stays, we realized that the time we have given in service of the Little Lobbyists goals have been an important part of the fight to stem the erosion of healthcare in our country.

We now have allies leading the US House of Representatives, and no greater champion than Speaker Pelosi. January 3rd was the day the landscape has changed. It was the day we have had circled on our calendars since before the midterm elections.  The day everything changed.

Stacy’s daughter Emma is the reason she cannot sit and stay silent.

I’m conservative on some things and less on others. A true swing voter, a moderate. A Republican was as likely to get my vote as a Democrat —dependent on their voting history on issues important to me. Historically, I leaned more Republican than Democrat until last year, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) came under fire and I became terrified that my son might lose the health care vital to his survival.

My son Jack is 7 and has a fatal genetic disease called Cystic Fibrosis. This disease is scary, profoundly expensive (just one of the 14 medications he needs to survive is $1,200 per month), excluded from life insurance policies, and fatal.

When Jack was born the full protection for pre-existing conditions provided by the ACA wasn’t yet in place. When he contracted MRSA (a very scary infection), I used up all my vacation time and FMLA to care for him and faced losing a job I’d held for 10 years, knowing my son’s disease made him largely uninsurable. I was terrified that if I lost my job, I’d also lose my son.

Fortunately, I was lucky. The CEO of the huge company I worked for had a heart. He learned of my dilemma and allowed me to work from home. What a relief that was! For 3 months I worked from home, feeling more secure, but still terrified. I’d experienced exactly how quickly my son could go from having all he needs – to having nothing at all. It wasn’t until the full protection of the ACA took effect in January of 2014 that I felt safe. For the first time since Jack was born insurance companies couldn’t discriminate against him by withholding coverage.

Others weren’t as lucky as I was. Their CEO didn’t save their job, their child was born, and died, before the ACA. In the history of health insurance in this country those of us with pre-existing conditions have only experienced 4 years of guaranteed coverage, and we’re already standing on the edge of losing it.

I am a mom fighting for her son’s right to live his healthiest life.

I speak from experience. I’m not a person raging from behind the safety of a keyboard, I’m not a person whose feelings are hurt easily, and I don’t make assumptions. I do speak in person with my politicians at every opportunity, and I actively seek those opportunities out. I educate myself before making any political decision (or post).

No candidate who voted yes on the Tax Bill that weakened that ACA or in favor of short-term “junk” insurance will get my vote. I am a #HealthCareVoter, my son Jack is a #LittleLobbyists, and Jennifer Wexton will get my vote over Representative Barbara Comstock, because Comstock has proven to me that she won’t protect us and she failed my son with her votes.

Many Republicans I’ve spoken with have argued that the Tillis Bill is the GOP’s answer to protecting pre-existing conditions. This is a half truth, at best. While the bill does prevent insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions all together, it does NOT require insurers to provide coverage for their pre-existing condition – or prevent their premiums from being far more expensive.

I used to be a swing voter that leaned Republican. But, now that the Republican Party has reduced rare disease tax credits, is not protecting people with pre-existing conditions, and moved (in my opinion) far too quickly on a decision about a lifetime Supreme Court Justice who could determine the future of health care in this country... the GOP has single handedly forced me to move steadily and solidly to the left.

My family is a working, lower middle-class family, with a Federal health insurance plan. Between now and December we will work hard to pay all of our 2018 medical costs, because typically by February 1, 2019 we will owe $9,000 again.

We participate in grants and medication coupons to help us, but because of the new accumulators payors introduced this year (our insurance is one of them) which don’t count coupons and grants towards our deductible or out of pocket max, we’re likely going to owe even more next year. Meanwhile the insurance company will receive our deductible twice – once from our coupons and grants, then again from us directly.

This week I started selling our things on Facebook to help cover our medical bills, which is normal for many families dealing with expensive illnesses, but was somewhat shocking to many of my friends who reached out with offers of help and crowd-funding.

While the offers were sweet, we respectfully declined. Crowd-funding Jack’s medical needs is not sustainable. Unless health care in our country changes, these expenses will continue to build for the duration of Jack’s life. The single biggest thing you can do to truly help families like mine, is VOTE for candidates who will protect access to affordable health care for everyone who needs it.

Submitted to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CMS-2018-0015 April 19, 2018

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: CMS-9924-P

Little Lobbyists is an organization of families with one thing in common: we all have medically complex children requiring significant medical care.  Our mission is to advocate on behalf of the millions of such children across the country to ensure that their stories are heard and their access to quality health care is protected.  

America badly needs changes to health care laws and regulations that expand access to care and decrease costs; however, these changes must not come at the expense of necessary care and financial protections for vulnerable children and their families.  Unfortunately, that is just what the proposed rule would do. By allowing “short term” insurance plans for up to a year in length that would not contain basic protections provided by the Affordable Care Act – including the prohibition on discrimination against individuals with preexisting conditions and the prohibition of annual caps on medical care – children with complex medical needs across the country, and their families, will be harmed in multiple ways.  

As is the case with many medical conditions, parents of children with complex medical needs are frequently not in the position to know about and anticipate the care their children will need, through no fault of their own.  For such families, the protections afforded by the Affordable Care Act are literally life-saving. Children born prematurely, or with other complex medical needs, often require extended hospital stays with medical care billed into the millions of dollars.  The need for comprehensive medical care frequently continues long after they are finally discharged home. The protections in the Affordable Care Act ensure that insurance providers cannot deny coverage for medical care because their medical bills reach a certain threshold.  It ensures that they have access to lifesaving prescription drugs. It ensures that the preexisting conditions these children are born with will not prevent their ability to access care into the future.

The “short-term” insurance plans proposed in this rule eviscerates those protections.  Families purchasing such plans for health coverage, whose children subsequently encounter medical difficulties, will soon find these insurance plans to be worthless – failing to cover the specific, life-saving care their child needs, and taking coverage away completely if care becomes too expensive.  On top of the trauma and stress that comes with a sick child, these families will face financial ruin as well. While our focus is on medically complex children, this outcome is no less true for any individual who encounters unforeseen medical complications, be it through sickness or an accident.

The damage would not be limited to those families buying short-term plans created by this proposed rule.  For those families that remain in ACA-compliant plans to ensure they receive the care their child needs, the cost of insurance premiums would increase, leading to financial hardship – realities that the proposed rule explicitly concedes.  Once again, children and families who are most in need of care and financial protection will be the most negatively affected.

As we stated at the outset, America’s health insurance system needs fixing.  Access to care must be expanded so that all Americans can receive the care they require, and the cost of this care must be controlled so that financial hardship and bankruptcy due to medical care is reduced to a terrible relic of bygone days.  There are ways of meeting this vital goal. Americans demand it. Unfortunately, this proposed rule, which provides a path to less comprehensive care and higher medical costs for our nation’s most vulnerable, is a harmful leap backwards.

On behalf of the millions of children with complex medical needs and their families, we ask that the proposed rule be rescinded and replaced by one that truly sets access to comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans as its cornerstone.

I keep thinking about anonymity. That’s what President Obama gave us. For 6 years, since my son’s birth in 2010, I was able to post pictures of my children to just my friends; to celebrate, to enjoy, and to brag about how wonderful they are, just like a lot of other parents do on social media.

We didn’t have to publicize my son’s story on national media outlets.

The ACA gave us the ability to focus on our children, not on saving healthcare for all Americans.

Why is it different now? Why do we have to tell the world who we are and what we are fighting for? Because it’s difficult and sometimes nearly impossible for people to care about an issue if there isn’t a face on it or they don’t know someone who is affected by it.

That’s why we’ve seen such overwhelming support from 275 parents from 48 states submitting their stories to not only us, but to many other story-collecting, awareness-raising entities, not because they are bragging about their kids or celebrating who they are (though that’s a big part of it), but because they want people to see that their children are real people, worthy of life, and endlessly valued. There’s been parents who have accidentally submitted their stories to us more than once; they’ve submitted their child’s story to so many places, they’ve lost track of who they’ve contacted and who they haven’t. That’s not pride in your child. That’s desperation. That’s very real fear. And that’s why we fight.

100% of parents who have submitted their child’s story to us have told us to share their stories with their Members of Congress. 95% of these parents have said they are willing to share their child’s story with media outlets. It’s such a high percentage because these parents understand the value of public pressure on their Member of Congress through the media. They have come to terms with releasing their child’s information, their diagnoses, their interests, their struggles. They’ve been open about how vital insurance and Medicaid are to the health and well-being, the survival of their child and their families (these are families who have every type of socio-economic status imaginable). They have shared their child’s story openly with the public in an effort to humanize their child and to show our nation’s lawmakers that a vote for humanity should not be partisan.

It should be a given.

Below is a copy of the letter that we have been delivering to U.S. Senators regarding our opposition to the Graham-Cassidy bill:

—
September 18, 2017

Dear Senator,

Little Lobbyists is an organization of families with one thing in common: we all have medically complex children requiring significant medical care.  Our mission is to advocate on behalf of the millions of such children across the country to ensure that their stories are heard and their access to quality health care is protected.  We have visited your office previously and hand-delivered the stories of medically complex children in your state whose health and future would have been jeopardized by the legislation under consideration at the time.

We write again because the pending Cassidy-Graham health care bill poses similar danger to the millions of medically complex children in this country, thousands of whom live in your state.  We ask that you stand up to protect our children, and demand that Congress do the same.   

Our current health care laws can and must be improved, about this there is no debate.  However, the Cassidy-Graham bill departs from recent good faith, bipartisan efforts and attempts a massive upheaval of our health care system without input from policy experts or those who would be most affected by its provisions.  In particular, the Cassidy-Graham bill undermines three protections in current law that are vital to the health and well-being of medically complex children and their families:  

• Decreased Medicaid funding through “per capita caps” and “block grants”. Private insurance frequently does not cover home/community-based care (such as private duty nursing) and therapeutic care. Medicaid fills this gap, which allows medically complex children not only to live at home, but to thrive. Cassidy-Graham’s upheaval of Medicaid will cut billions of dollars nationally from the program relative to current law, with no guarantees that the funds must be spent on the same population. Under such funding restrictions, optional Medicaid programs, such as the Katie Beckett Medicaid waiver program created by Ronald Reagan to help families care for their medically complex children at home, will likely be among the first eliminated. In short, under Cassidy-Graham, the vital safety net that Medicaid provides our children is slowly pulled away, with families like ours left to worry constantly whether it will be there when they need it.

• Eliminating the ban on annual/lifetime limits. Many of our children accumulated millions of dollars in medical bills in their infancy before they ever left the hospital. Under the ACA, insurance companies were prohibited from kicking our children off of insurance plans when their care reached a certain dollar amount. Cassidy-Graham would allow states the ability to waive these protections. This means that parents across the nation sitting bedside in Neonatal Intensive Care Units will once again have to worry not only about whether their child will survive, but also whether the hospital stay will leave them bankrupt.

• Eliminating the ACA’s pre-existing condition protections. Medically complex children are frequently born with multiple pre-existing conditions. Protections against discrimination on the basis of these conditions give us the security that our children will not one day be denied affordable insurance because of conditions they were born with. That security is stolen by the Graham-Cassidy bill, giving states broad authority to waive these protections. This is contrary to the Republican Party’s own platform, which provides that “individuals with preexisting conditions who maintain continuous coverage should be protected from discrimination.”

We have heard politicians over the past few days tell us that the Cassidy-Graham bill will increase “flexibility” and “choice” for Americans.  That is flatly untrue for our families.  Rather, the bill’s provisions will fundamentally disrupt the safety net that our families depend on, likely leaving us only one unthinkable choice: incur debt far beyond our means, or forego medical care that will keep our children alive and able to achieve their God-given potential.

As we said at the outset, our nation’s health care laws can and must be fixed.  But it is unjust, immoral, and contrary to any reasonable meaning of “pro-life” to pass a health care law that makes it harder for medically complex children to access the care they need to survive and thrive.  Our children have done nothing wrong.  They do not lack personal responsibility; indeed, they show more strength, bravery, and resiliency in a single hospital visit than many people do in their entire lives.  They are just kids who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.  

You can help them now.  Stand with our children.  Hear their stories.  Work with us to ensure their access to health care is not diminished.  We will make ourselves available anytime of any day to discuss our concerns with you in person, and to assist in any way we can toward the goal of a health care system that works better for all Americans. 

Sincerely,

Elena Hung
Michelle Morrison
Co-Founders, Little Lobbyists

Austin Carrigg, Anna Kruck Corbin, Laura LeBrun Hatcher, Ben Zeitler
Steering Committee, Little Lobbyists