New 'Short-Term' Health Insurance Bill Could Mean 3 Years Without Full Coverage

The "Health Coverage Choice Act" sounds friendly, but here’s the deal: it redefines "short-term" health insurance in a way that could leave a lot of people with less coverage than they expect, for a lot longer than they might think.

Redefining "Short-Term"

This bill, dropped by Representative Andy Biggs, messes with the definition of "short-term limited duration insurance." Right now, those plans are meant as a stop-gap, lasting less than a year. This bill? It says "short-term" can actually mean up to three years from the original start date (SEC. 2). That’s a huge change.

The Three-Year Glitch

So, what's the catch? These "short-term" plans don't have to play by the same rules as regular health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We're talking:

• Limited Coverage: They might not cover everything a normal plan would.
• Pre-existing Conditions: Got a health issue? They might not cover it.
• High Costs: If something does go wrong, you could be on the hook for massive bills.

Imagine a freelance graphic designer, Sarah, who opts for one of these plans to save on monthly costs. Six months in, she needs surgery. Turns out, her "short-term" plan doesn't fully cover it, and she's stuck with thousands in medical debt. Under this bill, that scenario could play out over three years, not just a few months.

The bill also lacks clarity on the "start date". Insurers might find ways to stretch this definition, potentially leading to coverage gaps or manipulations.

The Big Picture

Why does this matter? If healthier people jump ship to these cheaper, skimpier plans, it could mess things up for everyone else. Premiums in the regular ACA marketplace could go up, making comprehensive coverage even harder to afford. It’s like pulling the healthy Jenga blocks out of the tower – things get shaky for those who remain.

While the bill might offer lower upfront costs for some, it's a gamble. And for many, especially those with any ongoing health concerns, it could be a losing bet. This isn't about choice; it's about potentially undermining the protections many people rely on for real health security.