The Line: The top 1 percent will get 83 percent of the tax cuts under the new tax law.

The Party: Democratic

The Republican tax plan was signed into law just last month, and Democrats already have a well-worn, and misleading, talking point about it: 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent. That’s true for 2027 but only because most of the individual income tax changes expire by then.

In 2025 — the last year before those tax changes expire — a quarter of the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent.

It’s a classic case of politicians using a technically accurate statistic but without the context or explanation it requires. Without all the facts, the talking point leaves a misleading impression.

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio used a version of the tax line in a Jan. 23 press availability, saying that “more than 80 percent of that tax cut went to the — goes to the wealthiest 1 percent.” But he’s part of a long list of Democrats who favor the phrase.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi repeatedly has said that “83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent.” It’s a line included in Senate press releases and emphasized three times in one Democratic press availability in late December, by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (twice) and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who did note that this was “at the end of 10 years” and that the “middle class” tax breaks “expire at the end of eight years.”

The important missing context is that the final tax legislation, which President Donald Trump signed into law Dec. 22, allows most of its individual income tax provisions to expire by 2027, making the tax benefit distribution more lopsided for the top 1 percent than in earlier years.

In 2018, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of income earners would glean 20.5 percent of the tax cut benefits — a sizable chunk, but far less than the figure that’s preferred by Democrats. And in 2025, that percentage would be 25.3 percent, with the top 1 percent (those earning above $837,800) getting an average tax cut of $61,090.

Just two years later, in 2027, the percentage of tax benefits to this income group jumps to 82.8 percent, “because almost all individual income tax provisions would sunset after 2025,” explains TPC. The top 1 percent still benefits from some of the remaining tax cuts, such as reducing the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. But their average tax cut drops by nearly two-thirds to $20,660 in 2027.

So while a lot more of the benefits go to the top 1 percent that year, there are fewer benefits to go around. Without those individual income tax provisions, all taxpayers see an average $160 tax cut in 2027, while the average tax cut for all taxpayers in 2025 is $1,570.

Why do these individual tax cuts expire in the law? Republicans say they expect a future Congress will extend those cuts, rather than allowing taxes for many to increase. But in order to pass their tax bill through budget reconciliation, a process requiring only a majority vote in the Senate, Republican lawmakers could not add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Nor could they have a bill that added to the deficit beyond that 10-year window.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calls the expiring cuts “gimmicks.” It notes that “the ‘easy’ options” for Republicans to make the final bill meet those requirements were to have some of the tax cuts expire — and that’s what GOP lawmakers did. While the final bill costs an estimated $1.46 trillion over 10 years, CRFB says the actual cost could end up being $2.2 trillion, when these sunsetting tax cuts are actually extended. 

One might argue the Republicans practically wrote this talking point themselves by constructing the legislation this way. The Tax Policy Center and other groups that analyze such legislation had to provide the relevant figures for 2027. 

“The effect of turning off those individual income tax cuts would be dramatic,” TPC senior fellow Howard Gleckman wrote. “Households making less than $155,000 in 2027 would get no tax cut at all, on average. And more than half of all households would pay more in taxes than under the pre-TCJA, mostly because the new law permanently shifts to a less generous method for indexing the tax code for inflation. As a result, nearly 83 percent of all the benefits of the TCJA in 2027 would go to the top 1 percent of households.”

A spokesperson for the Democratic minority on the Senate Finance Committee told us that this statistic is “a key data point to our argument that Republicans’ tax law is an economic double standard. … The fact is, Republicans chose to make permanent massive tax cuts for multinational corporations while writing tax cuts for middle class families in disappearing ink.”

But Democrats are giving voters a misleading view of the new law’s impact. The proportion of tax benefits going to the top 1 percent is much lower in earlier years — before the individual tax cuts expire — than this talking point reveals.

The post Democrats’ Misleading Tax Line appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: The Republican health care bill would throw 24 million people off the health insurance they have now.

The Party: Democratic

After the House passed a GOP health care bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, Democrats criticized the legislation by saying it would take away insurance from 24 million Americans. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation did say that 24 million fewer Americans would be insured under the American Health Care Act than under current law in 2026, and that 14 million fewer would be insured next year. But not all of them would “lose” insurance they have “today” or be “kicked off” their policies, as some Democrats have described it.

The CBO estimate includes some losing insurance, some deciding not to have it, others gaining it and others not having insurance in the future.

We wrote about this in mid-March, when Sen. Bernie Sanders and Reps. Richard Neal of Massachusetts and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey made such claims. Since the GOP’s American Health Care Act was passed by the House on May 4, more Democrats also have spun the facts on the CBO analysis. (Note that the CBO analysis was done before new amendments, mainly those on state waiver provisions, were added to the legislation in April. The CBO numbers on insurance coverage could change once it conducts a new analysis.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York put out a statement on May 4 that said: “Up to 24 million Americans with insurance today could lose that coverage.” Sanders’ statement included this line: “This bill would throw 24 million Americans off of health insurance – including thousands of Vermonters.” And Ben Ray Luján, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in his statement that Republicans had voted to “toss 24 million Americans off of their insurance.”

On May 5 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio said Republicans were “celebrating kicking 24 million people off of their health care.” The day before, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said at a Democratic press conference: “And the bill that was originally introduced, and still exists, and passed the House today, will take 24 million people off the insurance rolls.”

But some of those 24 million would take themselves off the insurance rolls, according to the CBO.

In 2018, CBO said, “14 million more people would be uninsured under the [GOP] legislation than under current law,” most of that due to the immediate elimination of the individual mandate requiring most people to pay a tax if they don’t have insurance. CBO doesn’t provide specific numbers but says that “[s]ome of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.”

CBO expects higher average premiums in the individual market in 2018 and 2019, as healthy people decide to drop their insurance without that mandate penalty in place. As those healthy folks leave, overall costs in the individual market go up.

Later on, by 2026, CBO expects overall premiums to be about 10 percent lower in the individual market than they would be under current law, on average. But older Americans not yet eligible for Medicare would face higher premiums, because of the changes to the way insurers can price premiums based on age under the Republican plan.

These changes would “significantly” alter “particularly by income and age” who buys coverage on the individual market, CBO said. By 2026, there would be 2 million fewer on that market compared with current law.

Some would lose Medicaid coverage. CBO estimates 14 million fewer Americans would have Medicaid coverage under the GOP legislation, which phases out the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion and caps per-enrollee spending. An estimated 5 million of those are would-be Medicaid enrollees in the future. CBO expected that those people would gain Medicaid coverage under current law as other states expanded eligibility under the ACA. But under the GOP legislation, that won’t happen. The Republican plan cuts off enhanced federal funds for expanded eligibility for states that have not yet taken up the ACA option.

Employer coverage would decline as well, by 7 million people. But that’s a mix of those who decide not to accept an employer’s offer of coverage without an individual mandate, and those who are no longer offered insurance by their employers, CBO explained.

It is certainly true that the CBO analysis found the Republican bill would lead to 24 million fewer people having insurance, compared with current law. But as that analysis also made clear, not all of them would be tossed off their insurance, nor would they all lose insurance they have “today.”

Some of the other Democrats who have used this talking point include:

Rep. Tom Suozzi, May 4: Today’s ill-conceived legislation takes the first step toward destroying the ACA, and with it, stripping 24 million people of their health coverage. (Source: Press release.)

Rep. Jim Himes, May 4: If this bill were to become law, we would see an estimated 24 million Americans, possibly many more, thrown off their insurance. (Source: Press release.)

Sen. Chris Murphy, April 20: Last month, Republicans threw together a disaster of a bill that would jack up health care costs and strip insurance away from 24 million Americans. (Source: Press release.)

Rep. Diana DeGette, March 24: This bad bill would rip health insurance away from millions of people — 24 million over ten years, and 14 million next year alone. (Source: Denver Post.)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, March 22: This bill would throw 24 million people off of coverage. Twenty-four million Americans would lose their health care, the security of mind that they have now. (Source: Congressional Record.)

Rep. Jared Polis, March 21:  It would throw 24 million people who currently have insurance out of insurance. (Source: Congressional Record.)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, March 16: Is it an “act of mercy” to throw 24 million people out of health insurance so Republicans can hand billionaires a massive new tax giveaway? (Source: Press conference.)

The post The 24 Million Talking Point appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: Scientists cannot precisely measure climate change nor the impact of human activity on climate change.

The Party: Republican

In the past, some Republicans have denied that global warming and climate change are occurring — calling the former a “hoax” and the latter “pseudoscientific.” In recent months, a number of President Donald Trump’s cabinet members have taken a different stance: They acknowledge that the climate is changing and humans have contributed, but they’ve said that scientists can’t measure or don’t understand human impact precisely.

But scientists can measure that impact with varying levels of certainty and precision.

During his confirmation hearing on Jan. 18, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said, “Science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change,” adding, “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.”

Pruitt repeated this claim on Feb. 28 in an interview with CNN’S Wolf Blitzer and on Feb. 25 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. For example, he told Blitzer “we know that there is a warming or — a warming of the planet; climate change is occurring; and there’s some human contribution to that or human activity that contributes to that. How to measure that precisely is very challenging.”

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made similar remarks.

At his confirmation hearing on Jan. 11, Tillerson said, “The increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect. Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”

While “precision” and “very limited” are subjective terms, scientists have differing degrees of confidence when linking different phenomena to increased atmospheric greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

Scientists’ confidence in a particular theory corresponds to the number of times they’ve verified that theory using different lines of evidence: The more verification, the more confidence, the more likely it is that scientific estimations and predictions are and will be accurate.

Confidence in one theory can also rely, in part, on confidence in another theory. In this case, the theory of climate change rests upon the accuracy of the theory of global warming, which depends on the theory of the greenhouse effect.

From the Greenhouse Effect to Global Warming

Scientists have the most confidence in the greenhouse effect — that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases trap the sun’s heat — because they’ve verified it countless times since the physicist Joseph Fourier first proposed it in 1824.

In fact, the design of heat-seeking missiles relies upon a precise understanding of the greenhouse effect.

Because of their confidence in the greenhouse effect, scientists also are nearly certain that increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration from the burning of fossil fuels has led and will continue to lead to a warmer Earth.

According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 assessment report, scientists are “virtually certain” (99 percent to 100 percent confident) that natural climatic variability “alone cannot account for the observed global warming since 1951.” The report concludes that it is “extremely likely” (95 percent to 100 percent confident) that more than half of the observed temperature increase since 1950 is due to human activities.

Since 2013, the trend has only continued.

After independently analyzing temperature records dating back to the 1800s, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K.’s Met Office all concluded that 2015 and 2016 were likely the two hottest years on record.

From Global Warming to Climate Change

Multiple lines of evidence also suggest that global warming has changed and will continue to change climate and weather patterns around the world, namely by increasing sea levels and increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. However, scientists have different confidence levels when attributing these various phenomena to global warming.

Take sea level rise: Hundreds of scientists who collaborated on the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2014 report have “very high” confidence that global sea level has risen about 8 inches since 1880.

“Very high” confidence means evidence comes from “multiple sources” that obtained “consistent results” using “well documented and accepted methods,” which led to “high consensus” within the scientific community.

The authors also have “medium confidence that global sea level rise will be in the range of 1 to 4 feet by 2100” (see image below).

“Medium” confidence means evidence comes from “a few sources” that used “emerging” methods and obtained “limited consistency,” which has led to “competing schools of thought” within the scientific community.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean that global sea level won’t continue to rise — it will.

Rather, scientists have some uncertainty about the when and the how much of sea level rise. Uncertainty results from difficulty in predicting “how ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will react to a warming climate,” the authors explain. Given this uncertainty, “Some decision-makers may wish to consider a broader range of scenarios such as 8 inches or 6.6 feet by 2100 in the context of risk-based analysis,” the authors add.

But in specific regions, the report authors had greater confidence. For example, the Southeast is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. “New Orleans (with roughly half of its population living below sea level), Miami, Tampa, Charleston, and Virginia Beach are among those most at risk,” they write.

Since sea level “is expected to continue to rise for several centuries, even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized,” the report’s authors have “very high” confidence that “[s]ea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to both natural and built environments and to the regional economy” of the Southeast U.S.

Measuring and Predicting Extreme Weather

The level of certainty scientists have when attributing different kinds of extreme weather events to global warming comes from the robustness of their climate models and observational records. Their understanding of the physics behind particular events as related to climate change also influences their confidence levels, a 2016 report by the National Academies of the Sciences explains.

Here’s a rule of thumb: The less directly related a type of extreme weather event is to temperature, the less confident scientists are when tying that type of event to human-induced global warming.

The NAS report authors have high confidence when linking global warming to an increased likelihood of extreme heat events, which is directly related to temperature.

Extreme heat also will impact regions differently.

For example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2014 report states that “the majority of Maryland and Delaware, and southwestern West Virginia and New Jersey, are projected by mid-century to experience many more days per year above 90°F compared to the end of last century under continued increases in emissions.”

The area around Washington, D.C., in particular is expected to see 60 to 70 days a year on average reaching 90 degrees Fahrenheit between 2041 and 2070, compared with 20 to 30 days above 90 F between 1971 and 2000 — and that’s for the lower emissions scenario (see image below).

According to the 2016 NAS report, scientists have medium confidence when attributing increased likelihood of droughts and extreme rainfall to global warming, in part, because those events are less directly related to temperature increases.

Heavy rainfall, for example, “is influenced by a moister atmosphere, which is a relatively direct consequence of human-induced warming, though not as direct as the increase in temperature itself,” the report says.

When it comes to specific regions, the northeast U.S. has “experienced a greater recent increase in extreme precipitation than any other region in the United States,” the 2014 Global Change report authors write.

The 2016 NAS report states that tying increased frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones, or hurricanes, to global warming is more difficult than other extreme weather events. Why? Scientists have less data on hurricanes of the past, which limits their ability to make solid predictions. Still, they do have an understanding of the physical mechanisms that could bring about these storms. And recently, new modeling techniques have enhanced scientists’ confidence when linking hurricane activity to global warming.

The 2013 IPCC report also points out that confidence when attributing tropical cyclones to human-caused global warming differs by region.

For example, scientists are “virtually certain,” meaning at least 99 percent sure, that there’s been an “increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s” in the North Atlantic Ocean, which hugs the East Coast.

Lastly, scientists have relatively low confidence when attributing increased likelihood of wildfires to global warming because numerous factors, including forest management, also play significant roles in increasing the likelihood of these events. Still, “many studies” have linked increased wildfires to global warming, the 2016 NAS report says.

Scientists also have more confidence when linking global warming to the increased likelihood of wildfires in particular regions. For example, the 2014 Global Change report authors have “high” confidence that “increased warming” and climate change-related “drought, and insect outbreaks” have “increased wildfires” in the southwest U.S. “Fire models project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas” in this region, they add.

“High” confidence means that evidence comes from “several sources” that show “some consistency,” but “methods vary,” which has led to “medium consensus” in the scientific community.

Overall, the level of precision and confidence scientists have when linking human activity to different changes in the global and local climates vary. Sometimes scientists can be very precise and have very high confidence in their conclusions. In other cases, it’s more difficult to be precise, which corresponds to lower levels of confidence in their estimations and predictions.

Republicans who have said scientists cannot precisely measure climate change or the impact of human activity on climate change:

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Feb. 28: I mean, as I indicated in my hearing, Wolf, I mean, we know that there is a warming or — a warming of the planet; climate change is occurring; and there’s some human contribution to that or human activity that contributes to that. How to measure that precisely is very challenging. (Source: CNN interview.)

Pruitt, Feb. 25: That’s the difficulty with [climate change]. To measure with precision [human] impact is something that is very difficult to do. (Source: Conservative Political Action Conference interview.)

Pruitt, Jan. 18: Science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be. (Source: Senate confirmation hearing remarks.)

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, Jan. 18: I will say that the climate is obviously changing. It’s continuously changing. The question from a scientific standpoint is what effect does human behavior and human activity have on that, and what we can do to mitigate that. And I believe that’s a question that needs to be studied and evaluated. (Source: Senate confirmation hearing remarks.)

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Jan. 17: First of all, the climate is changing. That’s undisputable. … The second thing is man has had an influence. I don’t think, I think that’s undisputable as well. So, climate is changing; man is an influence. I think where there’s debate on it is what that influence is; what can we do about it. … There’s no model today that can predict tomorrow. So, where we agree, is we need objective science to one, figure a model out, and two, determine what are we going to do about [climate change]. (Source: Senate confirmation hearing remarks at 58:13 and 2:26:06.)

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Jan. 11: The increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect. Our ability to predict that effect is very limited. … I think what I said is the fact that we cannot predict with precision and certainly all of the models that are, that we discussed that day, none of them agree. Doesn’t mean that we should do nothing. (Source: Senate confirmation hearing remarks at 2:24:04 and 2:25:32.)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Jan. 10: I don’t deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it’s the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. (Source: Senate confirmation hearing remarks.)

Correction, March 7: We referred to NOAA as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, but the agency’s full title is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We corrected the article accordingly.

Editor’s Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.

The post Precision in Climate Science appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: Two-thirds of Americans believe that Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland deserves a Senate hearing and vote.

The Party: Democratic

President Obama, on March 16, nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded by reiterating that the Senate will not consider the nomination, saying the next president should make the appointment.

Faced with a partisan standoff, President Obama and Senate Democrats have been citing public polls that support their position that the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Garland’s nomination.

On the day of the nomination, Sen. Charles Schumer said on CNN that “the American people [are] overwhelmingly of the view that there ought to be a hearing and a vote.”

That same day, Sen. Dick Durbin appeared on MSNBC and said “two-thirds of the American people think Senate Republicans are being unfair, that they aren’t doing their job, they aren’t living up to their constitutional responsibility.” He added, “So let’s face facts here.”

The facts, however, are not as settled as the Democrats make them out to be.

Yes, there are two polls that support the Democrats. A Washington Post/ABC News poll, taken March 3-6, found that 63 percent of those polled believe the Senate should “hold hearings and vote.” Similarly, a CNN/ORC International poll, taken Feb. 24-27, reported that 66 percent of poll respondents said the Senate should “hold hearings.” Durbin’s spokesman, Ben Marter, says the senator was referring to the CNN/ORC International poll.

But there are other polls that don’t show overwhelming public sentiment for a hearing and a vote.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, taken March 3-6, found that 48 percent prefer a “vote this year” on Obama’s nominee, while 49 percent in The Economist/YouGov poll, taken March 10-12, agreed that “Republican leadership in the Senate should hold hearings on the nominee.”

The latest poll — taken after Obama nominated Garland — comes from Morning Consult. That poll, which was in the field March 16-18, found that 48 percent of those surveyed said the Senate should “hold hearings” on Garland’s nomination, and 47 percent said the Senate should “hold a vote.”

The variation in the polls is likely due to the wording of the questions.

For example, the Washington Post/ABC News poll asks a single question on whether the Senate should “hold hearings and vote” on the nomination. As we said, 63 percent in that poll said the Senate should “hold hearings and vote.” But the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked separate questions on whether to hold hearings and whether to hold a vote.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked poll respondents whether they support or oppose the Republican decision not to hold hearings, and whether the Senate should “vote this year.” The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found more support for holding hearings (55 percent) than for holding a vote (48 percent).

Michael Link, the immediate past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, called the Washington Post/ABC News poll question a “double-barrel question” that should be avoided.

“We call that a double-barrel question where you are combining two concepts into one,” Link said in an interview with FactCheck.org. “It becomes more difficult” to determine the respondent’s intent, he added. “You don’t know which one they are responding to. We try to avoid that [double-barrel] question.”

Another example: The CNN/ORC International poll cited by Durbin found that 66 percent of those surveyed said the Senate should hold hearings, but they were not presented with the option to say that holding hearings should depend on the nominee. A small percentage — just 1 percent — voluntarily offered that response.

However, poll respondents were given that choice in The Economist/YouGov poll and 16 percent said holding a vote should depend on who is nominated. As a result, only 49 percent — less than half — of those in the Economist/YouGov poll said the Senate should hold hearings.

Link said that the difference between the results of the CNN/ORC International poll and The Economist/YouGov poll indicates that there is “soft support” on the issue of whether the Senate should hold hearings and a vote.

“You’ll get a different answer when you force a choice,” Link said, referring to the CNN/ORC International poll. “That can make a big difference on an issue that is new and not settled yet.”

“This is a new issue. The public’s view is soft and formulating,” Link said of the partisan court fight. “Most people are just getting exposed to this issue. It doesn’t surprise me that we are seeing this variation. These are all good [polling] organizations. Different times, different wording — and that can have an impact. But the key thing is this is a new phenomenon — it is soft and in formulation.”

We take no position on the partisan dispute over how to handle the Supreme Court vacancy or the president’s nomination of Garland, who is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

But the Democrats say the public “overwhelmingly” supports their position, as Schumer put it, when in fact there are other polls that don’t show overwhelming public sentiment for a hearing and a vote.

Here are the poll questions and the results of the polls we cite above:

CNN/ORC International poll, Feb. 24-27:

Next, as you may know, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Do you think Barack Obama should nominate someone to fill the vacancy or should the seat remain vacant until a new president takes office in January 2017?

Should nominate: 58 percent

Seat remain vacant: 41 percent

No opinion: 2 percent

President Obama has said that he will nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Do you think the Republican leadership in the Senate should or should not hold hearings on the nominee?

Should hold hearings: 66 percent

Should not: 32 percent

Depends on who is nominated (volunteered): 1 percent

No opinion: 2 percent

Washington Post/ABC News poll, March 3-6:

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has opened a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. After Obama nominates someone to replace Scalia, do you think the Senate should (hold hearings and vote on whether to accept the nomination), or should the Senate (NOT hold hearings, which would block the nomination and leave it to the next president)?  Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Should hold hearings: 63 percent

Strongly, 44 percent

Somewhat, 19 percent

Should not hold hearings: 32 percent

Somewhat, 6 percent

Strongly, 25 percent

No opinion: 5 percent

Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, March 3-6:

Recently, a Supreme Court Justice passed away leaving a vacancy on the court. President Obama will nominate a new person to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Would you prefer the U.S. Senate … vote this year on the replacement nominated by President Obama or leave the position vacant and wait to vote next year on the replacement nominated by the new president or do you not have an opinion one way or the other?

Vote this year: 48 percent

Leave vacant and wait: 37 percent

No opinion: 14 percent

Not sure: 1 percent

The U.S. Constitution requires the President to nominate a candidate to fill an opening on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate has the responsibility to confirm or reject a nominee. Republicans who control the Senate say they will not hold confirmation hearings and have no plans to consider a nominee put forward by President Obama. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision not to consider President Obama’s nominee, or do you not have an opinion one way or the other? (IF “APPROVE” OR “DISAPPROVE,” ASK:) And do you strongly (approve/disapprove) or just somewhat (approve/disapprove)?

Approve: 28 percent

Strongly, 22 percent

Somewhat, 6 percent

Disapprove: 55 percent

Strongly, 45 percent

Somewhat, 10 percent

No opinion: 16 percent

Not sure: 1 percent

The Economist/YouGov poll, March 10-12:

As you may know, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a vacancy on the Supreme Court. How important is the choice of the next Supreme Court justice to you personally?

Very important: 47 percent

Somewhat important: 27 percent

Not too important: 10 percent

Not at all important: 5 percent

Not sure: 10 percent

Do you think Barack Obama should nominate someone to fill the vacancy or should the seat remain vacant until a new president takes office in January 2017?

Should nominate: 51 percent

Seat Remain vacant: 36 percent

Not sure: 13 percent

President Obama has said that he will nominate someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Antonin Scalia’s death. Do you think the Republican leadership in the Senate should or should not hold hearings on the nominee?

Should hold hearings: 49 percent

Should not hold hearings: 20 percent

Depends on who is nominated: 16 percent

Not sure: 15 percent

Suppose all or most of the Republicans in the Senate oppose President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Do you think they would be justified — or not justified — in using Senate procedures, such as filibuster, to prevent an up-or-down vote on the nominee?

Justified: 38 percent

Not justified: 36 percent

Not sure: 26 percent

Morning Consult poll, March 16-18

Should the U.S. Senate do any of the following regarding Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court?

Hold hearings? 

Yes: 48 percent

No: 23 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 29 percent

Hold a vote? 

Yes: 47 percent

No: 23 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 31 percent

Confirm?

Yes: 37 percent

No: 24 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 39 percent

Who should nominate the next Supreme Court justice?

Obama: 45 percent

2016 winner: 41 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 15 percent

Democrats citing public opinion surveys that show Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland deserves a Senate hearing and vote:

President Obama, March 16: To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise — that would be unprecedented. (Source: Remarks on his nomination to the Supreme Court.)

Sen. Dick Durbin, March 16: Well, I can tell you that two-thirds of the American people think Senate Republicans are being unfair, that they aren’t doing their job, they aren’t living up to their constitutional responsibility. … The American people, two out of three, believe this nominee from the president deserves a hearing and a vote — two out of three, including about a majority of the Republicans feel that way. So let’s face facts here. (Source: MSNBC “All In With Chris Hayes” video.)

Sen. Charles Schumer, March 16: With such a qualified man, with the American people overwhelmingly of the view that there ought to be a hearing and a vote – if people vote no after that, so be it – I think it has been a very, very strong day for this choice. (Source: CNN “The Lead with Jake Tapper” transcript.)

The post SCOTUS Nomination: What Polls Say appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: Abortions are 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.

The Party: Republican

Congressional Republicans seeking to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood have made versions of the claim that abortions make up 94 percent of the organization’s “pregnancy services.” One House member went even further, saying “94 percent of their business is abortion services.”

But that misleading figure only counts certain direct services provided by Planned Parenthood to its pregnant clients: abortions, prenatal services and adoption referrals. It also discounts the millions of health services provided to women who are not pregnant, including those seeking to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

On July 21, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio said that “in 2013, abortions made up 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s so-called pregnancy services.” That was after the release of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials talking about procedures for collecting aborted fetal tissue for research.

Then, in a Senate floor speech on Aug. 3, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who cosponsored a failed bill to defund Planned Parenthood, also said that “abortion accounts for 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.”

The fact is, no one can say for sure what the percentage is.

The 94 percent figure doesn’t come from Planned Parenthood, which says it doesn’t track the total number of pregnant women it serves, or all of the services provided to them. “Pregnancy services” isn’t even listed as a category in its 2013-2014 annual report.

The figure comes from adding together the numbers Planned Parenthood did provide for its abortion procedures (327,653), prenatal services (18,684) and adoption referrals (1,880), and then dividing the number of abortions by that cumulative figure (348,217). The 94 percent figure is also used by groups that oppose abortion, such as Americans United for Life, which said in January: “According to its most recent annual report, abortions were 94% of its pregnancy-related services (abortion, adoption referral, and prenatal services).”

But that overall figure leaves out other services provided to pregnant women.

For example, the annual report says that 65,464 additional “family practice services” were provided to men and women, some of whom may have been expecting. Nearly 1.2 million pregnancy tests were given to women, some of whom may have been pregnant at the time. And 17,817 men and women received “other procedures,” including services for low-income pregnant women through the Women, Infants, and Children federal program.

Also, a Planned Parenthood spokesman told us that some clinics don’t provide prenatal care, so pregnant women are referred elsewhere for that service. But those referrals aren’t included in its report.

That’s why Rep. Bill Patmon’s reported claim that “94 percent of the people” going to Planned Parenthood “who are pregnant end up having abortions” is also problematic.

Besides, we can’t know the percentage of pregnant Planned Parenthood clients who had abortions if we don’t know how many clients were pregnant.

“Planned Parenthood health centers do not compile the pregnancy status of all their female patients,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokesman Eric Ferrero said. “Nor do they tally the number of pregnant women they refer to obstetricians and other health care providers. Some Planned Parenthood health centers provide prenatal services, while others refer women to other providers for this care.”

Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has gone even further at times. In live interviews on the subject of federal funding for Planned Parenthood, she has said that “over 90 percent” and “94 percent of their business is abortion services.”

That’s wrong — though a spokesman for Blackburn told us she was referring to the flawed 94 percent of “pregnancy services” statistic that others have mentioned.

Abortions accounted for 3 percent of the nearly 10.6 million total services provided by Planned Parenthood clinics in 2013, according to its annual report.

Some services it provided in addition to abortions were:

• 4.5 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections
• 3.6 million contraception related services
• 935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests
• 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services

However, critics of the 3 percent figure note that an abortion isn’t equivalent to other individual services, such as giving out condoms or providing pregnancy tests.

On the other hand, if the number of abortions performed is divided by the total number of people served (2.7 million), that would mean roughly 12 percent of clients received an abortion. But that’s also assuming no person received more than one abortion.

— D’Angelo Gore

Republicans making claims about Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Aug. 30: Planned Parenthood doesn’t need the money … 94 percent of their business … is abortion services. (Source: CNN “State of the Union” transcript.)

Rep. Tom Cole, Aug. 10: As part of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services offered in 2013, abortions accounted for a disturbing 94 percent with very few adoption or prenatal care referrals. (Source: Weekly column.)

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Aug. 3: Abortion accounts for 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)

Rep. Bill Patmon, Aug. 7: For instance, 94 percent of the people who go in [to Planned Parenthood clinics] who are pregnant end up having abortions. (Source: OneNewsNow.com.)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, July 30: We hear that [abortion] is over 90 percent of their business. (Source: Fox Business “Varney & Co.” video.)

Rep. Bill Johnson, July 21: In 2013, abortions made up 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s so-called pregnancy services — 94 percent. (Source: Remarks on the House floor.)

The post Planned Parenthood’s Services appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: The Affordable Care Act puts the government between you and your doctor.

The Party: Republican

Those “government-run” health care claims were once so ubiquitous we called them a “mantra.” They’ve died down considerably, but we’re still seeing them in 2014 congressional races. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t create a government-run system, in which the government provides health insurance, or care, to residents. It does expand Medicaid, and also boosts business for private insurers, by about 12 million customers over the next decade, and leaves intact work-based insurance on which most Americans have long relied.

An ad from Florida House GOP candidate Curt Clawson says: “You and your doctor, it’s an important relationship. But Obamacare created a trillion-dollar mountain of government between patients and physicians.”

And in an ad about how Washington is broken, Oklahoma Senate candidate T.W. Shannon says future generations will inherit “a health care system run by bureaucrats, not doctors and patients.”

As we’ve said before, the law’s regulatory provisions are more like putting the government between you and your insurance company. The ACA says insurers can’t have caps on coverage, can’t deny customers based on preexisting conditions (or charge them more), and can’t spend more than 15 percent or 20 percent on non-medical-related costs. It also requires coverage of preventive care, such as cancer screenings, with no cost-sharing.

The law doesn’t create a single-payer system, in which the government insures everyone. In fact, while the law is expected to cut the number of uninsured Americans by 25 million, it still leaves 31 million uninsured.

Republicans also have repeatedly attacked the Independent Payment Advisory Board as a bureaucrat-filled rationing board. But the IPAB, which is created by the health care law, is charged with slowing the rate of growth of Medicare spending, and it’s limited in how it can go about doing that. The law says the board’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” The IPAB is made up of medical professionals, health care experts, economists and consumer representatives, not bureaucrats.

— Lori Robertson

The post Government-Run Health Care appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: The Affordable Care Act is hurting families.

The Party: Republican

Several ads attacking the Affordable Care Act make the general claim that the law is “hurting” families. It’s true that some who bought their own insurance on the individual market could end up paying more. But millions of uninsured families will gain coverage under the law, many of them through free or low-cost Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage. And millions of insured families will get federal subsidies to help pay for coverage.

The “hurting families” claim has been a tagline on several Americans for Prosperity ads, including ones against Rep. Gary Peters of Michigan and Rep. Bruce Braley in Iowa. A March ad from Republican Sen. Thad Cochran in Mississippi also says, “Sen. Thad Cochran understands Obamacare hurts our families.” An ad from Senate candidate Sid Dinsdale in Nebraska features a small-business owner saying of Dinsdale: “He understands how Obamacare and regulations hurt our families.”

In January, an Americans for Prosperity ad attacking Arizona Rep. Ron Barber said the ACA “means higher costs for struggling families.” And in another version of the struggling-families theme, Senate candidate Paul Hollis attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana in an ad, saying that families in the state deserve better than “the high premiums, large deductibles and canceled policies of Obamacare.”

As we’ve explained before, some Americans who buy their own insurance will pay more, and some will pay less, depending on the individual. So, some families could be “hurt” or “struggling,” while others are helped with lower costs. How many? We don’t know.

But we do know that millions of uninsured families will gain coverage under the law — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that there will be 25 million fewer uninsured Americans due to the ACA as early as 2016. And many — 12 million — will gain free or low-cost Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage. (Research by the Urban Institute and RAND Corp. indicates that millions of the previously uninsured have already gained coverage.)

Those with adult children also could benefit from the law’s provision allowing dependents up to age 26 to be on their parents’ plan (the administration estimates 3 million young adults have gained coverage because of that requirement). Others will save money on insurance through subsidies, which are available to a family of four buying its own coverage and earning between $23,850 and $95,400 (that’s between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level).

For instance, in Arizona, where the AFP ad said that “struggling families” were facing “higher costs,” the Medicaid expansion would provide insurance to an additional 240,000 Arizonans, as estimated by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, and enable the state to continue Medicaid coverage for 50,000 adults without children in their homes. An additional 210,000 residents who were previously eligible for Medicaid are expected to sign up now, prompted by the law, as estimated by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The expansion makes Medicaid available to those earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $32,913 for a family of four. The eligibility level pre-ACA varied by state.

Louisiana, Mississippi and Nebraska are among the 19 states that have decided not to expand Medicaid under the law. But even there, KFF estimates that 58,000, 57,000 and 20,000 residents, respectively, would newly join Medicaid. These folks would have been eligible previously but will now sign up, likely prompted by news of the law and the individual mandate to have insurance or pay a fine. If the states do decide to expand Medicaid, KFF estimates 398,000 would be added to the rolls in Louisiana, 231,000 in Mississippi, and 88,000 in Nebraska. More than half of the uninsured in Louisiana and Mississippi earn 138 percent of the poverty level or less. In Nebraska, 26 percent to 47 percent of the uninsured are in that category.

Those who qualify for subsidies in 2014 to buy their own coverage on the exchanges include an estimated 313,000 in Arizona, 344,000 in Louisiana, 204,000 in Mississippi, and 122,000 in Nebraska, according to KFF estimates. Qualifying for subsidies, however, doesn’t necessarily mean their costs would be lower than what they had been paying for insurance before. The subsidies are on a sliding scale, and are based on a maximum percentage of income that individuals would pay for a benchmark plan where they live.

For instance, those earning 100 percent of the poverty level would pay a maximum of 2 percent of their income for insurance, with subsidies making up the difference, while those earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level pay a maximum of 9.5 percent of their income. The Kaiser Family Foundation further explains: “If the premium that a person or family faces for the benchmark plan in their area is higher than the maximum percent of income defined in the law for their income, they are eligible for a tax credit and the tax credit is equal to the difference between the premium for the benchmark plan and the defined percent of their income. The benchmark plan is the second-lowest-cost plan in the silver cost-sharing tier offered through the marketplace for the area where they live.”

It’s a bit complicated. A family of four earning $90,000, then, would pay a maximum of $8,550 for the year for the second-cheapest “silver” plan, or $713 per month. On HealthCare.gov, we found cheaper insurance — $562 per month — for a bronze-level plan for a hypothetical family of four (nonsmokers) living in Adams County in southwest Mississippi. The second-lowest-cost silver plan, with a lower deductible, was $715 per month, after subsidies. (The KFF subsidy calculator showed similar results.)

Whether any of that is a good deal depends on the family and various individual factors — such as health status and the coverage it had before. It’s just one example of how blanket statements about “struggling” or “hurting” families attempt to paint the law in black and white when reality isn’t so clear-cut.

One more example: We recently fact-checked another AFP ad in which a Michigan mother says that her family’s “new plan is not affordable at all” and that the law is “destroying the middle class.” But we found her situation is an example of how families can benefit from the law. The Michigan family of seven could have selected a cheaper exchange plan, as opposed to the unsubsidized private plan it chose, but the family did not want the children to be on the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

— Lori Robertson

The post ACA ‘Hurting’ Families appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: Premiums and health care costs are ‘skyrocketing’ under the Affordable Care Act.

The Party: Republican

Several anti-Obamacare ads have made the claim that premiums or health care costs have gone up under the law. And “skyrocketing” is the word of choice in these attack ads. That’s misleading. Premiums for those who buy their own private insurance will go up or down, in some cases significantly, depending on individual circumstances. Employer-sponsored premiums, where most Americans have coverage, are not “skyrocketing,” and neither are health care costs. In fact, the growth of both has been at historically low rates in the past few years.

Three Americans for Prosperity ads in January used the word, including an ad against Michigan Rep. Gary Peters that said, “Families are losing their doctors and health care costs are skyrocketing.”

An AFP ad against Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said that “millions of Americans have lost their health care and millions more are facing skyrocketing costs.”

A third ad, this one against Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley, said, “Our plans canceled. Our doctors lost. Our premiums skyrocketing.”

And that’s not all. Another AFP ad supporting Montana Rep. Steve Daines said the congressman opposed Obamacare and “fought against rising health care costs.” Another ad against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire said that “families are paying more for expensive health plans.”

Most Americans — 48 percent of the population — have insurance through their workplaces. Employer-sponsored premiums for family plans went up 3.8 percent on average in 2013, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer health benefits survey. Since the ACA was passed in 2010, those premiums have gone up 5.9 percent on average per year, while in the five years before the ACA, premiums went up 4.8 percent on average per year. Not exactly “skyrocketing.”

Overall national health care spending is growing at historically low rates. President Obama has boasted that “health care costs overall are actually going up more slowly over the last three years than in the last 50,” which is true. From 2009 to 2012, the growth has been under 4 percent per year. Drew Altman, CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote in September 2012 of the slow recent growth in both premiums and spending: “These are strikingly low numbers to those of us who have been studying health costs for a long time.”

But, as we’ve pointed out a few times, experts, including those at KFF and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, say that’s mainly due to the slow economy. The ACA could be having some indirect impact, though, as Altman explained in a September 2013 column.

As more Americans gain insurance, and the general population increases, health care spending overall will go up. But costs per individual won’t necessarily go up; they’ll vary. National health care spending includes all spending on health care, by individuals, businesses, insurers, and the government.

A small increase in work-based premiums can be linked directly to the ACA. When family premiums jumped 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, experts told us that the law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase, with the remainder due to higher medical costs. At the time, the law had required the elimination of preexisting condition exclusions for children, the coverage of dependents on their parents’ plans up to age 26, free coverage of preventive care, and the increase in caps on annual coverage.

It’s the individual market, where people buy their own coverage, and small-employer market that face the major changes under the law. And that’s where premiums can go up or down, perhaps significantly, depending on the individual. It’s difficult to draw general conclusions about what’s happened to people’s premiums in the volatile individual market, where policyholders frequently switch plans or leave the market. And it may remain difficult in the years to come. Five percent of Americans — about 15.8 million people — bought their own private insurance on this market in 2012, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The market has seen great variation in pricing and the level of benefits offered. This makes it “difficult, if not impossible, to make generalized statements of the effect of the new law on premiums,” Linda J. Blumberg, a senior fellow with the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center, wrote in a July 2010 report. And experts say that’s still the case.

In a September 2013 report, KFF said the changes in the market because of the law — such as essential health benefit requirements and no denial or price variation based on health status — “make direct comparisons of exchange premiums and existing individual market premiums complicated, and doing so would require speculative assumptions and data that are not publicly available.”

From 2009 to 2010, the average increase in individual market premiums, for those who had such coverage for more than a year, was 15 percent, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. That’s five times the average increase for employer-sponsored family plans that year, and three times the average increase of employer plans for the five years before the ACA.

But premiums can vary state to state, with different state regulations, and person to person, as insurers were able to price based on medical conditions and gender. Under the ACA, insurers on the individual and small-group market are limited to pricing premiums based on family size, geography and, to a limited extent, age and tobacco use. Insurance companies also can’t deny coverage based on preexisting conditions.

That’s a major change in how those policies are priced. The obvious implication is that those with health conditions could well pay less in premiums than they did when their health was a cost factor. And the reverse is likely true: Healthy individuals could end up paying more. (For example, one Arizona man who has leukemia had been paying $855 per month for a single policy on the individual market; last fall he was able to find a cheaper plan. But his previous premium was also very expensive: In 2010, the Arizona per person per month average was $241, according to KFF. That means some would have had significantly cheaper plans than this man to begin with, and so, they may not have saved money with new insurance.)

The change in price would depend on what type of coverage one had before: Bare-bones plans have to be upgraded with more generous benefits and limits on out-of-pocket costs. Those added benefits may be welcomed by some and scorned by others who preferred a cheap plan with fewer benefits. The ACA requires individual market and exchange plans to include essential health benefits, including maternity coverage, prescription drug coverage and preventive care benefits. More generous benefits do cost more, and unless those moving to more generous plans also received subsidies, they probably paid more.

The other factor that impacts total out-of-pocket costs is whether one qualifies for federal subsidies, available to those earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $46,680 for a single person. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 80 percent of those buying policies on the exchanges — which would include at least some who previously bought their own insurance as well as those who didn’t have insurance — will qualify for subsidies, with an average subsidy of $4,700 in 2014.

So, are premiums “skyrocketing”? Overall, no. But some individuals who buy their own insurance could face significantly higher rates, depending on their health status, previous plan and other factors. Other individuals — particularly those with health conditions and those who qualify for subsidies — could pay less.

A series of Americans for Prosperity ads also claims that “millions are paying more and getting less,” a reference to those who had their individual market policies canceled because they didn’t meet the law’s requirements. But there’s no evidence of that, either.

A few of the personal stories that Americans for Prosperity has mentioned or highlighted in other ads show that some who were on the individual market are paying less. But while some will find better coverage and better deals on the exchanges — particularly if they qualify for subsidies — it’s certainly true, as we’ve said, that not everyone will come out on the “winning” side.

But “paying more and getting less”? We can’t say that there aren’t some individual cases that might fit such a description, and whether one gets “less” can be a subjective call. But there’s no evidence that “millions” are in such a predicament.

The millions of uninsured who are expected to gain coverage under the law may or may not pay “more,” depending on their medical costs and subsidy status. But they’re certainly not “getting less.”

— Lori Robertson

The post ‘Skyrocketing’ Premiums appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: Millions of people have lost their health insurance and their doctors because of the Affordable Care Act.

The Party: Republican

President Obama gave ad-makers plenty of fodder last year when his promise — “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” — clearly was proven false. We had said years earlier that Obama couldn’t make that promise to everyone, but the claim made headlines when Americans received cancellation notices for individual market plans that no longer met the law’s requirements.

Critics of the law now say millions lost their health insurance. But that’s misleading. Those individual market plans were discontinued, but policyholders weren’t denied coverage. And the question is, how many millions of insured Americans had plans canceled, and how does that compare with the millions of uninsured Americans who gained coverage under the law.

There is evidence that far more have gained coverage than had their policies canceled.

The conservative Americans for Prosperity has made the canceled policies a theme in its advertising. In one series of ads, a soft-spoken woman says: “Millions of people have lost their health insurance. Millions of people can’t see their own doctors.” That ad, which aired in February and March, targets Democratic senators in three states: Sens. Mark Udall in Colorado, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and Mark Pryor in Arkansas. The ad aired against Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina in November, and it’s also been used to target a few House members.

Another AFP ad targeting Landrieu — and airing in January — said that “millions of Americans have lost their health care.”

It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.

But those policyholders didn’t lose the ability to have insurance. In most cases, insurers offered them an alternative plan, though there were some instances of companies exiting the individual market altogether.

Whether offered an alternative or not, individuals could shop for insurance on the federal and state marketplaces, or through a broker or insurance carrier directly. Many were likely eligible for federal subsidies to help pay for insurance, resulting in better coverage and lower rates for some. But the specific plan they had was indeed discontinued. (More than half of those with canceled policies were likely to be eligible for federal assistance, according to Urban Institute research, and about 80 percent of all those buying plans on the exchanges are expected to qualify for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

How many individual market cancellations were there?

The most commonly used figure is 4.7 million, based on reporting by the Associated Press last December. But there’s reason to doubt the accuracy of that figure. An analysis of a more recent poll by researchers at the Urban Institute puts the figure at somewhere around 2.6 million.

An AP story that ran Dec. 26 said that “at least 4.7 million Americans received the cancellation notices,” and gave state-by-state figures for the “number of policies scheduled to be canceled.”

But the news agency didn’t say exactly how it arrived at the other figures that went into the 4.7 million total, making the reporting impossible for outsiders to verify. In three states, the figures appear to be inflated. Washington state’s insurance commissioner, for example, has publicly stated that the AP’s figure of 290,000 discontinued policies in that state is “inaccurate.” In a news release on his official website, Insurance Commissioner Michael Kreidler said that there were only 278,000 total in the individual market at the end of September. Recent reports by our fact-checking colleagues at Politifact.com and the Washington Post show the numbers were too high in Florida and Kentucky.

And now, new research also gives reason to think the AP estimate may be inflated.

In a March 3 posting on the website of the journal Health Affairs, two researchers from the Urban Institute analyzed findings from a nationwide poll and said, “Our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA.” And in this case, the methodology is made explicit.

In December 2013, the Urban Institute’s quarterly Health Reform Monitoring Survey of adults ages 18-64 included this question: “Did you receive a notice in the past few months from a health insurance company saying that your policy is cancelled or will no longer be offered at the end of 2013?” And of the 522 people polled who were covered by non-group policies, 18.6 percent said yes, their old plan would no longer be offered because it didn’t meet the new coverage standards that went into effect Jan. 1.

And if 14 million people were covered by non-group policies nationwide (as indicated by the National Health Information Survey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), that percentage translates to 2.6 million non-group policies discontinued, the authors stated.

To be sure, there is always a statistical margin of error in any random-sample poll. Lead author Lisa Clemans-Cope told us in an email that statistically, there is a 95 percent certainty that the true percentage whose non-group policies were discontinued falls somewhere between 16.2 percent and 23.3 percent. That would put the number at anywhere between about 2.3 million and 3.3 million.

That range could be higher or lower depending on what number is used for the total who had non-group coverage in the first place. The Urban Institute authors cite a study published last year that found estimates of the total number of people covered by non-group policies ranged from 9.55 million to 25.3 million. So if 18.6 percent of non-group policyholders got notices that their policies were being dropped because of the new law, as the poll indicates, then the actual number whose plans were dropped could be as low as about 1.8 million or as high as 4.7 million (coincidentally, the same as the AP’s figure), depending on how many had such policies in the first place.

The authors, as noted, picked an estimate that fell in the middle of this range to arrive at their figure of 2.6 million discontinued policies. Until and unless better evidence comes along, that’s the most solidly based figure available.

How many “millions” so far have gained coverage?

The early numbers on enrollment in the exchanges and Medicaid don’t tell us how many of the enrollees were previously uninsured — despite some claims from Democrats to the contrary. The Obama administration disclosed on April 10 that 7.5 million had signed up for plans on the exchanges, but we don’t know how many previously had insurance. The Medicaid rolls increased by more than 3 million through the end of February, the administration also said, a figure that would reflect both those newly eligible under the law and previously eligible but now signing up.

But a survey funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and conducted by the Urban Institute indicates that many of those signing up for the exchanges and Medicaid may have been uninsured. It found that 5.4 million of the previously uninsured had gained coverage between September and the beginning of March. The exchanges launched Oct. 1.

An April 8 report by the nonprofit RAND Corp. put the figure of newly insured higher. Based on a nationwide poll, Rand estimated that there had been a net gain of 9.3 million insured “adults” as of mid-March, when the poll was being conducted. That includes marketplace and Medicaid enrollment, as well as an increase in employer-based enrollment.

Neither of those figures includes an estimated 3 million young adults who gained coverage in 2010 and 2011, likely because of the law’s provision allowing them to stay on their parents’ policies.

RAND also estimated that 700,000 who previously had individual market plans were now uninsured. The survey didn’t ascertain whether those newly uninsured were due to cancellations or voluntarily dropped coverage.

It will be some time before more concrete coverage numbers are available. The RAND numbers are extrapolated from a survey, and one with sizable margins of error. The estimate of 9.3 million newly insured has a margin of error of 3.5 million people, meaning researchers have a high degree of confidence that the true number would be between 5.8 million and 12.8 million. And the estimate of 700,000 uninsured who previously had individual market plans carries a margin of error of 900,000, putting the likely real number somewhere between zero and 1.6 million people.

Millions more are expected to gain insurance because of the law nationwide in the coming years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that there will be 25 million fewer uninsured due to the ACA as early as 2016.

Losing Doctors?

The AFP ad also makes the claim that “millions of people can’t see their own doctors,” but there’s no evidence that all those who had individual market policies discontinued ended up not being able to keep their own doctors. Anecdotally, we know of some folks who were able to keep the same doctor on a new insurance policy. But those are only a few individual stories. One of our guiding principles here is the saying, “The plural of anecdote is not data.”

It is true that using a smaller network of providers is one way insurers can reduce premium costs, and there is evidence that insurers are indeed doing that for exchange plans. As Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan research firm, told us in December: “The narrow-network plans offered by some issuers are intended to (a) maximize negotiating leverage with providers by narrowing their PPOs; and (b) thereby reduce premiums to attract consumers.”

Limited networks have existed for some time, as anyone with an HMO, PPO and the like can attest. There are no available statistics showing whether the plans on the new exchanges have more or less narrow networks than existed in the individual market previously. But, again, insurers certainly are limiting their networks to price their plans competitively.

Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told us: “It’s definitely the case (based on conversations with insurers and with providers) that insurers have decided to limit networks in some instances in order to price their health plans more competitively.” She continued: “It’s also definitely the case that some providers have declined to participate in some of the new health insurance networks, holding out for higher fees from some insurers in return for a promise to participate exclusively in their networks. This is market competition at work — not entirely transparent, unfortunately, so it’s not yet clear what the impact will be on patients.”

— Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson

The post ‘Millions’ Lost Insurance appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: More than 9 million Americans have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.

The Party: Democratic

Top Democrats, including President Obama, have credited the Affordable Care Act for more than 9 million Americans obtaining health insurance. But that’s an exaggerated figure that includes individuals who renewed their existing insurance plans through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. It also includes previously insured individuals who switched to plans offered on the state and federal exchanges.

In early January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “right now, as we speak, there are 9 million Americans … who have health care that didn’t have it before.” Later that month, in his State of the Union address, President Obama said “because of the Affordable Care Act … more than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.” And on Feb. 9, Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, increased the figure, saying that “[t]he bottom line is this: 10 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act.”

When Reid made his claim, the 9 million Americans included: 2.1 million who had selected plans on the federal or state insurance marketplaces, or exchanges; 3.9 million who were determined to be eligible for Medicaid and CHIP; and an estimated 3.1 million young adults under the age of 26 who were able to join their parents’ policies as a result of the ACA.

Then, on Jan. 24, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that 3 million people had enrolled in a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based exchanges since October 2013, and that more than 6.3 million individuals were determined eligible to enroll in Medicaid or CHIP through state agencies and state-based marketplaces in October through December. That’s a total of 9.3 million Americans.

But not all of those people were previously uninsured, as Democrats have claimed or suggested.

In the Jan. 24 blog post, Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, wrote that the 6.3 million included “both Medicaid and CHIP new eligibility determinations in states that expanded coverage, determinations made on prior law, and in some states, Medicaid renewals and groups not affected by the health care law.” So, the 6.3 million includes some who already had Medicaid or CHIP and were simply renewing. It includes those who would have been eligible for those insurance programs without the law. And it could also include those who had insurance through another source and are now eligible for Medicaid.

Indeed, a Feb. 5 report from Avalere Health, a health care industry consulting firm, estimated that most of the Medicaid and CHIP determinations were not new enrollees due to the law. Avalere estimated that between 1.1 million and 1.8 million enrolled because of the health care law. The firm compared the October through December Medicaid and CHIP numbers from CMS to the average monthly number of applications in July through September 2013.

Some listeners may have gotten the impression from Obama’s speech that the 9 million were all previously uninsured. But Sens. Reid and Durbin claimed outright that all gained insurance because of the health care law. We know that’s not true.

Reid and Durbin, for example, are just two members of Congress who had private insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but were required to switch to an exchange plan as required by the law. The 3 million people who selected exchange plans also include other individuals who were insured but switched to marketplace coverage when their plans were cancelled or their insurers pulled out of the individual insurance market altogether. We don’t know how many, because figures aren’t available.

A Jan. 17 Wall Street Journal article highlighting industry surveys of exchange enrollees said that “[i]nsurers, brokers and consultants estimate at least two-thirds of those consumers previously bought their own coverage or were enrolled in employer-backed plans.”

At some point, the ACA may be responsible for more than 9 million uninsured persons gaining health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in 2014, due to the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured would decline by 14 million.

But based on the administration’s most recent figures, we’re not at that point yet.

— D’Angelo Gore

Democrats using this talking point include:

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, Jan. 5: [R]ight now, as we speak, there are 9 million Americans … who have health care that didn’t have it before. (Source: Interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”)

President Obama, Jan. 28: Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage. (Source: State of the Union address.)

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Feb. 9: The bottom line is this: 10 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act. Ten million. (Source: Interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, Jan. 9: Nine million Americans now have quality health care coverage; 2.1 have enrolled in private coverage; 3.9 on Medicaid so far; 3 million young adults now covered under their parents’ plan. And, of course, the list will continue to grow. (Source: Weekly Press Conference.)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Jan. 8: There has been much maligning of the Affordable Care Act. Well, I am here to announce today that close to 9 million people have now been recipients and victors in getting health care. (Source: Congressional Record.)

The post More Than 9 Million Newly Insured appeared first on FactCheck.org.