The first “unintended consequence” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) addressed in Part 1 of the blog described how routine physical exams were not specifically listed as a preventive service under health reform so insurance companies do not have to cover this service. The second “unintended consequence” of health reform addressed in Part 2 of the blog revealed how most insurance companies are not offering individual insurance policies to children under 19 since they are prohibited from applying pre-existing conditions exclusions. The third and final “unintended consequence” of health reform that I will discuss relates to dependent children under the age of 26 staying on their parents’ plans.

The first “unintended consequence” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) addressed in Part 1 of our blog described how routine physical exams were not specifically listed as a preventive service under health reform so insurance companies do not have to cover this service. Today, we will discuss the second “unintended consequence” of health reform, which addresses how new individual insurance policies are prohibited from applying pre-existing conditions exclusions for children under 19.

Wikipedia states that the law of unintended consequences is a warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Unfortunately, health reform has “unintended consequences” written all over it. Three specific examples include: preventive care, no pre-existing conditions for children under 19, and dependent children under the age of 26 staying on parents’ plans. I’ll focus on the first topic today: preventive care.