WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, pressed White House Coronavirus Task Force members on Wednesday at a committee hearing on the Trump administration’s failed response to COVID-19. Specifically, Murphy pressed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Robert Redfield on the politicization of the CDC guidance for COVID-19 testing, and also focused on what’s at stake if Republicans fill the SCOTUS vacancy and invalidate the Affordable Care Act while COVID-19 becomes considered a pre-existing condition for purposes of insurance coverage.

On the likelihood of COVID-19 becoming a pre-existing condition and what’s at stake if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act, Murphy said: “[I]nsurance companies tend to err on the side of caution. And so what we believe is that because of this uncertainty, because of this potential for long term health effects, that any diagnosis of COVID, whether you're symptomatic or not, will become a pre-existing condition. And that it is likely probable that insurance companies, if they are allowed to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions as will happen if the Supreme Court Justice is put on the court and the ACA is invalidated, we will see rates skyrocket for anybody who has had COVID. I think is something we all need to talk about over the course of the next few weeks.”

On the CDC’s lack of consistent guidance for COVID-19 testing, Murphy said: “[T]he president made it clear he wants less testing, and so it didn't seem coincidental to us that this strange guidance came out in August that recommended significantly less testing….You're both saying that, in fact, that August guidance didn't recommend less testing, and all you were doing with this third set of guidance in 30 days was to clarify. But where in the August guidance does it tell people that they should get a test if they are asymptomatic, but in close contact? Where in that guidance does it actually tell them that they should proactively see a health care provider if they have been in contact? Because I've read it 20 times, and I don't see anywhere in this guidance that it tells people they should get a test, I don't see anywhere in this guidance where it tells them that they should go see a doctor.” 

Murphy continued: “It reads, ‘you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or your local health officials recommend you take one.’ That doesn't say you should go to the doctor. That just says if you have been recommended to get a test, you should. So it stands to reason that when folks read this, they will be under the impression that they shouldn't get a test, which seems to comport with the directions of the president: slow the testing down please. Where in this guidance that you issued in August does it tell people that they should get a test or they should proactively see a doctor?”

Full transcript of Murphy’s question and answer with the witnesses is below:

MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll stay with you, Dr. Fauci. I apologize for not giving you a break. There was a study that got some attention regarding Big 10 and Pac 10 athletes that found that 15 percent of them who had COVID-19, whether or not they showed symptoms, had evidence of myocarditis, an inflammation damage to the heart muscle. What are the long term effects for someone with myocarditis? What is the current understanding of the possible more general long term effects of somebody who has had COVID and recovered, and are these effects observable in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients?”

FAUCI: “Yeah, Senator, thank you for that question. I actually had mentioned that in my opening comments. But I thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand on that. That's really quite puzzling, because the individuals that was--there were two studies, there was one study, not in athletes, and then there was the study that you mentioned in athletes. The study in the non-athletes were individuals who had recovered from COVID-19, and had various degrees of involvement, to moderate disease to disease that would require intervention medically. And by doing MRIs, they found that about 60 to 70 percent of them had indication of inflammatory disease in the heart.

“Interestingly, they were relatively asymptomatic. So I think we need to be careful and just watch what happens because one of the possibilities that could develop is that…it could clear up, and they have no problem for the rest of their lives. The other things that they could wind up when you have inflammation, you could have scarring that could lead to arrhythmias later on, or that could lead to cardiomyopathies. I have to tell you, I do not know what it would be, but it's something we really need to keep our eye out on.”

MURPHY: “So insurance companies tend to err on the side of caution. And so what we believe is that because of this uncertainty, because of this potential for long term health effects, that any diagnosis of COVID, whether you're symptomatic or not, will become a pre-existing condition. And that it is likely probable that insurance companies, if they are allowed to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, as will happen if the Supreme Court Justice is put on the court and the ACA is invalidated, we will see rates skyrocket for anybody who has had COVID. I think is something we all need to talk about over the course of the next few weeks.

“Dr. Redfield, Admiral [Brett Giroir], I want to come back to this question of the guidance on testing. I think this is really important. Because, you know, we have to take the president at his word. He announced that he had instructed his advisors to, quote, ‘slow the testing down, please.’ When folks suggested he was kidding, he was asked by reporters, ‘are you kidding?’ And he said, ‘I don't kid. Let me just tell you, let me make it clear.’ So the president made it clear he wants less testing, and so it didn't seem coincidental to us that this strange guidance came out in August that recommended significantly less testing. 

“And yet, that's not what you're testifying to today. You're both saying that, in fact, that August guidance didn't recommend less testing, and all you were doing with this third set of guidance in 30 days was to clarify. But where in the August guidance does it tell people that they should get a test if they are asymptomatic, but in close contact? Where in that guidance does it actually tell them that they should proactively see a health care provider if they have been in contact? Because I've read it 20 times, and I don't see anywhere in this guidance that it tells people they should get a test, I don't see anywhere in this guidance where it tells them that they should go see a doctor.

“It reads, ‘you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your healthcare provider or your local health officials recommend you take one.’ That doesn't say you should go to the doctor. That just says if you have been recommended to get a test, you should. So it stands to reason that when folks read this, they will be under the impression that they shouldn't get a test, which seems to comport with the directions of the president: Slow the testing down please. Where in this guidance that you issued in August does it tell people that they should get a test or they should proactively see a doctor?”

REDFIELD: “Thank you very much Senator. And as I've said before, I take the position that more tests will actually lead to less cases, particularly if it fully engages public health action. And when I issued the clarification on August 27, again, I said that we’re placing emphasis on symptomatic illness issues and also, as you said, individuals with significant exposure, vulnerable populations, critical infrastructure workers, health care workers, and those individuals who may be asymptomatic when prioritized by a medical or public health official.

“The reason that this came, from a public health perspective, we were seeing individuals drive up, get a test, and then go on to work. There wasn't a public health action associated with testing. So we calculated that this would help bring a public health action to testing.”

MURPHY: “But notably, you don't tell people in this guidance that they should go see a doctor.”

REDFIELD: “When I said--when we clarified the day after, I put very clearly what the clarification was about the emphasis, and the final category with those individuals who were asymptomatic, when prioritized by a medical or public health individual. And again, the intent was for testing to drive an action that was for a public health objective. It was clear, through a variety of different reasons, when we found that some individuals were not even doing testing for contacts, the individuals with significant exposure, we then put the further clarification. I had thought that the August 27 clarification statement that I put out would carry the football over the goal line, it didn't. But I can tell you, there was no intent to this guidance to decrease testing. On the contrary, the intent was to link testing, and to drive a public health action. And again, the manner in which it was interpreted by a number of individuals was such that it didn't accomplish that goal.”

MURPHY: “I think I'm over my time. This has just been dizzying, dizzying for public health professionals. They're just awaiting the next correction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

###