WASHINGTON, May 8 -- Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., issued the following statement on the American Health Care Act (H.R. 1628):

"One of my top priorities in Congress has been to improve healthcare in America, which is why I have always supported the repeal and replace of Obamacare.

"Obamacare has resulted in higher premiums, higher deductibles, lost doctors, and cancelled policies, among many other challenges. Deductibles are so high, many people now feel like they don't even have insurance anymore. One-third of the counties in our country only have one option left under the exchange. That's not choice. That's a monopoly. Almost everyone agrees that our current system is deeply flawed and that healthcare must be improved. Doing nothing is not an option.

"Under the American Health Care Act, the individual and employer mandates are being removed, Obamacare's taxes are almost entirely eliminated (over $800 billion in tax relief), and there will be more choices, competition and affordability than under current law, while continuing to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions and allowing children to stay on their parent's policy as they can under current law. This is one important step of a three step process to ensure a smooth transition to a better reality for health care in our country.

"There is so much misinformation being circulated on this bill, especially on social media. Here are some specific facts to set the record straight regarding untruthful claims being made over social media and elsewhere:

"Is it true that under the current plan Members of Congress will be exempt? No. At the same exact time the American Health Care Act was passed in the House of Representatives, the House also passed legislation (H.R. 2192) to make it crystal clear that Members of Congress would not receive any special treatment whatsoever.

"Is it true that Members of Congress receive special health care insurance coverage not currently available to the general public? No.

"Is it true that the American Health Care Act changes the definition of pre-existing conditions? No.

"Is it true that under the American Health Care Act, 310,000 NY-1 residents with pre-existing conditions will lose their health insurance? Not within a million degrees of accurate in any way, shape or form.

"Is it true that in New York insurers will be able to charge people more if they have a pre-existing condition? No. New Yorkers with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied health insurance coverage for their pre-existing condition and cannot be charged more for their pre-existing condition.

"But what if New York asks for a waiver? New York is not asking for a waiver, but even if it did, New Yorkers still cannot be denied health insurance coverage for their pre-existing condition and as long as they maintain continuous coverage without a lapse for more than 63 days then they cannot be charged more either. Even if there is a lapse for more than 63 days, states remain required to protect people with pre-existing conditions to ensure they have access to affordable policies, which comes with financial help from the federal government. It is hysteria to claim that people with pre-existing conditions are not protected even if the protection is a little different than in non-waiver states.

"Is it true that there was no Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score for the American Health Care Act? No. The CBO has already weighed in on almost this entire bill.

"Is it true that no one actually read the bill? No. Speaking for myself, I sure did. It's only 138 pages long. Three amendments were added last week, and I read those myself before the vote."

A Connecticut judge denied a request Tuesday by PHL Variable Insurance Co. policyholders to stop paying premiums while keeping their coverage in force, despite allowing them to intervene in ongoing liquidation proceedings.

Judge Daniel J. Klau granted motions by several policyholders to intervene for a limited purpose but rejected their request for a so-called “premium holiday.” The policyholders had sought permission to suspend premium payments until the case is resolved, without forfeiting their policies.

The liquidation of the financially troubled PHL is expected by the end of 2026, interim Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Joshua Hershman said in a rehabilitator’s report filed two weeks ago.

A group of over-the-cap policyholders, mainly investors entitled to death benefits in excess of $300,000, filed a motion last month to obtain “relief” allowing the group to pursue “certain claims against Nassau Financial Group (and related subsidiaries), Golden Gate Capital and others … for looting PHL at the expense of the” policyholders.

In his Tuesday decision, Klau agreed that the policyholders’ request was "understandable," noting that some are paying millions of dollars annually while facing uncertainty about how much of their policies’ death benefits will ultimately be paid. However, the judge concluded that allowing policyholders to maintain coverage without paying premiums would be inequitable.

“It would be inequitable … to allow the policyholders to maintain coverage without actually paying for it,” he wrote, adding that policyholders must choose between continuing payments with uncertain returns or allowing policies to lapse.

Edward S. Stone represents SWS Holdings, which owns two Phoenix Generations universal life policies worth $18 million in death benefits. The company has paid more than $12 million in premiums to date, court documents say. SWS is among the large policyholders that sought intervenor status.

Absent "any meaningful relief," the ruling doesn't do much for his clients, Stone said Thursday.

To rehabilitate or liquidate?

Connecticut’s insurance office, which is overseeing the proceedings, previously sought to rehabilitate the insurer but announced in late 2025 that a turnaround was no longer feasible. Instead, the commissioner is now pursuing a liquidation strategy, citing insufficient assets to support a rehabilitation plan that would provide greater value than liquidation.

The court agreed that the shift from rehabilitation to liquidation represented a “material change in circumstances,” warranting reconsideration of a prior ruling issued in December 2025. Still, after reconsideration, the judge found that the commissioner’s opposition to the requested relief remained lawful, rational and made in good faith.

Policyholders, including institutional investors such as SWS and BroadRiver Asset Management, had argued that the move to liquidation justified revisiting earlier decisions. They also accused the commissioner of making misleading statements about the viability of a rehabilitation plan. The court rejected those claims, noting the commissioner had previously warned that rehabilitation might not succeed.

In addition to seeking a premium suspension, policyholders proposed placing premium payments into escrow accounts until the outcome of the case is determined. The court also rejected that proposal, reaffirming its earlier conclusion that the commissioner’s decision to decline it was "not arbitrary or capricious."

The ruling further denied policyholders’ requests for expanded access to non-public financial information, including internal analyses and transaction documents. The court said granting such access would undermine the statutory framework governing insurance rehabilitation and liquidation proceedings.

Full status denied

While allowing limited intervention, the court emphasized that policyholders are not entitled to full party status or broad discovery rights in the case.

The proceedings began in May 2024, when the commissioner filed a petition to rehabilitate PHL under Connecticut law. A moratorium was imposed shortly thereafter, restricting certain policyholder transactions while maintaining limited benefits.

The case now moves forward under a liquidation framework, which is expected to trigger state guaranty association protections for policyholders, though coverage is subject to statutory limits.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.