“Obamacare” he wrote in January, “does not lower costs or improve quality, but rather it raises taxes and allows a presidentially handpicked ‘Health Landing PagesChoices Commissioner’ to determine what coverage and treatments are available to you.”

There’s one problem with Cassidy’s ominous-sounding assertion: It’s false.

The Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, includes no “Health Choices Commissioner.” Another bill introduced in Congress in 2009 did include such a position, but the bill died — and besides, the job as outlined in that legislation to it.

As the debate to repeal the law heats up in Congress, constituents are flooding their representatives with notes of support or concern, and the lawmakers are responding. We decided to take a closer look at these communications after in an email Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) sent to his constituents and asked readers to send us communications they had received.

The resulting review of more than 200 such letters by ProPublica and its partners at Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox found dozens of errors and mischaracterizations about the ACA and its proposed replacement. The legislators have cited wrong statistics, conflated health care terms and made statements that don’t stand up to verification.

It’s not clear if this is intentional, or if the lawmakers and their staffs don’t understand the current law or the proposals to alter it. Either way, the issue of what is wrong —Ìýand right —Ìýabout the current system has become critical as the House prepares to vote on the GOP’s replacement bill Thursday.

“If you get something like that in writing from your U.S. senator, you should be able to just believe that,” said Mongler, 34, a freelance writer and editor who is pursuing a master’s degree in public health. “I hate that people are being fed falsehoods, and a lot of people are buying it and not questioning it. It’s far beyond politics as usual.”

Cassidy’s staff did not respond to questions about Mongler’s letter.

Political debates about complex policy issues are prone to hyperbole and health care is no exception. And to be sure, many of the assertions in the lawmakers’ letters are at least partially based in fact.

Democrats, for instance, have been emphasizing to their constituents that millions of previously uninsured people now have medical coverage thanks to the law. They say insurance companies can no longer discriminate against patients with pre-existing conditions. And they credit the law with allowing adults under age 26 to stay on their parents’ health plans. All true.

For their part, Republicans criticize the law for not living up to its promises. They say former President Barack Obama pledged that people could keep their health plans and doctors, and premiums would go down. Neither has happened. They also say that insurers are dropping out of the market and that monthly premiums and deductibles (the amount people must pay before their coverage kicks in) have gone up. All true.

But elected officials in both parties have distorted evidence and left out important context. Some statements were simply disingenuous. Others were whoppers. And while more Republicans fudged than Democrats, both had their moments.

“Do most people pay that much attention to what their congressman says? Probably not,” said Sherry Glied, dean of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, who served as an assistant Health and Human Services secretary from 2010 to 2012. “But I think misinformation or inaccurate information is a bad thing, and not knowing what you’re voting on is a really bad thing.”

We reviewed the emails and letters sent by 51 senators and 134 members of the House within the past few months. Here are some of the most-glaring errors and omissions:

Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, incorrectly cited the number of Ohio counties that had only one insurer on the Affordable Care Act insurance exchange.

What he wrote: “In Ohio, almost one third of counties will have only one insurer participating in the exchange.”

What’s misleading: In fact, only 23 percent (less than one quarter) had only one option, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

His response: A Tiberi spokesperson defended the statement. “The letter says ‘almost’ because only 9 more counties in Ohio need to start offering only 1 plan on the exchanges to be one third.”

Why his response is misleading: Ohio has 88 counties. A 10 percent difference is not “almost.”

Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., said that the quality of health care in the country has declined because of the ACA, offering no proof.

What he wrote: “Quality of care has decreased as doctors have been burdened with increased regulations on their profession.”

Why it’s misleading: Some data show that health care has improved since the passage of the ACA. Patients are less likely to be readmitted to a hospital within 30 days after they have been discharged, for instance. Also, payments have been increasingly linked to patients’ outcomes rather than just the quantity of services delivered. A 2016 , a health care nonprofit think tank, found that the quality care has improved in many communities following the ACA.

His response: None.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., misstated the percentage of Medicaid spending that covers the cost of long-term care, such as nursing home stays.

What she wrote: “It’s important to note that 60 percent of Medicaid goes to long-term care and with the evisceration of it in the bill, this critical coverage is severely compromised.”

What’s misleading: Medicaid does not spend 60 percent of its budget on long-term care. The figure is closer to a quarter, according to the , a liberal think tank. Medicaid does, however, cover more than 60 percent of all nursing home residents.

Her response: Eshoo’s office said the statistic was based on a subset of enrollees who are dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare. For this smaller group, 62 percent of Medicaid expenditures were for long-term support services, according to the .

What’s misleading about the response: Eshoo’s letter makes no reference to this population, but instead refers to the 75 million Americans on Medicaid.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., pointed to the number of uninsured Americans as a failure of the ACA, without noting that the law had dramatically reduced the number of uninsured.

What he wrote: “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately thirty-three million Americans are still living without health care coverage and many more have coverage that does not adequately meet their health care needs.”

Why it’s misleading: The actual number of uninsured in 2015 , a drop of 4 million from the prior year, the Census Bureau reported in September. Fleischmann’s number was from the previous year.

Beyond that, reducing the number of uninsured by more than 12 million people from 2013 to 2015 has been seen as a success of Obamacare. And the Republican repeal-and-replace bill is projected to increase the number of uninsured.

His response: None.

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Mass., overstated the number of young adults who were able to stay on their parents’ health plan as a result of the law.

What he wrote: The ACA “allowed 6.1 million young adults to remain covered by their parents’ insurance plans.”

What’s misleading:ÌýA 2016 , released during the Obama administration, however, pegged the number at 2.3 million.

Kennedy may have gotten to 6.1 million by including 3.8 million young adults who gained health insurance coverage through insurance marketplaces from October 2013 through early 2016.

His response: A spokeswoman for Kennedy said the office had indeed added those two numbers together and would fix future letters.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., said that 75 percent of health insurance marketplaces run by states have failed. They have not.

What he said: “Nearly 75 percent of state-run exchanges have already collapsed, forcing more than 800,000 Americans to find new coverage.”

What’s misleading: When the ACA first launched, 16 states and the District of Columbia opted to set up their own exchanges for residents to purchase insurance, instead of using the federal marketplace, known as Healthcare.gov.

Of the 16, four state exchanges, in , , New Mexico, and , failed, and plans to close its exchange this year, according to a report by the . ÌýWhile the report casts doubt on the viability of other state exchanges, it is clear that three-quarters have not failed.

His response: None.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., overstated that the ACA “distorted labor markets,” prompting employers to shift workers from full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

What he said: “It has also, through the requirement that employees that work thirty hours or more be considered full time and thus be offered health insurance by their employer, distorted the labor market.”

What’s misleading: A number of studies have found little to back up that assertion. A 2016 examined data on hours worked, reason for working part time, age, education and health insurance status. “We found only limited evidence to support this speculation” that the law led to an increase in part-time employment, the authors wrote. Another found much the same.

In addition, last June by Donald Trump in which he said, “Because of Obamacare, you have so many part-time jobs.”

His response: Rohrabacher spokesman Ken Grubbs said the congressman’s statement was based on an that said, “Are Republicans right that employers are capping workers’ hours to avoid offering health insurance? The evidence suggests the answer is ‘yes,’ although the number of workers affected is fairly small.”

We pointed out that “fairly small” was hardly akin to distorting the labor market. To which Grubbs replied, “The congressman’s letter is well within the range of respected interpretations. That employers would react to Obamacare’s impact in such way is so obvious, so nearly axiomatic, that it is pointless to get lost in the weeds,” Grubbs said.

Rep. Mike Bishop, R-Mich., appears to have cited a speculative 2013 report by a GOP-led House committee as evidence of current and future premium increases under the ACA.

What he wrote: “Health insurance premiums are slated to increase significantly. Existing customers can expect an average increase of 73 percent, while the average change due to Obamacare for those purchasing a new plan will be a 96 percent increase in premiums. The average cost for a new customer in the individual market is expected to rise $1,812 per year.”

What’s misleading: The figures seem to have come from a launched and before 2014 premiums had been announced. The letter implies these figures are current. In fact, premium increases by and large have been moderate under Obamacare. The average monthly premium for a benchmark plan, upon which federal subsidies are calculated, increased about 2 percent from 2014 to 2015; 7 percent from 2015 to 2016; and 25 percent this year, for states that take part in the federal insurance marketplace.

His response: None

Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., misstated the reasons why Medicaid costs per person were higher than expected in 2015.

What he wrote: “A Medicaid actuarial report from August 2016 found that the average cost per enrollee was 49 percent higher than estimated just a year prior —Ìýin large part due to beneficiaries seeking care at more expensive hospital emergency rooms due to difficulty finding a doctor and long waits for appointments.”

What’s misleading: The did not blame the higher costs on the difficulty patients had finding doctors. Among the reasons the report did cite: patients who were sicker than anticipated and required a raft of services after being previously uninsured. The report also noted that costs are expected to decrease in the future.

His response: None

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrongly stated that family premiums are declining under Obamacare.

What he wrote: “Families are seeing lower premiums on their insurance, seniors are saving money on prescription drug costs, and hospital readmission rates are dropping.”

What’s misleading: ÌýDurbin’s second and third points are true. The first, however, is misleading. Family insurance premiums have increased in recent years, although with government subsidies, some low- and middle-income families may be paying less for their health coverage than they once did.

His response:Ìý Durbin’s office said it based its statement on an analysis published in the journal that said that individual health insurance premiums dropped between 2013 and 2014, the year that Obamacare insurance marketplaces began. It also pointed to a that said that premiums under the law are lower than they would have been without the law.

Why his response is misleading:Ìý The Post piece his office cites states clearly, “Yes, insurance premiums are going up, both in the health-care exchanges and in the employer-based insurance market.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Ind., told constituents that premiums nationwide were slated to jump from 2016 to 2017, but failed to mention that premiums for some plans in her home state actually decreased.

What she wrote: “Since the enactment of the ACA, deductibles are up, on average, 63 percent. To make matters worse, monthly premiums for the “bronze plan” rose 21 percent from 2016 to 2017. … Families and individuals covered through their employer are forced to make the difficult choice: pay their premium each month or pay their bills.”

What’s misleading: ÌýBrooks accurately cited national data from the website , but her statement is misleading. Indiana was one of two states in which the premium for a benchmark health plan —Ìýthe plan used to calculate federal subsidies —Ìýactually went down between 2016 and 2017. Moreover, receive subsidies that lowered their premium costs. The HealthPocket figures refer to people who do not qualify for those subsidies.

Her response: Brooks’ office referred to a , which took issue with an Indianapolis Star story about premiums going down. The release, from October, when Vice President Mike Pence was Indiana’s governor, said that the average premiums would go up more than 18 percent over 2016 rates based on enrollment at that time. In addition, the release noted, 68,000 Indiana residents lost their health plans when their insurers withdrew from the market.

Why her response is misleading: For Indiana consumers who shopped around, which many did, there was an opportunity to find a cheaper plan.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., incorrectly said that the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare would cut funding for seniors in nursing homes.

What he wrote: “It’s terrible for seniors. Trumpcare forces older Americans to pay 5 times the amount younger Americans will — an age tax — and slashes Medicaid benefits for nursing home care that two out of three Americans in nursing homes rely on.”

What’s misleading: Wyden is correct that the GOP bill, known as the American Health Care Act, would allow insurance companies to charge older adults five times higher premiums than younger ones, compared to three times higher premiums under the existing law. However, it does not directly slash Medicaid benefits for nursing home residents. It proposes cutting Medicaid funding and giving states a greater say in setting their own priorities. States may, as a result, end up cutting services, jeopardizing nursing home care for poor seniors, advocates say, because it is one of the most-expensive parts of the program.

His response: Taylor Harvey, a spokesman for Wyden, defended the statement, noting that the GOP health bill cuts Medicaid funding by $880 billion over 10 years and places a cap on spending. “Cuts to Medicaid would force states to nickel and dime nursing homes, restricting access to care for older Americans and making it a benefit in name only,” he wrote.

Why his response is misleading: The GOP bill does not spell out how states make such cuts.

Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., misleadingly said premiums would rise under the Obamacare replacement bill now being considered by the House.

What he wrote: “It’s about the 24 million Americans expected to lose their insurance under the Trumpcare plan and for every person who will see their insurance premiums rise —Ìýon average 10-15 percent.”

Why it’s misleading: First, the did estimate that the GOP legislation would cover 24 million fewer Americans by 2026. But not all of those people would “lose their insurance.” Some would choose to drop coverage because the bill would no longer make it mandatory to have health insurance, as is the case now.

Second, the budget office did say that in 2018 and 2019, premiums under the GOP bill would be 15 to 20 percent higher than they would have been under Obamacare because the share of unhealthy patients would increase as some of those who are healthy drop out. But it noted that after that, premiums would be lower than under the ACA.

His response: None.

Have you corresponded with a member of Congress or senator about the Affordable Care Act? We’d love to see the response you received. Please fill outÌý.

Charles Ornstein is a senior reporter atÌý, a nonprofit news organization based in New York City.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

“I asked him to use my tax dollars to provide health care to his constituents just like my tax dollars provide health care for him and his family,” she said she wrote.

A short while later, Godfrey received an from Blunt, essentially a form letter explaining why he supported the law’s repeal. “When President Obama signed this bill into law, he assured Americans that they would be able to keep their plans and doctors, while promising choice and affordability,” Blunt wrote. “Since the law has gone into effect, I have heard from countless Missourians who were unable to keep their insurance plans and/or providers.”

The email then gave a number of statistics to buttress Blunt’s position that the law is failing.

But something about the letter didn’t sit right with Godfrey, so she forwarded the email to ProPublica, asking us to fact check it. Our assessment: The note was misleading and lacked important context.

That led ProPublica to wonder about the accuracy of responses sent to constituents by other members of the House and Senate on the Affordable Care Act and its future. Today, is teaming with journalists at , and to gather those missives from our readers. On Monday, House Republican leaders unveiled their official proposal to repeal and replace the law. As the legislative debate begins in earnest, we plan to look at the representations made by elected officials from both parties and share what we find.

ProPublica asked Timothy Jost, an ACA expert and emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, to review Blunt’s email. “Some of this information is inaccurate, the rest of it is spin,” he concluded.

A spokesman for Blunt provided citations for the data in the senator’s note but did not respond to a follow-up email.

Jost helped us break down Blunt’s message:

Blunt’s email: “By the end of 2013, over 4.7 million Americans had their health care plans canceled.”

Analysis: The 4.7 million figure came from an from December 2013, Blunt’s office said. Subsequent analyses, however, showed that the figure was overstated. Two researchers from the Urban Institute, , estimated that the number was closer to 2.6 million. Moreover, Jost notes, the Obama administration said states could allow insurers to leave transitional plans in place after Jan. 1, 2014.Ìý Missouri was one of the states that . “So if a plan was cancelled in Missouri, it was the decision of the insurer, not a federal requirement,” Jost wrote.

Blunt’s email: “This year, Missourians who purchase health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges will see an average of a 25 percent increase on their premium.”

Analysis: The average premium for a Missouri plan did indeed increase by 25 percent this year, according to , a website that tracks the law and was cited by Blunt’s office. But that isn’t the entire story. First, the vast majority of marketplace enrollees in Missouri and nationwide receive hefty subsidies that reduce their cost.

Second, if you step out of the aggregate and look instead at a hypothetical person shopping for an affordable plan, the increase is lower.ÌýThe Obama administration often compared monthly premiums for a 27-year-old in a benchmark plan (the plan upon which the government calculates subsidies). In Missouri, the premium actually decreased from $235 to $233 between 2014 and 2015. It increased 10 percent in 2016 and another 18 percent, to $305, for this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But most enrollees aren’t paying the sticker price. Some 78 percent of Missouri marketplace consumers in 2016 could obtain coverage for $100 or less per month in 2017, after accounting for subsidies from the government, federal data shows.

Blunt’s email: “In addition to increased costs, families in Missouri and across the nation have lost the ability to choose a plan that best suits their health care needs.ÌýÌý Missourians in 97 of 114 counties and the city of St. Louis will only have one option on the exchange.”

Analysis: Blunt is technically correct, but again the statistic lacks context, according to . “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, of Missouri’s roughly 6 million residents, about 63 percent live in the 17 counties and one city that will continue to have at least two provider choices,” the fact checker wrote in February.

What’s missing: Blunt’s email did not mention that more than 200,000 Missourians receive coverage through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. It also didn’t mention that health insurance premiums routinely increased by large amounts before the law took effect and that many Missourians with preexisting conditions effectively had no insurers to pick from, Jost said.

The number of people without insurance has gone down under the ACA, falling from 13 percent in 2013 to 9.8 percent in 2015, the most recent year for whichÌý

Blunt spokesman Brian Hart declined to say how many people have written the senator about the ACA and what percentage of them were for or against the law.

Godfrey, who wrote to Blunt, is currently employed as a brand communications manager for a lighting manufacturer. She and her husband live in Northern California but are moving to St. Louis later this year. “I’m getting a head-start on my political activism in the state,” she wrote in an email to ProPublica. “We had planned to retire and get insurance on the exchange. Now we still plan to move but will, most likely, continue to work until we are eligible for Medicare.”

Godfrey, 62, said Blunt’s response to her was “infuriating.”

“I asked about what he was doing to take care of the people who elected him and he spouted misleading statistics,” she wrote. “I am surprised he didn’t bring up death panels [which do not exist]. I hate being treated like an idiot.”

Have you corresponded with a member of Congress or a senator about the Affordable Care Act? We’d love to see the response you received. Please fill out .

Charles Ornstein is a senior reporter at , a nonprofit news organization based in New York City.

This story was co-published with , and .

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .