WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) tonight said House Republicans
delivered a major victory to HMOs. The House passed a bill that offers
no protection for consumers from managed care abuse, fails to hold HMOs
accountable in a court of law, and leaves HMOs in charge of healthcare
decision making. Schakowsky called the bill an “Insurance Industry
Protection Act.”
“We
promised that we would let medical professionals make medical decisions.
We told doctors, nurses and other health care professionals that we would
free them from managed care bureaucracy so that they can provide quality
care to their patients,” Schakowsky said.
“To
call this legislation a patient protection bill is a violation of truth
in advertising laws. It is no longer a law designed to curb HMO abuses
– it has become a bill that leaves HMOs in charge of health care decision
making and preempting state laws designed to protect patients. It
is an Insurance Industry Protection Act,” Schakowsky added.
Below
is Schakowsky’s Congressional Record statement:
“Mr.
Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2563, the Patient Protection Act.
This bill has been so damaged by the amendments passed today, that it should
be a violation of truth in advertising laws to call it a patient protection
bill. It is no longer a law designed to curb HMO abuses – it has
become a bill that leaves HMOs in charge of health care decision making
and preempting state laws designed to protect patients. It is a bill
that is no longer deserving of its title and is no longer deserving of
our support. It is an Insurance Industry Protection Act.
“Earlier
today, the House passed the Thomas amendment to establish Association Health
Plans. Despite the arguments of its proponents, AHPs are not a step
forward. Instead, AHPs will take critical state protections away
from consumers and make access to health care worse for millions of Americans.
“I
believe that we need to make health care more affordable and accessible
to small businesses and their employees. I support purchasing coops
and pooling arrangements. But I could not support this amendment.
Why? Because it would do more harm than good. By preempting
state regulations designed to lower premiums and protect consumers, it
would move us backwards not forward.
“First,
it would actually raise premiums for the majority of small businesses.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of small business
employees could face premium increases as companies with healthier employees
opt out of the small group market. With market fragmentation, small
firms with older workers, women of child-bearing age, and workers with
ongoing health problems would wind up paying more.
“Second,
as a result, those small businesses facing higher premiums would drop coverage.
The CBO estimates that 10,000 employees – those with the highest health
care needs -- would lose coverage. An Urban Institute estimate is
that one percent of all small firms would lose coverage.
“Third,
even insured consumers could face higher costs and reduced access because
AHPs would be allowed to ignore state minimum benefit requirements.
In Illinois, those minimum benefits include annual pap smears, prosthetic
devices, mental health services, cancer screening, education on diabetes
self-management, and length of stay protections for mastectomy patients.
Consumers Union opposes AHPs because “health insurance policies would be
less likely to cover potentially life-saving benefits such as mammography
screening, cervical cancer screening, and drug abuse treatment.”
AHPs will lead to bare-bones coverage that leaves patients with higher
medical bills or forces them to go without care.
“Fourth,
consumers enrolled in AHPs would have no place to go for protection, since
state regulation is preempted and the U.S. Department of Labor lacks the
resources or the will to respond to individual consumer complaints.
“The
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said it best when
they wrote to us opposing this bill. They wrote: “AHPs would fragment
and destabilize the small group market, resulting in higher premiums for
many small businesses. AHPs would be exempt from state solvency requirements,
patient protections, and oversight and thus place consumers at risk.”
“I
also strongly oppose the Norwood liability amendment. Many of us
won election last November because we promised that we would give patients
meaningful protections. We promised that we would curb HMO abuses
that are injuring and killing people on a daily basis.
“We
promised that we would let medical professionals make medical decisions.
We told doctors, nurses and other health care professionals that we would
free them from managed care bureaucracy so that they can provide quality
care to their patients. This amendment means that we will not be
keeping those promises.
“This
amendment is a ruse. Behind all the fine print, it has one underlying
objective: to continue the accountability shield that immunizes HMOs from
responsibility when they deny care or limit care or restrict access to
specialists. This amendment means that there is absolutely no guarantee
that patient protections will be enforced. HMOs will be left in charge,
free to continue to override doctors’ decisions and deny care with virtual
impunity.
“This
amendment provides special treatment for HMOs. It gives HMOs unique
legal protections – protections denied every other industry in this country
-- so that they can continue to operate with immunity.
“Mr.
Speaker, we have done a disservice to patients and those who care for them
by passing these amendments. There is an old labor song that asks
the question: whose side are you on? Unfortunately, this amended
bill sides with the HMOs – not patients.” |