[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

                                 ______


                          HON. JOHN P. MURTHA

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 28, 1995

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate the future of the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs, I'd like to ask my colleagues to 
consider the views of Ms. Carolyn Scanlan, president and chief 
operating officer of the Hospital Association of Pennsylvania. 
Pennsylvania's hospitals would be particularly hard hit by the Medicare 
and Medicaid provisions we are considering because of the high 
percentage of senior citizens who live in Pennsylvania, but her 
concerns reflect those of hospitals all across the Nation. We will not 
improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs by forcing hospitals, 
particularly hospitals in rural areas, to close. Downsizing may look 
good to accountants and bookkeepers, but it's not an encouraging 
concept for senior citizens when it means closing hospitals. We've got 
to work to improve availability, access, and affordability in Medicare 
and Medicaid, and we can do it without forcing seniors to accept care 
that is anything but the best.
  The text of Ms. Scanlan's letter follows:

                                          The Hospital Association


                                              of Pennsylvania,

                                Harrisburg, PA, November 16, 1995.
     Hon. John P. Murtha,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Murtha: I have reviewed the U.S. House/
     Senate Conference Report and am deeply disappointed that the 
     proposal does not sufficiently address the issues of health 
     care restructuring, patient access and beneficiary choice. I 
     must therefore ask that you oppose the conference report when 
     it comes before you for a vote.
       For the past several months we have communicated to you, 
     and House and Senate leadership, the message driving our 
     efforts to help Congress achieve a balanced budget while 
     preserving Medicare and Medicaid and improving health care 
     delivery:
       Inclusion of House provider sponsored network provision.
       Inclusion of the lower House Medicare spending reductions.
       Reduced and capped House Medicare ``failsafe'' provision.
       Guaranteed Medicaid coverage for children, pregnant women 
     and the disabled.
       Inclusion of House language on medical malpractice, 
     antitrust, fraud and abuse and self-referral provisions.
       Inclusion of House trust fund for Graduate Medical 
     Education (GME) and Indirect Medical Education (IME) and 
     lower IME reductions.
       Inclusion of Senate carve out for medical education and 
     Disproportionate Share (DSH) and lower DSH reductions.
       The conference report falls far short of meeting these 
     goals, which are essential to ensure that the more than 250 
     hospitals and health systems in Pennsylvania can better 
     address community health needs and offer beneficiaries health 
     care coverage with a local focus.
       As the process moves forward, the hospital community 
     remains available to work with you to craft a budget 
     reconciliation bill that includes these critical elements. 
     Your ``no vote'' will provide us with an opportunity to work 
     together toward a better bill that will ensure our ability to 
     continue to provide appropriate and necessary services to our 
     senior citizens, the disabled, children and low-income 
     families.

                          ____________________