[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 56 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E831-E832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   PROGRESS REPORT ON WOMEN'S HEALTH

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 29, 1997

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about the 
Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act of 1997 H.R. 164 and S. 609.
  I am proud to be the original House sponsor of this critical 
legislation which will end the short-sighted insurance practice of 
denying coverage for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction based on the 
false assumption that the surgery is merely a ``cosmetic'' procedure. 
When in reality, reconstructive surgery is often an integral part of 
the mental and physical recovery of a woman who undergoes a traumatic 
amputation of her breast.
  Specifically, the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act requires 
health insurance companies that provide coverage for mastectomies to 
also cover reconstructive breast surgery resulting from those 
mastectomies (including surgery to establish symmetry between breasts).
  Approximately 85,000 American women undergo a mastectomy each year as 
part of their treatment for breast cancer. While this is a life-saving 
procedure, it's also a horribly disfiguring operation. Studies have 
demonstrated that many women say that fear of losing a breast is a 
leading reason why they do not participate in early breast cancer 
detection programs. More than 25,000 mastectomy patients each year 
elect to undergo breast reconstruction.
  Since I began my work on this bill, I've heard daily from so many who 
have relayed their own individual experiences to me. Karen Ingalls, for 
example--a breast cancer survivor from San Mateo, CA--read about my 
legislation and asked her coworkers to write to me if they support it. 
In just 4 hours, she collected signatures and comments from 120 people. 
Karen herself wrote, ``I feel denial of coverage is just one more 
assault on [a] women's psyche. Something must be done to prevent 
this.''
  I sometimes hear from critics who ask why ``all-of-a-sudden'' there 
seems to be a congressional rush toward breast cancer legislation as 
opposed to other serious health care

[[Page E832]]

conditions. My answer to this question is that we, as representatives 
of our people, are responding to the needs of breast cancer patients 
because we have heard the stories of thousands of American women and 
men who have been victimized twice by breast cancer  first by the 
disease, then by the callous treatment of insurance companies. I find 
it regrettable that there are those who find legislative responsiveness 
to constituent needs to be out of line. While comprehensive health care 
reform would have addressed many of the specific complaints being 
brought to members of Congress, the political reality today is that 
only incremental measures have a chance of becoming law at this time. 
The suggestions that Congress should ignore some festering health care 
problems just because all of them cannot be addressed simultaneously is 
a great way to ensure that everyone suffers equally. I much prefer 
helping those we can whenever possible starting with, but not limited 
to, breast cancer patients.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 164, the 
Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act.

                          ____________________