[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13077-S13078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION COMPLIANCE ACT
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to Calendar No. 256, H.R. 3323.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3323) to ensure that covered entities comply
with the standards for electronic health care transactions
and code sets adopted under part C of title XI of the Social
Security Act, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3323) was read the third time and passed.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, today the Senate has passed H.R. 3323, a
bill that waives the penalties for state health programs, health care
providers, and health plans that are unable to comply with the
transactions and code sets regulation of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act by October 16, 2002. This bill is
different from the bill passed by the Senate on November 27, and
frankly, I would prefer that we simply provide the one-year extension
to those entities that need it, as provided for in the Senate bill.
However, the time remaining in this session of Congress is short, and
the House bill will offer a measure of help to those in our states.
The House bill would require that, in order to receive a waiver,
those entities needing more time to comply with the transactions and
code sets regulation would have to submit a plan to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services explaining how they plan to come into
compliance by October 16, 2003. When Senator Craig and I first
introduced legislation on this issue more than six months ago, we are
attempting to help alleviate a burden on covered entities. It is not
our intention in passing this bill to place a significant new burden on
health care providers, states, and health plans.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I share Senator Dorgan's concern that the
compliance plans called for in the House bill not be unduly burdensome.
The terrorist attacks of September 11th, and concern about
bioterrorism, are putting an additional pressure on our already
overtaxed public health system, so imposing new burdens is something we
should try to minimize. Therefore, we strongly encourage Health and
Human Services Secretary Thompson to ensure that the requirement to
file a compliance plan imposes as little a burden as possible.
Mr. BAYH. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my
colleagues, Senators Dorgan and Craig. As a former governor, I also
want to raise a potential concern that has been brought to my attention
by some states. The Medicaid program is explicitly covered by HIPAA,
but there are many other state programs with health components that may
or may not be covered. Before states go through the potentially
unnecessary work of submitting compliance plans that may not be needed,
I feel strongly that HHS should provide guidance to states about what
other plans are required. In addition, HHS should provide technical
assistance as to what resources states can use for developing the
compliance plans called for by the House bill. States should submit
their plans for the Medicaid program and receive guidance from the HHS
before submitting state plans that deal with other programs. Only with
the appropriate and critical information can HHS and the states create
a successful partnership.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator for raising this important concern. I
agree that HHS should provide states with the necessary guidance. I
also want to note that when Senator Craig and I first introduced
legislation on this issue it was our intention not to affect the
implementation of the medical privacy regulation. I'm pleased that this
bill accomplishes that goal, and the medical records privacy rule will
not be delayed or affected in any way.
Mr. CRAIG. I, too, am glad that we have been able to protect the
privacy rule, and I want to make one final point in that regard.
Nothing in this
[[Page S13078]]
bill is designed to create any new covered entities under the privacy
rule. Our intention in safeguarding the privacy rule was to keep it
intact but not to expand the class of covered entities currently
contemplated by it.
Mr. DORGAN. In closing, I thank Senator Craig for his long and hard
work on this issue, as well as Senators Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, and
the many cosponsors of our original legislation, for their help in
reaching enactment of this bill.
____________________