[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H1941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM EQUITY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, later this week, in our Committee on Energy 
and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, we will be having a hearing 
called ``Covering the Uninsured Through the Eyes of a Child, Part 
Two.'' Now, having sat through part one of this hearing, a hearing 
dealing with the reauthorization of CHIP funding this year, I really 
think the title of the hearing should be ``Covering the Uninsured 
Through the Guise of a Child'' because if some deception is implied in 
that title, indeed, I believe some deception is taking place within the 
SCHIP program.
  Now, most of my colleagues in this body, having heard from medical 
professionals and hospital groups this past month up here on the Hill, 
are aware of the need for reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance 
Program this year. It is a good program. It has provided needed health 
insurance to millions of needy children across our country. And both 
the House and the Senate are discussing funding options. And we are 
concerned about the rising cost of health care in general but in 
particular, specifically, the rising cost for the SCHIP program.
  Fourteen States are going to expect budgetary shortfalls in their 
SCHIP program. For some of those States, they are their own worst 
enemy. They are the reason for their own problem. They are using 
children's funding to cover adults.
  In fiscal year 2005, the adult enrollment in the SCHIP program 
exceeded the number of children enrolled in the program in four States: 
in Arizona we had over 113,000 adults in the program and just over 
88,000 children; in the State of Michigan, over 101,000 adults and 
under 90,000 children; in Minnesota 35,000 adults and just over 5,000 
children; in Wisconsin 108,000 adults, just over 57,000 children.
  Now, why does this matter? Well, if you look at what it costs to 
cover a child versus what it costs to cover an adult, for every dollar 
you spend on the adult, you only need to spend about 60 cents on the 
child. They are generally healthier. A dollar spent on children's 
health insurance goes a lot farther because children tend to be a 
healthier population, and if you provide them a modicum of preventative 
care, they are going to be healthier still. And after all, if we can 
attenuate a disease in its early stages in childhood, we will avoid the 
larger expenditures of allowing that disease to go on unchecked over 
years.
  I can think of a number of diseases that would fall into this 
category. Childhood obesity immediately comes to mind, an area where we 
need to devote significant time, energy, and resources. But if we are 
spending the money elsewhere, we are not going to be able to spend it 
on the children.
  And the real deception, in my mind, is that this is a method of 
expanding a single-payer government-run health care system through the 
SCHIP program. And, again, that subverts the entire concept of why this 
program was created in the first place almost 10 years ago.
  I would ask my colleagues to remember a dollar spent on a nonpregnant 
adult is a dollar that is not spent on a needy child. Indeed, States 
should prioritize spending on needy children and live within their 
annual allocations instead of looking to other States from which to 
take their moneys when their programs run a shortfall.
  To ensure that States are not using children-specific funding for 
nonpregnant adults, I have introduced H.R. 1013, the SCHIP Equity Act. 
There are four principles to the bill:
  It prohibits future HHS approval of any State waiver submitted by a 
State for SCHIP coverage of nonpregnant adults.
  The bill terminates portions of State waivers that HHS has approved 
that extend coverage to nonpregnant adults.
  States must eliminate coverage of nonpregnant adults by January 1, 
2008.
  And if the coverage of a nonpregnant adult was part of a multipurpose 
waiver, those components not dealing with the coverage of the 
nonpregnant adult will remain in effect for the duration of the waiver.
  SCHIP has been a success story for so many States, for so many 
children. I am asking you to consider supporting my bill, H.R. 1013.
  I want to remind all Members of Congress that ``C'' in CHIP stands 
for ``children.'' Let's keep it that way.

                          ____________________