[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2162-S2163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOVERNMENT INTRUSION
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, last Friday was the second anniversary of
the new health care law. This week we have been reminding the American
public to take a hard look at what is in it, and, more importantly, why
I don't want to observe this anniversary again.
Examples such as the Medicare reimbursement formula that allows
Massachusetts to set Statewide hospital reimbursement rates for
providers equal to the cushy wages paid to providers at a 15-bed
hospital on the island of Nantucket that caters to the East coast
elite.
This robs 19 other States of money for their reimbursements because
it all comes from the same pot. In short, there aren't enough clams at
this bake to go around, certainly not to Kansas after Massachusetts is
finished.
Or the Health and Human Services' rule that required qualified health
plans to offer contraception benefits. As my colleagues know, religious
institutions that hold moral objections to specific services expressed
widespread concern with the rule.
In response, Senator Blunt offered, and I cosponsored, S. 1467, the
Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. This act would allow a health
plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are
contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other
entity offering the plan without penalty and remain in compliance with
the requirements under the new Health Care Law.
And what about the regulations that have caused insurance plans in 39
States to stop offering child-only plans, and parents in at least 17
States that are no longer able to purchase ANY child-only plans? Keep
in mind, there are no private insurance alternatives for these families
until the new health care law is fully implemented in 2014.
There is also the prohibition on what can be reimbursed from a Health
Savings Account or HSA. I joined Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins in
introducing a bipartisan bill to repeal this provision to restore the
choice and flexibility people had in managing their health care
expenses by buying over-the-counter medications.
Even more alarming is the act of granting waivers to more than 1,700
labor unions and others from participating in the new law. At issue are
the mandates involving annual coverage forcing many employers not to
offer coverage at all. So instead labor unions and others are getting
waivers. Where is your waiver? Why can't all Kansans get a waiver??
At the time, Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to
find out what is in it. Well, we have read it, and my concerns which I
voiced throughout the very limited debate remain the same: the health
care reform law is bad for Americans.
The health care reform law. Regulates every Americans' health
coverage, by penalizing anyone without a Government-approved health
plan.
The law penalizes American businesses that do not provide Government-
approved health plans.
It forces more Americans into Medicaid--a broken, bankrupt Government
entitlement program.
It puts the Federal Government in charge of your health insurance.
By one count, the law creates over 159 new boards, offices, and
panels in the Federal Government to make decisions about your health
care.
The law gives the Obama administration Secretary of Health and Human
Services more than 1,700 new or expanded powers--to exert control over
the lives and personal health care decisions of Americans; creates an
unworkable new long-term insurance program that will go broke, leading
to skyrocketing premiums or a taxpayer bailout; levies more than $550
billion dollars of taxes, fees, and penalties related to health care on
American families and employers; and spends tens of billions of
taxpayer dollars just to implement the massive new law.
The law micromanages how patients can spend their own tax-free health
care dollars.
As of March 12, 2012, the total number of pages of regulations the
administration has released related to the health spending law is
12,307, which is an increase of over 4,700 pages in the last year.
In addition to the formal regulations, the administration is also
issuing hundreds of pages of subregulatory guidance in the form of
``bulletins'' to avoid having to describe how much these regulations
will cost.
A significant portion of the regulations issued thus far have been
interim final rules, which give the regulations the force of law prior
to any public comment.
I have listed a number of these regulations in a letter I sent to
President Obama. I did get a reply from Secretary Sebelius a few months
later, but it never did address the concerns I had tried to bring to
their attention. She did, however, note that they listen to all
stakeholders before implementing new rules. Unfortunately, that isn't
what I've been hearing.
While I travel around Kansas I try to talk to as many of our Kansas
patients, providers and advocates as possible. Without fail,
regulations and their effect on our health care system, how they affect
health care costs, and the result they have on job loss come up.
I held a stakeholder roundtable in Topeka to get feedback from
patients and providers on their thoughts related to health care reform.
I was not surprised to hear that every representative at that meeting
had a concern with regulations, but the sheer volume was truly
extraordinary.
I was surprised to hear every representative at this stakeholder
meeting discuss the impacts of health care reform and, more
importantly, their concerns with regulations, some of which are buried
in the volumes of regulations being put out every day and many that
defy comprehension.
When discussing the health care reform and regulations with my
constituents and those representing the patient and provider community,
the No. 1 concern that I heard was a fear of what else is coming down
the road? What will the impact of future regulations be?
The current burden of regulations pales in comparison to the
uncertainty of future regulations. Future regulations from implementing
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, will have an
even greater impact on jobs and the economy. This is like the second
health care reform earthquake. If you are a health care provider, hang
on.
Additionally, the combination of the regulations being issued to
implement the PPACA statute has resulted in an increase in premiums for
individuals and businesses, which, as you know, results in increased
costs and tough choices.
Providers feel that the significant costs associated with
implementing the health reform law are either inaccurate or not taken
into consideration. In fact, I often hear that patients and providers
feel that they do not have a voice in the regulatory process.
More specifically, a number of regulations are currently being issued
through a shortened process. This shortened process allows limited or
no input from those most affected by the regulations, prior to their
implementation, and result in an even greater confusion. And from
confusion we get higher costs.
It is my understanding that 20 of the 51 rules issued to implement
the health reform law have been issued as interim final rules and
therefore with limited input. While there may have been instances in
which a shortened process was necessary or appropriate, this lengthy
list is absurd.
[[Page S2163]]
In my letter to the President, I listed some 34 regulations that my
Kansas constituents noted had the most significant impact. I encouraged
the administration to limit the use of this regulatory process and take
every available opportunity to get feedback from those who would be
most affected by these regulations and allow for ample time to review
and consider that feedback prior to implementing future regulatory
priorities.
Time and time again, I have heard no more regulations will be issued
in the shortened process, and yet the interim rules continued to be
issued. I have heard that stakeholder comments will be thoroughly
reviewed and considered, but the actions by the administration don't
seem to prove this. I have heard that economic impacts will be
carefully considered, and yet the studies indicate otherwise.
If history truly does repeat itself, I don't have much hope of that.
____________________