[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.

                          ____________________