[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 52 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PROTECTING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 22, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to 
     improve patient access to health care services and provide 
     improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the 
     liability system places on the health care delivery system:

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the 
so-called HEALTH Act. This misguided legislation undermines Medicare, 
raises deficits and restricts states' rights.
  Last year, House Republicans voted to end the Medicare guarantee for 
seniors. Fortunately, Senate Democrats blocked this dangerous proposal 
from becoming law. Now, House Republicans are trying again to dismantle 
the program in their fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
  The Republican proposal would end the Medicare guarantee by pushing 
future seniors into the private insurance market with a voucher that 
fails to keep up with the rising costs of health care. According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Republican voucher 
proposal could force future seniors to pay $6,400 more for health care 
every year. Republicans claim that shifting rising health care costs 
onto future seniors will save billions of dollars. What do House 
Republicans proposed do with those savings? Reinvest in Medicare? 
Increase funding for education? Reduce the national debt? Remarkably, 
House Republicans are proposing to take Medicare dollars from future 
seniors to give a new $150,000 tax cut to the wealthiest individuals 
and corporations in America today. House Republicans introduced H.R. 5 
to distract attention from their radical plans to dismantle Medicare 
and give more handouts to billionaires.
  H.R. 5 repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created 
by the Affordable Care Act. IPAB was established in the new health care 
law to protect Medicare's long-term sustainability. The Board will do 
this by keeping program costs at a manageable level and preventing 
special interests from delaying implementation of reforms that 
strengthen Medicare.
  IPAB will be composed of fifteen non-political experts, including 
doctors, consumers and senior advocates recommended by Congressional 
leaders, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If 
Medicare costs exceed certain targets, these experts will make 
recommendations to Congress on ways to stabilize Medicare by reforming 
payment and delivery systems. Congress retains the power to reject 
these recommendations and pass their own reforms to reduce Medicare 
spending. IPAB experts are prohibited by law from recommending changes 
to Medicare that ration care, increase seniors' costs, reduce benefits 
or restrict eligibility. IPAB does not harm Medicare or seniors, but 
eliminating IPAB would weaken Medicare and raise the deficit.
  The Congressional Budget Office found that repealing IPAB will add $3 
billion to deficits over the next ten years. To offset this cost, House 
Republicans impose new federal rules to legal cases involving medical 
malpractice, product liability, health insurance and related issues. 
The broad provisions of this bill would offer new protections to drug 
companies, nursing homes, insurance companies and HMOs. These new 
restrictions would severely limit a patient's ability to recover 
damages suffered as a result of medical negligence, defective products 
or irresponsible insurance products. Every year, approximately 200,000 
severe medical injuries are caused by negligence. Only seventeen 
percent of these patients ever file a malpractice claim. Patients who 
do seek legal recourse may not obtain full and just compensation for 
their injuries due to the caps on awards imposed by H.R. 5.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures strongly opposes this 
federal mandate on states arguing that federal medical malpractice 
legislation is unnecessary. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
analysis of H.R. 5 noted the new medical malpractice caps ``might cause 
providers to exercise less caution, resulting in an increase in the 
number of medical injuries attributable to negligence.''
  I urge my colleagues to reject these extreme and unprecedented 
changes mandated to state medical malpractice laws that will result in 
less justice for victims, less patient safety, and less flexibility for 
states to make their own laws.
  Further, I urge my colleagues to stand up for seniors and protect 
Medicare by opposing H.R. 5.

                          ____________________