[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 140 (Monday, September 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6265-H6267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING AFFORDABLE COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES ACT
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1624) to amend title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to revise the
definition of small employer, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1624
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable
Coverage for Employees Act''.
SEC. 2. REVISION OF DEFINITION OF SMALL EMPLOYER UNDER HEALTH
INSURANCE MARKET PROVISIONS.
(a) PPACA Amendments.--Section 1304(b) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18024(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``101'' and inserting
``51'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``100'' and inserting
``50''; and
(3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) State option to extend definition of small
employer.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), nothing in
this section shall prevent a State from applying this
subsection by treating as a small employer, with respect to a
calendar year and a plan year, an employer who employed an
average of at least 1 but not more than 100 employees on
business days during the preceding calendar year and who
employs at least 1 employee on the first day of the plan
year.''.
(b) PHSA Amendments.--Section 2791(e) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``101'' and inserting
``51'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``100'' and inserting
``50''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) State option to extend definition of small
employer.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4), nothing in
this section shall prevent a State from applying this
subsection by treating as a small employer, with respect to a
calendar year and a plan year, an employer who employed an
average of at least 1 but not more than 100 employees on
business days during the preceding calendar year and who
employs at least 1 employee on the first day of the plan
year.''.
(c) Deposit of Savings Into Medicare Improvement Fund.--
Section 1898(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395iii(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``$0'' and inserting
``$205,000,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardenas) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 1624.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The bipartisan bill before us today is a much-needed fix for small-
business owners and employees struggling to comply with the healthcare
law. H.R. 1624 is a bill to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and the Public Health Service Act to revise the definition of
small employer. The bill would allow the States to continue defining
the small group health insurance market as employers with 1 to 50
employees.
Section 1304 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
changed the Federal definition of the small group market to include
employers with 1 to 100 employees. The States, however, have been
allowed to continue defining the small group market as employers with 1
to 50 employees until January 1, 2016.
But beginning on or after January 1, 2016, plans sold or renewed for
employers with 51 to 100 employees will be subject to the various small
group health plan regulations established by PPACA. These more
restrictive rating rules will increase health insurance premiums for
these employers and reduce flexibility in benefit design.
The new requirements could also lead some employers with 51 to 100
employees to self-insure to avoid higher premiums. If that happens,
this could result in adverse selection in the small group pool and
higher premiums for employers with 1 to 50 employees.
Unless this current law is reversed, the disruption in the
marketplace will be significant. For example, it is estimated that,
under current law, more than 3 million employees will experience a
double-digit percent increase in their healthcare premiums.
Ultimately, cost increases for small employers will change their
choices regarding offering coverage, could change their business model,
and will ultimately be felt by millions of workers.
Because the impact of current law will vary by State, defining the
small group market should be left to the States, which is a policy
envisioned in H.R. 1624.
I am pleased to say there is considerable support for this
legislation in the House and the Senate.
The flexibility that would be given to States with immediate passage
of H.R. 1624 would help ensure stable, small group health insurance
markets that reflect the unique characteristics in each of the States.
If Congress passes H.R. 1624, premiums will be lower and allow
millions of employees and employers to keep the plan they have and
like. This is a
[[Page H6266]]
commonsense policy that deserves our bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1624.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I reserve the balance of my
time so that Congressman Guthrie can speak first.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here.
I rise in support of H.R. 1624, the Protecting Affordable Coverage
for Employees Act. This bill, which I introduced along with my friend
from California (Mr. Cardenas), Congressman Markwayne Mullin of
Oklahoma, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona will protect smaller employers
from increased healthcare costs and will prevent their employees from
being forced out of their current healthcare plans.
The small group market is currently defined as 1 to 50 employees, but
a provision in the healthcare law will expand the group's size from 1
to 100 on January 1. With this expansion comes more onerous regulations
and the expectation of dramatic rate hikes.
One estimate by Oliver Wyman predicts that those in the 51 to 100
group will see an average of an 18 percent premium increase in 2016
based on the new rating rules alone. H.R. 1624 stops the mandated
expansion of the small group market that will occur on January 1 and
allows States to define their own market.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many Kentuckians who would be impacted
by this change, and their concerns are real. Small businesses are
afraid to expand, and mid-sized businesses have no idea what the costs
would be or how they can plan for this new change.
This issue has widespread support, with over half the House as
cosponsors and nearly a third of the Senate as cosponsors. Members on
both sides of the aisle agree that we must act now to stop this new
mandate.
It has been a great pleasure working with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardenas). It is an issue that we see is happening in
Washington, that is happening out in our districts, out across to the
businesses.
Both sides of the aisle have come together to say: Let's change the
law. Let's make sure that the small businesses and medium-sized
businesses are not affected, and let's move forward.
It wasn't just that we signed our names as cosponsors. There was a
lot of hard work that I know the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardenas) did to bring more and more cosponsors to this bill. This is a
significant change. It is significant for the people who live in our
districts. I encourage support.
I appreciate Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Mullin.
Mr. CARDENAS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank my colleague from Kentucky
(Mr. Guthrie). It has been a pleasure and honor to serve with him on
this bill.
It is really important for us to understand how monumental this
moment is. This isn't the biggest bill in the world. But, yet, at the
same time, if you are a small business in the United States of America
and you have 1 to 50 employees or now even 1 to 100 employees, this
bill hopefully will help affect your business and your employees in a
way that is better.
I rise in support of H.R. 1624. I truly appreciate the willingness to
work on a bipartisan bill, as demonstrated today, which is going to
positively impact so many communities across the country through the
small businesses it will affect.
H.R. 1624, the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act,
introduced by my colleagues, once again, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Mullin, Ms.
Sinema, and myself--two Republicans and two Democrats is a true
bipartisan effort--would stop a potential health insurance rate shock
by allowing States to determine the appropriate size of their small
group market.
As a former small-business owner myself, I recognize the struggle
there is to live out the American Dream. I know how difficult it can be
when a specific sector of small business is affected by regulations and
laws created by local, State, or Federal governments.
I have seen the impact in neighborhoods throughout my district when a
small local business opens their doors or closes their doors. Their
supply chain is local. Their employees have a vested interest in their
success. Their customers treasure the connection a small hometown
business brings.
I know I echo the view of the entire U.S. House of Representatives
when I applaud these small businesses, the risks that they have taken,
and the celebration of their successes.
The Affordable Care Act isn't perfect. By no means is the Affordable
Care Act perfect. But I am grateful for all the benefits that the law
has provided since its enactment.
Today more than 16 million Americans have gained access to affordable
health insurance that did not have it before enacting the act. My
district is one of only two districts in the United States to see a
double-digit increase in insured residents since the implementation of
the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act is the biggest change to American health care
in the past 70 years. It brings down costs, covering more Americans and
making dozens of other crucial changes to how our Nation views health
care. However, no law is perfect.
When it was first created, Social Security didn't cover agricultural
and domestic workers. Medicaid didn't begin to cover mammograms until
1991. Even with these fundamental programs of our Nation's safety net,
improvement and compromise was necessary to lead to more perfect laws.
While certain States, like California, have decided to move forward
with the expansion, this bill still provides States the flexibility to
ensure market stability for small businesses across the country.
I appreciate the bipartisan effort to bring this bill to the floor. I
look forward to advancing the PACE Act and continuing to build on a
record of working together in a bipartisan fashion.
I was just sharing a moment with my colleague from Kentucky,
Congressman Guthrie, in talking about how proud I am of this moment and
how much I appreciate his willingness to reach across the aisle and
work with us to make sure that we bring a fix--not the biggest fix, but
a fix--that will help American businesses and American workers across
this country.
It is an opportunity for us to work together. But, more importantly,
it is an opportunity for us to do the job that we were elected to do:
to put aside partisan bickering, to make sure that we look at what is
best for America, try our best to bring a bill to the floor through
both houses, and, hopefully, get the signature of the President of the
United States.
Again, it was due to this bipartisan effort that I think that what I
just described is going to happen. Come January of 2016, it is going to
be a better place for all of us--for our businesses and our workers--
because we were willing to work together.
Once again, it is not the easiest thing to do, but it is something
that, unfortunately, is far too rare. I hope that this is the
beginning, the beginning of many of us working together and making good
things happen for America and its Territories.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1624.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is an important bill.
It is a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R.
1624.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the Affordable Care
Act, 17.6 million Americans have gained health insurance coverage and
are no longer one accident, injury, or diagnosis away from financial
ruin. This is the largest reduction in the uninsured in four decades.
The ACA has increased access and reduced financial barriers to
important preventive services, such as cancer screenings and well-woman
visits by requiring their coverage with no cost sharing. The law also
stopped insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions or
placing annual limits on how much health care they will cover.
Though the ACA is already helping millions nationwide, no law is
perfect, and there are certainly ways we can improve the ACA and build
upon its successes. Given the political theatre that tends to surround
the ACA, I am pleased to see that my Republican colleagues
[[Page H6267]]
are ready to work together on bipartisan proposals such as H.R. 1624
with the goal of strengthening the law. Unfortunately, though, I do not
agree with the approach this bill takes.
H.R. 1624 would permanently change the law to make the small group
expansion currently required under the ACA optional for states and
allow states to ``opt in'' if they choose. Research tells us that some
states simply are not ready to expand their small group market and that
expansion in these states could result in higher costs for certain
consumers. However, the small group expansion was included in the ACA
for good reason. The benefits of expansion such as added consumer
protections and increased stability for small employers are important
and achievable goals. States like Washington are already experiencing
the benefits of an expanded small group market.
I am concerned that H.R. 1624 is premature, and I would instead
prefer a few year transitional delay of the small group expansion or an
``opt out'' option for states instead. I believe these alternatives
would ensure that states continue to work towards the goal of
expansion, rather than disregarding the provision altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that this bill was not considered
under regular order. Such an important issue deserves thoughtful
discussion and opportunities for amendments. I had hoped to offer an
amendment that would allow states to ``opt out'' of the expansion.
Since I was unable to discuss this amendment and other potential
changes to the bill with my colleagues in a committee markup, I remain
uncertain that this legislation is the best course of action.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1624, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________