[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2267-H2275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2017
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 209, I call
up the bill (H.R. 372) to restore the application of the Federal
antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect
competition and consumers, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, in lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-8 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 372
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 ``Competitive Health Insurance
Reform Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO THE
BUSINESS OF HEALTH INSURANCE.
(a) Amendment to Mccarran-Ferguson Act.--Section 3 of the
Act of March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the
McCarran-Ferguson Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c)(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify,
impair, or supersede the operation of any of the antitrust
laws with respect to the business of health insurance
(including the business of dental insurance and limited-scope
dental benefits).
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to making
a contract, or engaging in a combination or conspiracy--
``(A) to collect, compile, or disseminate historical loss
data;
``(B) to determine a loss development factor applicable to
historical loss data;
``(C) to perform actuarial services if such contract,
combination, or conspiracy does not involve a restraint of
trade; or
``(D) to develop or disseminate a standard insurance policy
form (including a standard addendum to an insurance policy
form and standard terminology in an insurance policy form) if
such contract, combination, or conspiracy is not to adhere to
such standard form or require adherence to such standard
form.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 12), except that such term includes section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent
that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition;
``(B) the term `business of health insurance (including the
business of dental insurance and limited-scope dental
benefits)' does not include--
``(i) the business of life insurance (including annuities);
or
``(ii) the business of property or casualty insurance,
including but not limited to--
``(I) any insurance or benefits defined as `excepted
benefits' under paragraph (1), subparagraph (B) or (C) of
paragraph (2), or paragraph (3) of section 9832(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9832(c)) whether
offered separately or in combination with insurance or
benefits described in paragraph (2)(A) of such section; and
``(II) any other line of insurance that is classified as
property or casualty insurance under State law;
``(C) the term `historical loss data' means information
respecting claims paid, or reserves held for claims reported,
by any person engaged in the business of insurance; and
``(D) the term `loss development factor' means an
adjustment to be made to reserves held for losses incurred
for claims reported by any person engaged in the business of
insurance, for the purpose of bringing such reserves to an
ultimate paid basis.''.
(b) Related Provision.--For purposes of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent
such section applies to unfair methods of competition,
section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act shall apply with
respect to the business of health insurance without regard to
whether such business is carried on for profit,
notwithstanding the definition of ``Corporation'' contained
in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
[[Page H2268]]
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 372.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill that will move us a
step closer towards restoring healthy competition in the health
insurance industry. Today, the health insurance industry is besieged by
dwindling competition and skyrocketing premiums. Insurance providers,
States, and the public have been dealing with the disastrous
repercussions of ObamaCare for the past 6 years and overregulation by
States for much longer.
Congress finally has the opportunity to pass legislation to reverse
the downward spiral of our health insurance industry. Any such
legislation must encourage a robust and competitive health insurance
market in which insurance providers actively compete for customers.
Healthy competition ensures premiums are accurately priced and that
customers are able to find a variety of policies to meet their specific
needs and demands.
H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017,
represents a step on that journey, repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act
as it applies to the business of health insurance. There is wide
support for this bill, and the Judiciary Committee has favorably
reported similar legislation in the past, including legislation that
was passed by the House, 406-19 during the 111th Congress.
The stated goal of the bill is to help restore competition in the
healthcare market. I support this goal and firmly believe this bill
must be coupled with larger changes to the existing Federal and State
healthcare regulatory schemes.
As Speaker Ryan has noted, States ``should be empowered to make the
right tradeoffs between consumer protections and individual choice, not
regulators in Washington.''
This bill does not impact the State's ability to regulate the
insurance market. Rather, this legislation levels the playing field for
all healthcare industry participants. While insurers have been exempt
from Federal antitrust laws for the past 70 years, healthcare providers
and other participants have not.
{time} 1445
This bill removes this exemption, ensuring that health insurers are
better able to compete to provide quality coverage, thereby benefiting
hospitals, doctors, and, most importantly, patients.
In addition, if separate legislation is passed to allow for the more
open sale of health insurance across State lines, the Competitive
Health Insurance Reform Act will allow uniform Federal antitrust laws
to be applied across the marketplace while allowing States to maintain
authority as the primary regulators of the health insurance market
outside of the antitrust sphere.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act was originally passed to leave the
regulation of the business of insurance with the States and to allow
insurers to engage in certain procompetitive collaborative activities.
This legislation limits significant uncertainty and unnecessary
litigation that would likely result from a broader McCarran-Ferguson
repeal, through the use of safe harbors for such historically
procompetitive collaborative activities, specifically the collection
and distribution of historical loss data, the determination of loss
development factors, the performance of actuarial services that do not
involve restraints of trade, and the use of common forms that are not
coercive.
Absent these safeguards, insurers will likely disengage from certain
proconsumer collaborative activities, eliminating or impeding smaller
insurers from competing and disincentivizing larger insurers from
exploring new products and markets. This will lead to further market
consolidation and fewer product choices, the impact of which will
eventually be borne by the consumer.
These narrow safe harbors create a presumption that certain
procompetitive activities can continue while maintaining regulation and
oversight to the extent any activity crosses over into a restraint of
trade. As a result, insurers can continue to engage in proconsumer
business practices and will be encouraged to provide a diverse range of
offerings at fair and reasonable prices.
I thank Mr. Gosar for introducing this legislation, and I urge all of
my colleagues to vote for the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of H.R. 372, the Competitive
Health Insurance Reform Act, but I do not endorse the majority's
exaggerated claims regarding the bill's impact on the affordability and
availability of health insurance.
H.R. 372 would partially repeal the limited Federal antitrust
exemption for the business of insurance established by the McCarran-
Ferguson Act in 1945. Specifically, the bill only permits Federal
antitrust enforcement with regard to the business of health insurance.
Now, House Democrats have long supported a full repeal of McCarran-
Ferguson's antitrust exemption for all insurers, not just for health
insurers. In 2010, under a Democratic House majority, we passed
legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson exemption for health
insurers by a vote of 406-19, even though House Republicans had not
previously supported moving any version of a McCarran-Ferguson repeal
bill.
But let me be clear. Enacting H.R. 372 would in no way be a
substitute for the many health insurance guarantees of the Affordable
Care Act. The two things are completely separate. To begin with,
enacting H.R. 372 would not significantly improve healthcare
affordability or coverage. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, H.R. 372's effect on health insurance premiums would probably
be quite small, and enacting the bill would have no significant net
effect on the premiums the private insurers would charge for health or
dental insurance. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The Consumers Union observes that the application of the antitrust
laws to some health insurance activity, by itself, is simply not enough
to create a vibrant insurance market because our long experience shows
you can't expect a healthcare system to run effectively on competition
alone. That is the Consumers Union.
Likewise, the majority's claim that enacting H.R. 372 would create
major new competition by allowing cross-State insurance sales is
unavailing. Current law, including the Affordable Care Act, already
allows States to agree with each other to allow cross-State insurance
sales.
Enabling Federal antitrust agencies to police certain forms of
anticompetitive conduct will not, in and of itself, incentivize health
insurers to offer products across State lines beyond the incentives
that already exist for offering such products. It just won't happen by
itself. Whatever the incentives for health insurers to offer such
products, they have little to do with Federal antitrust law or
enforcement.
Finally, enacting H.R. 372 would not ensure that the Affordable Care
Act's prohibitions against discrimination and limits on premium growth
would remain in place. H.R. 372 only applies to certain anticompetitive
conduct and does not preserve or enhance existing protections for
consumers of health insurance. For instance, it does not prohibit
discrimination by health insurers on the basis of preexisting
conditions, nor does it reduce premium growth or require health
insurers to be accountable for price increases.
Repeal of the antitrust exemption for health insurance is a
complement to and not a replacement for the Affordable Care Act's many
consumer protections. This is not an either-or situation. We need H.R.
372 and the Affordable Care Act to be in place to maximize benefits,
improve quality, and lower costs for consumers.
So while I support the bill with some reluctance, I take issue with
the majority's rhetoric. It is very important that we set the record
straight here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2269]]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is the chief sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary
Committee for their thorough work on this bill. I would also like to
express my appreciation to the broad group of stakeholders who have
helped to shape, improve, and support this commonsense and consumer-
centric legislation.
As Congress, once again, faces the preeminent task of repairing our
Nation's healthcare system, first and foremost, we must establish the
proper foundation for a competitive and consumer-driven health
insurance marketplace that empowers patients.
The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017 will restore the
application of Federal antitrust laws to health insurance and infuse
much-needed competition and transparency to the industry. Ending the
special-interest exemption is the essential first step to broader
healthcare reform. Popular cost-reducing reform priorities, such as
selling insurance across State lines and developing diverse, consumer-
driven plans, are predicated on the robust competitive markets this
bill will enable.
As a healthcare provider for more than 25 years, I understand
firsthand the importance of a competitive and dynamic health insurance
market. Patients, doctors, and hospitals alike benefit when health
insurers compete to provide a variety of quality coverage options.
It is apparent that after 70 years, McCarran-Ferguson, the broad-
stroked exemption created by Congress in the 1940s, was not wise. Over
decades, and expeditiously since the passage of ObamaCare in 2009, the
health insurance market has devolved into one of the least transparent
and most anticompetitive industries in the United States. These
antiquated exemptions are no longer necessary for health insurance.
There is no reason in law, policy, or logic for the industry to have
special exemptions that are different from all other businesses in the
United States.
The interpretation of antitrust law has narrowed dramatically over
the decades. Many of the practices which insurers say they need this
exemption to do, such as analyzing historical loss data, have proven to
be permissible by the Federal Trade Commission and the courts over the
decades since McCarran-Ferguson was passed.
This narrowing of scope has resulted in a law whose efficacy and
usefulness long since expired. Yet, the shell of this zombie law lurks
to scare off potential, legitimate legal challenges from States,
patients, and providers. These entities do not have the tools, money,
or manpower to challenge these monopolies in court or head-on in the
current market. Only the Federal Government, with its resources, can
enforce the laws which rebalance the playing field of interstate
commerce fairly.
I would like to stress the point that this legislation does not
affect any other type of insurance other than health insurance. The
language of the bill was carefully and deliberately drafted to exclude
other areas of insurance, such as life insurance, property and casualty
insurance, and excepted benefits like disability income insurance. In
short, the legislation before the House today does not repeal the
McCarran-Ferguson Act for life insurance, annuities, property and
casualty insurance, disability income insurance, and long-term care
insurance.
The broad stakeholders of healthcare professionals, insurance
providers, and consumer protection groups support this narrow and
important scope of the language. I am open to efforts to strengthen the
narrow and deliberate scope of this legislation going forward should
the need and opportunity arise.
Repeal of this specific section of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which
applies only to health insurance, has strong bipartisan support. As
labeled earlier, in the 111th Congress, it passed by a vote of 406-19
and passed the Republican-led House in the 112th Congress by a voice
vote. Similar legislation has been introduced by multiple Democratic
Members of the House, and the text of my bill has been included in the
Republican Study Committee's healthcare reform bill for the last four
Congresses in a row.
The passage of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act into law
is an important first step towards increasing competition in health
insurance markets and will assist with setting the foundation for real,
competitive, and patient-centered healthcare reform.
At the end of the day, you can tell a lot about a bill by who
supports it. H.R. 372 has the support of the healthcare professionals
that actually provide care to patients, including doctors, dentists,
surgeons, pharmacists, chiropractors, optometrists, and others. This
key law, by liberating, liberates the insurance industry and doctors
and empowers the patients. Doctors will see and insurance will see that
the patient is empowered for new opportunities. Things that we can't
even imagine today will exist through competition. It is the American
way.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the members of the committee
for their work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished
leader of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his extraordinary leadership on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of
2017, would partially repeal a longstanding antitrust exemption
established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act with respect to the business
of health and dental insurance.
To qualify for this limited antitrust exemption, an insurer must be
engaged in the business of insurance regulated by a State that is not
designed to boycott, coerce, or intimidate.
While these requirements somewhat constrain anticompetitive conduct,
it is clear that they do not preclude the most egregious antitrust
violations, such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation,
by health insurance providers.
{time} 1500
Health insurers should not be immune from antitrust scrutiny,
particularly when they collude to increase prices, reduce availability,
or otherwise engage in anticompetitive behavior.
That is why House Democrats passed a measure that is substantively
similar to H.R. 372, in 2010, by a vote of 406-19, and in 2009, as
well. In 1988, 1992, and 1994, Judiciary Democrats likewise favorably
reported legislation to completely repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
While H.R. 372 is only a partial repeal of this exemption, I
encourage my colleagues to support this measure. But let me be
perfectly clear about three things:
First, promoting competition in health insurance markets cannot occur
at the expense of the strong protections established by the Affordable
Care Act to make health markets more efficient and prohibiting
discriminatory insurance policies. These protections are ``textbook
measures that help promote competition in the insurance marketplace,''
as Professor Tim Greaney, a leading antitrust expert, testified in
2015.
Second, contrary to President Trump's suggestions on Twitter,
repealing McCarran-Ferguson's antitrust exemption for health insurance
will not remove State barriers or create new pathways for insurance
companies to compete and offer products across State lines.
This simplistic approach to healthcare policy overlooks the fact that
the Affordable Care Act already allows States to establish healthcare
choice compacts to provide for cross-State insurance sales, while five
States have already enacted out-of-State purchasing laws. But these
laws have done little to encourage cross-State insurance sales because
health insurers are simply not interested in selling these products
across State lines.
The barriers to entry into health insurance markets ``are not truly
regulatory, they are financial and they are network,'' as Professor
Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute has
observed.
Notwithstanding President Trump's exaggerated claims to the contrary,
it is also clear that enacting this legislation is not a precondition
for Congress
[[Page H2270]]
authorizing cross-State insurance sales.
My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee agree, noting in
their report on the bill that ``the general consensus, including among
witnesses at the most recent Judiciary hearing on the Competitive
Health Insurance Reform Act, is that if Congress decides to allow
insurers to sell across State lines, such action does not necessarily
require a repeal of McCarran-Ferguson.''
And third, there is no evidence that enacting this bill alone will
improve the affordability or availability of health insurance.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the effect of H.R. 372
on health insurance premiums ``would probably be quite small,'' and
enacting the bill will have ``no significant net effect on the premiums
that private insurers would charge for health or dental insurance.''
Additionally, because the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not apply to
mergers, H.R. 372 will not prevent further concentration in health
insurance markets.
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were serious about actually
enforcing the antitrust laws, they would fully fund the antitrust
agencies. But as we know from the Trump administration's budget
blueprint, Republicans plan to make deep cuts to the funding of
enforcement agencies like the Justice Department, likely to the
detriment of economic opportunity and fair competition.
In addition, President Trump has not even nominated heads to the
antitrust agencies. According to the Partnership for Public Service,
even though he has been in office for 60 days, President Trump has not
picked a nominee for 497 of the 553 positions requiring Senate
confirmation.
Worse still, President Trump is reportedly considering appointing a
former lobbyist for a health insurance giant to run the Justice
Department's antitrust division, which is tasked by Congress ``to
protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair
competition in the marketplace.''
Citing lobbying reports, the International Business Times notes that
this particular lobbyist participated in the ``antitrust issues
associated with Anthem's proposed acquisition of Cigna,'' and his firm
received $375,000 in lobbying fees.
Just last month, the Justice Department won an important lawsuit
initiated under the Obama administration to block this merger, which,
according to the Department of Justice, would have harmed consumers
through increased health insurance prices, while stifling the exact
innovation that is necessary to lower healthcare costs.
It is unsurprising that President Trump's corporate cabinet will
probably include yet another lobbyist that will pursue an extreme
agenda on behalf of special interests. But the significance of this
potential appointment cannot be overstated and absolutely will not
result in lower prices or more choices for the American people.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I support H.R. 372 as a complement to
the Affordable Care Act, I agree with the ranking member that this bill
is not a solution to improving the availability or affordability of
health insurance.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 18 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman very much
for his leadership. I acknowledge the chairman of the committee for
his, as well.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and although I will make
the points that I think are important, I wanted to take the time to
thank Mr. Conyers for the thoughtful legislation that he has introduced
over the years.
This leads me to call this the Conyers bill because of the important
contributions it makes to ensuring that our health care is competitive,
our health insurance is competitive, and his thoughtfulness in this
legislation. As it comes to the floor, I am reminded of Mr. Conyers'
influence on this legislation. It is an interesting time at which it
comes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the importance of H.R. 372, the
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, a proposal to remove
the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to
health insurance.
Overall, the proposed legislation, as well as previous attempts by
the Judiciary Committee to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust
exemption for health insurance, does not raise new or pressing issues.
Opponents of repeal assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike
the very tangible and real economic and competitive costs that will be
incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue.
As the Justice Department has explained, where there is effective
competition, coupled with transparency, in a consumer-friendly
regulatory framework, insurers will compete against each other by
offering plans with lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or
eliminating deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs,
managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits,
and making their provider networks more attractive to potential
members.
That sounds, of course, like the Affordable Care Act, which we will
celebrate tomorrow, for that was the day it was signed. That is what
health insurance should be for the American people.
This legislation is a very thoughtful legislative initiative, and I
am hoping that its coming to the floor is not like trying to put
lipstick on a pig. That, of course, is the latest configuration of the
meaningless TrumpCare, and which the amendment that will be coming
forward will, again, in essence, throw people off health insurance. It
will take away all that we are intending it to do, but this legislation
has reason.
Other current enforcement tools and regulatory policies already in
place address competition issues at the State and Federal level to
police health insurance competition. In this and numerous other ways,
effective regulation can promote improved healthcare delivery and
improved cost control by ensuring that all insurance companies are
required to follow certain basic consumer-friendly rules of the road.
Again, wouldn't it be great to have this very thoughtful legislation
with all of the points of the Affordable Care Act: it eliminates
preexisting conditions, has lowered premiums and continues to lower
premiums, and is lowering or eliminating deductibles. All of those were
thoughtful of Mr. Conyers, and they would have been the right
complement to the Affordable Care Act.
However, the additional risks of adding new regulatory uncertainty,
increasing boundary-testing litigation, and distracting policymakers
from more important ways to reduce healthcare costs and improve
healthcare competition suggest that further caution and delay on this
front is inadvisable, given present circumstances and conditions.
But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation
before us is a panacea that will lead to affordable, accessible, high-
quality health care for all Americans. If that worthy goal is the
objective sought, the best way to achieve it is to retain and
strengthen the Affordable Care Act and abandon the misguided effort of
House Republicans to repeal this landmark legislation and replace it
with the pay more for less act masquerading as a healthcare bill.
The Affordable Care Act works. I think we in the Judiciary Committee
know it full well. We held hearings and briefings; we heard from the
victims of those who did not have insurance, who had lost insurance,
did not have enough insurance, or the insurance would not cover them.
I am reminded of a very emotional story of an 8-year-old girl in the
office of an insurance company where her family was begging for
coverage because she had leukemia; obviously, a preexisting condition.
It is sad to say, but I understand that she lost her life.
The Affordable Care Act has significantly improved the availability,
affordability, and quality of health care
[[Page H2271]]
for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously
had no health insurance at all.
Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the
ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains
comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections,
not throwing off 24 million Americans who will have no insurance.
It is beyond dispute that the pay more for less plan proposed by
Republicans fails this test miserably. The Republican pay more for less
act is a massive tax cut for the rich, paid for on the backs of
America's most vulnerable: those who work and who happen to be of low
income. This Robin-Hood-in-reverse bill is unprecedented and
breathtaking in its audacity. No bill has ever tried to give so much to
the rich while taking so much from the poor.
One number comes to mind: $880 billion taken away from Medicaid
insurance covering nursing homes, patients, the blind, the disabled;
again, then giving a great plus and a great refund in tax credits to
the richest in America. They will be happy. It won't be health care.
They have got private health insurance. But it certainly will be a big
check that they get in the mail.
This pay more for less bill represents the largest transfer of wealth
from the bottom 99 percent to the top 1 percent in American history.
This Republic scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for
it by taking insurance away from 24 million.
In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big
tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade, without demanding
in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name
drugs. That is very important.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said
that never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.
The pay more for less plan destroys the Medicaid program. CBO
estimates 14 million will lose Medicaid. In 2026, 52 million Americans
will be uninsured.
We know that these combined policies will not help to cure some of
the thoughtful deliberations that went into the underlying bill. We
want more competition. We want the insurance products to be the kind of
products that we can be sure provide health care.
In short, the Republican pay more get less plan represents a clear
and present danger to the financial and health security of American
families and to the very stability of our Nation's healthcare system.
Mr. Speaker, the healthcare marketplace is complex in how it operates
and how it motivates providers, insurers, and consumers.
If I can quote the 45th President, he said: ``I didn't know how
difficult this would be.'' Well, we know how difficult it can be, and
was.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats held some 79-plus hearings. We had 181
witnesses-plus. We had hundreds of hours of hearings. We held
thousands, I might imagine, of townhall meetings. We didn't hold one
here and one there. I myself held 11 townhall meetings.
We continue to hear from not only the consumers, but the rural
hospitals, the major hospitals, the senior citizens, and particularly
those senior citizens on dealing with the cost of prescription drugs.
I am proud to say that we saved the dastardly Medicare part D by
closing the doughnut hole, which is closed today, so that seniors under
the Affordable Care Act do not fall into an abyss, a deep ocean, and
have to, in essence, not take their drugs because they don't have
enough money.
An effective regulatory framework is needed to shape this complex
environment--and this is a word to the administration--to help
safeguard consumers, help keep costs under control, and help make a
full range of healthcare services. But our country's long experience
shows that we cannot expect a healthcare system to run effectively on
market competition alone. Markets can and do fail when proper
regulation is lacking.
{time} 1515
So the goodness of this bill has to go along with--a good example is
recognizing what happens in the ACA's provision, banning insurance
companies from denying coverage of preexisting disease--we had to help
them along--preexisting conditions. We had to help them along. You have
to help them along to be a good steward of the insurance that the
American people need.
This is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrates
time and time again that it could produce and needed to do. That is
where regulation and the antitrust laws come in to protect consumer
choice. Let me go back and say that it could not produce on its own. It
is a per se violation of antitrust laws for competing companies to
agree to divide markets or to fix prices. The other sectors in the
healthcare supply chain are already subject to antitrust laws, and it
will be beneficial to the healthcare marketplace and to consumers if
the healthcare industry joins them. That is why I said this bill is a
thoughtful, important bill to dealing with the complex issues of
insurance and health care.
I am sad to say that tomorrow, as we celebrate the Affordable Care
Act, we will be looking toward Thursday, where we will be, in essence,
debating a bill that takes 24 million people off of health insurance,
period. 24 million will lose their coverage. Tax giveaways will
continue again to the top 1 percent. That will be $600 billion in tax
breaks to the rich and big corporations. In fact, the Republican bill
gives $2.8 billion to 400 of the richest families in America.
Then to add to the downside, the Affordable Care Act was known to
create more jobs. Unfortunately, this will see 2 million jobs destroyed
and lost. Families will be paying more for less. Young people will be
hit with a millennial penalty. And we don't know if this formula that
they have still stops the 50- to 64-year-olds from paying higher
premiums. Women lose comprehensive care, middle-aged Americans pay the
age tax, seniors see Medicaid and Medicare weakened, preexisting
conditions and disabilities may suffer, and it does not reduce the
deficit as the ACA does.
My final point, if I can, we are glad to come to the floor and honor
Mr. Conyers for this important bill and support H.R. 372. I believe
this legislation before us does a lot more good than it does harm, but
I hope that we can, in a bipartisan manner--maybe even in a nonpartisan
manner--reflect on what is needed to really insure the American people
and we can work with the Affordable Care Act, which has all of these
positive elements, and move this country forward through competition
and health care that saves lives.
Mr. Speaker, overall, the proposed legislation, as well as previous
attempts by the Judiciary Committee to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson
Act's antitrust exemption for health insurance, does not raise new or
pressing issues.
Opponents of repeal assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike
the very tangible and real economic and competitive costs that will be
incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue.
As the Justice Department has explained, where there is effective
competition, coupled with transparency, in a consumer-friendly
regulatory framework, insurers will compete against each other by
offering plans with lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or
eliminating deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs,
managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits,
and making their provider networks more attractive to potential
members.
Other current enforcement tools and regulatory policies already in
place address competition issues at the state and federal level to
police health insurance competition.
In this and numerous other ways, effective regulation can promote
improved health care delivery and improved cost control, by ensuring
that all insurance companies are required to follow certain basic
consumer-friendly ``rules of the road.''
It might be argued that increasing the federal government's role in
regulating health insurance, through expanded antitrust enforcement,
would appear to conflict with proposed reforms to delegate more
responsibility to state governments.
However, the additional risks of adding new regulatory uncertainty,
increasing boundary-testing litigation, and distracting policymakers
from more important ways to reduce health care costs and improve health
care competition suggest that further caution and delay on this front
is inadvisable given present circumstances and conditions.
But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation
before us is a panacea that will lead to affordable, accessible, high
quality health care for all Americans.
If that worthy goal is the objective sought, then the best way to
achieve it is to retain and
[[Page H2272]]
strengthen the Affordable Care Act and abandon the misguided effort of
House Republicans to repeal this landmark legislation and replace it
with their Pay More For Less Act, masquerading as the American Health
Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act has significantly improved the availability,
affordability, and quality of health care for tens of millions of
Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at
all.
Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the
ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains
comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections.
It is beyond dispute that the ``Pay More For Less'' plan proposed by
House Republicans fails this test miserably.
The Republican ``Pay More For Less Act'' is a massive tax cut for the
wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable, the poor
and working class households.
This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking
in its audacity--no bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich
while taking so much from the poor and working class.
This ``Pay More Get Less'' bill represents the largest transfer of
wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% in American history.
This Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays
for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people and raising
costs for the poor and middle class.
In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big
tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in
return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said
that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.''
The ``Pay More Get Less'' plan destroys the Medicaid program under
the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.
CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by
2026 under the Republican plan.
In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ``Pay More
Get Less'' plan converts Medicaid to a per capita cap that is not
guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020.
The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in
federal Medicaid funding over the next decade.
The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25% of Medicaid
spending in 2026.
In short, the Republican ``Pay More Get Less Act'' represents a clear
and present danger to the financial and health security of American
families, and to the very stability of our nation's health care system
overall.
Mr. Speaker, the health care marketplace is complex in how it
operates and how it motivates providers, insurers, and consumers.
An effective regulatory framework is needed to shape that complex
environment, to help safeguard consumers, help keep costs under
control, and help make a full range of health care services available.
But our country's long experience shows that we cannot expect a
health care system to run effectively on market competition alone;
markets can and do fail when proper regulation is lacking.
A good example is the ACA's provision banning insurance companies
from denying coverage of preexisting conditions.
This is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrated
time and again that it would not produce on its own.
And that is where regulation and the antitrust laws come in to
protect consumer choice.
It is a per se violation of antitrust law for competing companies to
agree to divide markets or to fix prices.
The other sectors in the health care supply chain are already subject
to the antitrust laws, and it will be beneficial to the health care
marketplace, and to consumers, if the health insurance industry joins
them.
For these reasons, I believe the legislation before us does more good
than harm and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 372.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the
balance of my time until the other side closes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I want to reiterate my support for this measure, H.R.
372. Now, I don't know what is happening on the other side, but many of
its leaders voted against a substantively identical version of this
bill in 2010, and that was including Speaker Ryan, Health and Human
Services Secretary Tom Price, Committee on Ways and Means chairman
Kevin Brady. They voted against a substantively identical version of
this bill. I don't want to impugn motives that I don't know about, but
maybe if you support H.R. 372, you are going to be making the
Affordable Care Act, ACA, better. So I want to thank my friends on the
other side for helping us out. This is great. We passed something like
this a few years ago, and we were very proud that it was an
overwhelming vote.
This is a very important step forward. The Affordable Care Act is not
going to be affected in any kind of negative way, and that is why I am
eager to join with those who are going to be voting for H.R. 372. I
thank my friends on the other side for supporting H.R. 372 as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Our health insurance industry is in a dire situation. Premiums and
deductibles are skyrocketing, hundreds of percent in some cases. In the
State of the gentleman who is the chief sponsor of this bill, the State
of Arizona, there has been a more than 100 percent increase in just the
last year.
In 2017, the national State average of insurers participating in
Federal exchanges dropped to four, down from six the previous year.
Five States will only have one insurer providing plans on their Federal
exchanges this year. It is time to reverse this trend. The Competitive
Health Insurance Reform Act is an important step in restoring
competition to the health insurance industry and will help to set the
foundation for additional essential reforms that must follow.
I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking
member of the committee and my friend, I appreciate very much working
with him on this legislation, but I would also say to him that this
legislation, as bipartisan as it is, cannot save the Affordable Care
Act. It is drowning. It is denying people coverage. Its costs are going
up so much that somebody who likes it this year will not be able to
afford it next year.
The promise that if you like your health insurance you will be able
to keep it was never true, and it is still not true with ObamaCare. The
promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor was never
true. The promise that health insurance premiums would go down under
ObamaCare has been proven to be totally false. Instead, what we have
done is we have denied the American people the right to choose for
themselves what access to health care that they need and can afford.
We have denied the American people the freedom to decide whether or
not they want to purchase a product that is mandated upon them by the
Federal Government. That is wrong. It has got to change. That is why we
are taking action this week--including the Competitive Health Insurance
Reform Act, but certainly not only the Competitive Health Insurance
Reform Act--to return a patient-centered healthcare system to the
American people, one that reconnects them with their healthcare
providers, one that will make sure that they have the maximum amount of
choice and the maximum amount of access to real, affordable health
insurance and quality health care in America. I support this bipartisan
legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters in support of H.R.
372.
Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council,
Vienna, VA, February 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul A. Gosar,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gosar: The Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council (SHE Council) and our nationwide
membership of small business owners and entrepreneurs support
the ``Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017'' (H.R.
372). Perhaps more than any other group, small business
owners understand the need for increased competition in the
health insurance marketplace. Indeed, it is the actions of
entrepreneurs that bring down costs, enhance innovation, and
boost quality in a competitive marketplace. H.R. 372 is a
common sense and long-overdue step to repeal special-interest
exemptions to federal antitrust laws for health insurance
companies.
These exemptions have existed for more than 70 years, and
were initially instituted to help newly formed insurance
companies deal with data sharing. Given the dramatic changes
in the industry over these past many decades, such special-
interest treatment is no longer warranted.
[[Page H2273]]
Considering the government-imposed distortions within the
health care industry as a result of the Affordable Care Act
and other regulatory restrictions, full-blown review and
reform of health care policies focused on expanding
competition, and consumer choice are needed. That includes
foundational changes, such as, in the case of H.R. 372,
removing special-interest treatment that could reduce or
retrain competition.
In order to bring down health insurance costs and utilize
the models and technologies of our modern economy to drive
value and innovation within this sector, entrepreneurs need a
system that allows for such freedom and creativity. Your bill
is an important step in bringing down artificial barriers
that are preventing much needed innovation and competition.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Please
let SBE Council know how we can help you advance H.R. 372
into law.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President & CEO.
____
American Dental Association,
Washington, DC, February 24, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: The
dental professional organizations listed below, as members of
the Organized Dentistry Coalition, are writing to express our
strong support of H.R. 372, The Competitive Health Insurance
Reform Act.
H.R. 372 would authorize the Federal Trade Commission and
the Justice Department to enforce the federal antitrust laws
against health insurance companies engaged in anticompetitive
conduct. It would not interfere with the states' ability to
maintain and enforce their own insurance regulations,
antitrust statues, and consumer protection laws. Because
states vary in their enforcement efforts, the impact of
repeal on health insurance companies would differ from state
to state. This is no different from the situation faced by
other businesses.
The bill is narrowly drawn to apply only to the business of
health insurance, including dental insurance, and would not
affect the business of life insurance, property or casualty
insurance, and many similar insurance areas.
Passage of H.R. 372 would help interject more competition
into the insurance marketplace by authorizing greater federal
antitrust enforcement in instances where state regulators
fail to act. When competition is not robust, consumers are
more likely to face higher prices and less likely to and less
likely to benefit from innovation and variety in the
marketplace.
On behalf of our member dentists and their patients, we
urge you to cosponsor H.R. 372, The Competitive Health
Insurance Reform Act.
Please contact Ms. Midi Walker with any questions.
Sincerely,
American Dental Association; Academy of General
Dentistry; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial
Pathology; American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry;
American Association of Endodontists; American
Association of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons; American
Association of Women Dentists; American Society of
Dentist Anesthesiologists.
____
March 21, 2017.
Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations urge
your support for H.R. 372, the ``Competitive Health Insurance
Reform Act of 2017.'' This bill takes an important step in
bringing consumers the benefits of competition under the
antitrust laws, in the way health insurance is offered,
marketed, and sold.
The rules of competition apply to every other part of the
health care system, health insurance is an aberration. The
antitrust laws are a key to making sure that the free market
works for consumers, and the insurance industry should not be
left out.
Congress created this antitrust exemption almost by
accident, in the midst of the Second World War--when
attentions were rightly directed elsewhere--in the wake of a
Supreme Court decision clarifying that the antitrust laws did
apply to insurance. It started out to be a temporary three-
year breathing spell, to allow insurers to familiarize
themselves with the antitrust laws and adjust their practices
to the accepted rules of competition. Instead, a few poorly-
understood words added in conference committee turned the
temporary delay into an unintended exemption from those
rules.
It is long since time to correct that error. Among other
experts who have called for doing so, the Antitrust
Modernization Commission, established in 2002 by legislation
authored in this Committee, singled out this exemption for
particular skepticism as to any justification for it. While
we would ultimately like to see this antitrust exemption
removed for all insurance, focusing on the health insurance
industry now is a logical and important positive step to take
at this time.
We note that the proposed manager's amendment would
preserve the antitrust exemption in ``safe harbors'' for four
described activities--(1) compilation of historical loss
data, (2) development of what is known as a ``loss
development factor'' to fill holes in the historical data,
(3) some actuarial services, and (4) some standardization of
policy forms. In our view, the most effective way to remove
this exemption is to do so cleanly, without new safe harbors.
Further, the kinds of insurance industry activities commonly
described as the justification for these particular safe
harbors do not raise antitrust issues, as they are described.
Nonetheless, we believe these safe harbors, as written, do
not significantly risk inadvertently immunizing
anticompetitive conduct that would violate the antitrust
laws, and therefore that they do not diminish the beneficial
purpose and effect of the bill.
There is also another set of ``safe harbor'' antitrust
exemptions imbedded in the definition of ``business of health
insurance (including the business of dental insurance)'' in
the new subsection 2(c)(3)(B)(ii)(I) as added by the bill.
They include a number of types of benefits referenced in the
Internal Revenue Code as ``excepted benefits.'' While the
lead-in to (3)(B)(ii) characterizes these as types of
property-casualty insurance, there are three that by their
terms in the Internal Revenue Code do not fit within what is
considered property-casualty insurance, and that consumers
would consider to be types of health insurance.
Among these are hospital indemnity insurance, 26 U.S.C.
9832(c)(3)(B); coverage for a specified disease or illness,
26 U.S.C. 9832(c)(3)(A); and an open-ended ``such other
similar, limited benefits as are specified in regulations,''
26 U.S.C. 9832(c)(2(C). This last one is found in the same
Internal Revenue Code provision that lists dental coverage as
an excepted benefit, meaning that the ``similar'' benefits
that could be potentially excluded by regulation--and thereby
get an automatic antitrust exemption--could be anything
similar to a category such as dental coverage--which might be
any kind of specified benefit.
While there may have been justification for excepting these
categories of benefits from federal regulatory requirements
such as portability under the Affordable Care Act--which is
what 26 U.S.C. 9832(c) is in reference to--that does not mean
it makes sense to exempt them from the antitrust laws. The
bill recognizes this for dental coverage, and explicitly
takes the cross-reference to it out of the safe harbor, to
ensure that it is covered by the bill. We hope that, as the
bill moves forward, the three new antitrust exemptions in the
cross references described above will also be removed, so
that these types of health-related insurance coverage will
likewise be subject to the antitrust laws.
We remain strong supporters of the Affordable Care Act,
which has significantly improved the availability and
affordability of health care for many millions of Americans,
including millions who previously had no health insurance. We
would be very concerned by any move to repeal the Affordable
care Act without having an effective new plan already figured
out and in place that maintains comparable coverages and
comparable consumer choices and protections. Such a move
would be a grave threat to the financial and health security
of American families, and to the very stability of our
nation's health care system overall.
At the same time, we also strongly support bringing the
antitrust laws into play in this important sector of the
health care marketplace. That marketplace is complex in how
it operates and how it motivates providers, insurers, and
consumers. An effective regulatory framework is needed to
shape that complex environment, to help safeguard consumers,
help keep costs under control, and help make a full range of
health care services available. Our country's long experience
shows you can't expect a health care system to run
effectively on competition alone.
But consumers will benefit from also having effective
competition, at all levels in the supply chain. Even the best
regulatory framework works better where competition, within
the bounds of that framework, gives businesses a market-
driven incentive to want to improve service while holding
down prices and providing better value. Regulation and
competition both work best when they can work hand in hand.
As the health care marketplace evolves, having the
antitrust laws apply will give health insurers competition-
based incentives to improve the way they provide coverage to
consumers, with higher quality, better choice, and more
affordability. Better competition will help bring insurer
incentives better in line with benefiting consumers.
As the Justice Department has explained, where there is
effective competition, coupled with transparency, in a
consumer-friendly regulatory framework, insurers will be
spurred to compete against each other by offering plans with
lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or eliminating
deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs,
managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable
benefits, and making their provider networks more attractive
to potential members.
Competition will be beneficial to consumers in the health
insurance marketplace just as it is everywhere else in our
economy.
We urge your support for H.R. 372.
Respectfully,
George P. Slover,
Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
J. Robert Hunter,
[[Page H2274]]
Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America.
Linda Sherry,
Director of National Priorities, Consumer Action.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. ROSEN. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Rosen moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 372) to the
Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
(c) Protecting Affordable Health Care for Older
Americans.--Section 3 of the Act of March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C.
1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, is
further amended by adding at the end of subsection (c), as
added by subsection (a), the following:
``(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an issuer in the
business of health insurance (including the business of
dental insurance and limited-scope dental benefits) if the
issuer varies the premium for any health insurance by age in
a manner so that the premium for an individual who is 55
years of age or older is more than 3 times the premium for an
individual who is 21 years of age or younger.''.
Ms. ROSEN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Nevada is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, last night, in an effort to secure more votes to pass
the so-called American Health Care Act, the GOP made another last-
minute attempt to modify its replacement plan for the Affordable Care
Act--a replacement that I can only describe as a disastrous piece of
legislation--by offering a short-term fix to try and regulate the
massive rise in premiums that Americans over the age of 50 are expected
to incur under their current plan.
H.R. 372 is a measure that simply ends health insurance antitrust
exemption. What is ironic is that the proposed legislation is being
messaged by the GOP as a bipartisan bill, a no-brainer. But Republicans
have never lifted a finger to end the antitrust exemption. For years,
Congressman John Conyers and the Democrats have advocated ending health
insurers' special treatment.
The reality is, while this is an unobjectionable bill on its own,
H.R. 372 has nothing to do with reversing the extraordinary damage that
the GOP plan will unleash on this country. The fact is this will not
help us solve the fundamental issues underlying the GOP's repeal-and-
replace bill. Yet, instead of fixing what we know is not working under
the current law, the GOP has offered this Band-Aid to help mend a bill
that needs major surgery. H.R. 372 is simply a complement to help fix
our healthcare system, not an alternative.
One of the worst aspects of the GOP's repeal is the fact that it
implements an age tax. Americans over the age of 50 will be forced to
pay up to five times more than what young Americans would pay for
coverage. In my district alone, we have roughly 89,000 people between
the ages of 50 and 64 who would see their premiums and the cost of
their insurance rise significantly.
I recently heard from one of my constituents within that age bracket.
He is a retired firefighter who served our country for 29 years and is
now disabled. So after many years of service, Ted is worried that if
the GOP plan becomes the new law, he and his wife would be kicked off
their insurance plans simply because their insurance would become
unaffordable.
If this is what the GOP has offered to fix their disastrous repeal,
then I am sad to say, my friends, you have missed the mark once again.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the GOP repeal is
enacted, 14 million Americans nationwide will be kicked off their
insurance coverage by the end of this year alone.
So let me be clear. The problem with the GOP repeal is that as
Americans age, they get less and less coverage. We need to protect
those Americans who are fast approaching their Medicare-eligible years
but who, for now, are still bearing the heaviest cost of private
insurance.
My motion to recommit makes this possible by turning this Band-Aid of
a bill into something that actually helps drive down costs for older
Americans. It does this by allowing insurance companies to take part in
the bill's safe harbor protections only if they charge individuals over
55 less than three times as much as younger Americans. Since insurance
companies consider these safe harbors critical for their survival, this
will reverse one of the worst parts of the Republican health plan,
allowing insurance companies to charge older Americans five times or
even more for health insurance.
I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to show that
they aren't tone deaf and that they haven't lost touch with the needs
and wants of their constituents, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of the motion to recommit so that we can protect our seniors and
the most vulnerable of Americans among us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was originally
passed to leave the regulation of the business of insurance with the
States and to allow insurers to engage in certain procompetitive
collaborative activities.
This legislation limits significant uncertainty and unnecessary
litigation that would likely result from a broader McCarran-Ferguson
repeal through the use of safe harbors for such historically
procompetitive collaborative activities, specifically the collection
and distribution of historical loss data, the determination of loss
development factors, the performance of actuarial services that do not
involve restraints of trade, and the use of common forms that are not
coercive.
Absent these safeguards, insurers will likely disengage from certain
proconsumer collaborative activities, eliminating or impeding smaller
insurers from competing and disincentivizing larger insurers from
exploring new products and markets. This will lead to further market
consolidation and fewer product choices, the impact of which will
eventually be borne by the consumer.
These narrow safe harbors create a presumption that certain
procompetitive activities can continue while maintaining regulation and
oversight to the extent any activity crosses over into a restraint of
trade. As a result, insurers can continue to engage in proconsumer
business practices, and will be encouraged to provide a diverse range
of offerings at fair and reasonable prices.
There is no reason to make an exception to these safe harbors.
Therefore, I oppose the motion. I urge my colleagues to reject this
motion to recommit and to support the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
[[Page H2275]]
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________