[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5242-H5249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPROVING ACCESS TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION FOR INJURED FEDERAL WORKERS
ACT OF 2022
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6087) to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
cover, for purposes of workers' compensation under such chapter,
services by physician assistants and nurse practitioners provided to
injured Federal workers, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6087
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 ``Improving Access to Workers'
Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND NURSE
PRACTITIONERS IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT.
(a) Inclusion.--Section 8101 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, other eligible
providers,'' after ``osteopathic practitioners'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (18) and
(19);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (20) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(21) `other eligible provider' means a nurse practitioner
or physician assistant within the scope of their practice as
defined by State law.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 81 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 8103(a)--
(A) by inserting ``or other eligible provider'' after
``physician'' in each instance; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or other eligible
providers'' after ``physicians'';
(2) in section 8121(6), by inserting ``or other eligible
provider'' after ``physician''; and
(3) in section 8123(a)--
(A) by inserting ``or other eligible provider'' after ``The
employee may have a physician''; and
(B) by inserting ``or other eligible provider'' after
``United States and the physician''.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall finalize rules to
carry out the amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
General Leave
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to
Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a straightforward bipartisan
bill that will alleviate some of the barriers Federal workers face
seeking treatment and care after they have been injured on the job.
Right now, whether we represent urban districts or rural districts,
we are all hearing about the very real shortage of physicians, whether
it is in general practice or specialty practices. That is why it is
important for Congress to surgically and intelligently reform outdated,
antiquated policies in place that prevent qualified providers from
treating patients who need their care.
This bill achieves that goal for Federal employees who need treatment
for workplace injuries or illness and will allow qualified, licensed
nurse practitioners and physician assistants to treat these patients
safely and competently and be reimbursed under the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act.
The bill explicitly states, in section 2, that such treatment must
adhere to the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and physician
assistants, as defined by State law. I repeat: The bill was carefully
crafted so that it does not encroach on the authority of State health
licensing boards to determine the scope of practice. That is one of the
reasons why the Committee on Education and Labor came together on a
bipartisan basis to unanimously endorse passage of this bill.
Right now, injured Federal workers who serve our Nation at agencies
such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Postal Service, and
our National Parks, to name a few, can only receive the care they are
entitled to under the Federal workers' compensation law if it is
provided by a physician, and only a physician can certify a claim
regardless of whether the State the worker resides in allows nurse
practitioners and PAs to practice independently.
As any healthcare patient in America knows, nurse practitioners and
physician assistants are a growing portion of primary care and
healthcare workforce nationwide, especially in rural areas. Patients
are ably and safely treated by NPs and PAs in these settings every day
and having the capability to be treated by a nurse practitioner or a
physician assistant increases access to more timely treatment,
particularly in parts of the country experiencing physician shortages.
The benefit of increased access was confirmed by the Congressional
Budget Office in their analysis of this bill, which found that it would
have no impact on direct spending by the government.
Given the challenges some Federal workers have in accessing their
Federal workers' comp benefits, allowing these providers to be
reimbursed for the care they provide within the scope of their practice
is an extremely commonsense improvement. CBO has even stated that this
legislation would help injured Federal workers return to the job
faster. In this labor market, anything we can do to improve workers'
healthy recovery and job retention is worthwhile.
This bill has been endorsed by the National Rural Health Association,
the American Nursing Association, the American Association of Nurse
Practitioners, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, as well as
a diverse coalition of unions representing Federal employees, such as
the National Treasury Employees Union and the National Postal Mail
Handlers Union.
Further, the Department of Labor's Office of the Workers'
Compensation Programs which administers the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act for Federal workers in agencies as diverse as the
Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, Interior, and Veterans
Affairs, has confirmed this legislation will help alleviate barriers
that create delays for FECA claimants and would expand injured workers
access to medical treatment.
Madam Speaker, I have the honor to represent the largest military
installation in New England, Naval Submarine Base New London, which
employs over 1,000 civilian Federal workers who perform outstanding
work to support 16 attack submarines that deploy from that base.
Some of that work is physically demanding, such as firefighters,
police, and crane operators, and injuries do happen. This bill will
create healthcare parity for those patriots by ensuring that they will
have their claims handled and treated the same as any other workers who
reside in Connecticut and Rhode Island. This is an overdue and
important, but commonsense, way to bring this program in line with the
reality of 21st century healthcare delivery.
Madam Speaker, I thank my Republican counterpart, Mr. Walberg, for
his great support and work to bring this issue forward. I also thank
Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx for their bipartisan work
supporting this bill and getting it through committee.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan and
commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to Workers'
Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act,
[[Page H5243]]
is a commonsense bill to improve access to care for workers under the
Federal Employees' Compensation, or FECA, program.
I rise in support of this bill that I have co-led with my friend and
colleague, Representative Courtney, and thank him, his staff, my staff,
the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor for their diligent
work on this legislation.
The bill simply allows nurse practitioners or physician assistants to
care for Federal employees under the Federal workers' compensation
program so long--and I make this clear--so long as that care is within
their scope of practice under State law.
Under current Federal law, only a physician can diagnose, certify,
and oversee the treatment of an injured Federal worker receiving
compensation benefits. This requirement places an additional burden on
Federal employees who may have to drive great distances to receive care
from an approved provider.
Additionally, it limits the injured individual's choice, depriving
them from receiving healthcare from the provider with whom they are
most comfortable. A majority of States already allow NPs and PAs to
diagnose, certify an injury, and oversee the patient's treatment and
care for their State workers' compensation programs. So it is time that
the Federal Government do the same under the Federal disability
program. Furthermore, our bill will align the FECA program with other
Federal programs.
Currently, the Federal Government allows care provided or overseen by
PAs and NPs in Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits
Program, and TRICARE. Additionally, since 2017, the Social Security
Administration has considered PAs and NPs, along with physicians, as
acceptable sources of information for documenting the existence of an
impairment for purposes of determining a disability.
Madam Speaker, across the country, nurse practitioners and physician
assistants provide critical care, especially in rural communities where
there may not be a physician within a reasonable distance. In Michigan,
there are 5,300 practicing physician assistants and nearly 9,000 nurse
practitioners. They are an important part of our primary care workforce
in our State.
Our bill updates Federal law to grant Federal employees more choice
in selecting their healthcare provider, improve access to care, and
enable better continuity of care. Again, I sincerely thank my
colleague, Representative Courtney, and his staff for their great work
on this bipartisan, commonsense bill.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I again applaud Mr. Walberg for his
leadership on this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great
Commonwealth of Virginia (Mr. Scott), chairman of the Committee on
Education and Labor.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut for yielding.
Madam Speaker, more than 2 million Federal employees provide key
services to the public. In fact, during the height of the pandemic,
Federal workers were critical in delivering vaccines, personal
protective equipment, and other COVID relief to the American people. So
it stands to reason that when a Federal worker gets sick or injured on
the job, we are obligated to provide them and their families with the
resources and medical care that they need.
Today, we can improve that effort by providing expanded healthcare
access for injured Federal workers who are seeking healthcare covered
by Federal workers' compensation. We live in a country where people are
increasingly turning to nurse practitioners and physician assistants as
their primary healthcare provider. This is particularly true in rural
America where they are disproportionately impacted by physician
shortages.
Unfortunately, Federal law now limits what can be reimbursed under
Federal workers' compensation, forcing injured workers to see only a
physician to certify the injury and disability as work-related and to
deliver services. It is time to correct this lag in access to
healthcare. After all, core Federal healthcare programs, including
Medicare and the Veterans Affairs' system, already recognize services
delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants if provided
within the scope of practice allowed by State law.
This bill would allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to
receive reimbursement for healthcare services they are providing to
injured Federal workers if, and only if, those services are already
permissible under their State laws.
Madam Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on this bill is a step to expand the
group of available healthcare providers consistent with existing State
law so that we can ensure injured Federal workers and their families
get the support and care they deserve.
I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) for his
leadership on the bill, along with the distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and Labor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg), and the committee's ranking member, Dr. Foxx, for their
support of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Improving Access
to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Harris), my friend, the MD.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise with concern about H.R. 6087, Improving Access
to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act. It was
mentioned that it is fine if healthcare practitioners are qualified to
deliver workmen's comp. Certainly, in some States, nurse practitioners
and physician assistants--nurse practitioners, specifically, can
practice without a physician oversight, but the question is whether
that is appropriate for workmen's compensation.
Remember, workmen's compensation includes people who have been
injured or claimed to have been injured on the job. These employees
deserve the highest level of care, the highest level of evaluation, of
diagnosis, certification, and treatment. And what this bill does is
turns over the qualifications for who is going to treat those injured
Federal workers to the State to make the decision. Because it says,
Well, if in a State they decide that a physician assistant practicing
independently is just fine, well, that Federal worker is not going to
have the benefit of having a physician involved in that care.
{time} 1515
Madam Speaker, this is a serious policy debate. This debate should be
taking place, I believe, not on a suspension calendar but actually come
under a regular rule and be debated for whether or not this is the way
we want to treat Federal employees, that we want to subject them to a
State level of care as opposed to a level of care that we think is
appropriate, again, for an injured Federal worker.
So, Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American
Medical Association strongly opposing H.R. 6087.
American Medical Association,
June 5, 2022.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf
of the physician and medical student members of the American
Medical Association (AMA), I am writing in strong opposition
to H.R. 6087, the ``Improving Access to Workers' Compensation
for Injured Federal Workers Act.'' This legislation would
allow nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants
(PAs) to diagnose, prescribe, treat, and certify an injury
and extent of disability for purposes of compensating federal
workers under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).
Current law prohibits non-physician health professionals
from making these determinations and reserves this function
to physicians who have the education, training, and expertise
to make these evaluations. The AMA remains steadfast in its
commitment to patients who have said repeatedly that they
want and expect physicians leading their health care team. In
a recent survey of U.S. voters, 68 percent say it is very
important for a physician to be involved in their
[[Page H5244]]
diagnosis and treatment decisions. However, H.R. 6087
effectively removes physicians from the care team and sets up
our federal workers for suboptimal health outcomes and
increased costs, without improving access to care. At a time
when inflation is at an all-time high and our economy is
still struggling to recover from the costs associated with
the COVID-19 pandemic, now is especially not the time for
Congress to enact this type of policy change.
EDUCATION MATTERS: PATIENTS WANT PHYSICIANS INVOLVED IN THEIR DIAGNOSIS
AND TREATMENT DECISIONS
The AMA is concerned that H.R. 6087, while perhaps well-
intentioned for speedier workers' compensation
determinations, will actually jeopardize patient care. While
the bill purports to allow NPs and PAs to diagnose,
prescribe, treat, and certify an injury and extent of
disability within their state scope of practice laws, the
federal government dictating this scope expansion will have
the effect of setting the benchmark for the states. We have
seen this repeatedly with Medicare coverage determinations,
for example, setting the benchmark for private plan coverage
determinations. Moreover, while all health care professionals
play a critical role in providing care to patients, and NPs
and PAs are important members of the care team, their
skillsets are not interchangeable with that of fully educated
and trained physicians. This is fundamentally evident based
on the difference in education and training between the
distinct professions. Physicians complete four years of
medical school plus a three-to-seven-year residency program,
including 10,000-16,000 hours of clinical training. By
contrast, NPs, complete only two to three years of education,
have no residency requirement, and only 500-720 hours of
clinical training. The current PA education model is two
years in length with only 2,000 hours of clinical care and no
residency requirement. Patients expect the most qualified
person--physician experts with unmatched training, education,
and experience--to be diagnosing and treating injured federal
workers and making often complex clinical determinations on
the nature of an injury and extent of disability. NPs and PAs
do not have the education and training to make these
determinations and we should not be offering a lower standard
of care to our federal workers who are injured.
But it is more than just the vast difference in hours of
education and training; it is also the difference in rigor
and standardization between medical school/residency and NP
and PA programs that matter and must be assessed. During
medical school, students receive a comprehensive education in
the classroom and in laboratories, where they study the
biological, chemical, pharmacological, and behavioral aspects
of the human condition. This period of intense study is
supplemented by two years of patient care rotations through
different specialties, during which medical students assist
licensed physicians in the care of patients. During clinical
rotations, medical students continue to develop their
clinical judgment and medical decision-making skills through
direct experience managing patients in all aspects of
medicine. Following graduation, students must then pass a
series of examinations to assess a physician's readiness for
licensure. At this point, medical students ``match'' into a
three-to-seven-year residency program during which they
provide care in a select surgical or medical specialty under
the supervision of experienced physician faculty. As resident
physicians gain experience and demonstrate growth in their
ability to care for patients, they are given greater
responsibility and independence. NP programs do not have
similar time-tested standardizations. For example, between
2010-2017, the number of NP programs grew by more than 30
percent with well over half of these programs offered mostly
or completely online, meaning less in-person instruction and
hands-on clinical experience. In addition, many programs
require students to find their own preceptor to meet their
practice hours requirement, resulting in much variation among
students' clinical experiences. Our injured federal workers
deserve better--they deserve and have a right to have
physicians leading their health care team.
INCREASING SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF NPS AND PAs CAN LEAD TO INCREASED
HEALTH CARE COSTS
There is strong evidence that increasing the scope of
practice of NPs and PAs has resulted in increased health care
costs due to overprescribing and overutilization of
diagnostic imaging and other services. For example, a 2020
study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine found 3.8
percent of physicians (MDs/DOs) compared to 8.0 percent of
NPs met at least one definition of overprescribing opioids
and 1.3 percent of physicians compared to 6.3 percent of NPs
prescribed an opioid to at least 50 percent of patients. The
study further found that, in states that allow independent
prescribing, NPs were 20 times more likely to overprescribe
opioids than those in prescription-restricted states.
Multiple studies have also shown that NPs order more
diagnostic imaging than physicians, which increases health
care costs and threatens patient safety by exposing patients
to unnecessary radiation. For example, a study in the Journal
of the American College of Radiology, which analyzed skeletal
x-ray utilization for Medicare beneficiaries from 2003 to
2015, found ordering increased substantially--more than 400
percent--by non-physicians, primarily NPs and PAs, during
this time frame. A separate study published in JAMA Internal
Medicine found NPs ordered more diagnostic imaging than
primary care physicians following an outpatient visit. The
study controlled for imaging claims that occurred after
a referral to a specialist. The authors opined this
increased utilization may have important ramifications on
costs, safety, and quality of care. They further found
greater coordination in health care teams may produce
better outcomes than merely expanding NP scope of practice
alone.
In addition, a recent study from the Hattiesburg Clinic in
Mississippi found that allowing NPs and PAs to function with
independent patient panels under physician supervision in the
primary care setting resulted in higher costs, higher
utilization of services, and lower quality of care compared
to panels of patients with a primary care physician.
Specifically, the study found that non-nursing home Medicare
ACO patient spend was $43 higher per member, per month for
patients on a NP/PA panel compared to those with a primary
care physician. Similarly, patients with an NP/PA as their
primary care provider were 1.8 percent more likely to visit
the ER and had an 8 percent higher referral rate to
specialists despite being younger and healthier than the
cohort of patients in the primary care physician panel. On
quality of care, the researchers examined 10 quality measures
and found that physicians performed better on 9 of the 10
measures compared to the non-physicians.
The findings are clear: NPs and PAs tend to prescribe more
opioids than physicians, order more diagnostic imaging than
physicians, and overprescribe antibiotics--all which increase
health care costs and threaten patient safety. The
Hattiesburg Clinic study further confirms these findings and
the need for physician-led team-based care. Before expanding
the scope of practice of all NPs and PAs and essentially
removing physicians from the care team, we encourage Congress
to carefully review these studies. We believe you will agree
that the results are startling and have significant impact on
the assessment of risk to the health and welfare of patients,
as well as the impact on the cost of health care in the
United States.
Finally, proponents of H.R. 6087 cite recognition of NPs
and PAs within the FECA as necessary in order to assist with
diagnosing and treating patients who contract COVID-19 in the
workplace. They claim that permitting NPs and PAs to diagnose
and treat individuals suffering from COVID-19 injuries is
believed to help patients get back to work faster so they can
continue to provide for their families. Yet, COVID-19, a
virus that is already responsible for the death of over one
million individuals just in the United States, is a complex
disease with varying impacts based on patient co-morbidities.
Furthermore, pre-existing conditions and other complicating
health factors have a tremendous impact on whether vaccines
and therapeutics are appropriate for patients who have
contracted COVID-19. These complexities highlight the fact
that physician experts are best suited to be assessing,
diagnosing, and treating patients in the FECA program.
SCOPE EXPANSIONS HAVE NOT PROVEN TO INCREASE ACCESS TO CARE IN RURAL
AREAS
Proponents of scope expansion have argued that legislation
like H.R. 6087 is necessary to expand access to care. This
promise has been made for years by NPs and PAs seeking scope
expansions at the state-level, but it has not proven true. In
reviewing the actual practice locations of primary care
physicians compared to NPs and PAs, it is clear that
physicians and non-physicians tend to practice in the same
areas of the state. This is true even in those states where,
for example, NPs can practice without physician involvement.
The Graduate Nurse Demonstration Project (the Project),
conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
confirmed this as well. One goal of the Project was to
determine whether increased funding for Advanced Practice
Registered Nursing (APRNs) programs would increase the number
of APRNs practicing in rural areas. The results found that
this did not happen. In fact, only 9 percent of alumni from
the program went on to work in rural areas.
Moreover, workforce studies in various states have shown a
growing number of NPs are not entering primary care. For
example, the Oregon Center for Nursing found only 25 percent
of NPs practice primary care. Similarly, the Center for
Health Workforce Studies conducted a study on the NP
workforce in New York that found, ``[w]hile the vast majority
of NPs report a primary care specialty certification, about
one-third of active NPs are considered primary care NPs,
which is based on both NP specialty certification and
practice setting.'' In addition, the study found newly
graduated NPs were more likely to enter specialty or
subspecialty care rather than primary care. In short, the
evidence is clear that expanding scope for NPs and PAs will
not necessarily lead to better access to care in rural
America.
Rather than supporting an unproven path forward, Congress
should consider proven solutions to increase access to care,
including supporting physician-led team-based care. Evidence
shows that states that require physician-led team-based care
have seen a greater overall increase in the number of NPs
compared to states that allow independent practice. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of this
legislation is zero
[[Page H5245]]
and includes in its assumptions that while some workers may
get services more quickly, increasing costs to the federal
government, that these workers might also return to work more
quickly saving the federal government money for a net cost of
zero. However, this analysis fails to take into account the
cost to the health care system when patients do not receive
the right care at the right time. Eliminating physicians from
workers' compensation determinations increases this
likelihood exponentially and is a gamble with the health of
our federal workers that Congress should not be willing to
take.
ENACTMENT UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE HOUSE RULES IS INAPPROPRIATE
The AMA is also concerned that the House of Representatives
is attempting to pass H.R. 6087 under ``suspension of the
rules,'' a procedural tactic that is often used to act
expeditiously on legislation that is typically non-
controversial. Bills considered ``under suspension'' receive
limited floor debate, all floor amendments are prohibited,
and a two-thirds vote of all members present is required for
final passage.
H.R. 6087 does not meet the definition of a ``non-
controversial'' bill and, therefore, should not be considered
under suspension of the rules. First and foremost, the strong
concerns we raise in this letter should be sufficient for
lawmakers to recognize that legislation that would be
detrimental to the health and welfare of federal workers
should not be considered under this fast-track parliamentary
procedure. While it passed out of the House Education and
Labor Committee in mid-March 2022, H.R. 6087 was formally
introduced two months ago and has only generated 18 total
cosponsors. Bills enacted under suspension of the rules
typically garner hundreds of cosponsors, thus indicating a
high level of bipartisan support. It is unclear whether a
strong collection of bipartisan members of the House of
Representatives support this legislation that inappropriately
expands non-physician practitioner scope of practice. While
the AMA opposes final passage of this legislation, we urge
the House of Representatives to reject enactment of this bill
under suspension of the rules.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons above, we strongly encourage you to
protect the health and safety of our injured federal workers
and oppose passage of H.R. 6087.
Sincerely,
James L. Madara, MD.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, they give reasons. They say, look,
education matters. Patients want physicians involved in their diagnosis
and treatment decisions. I think that is true.
They say that increasing the scope of practice of nurse practitioners
or physician assistants can lead to increased healthcare costs,
specifically mentioning the fact that there are studies now that show
that when a nurse practitioner is involved or a physician assistant----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, they mention that, for instance, opioid
overprescribing occurs four times as much when a nurse practitioner is
involved. Obviously, in a workers' comp case where injury may be
determined, this could be significant. This is something we should deal
with.
Finally, even the AMA recognized that they are concerned that we are
attempting to pass this under suspension of the rules usually,
typically, reserved for noncontroversial bills.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just briefly, I agree with the gentleman from Maryland that the goal
here should be what is best for Federal employees, who do critical work
for our country, but I think also what we want is what is best for
people who are protected by Social Security Disability Insurance, by
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which are programs in
which independent practice of nurse practitioners and physician
assistants has been well established and, again, subject to scope of
practice in the State where the patient resides.
Again, this is just simply conforming Federal workers' compensation
law with existing practice and a whole host of other Federal programs
involving really important populations that all of us have a duty to
protect.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Adams), a member of the Education and Labor Committee who
does outstanding work on the Workforce Protections Subcommittee as its
chair.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his work on this bill. I rise in support of the Improving Access to
Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act of 2022, a bill
that I am proud to have cosponsored.
North Carolina is home to over 45,000 Federal employees who are
restricted from having a nurse practitioner or physician assistant
diagnose or oversee the patient's treatment and care for their workers'
compensation claim. North Carolina is one of many States that currently
authorize nurse practitioners to provide this care for non-Federal
employees.
H.R. 6087 will increase patient choice for the tens of thousands of
Federal employees in my State by making the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act consistent with State law.
As chairwoman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, I am
disheartened to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
argue that we are rushing this bill.
H.R. 6087 has gone through the normal legislative order. My
subcommittee held a hearing on this bill in December 2021, and the
Education and Labor Committee held a markup on the bill in March just a
few months ago.
Of note, the bill passed out of committee with a bipartisan,
unanimous voice vote.
This is a commonsense bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on H.R. 6087.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I add to the comments about concerns about the care that is being
provided. Repeated studies over the decades have shown that NPs and PAs
provide outstanding quality of care, improve health outcomes, and
increase cost-effectiveness.
Additionally, these healthcare professionals have advanced degrees
from nationally accredited programs that include both classroom and
clinical rotations and must demonstrate clinical competency.
Once more, if there were legitimate concerns about the quality of
care, whether it is a Federal program or State program, provided by NPs
and PAs to injured workers, then States would not license them to treat
or diagnose these workers under State workers' compensation programs.
However, the vast majority of States do recognize nurse practitioners
and physician assistants as eligible providers for diagnosing and
treating disability claims.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Murphy), my good friend.
Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for allowing me to speak today.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 6087. I do this as a physician where I
understand that diagnosing, treating, and certifying disability claims
takes an expert's opinion--not general medicine, an expert's opinion--
and physicians have exceedingly more training and experience in dealing
with what are truly complex medical issues.
Let's be very clear: Disability is a complex issue. It is a lifelong
problem. This particular instance requires diagnosis, treatment, and
evaluations continually. There is nothing wrong with the system that we
have in this country. In many instances, we find that we work together
well as a team. But I think our Federal workers really, in this
specific avenue, deserve better, and I urge them to understand that
physicians are the best ones to do this.
Using the claim that there is a physician shortage should not be an
excuse to lower what I believe are standards for expert care.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the ranking member of
the Education and Labor Committee and my good friend and colleague.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for
yielding.
I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation to allow nurse
practitioners and physician assistants to act as eligible providers
under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program
[[Page H5246]]
within the scope of their practice under State law.
Under current law, nurse practitioners and physician assistants are
unable to treat Federal workers covered by FECA, even though most State
workers' compensation programs authorize them to provide this care for
private-sector employees.
To be clear, H.R. 6087 defers to State law and does not expand the
scope of practice. This legislation aligns FECA with other Federal
programs that already include care provided by nurse practitioners and
physician assistants, such as Medicare and the Veterans Health
Administration program.
H.R. 6087 would increase healthcare access and choice for Federal
employees when many areas of our country are grappling with provider
shortages, especially in rural areas.
According to the National Rural Health Association, nurse
practitioners and physician assistants account for a third of all
primary care clinicians treating Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, and
they are closer to half of the primary care clinicians in rural areas.
Improving healthcare access for FECA beneficiaries would allow
injured Federal employees to return to the workforce more quickly,
benefiting both employees and taxpayers.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan
improvement to our Federal workers' compensation program. I thank my
committee colleagues, Representatives Walberg and Courtney, and
Chairman Scott for advancing this important legislation.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just briefly, again, I thank the ranking member, Congresswoman Foxx,
for her remarks and Mr. Walberg, who I think very effectively and
specifically addressed some of the issues that we have heard in this
brief debate regarding whether or not this is opening the door to
practitioners who really aren't qualified to engage in the handling of
workers' compensation claims.
Right now, today, there are 27 States that actually allow nurse
practitioners and physician assistants to handle workers' compensation
claims under State law, including, by the way, North Carolina and
Maryland. Just going down the list, it is from all different regions of
the country, and, again, I think it has demonstrated that the system
functions smoothly. As the Congressional Budget Office indicated, it
allows for quicker care because you have more access when you have a
broader, larger pool of qualified practitioners.
That is really what this bill is aimed at. It is just to make sure
that Federal workers will have that same opportunity to access care,
particularly when they are in underserved parts of the country.
To sort of frame it, I mentioned earlier the New London sub base
where they have a really sizable firefighters contingent there. Again,
fires on submarines and Navy ships is a demanding, highly specialized
area of practice. If they get injured on the job, they do not have the
same rights as a firefighter who works for the city of New London who
gets injured on the job, in terms of having access to a nurse
practitioner or a physician assistant to handle that individual's
treatment and care and their disability claim.
That is really what this bill is doing. It is just simply
establishing parity for Federal workers who reside in those 28 States
that recognize independent practice by physician assistants and nurse
practitioners.
I have some letters of support, Madam Speaker, which I include in the
Record: one from the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, one from the
National Treasury Employees Union, one from the National Rural Health
Association, one from the American Association of Nurse Practitioners,
and one from the American Association of Physician Assistants.
National Postal Mail
Handlers Union,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Courtney,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Courtney: On behalf of the National Postal
Mail Handlers Union, which represents over 50,000 mail
handlers across the country, I write in support of H.R. 6087,
the Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for injured
Federal Workers Act.
Your legislation is a commonsense solution to amend the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act to grant injured postal
and federal workers wider access medical care from eligible
providers. This will ensure they are able to claim workers'
compensation and receive necessary care in a timely manner.
As it can be difficult to expeditiously schedule
appointments with physicians for work-related injuries, H.R.
6087 extends eligible providers to include physician
assistants and nurse practitioners. It is an unfortunate fact
that postal employees are the largest group of beneficiaries
under current FECA regulations. Your legislation will ensure
those injured on the job will have access to medical care and
can see their preferred primary care provider.
I look forward to seeing H.R. 6087 gain support within the
House Education and Labor Committee, and its advancement
through the House.
In solidarity,
Paul V. Hogrogian,
National President,
National Postal Mail Handlers Union.
____
The National Treasury
Employees Union,
June 6, 2022.
Dear Representative: This week, the House of
Representatives is expected to vote on suspension on the
Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal
Workers Act of 2022 (HR 6087). The National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU) strongly supports this legislation and
urges you to vote YES.
This bill would improve access to benefits under the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), which serves as
the workers' compensation program for federal employees. It
does so by allowing workers to have their medical care
provided by a Nurse Practitioner (NP) or Physician Assistant
(PA), as well as have NPs and PAs provide certification of
injury. This bipartisan bill was introduced by Rep. Joseph
Courtney (CT) and Rep. Timothy Walberg (MI) and passed out of
the Education & Labor Committee on a bipartisan basis.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. Please feel
free to contact Kurt Vorndran of the NTEU Department of
Legislation if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Reardon,
National President.
____
National Rural
Health Association,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2022.
Re H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to Workers' Compensation
for Injured Federal Workers Act, under suspension in the
House of Representatives.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Minority Leader,
House of Representatives.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The
National Rural Health Association (NRHA) writes in support of
House passage for H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to Workers'
Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act, which is
scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives
this week. This legislation would allow nurse practitioners
(NP) and physician assistants (PA) to diagnose, treat, and
provide care for federal employees who are injured at work,
consistent with state scope of practice. In fact, most states
already authorize NPs to provide this care for non-federal
employees.
NRHA is a non-profit membership organization with more than
21,000 members nationwide that provides leadership on rural
health issues. Our membership includes every component of
rural America's health care, including rural community
hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, nurses, and
patients. We provide leadership on rural health issues
through advocacy, communications, education, and research.
NRHA is supportive of this legislation as NPs and PAs are
common primary care providers in rural communities. According
to MedPAC, in 2018 advanced practice registered nurses (APRN)
and PAs accounted for a third of all primary care clinicians
treating Medicare beneficiaries nationwide. In rural
communities, their presence is closer to half of the primary
care clinicians. Because of the significant presence of NPs
and PAs, and the quality of care they provide, NRHA urges
swift passage of this legislation. This commonsense bill will
ensure increased access to needed services in our rural
areas.
Thank you for your consideration of this important
legislation. If you have questions, please contact Josh
Jorgensen.
Sincerely,
Alan Morgan,
Chief Executive Officer,
National Rural Health Association.
____
American Association of
Nurse Practitioners,
March 4, 2022.
Hon. Joe Courtney,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Walberg,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Courtney and Walberg: The American
Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP), representing more
than 325,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) in the United States,
is pleased to support H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to
Workers'
[[Page H5247]]
Compensation for injured Federal Workers Act. This
legislation would retire outdated barriers in the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) that limit the ability of
NPs to provide care and treatment for injured or ill federal
employees. AANP thanks you for you continued efforts to
improve the health care system for our nation's federal
employees.
Currently, federal employees can select an NP as their
health care provider under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHPB), and the majority of states
authorize NPs to provide the diagnosis and treatment for a
workplace related injury. However, contrary to the workers'
compensation process in most states, FECA requires that only
a physician can make the diagnosis, certify the injury and
extent of the disability, and oversee the patient's treatment
and care. This barrier places an additional burden on the
over two million federal employees, depriving them from
receiving health care from their provider of choice, as well
as hindering timely access to care and continuity of care.
As you know, H.R. 6087 would update the federal workers'
compensation program and authorize NPs to certify
disabilities and oversee treatment for injured or ill federal
employees under FECA. This would improve access to health
care for injured or ill federal employees, particularly in
rural and underserved communities, and better align the
federal workers' compensation program with the majority of
states and FEHBP. By updating FECA to authorize federal
employees to select their health care provider of choice when
they are injured or become ill in the course of their federal
employment, greater access, overall efficiency and better
continuity of care can be achieved. We thank you for this
impactful legislation and look forward to continuing to work
with you to ensure H.R. 6087 becomes law.
Thank you again for your tireless efforts on behalf of
federal employees. Should you have comments or questions,
please direct them to MaryAnne Sapio, V.P. Federal Government
Affairs.
Sincerely,
Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED,
Chief Executive Officer,
American Association of Nurse Practioners.
____
AAPA,
Alexandria, VA, March 15, 2022.
Hon. Joe Courtney,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Walberg,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Courtney and Walberg: On behalf of the
more than 151,000 PAs (physician assistants) throughout the
United States, the American Academy of PAs (AAPA) lends
strong support to H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to Worker's
Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act. AAPA thanks you
for your continued support of the federal workforce and
unwavering commitment to ensuring that all Americans have
access to high-quality healthcare.
As you know, U.S. federal and postal employees receive
workers compensation coverage through the Federal Employee's
Compensation Act (FECA) for employment-related injuries and
occupational disease. However, as currently written, FECA
does not cover medical care provided by PAs within the
definition of ``medical, surgical, and hospital services . .
.'' and FECA claims signed by PAs are routinely denied. This
undue restriction negatively impacts federal employees,
especially those in rural and underserved areas, who receive
primary care from PAs.
PAs practice in all medical and surgical specialties in all
50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and
the uniformed services. PAs provide high-quality, cost-
effective medical care in every specialty and setting,
undertake rigorous education and clinical training, and are
well established as medical professionals. PAs are recognized
as qualified healthcare providers under Medicare, Medicaid,
and almost every state and federal healthcare program,
including state workers' compensation programs. PAs are also
included in the definition of an ``acceptable medical
source'' by the Social Security Administration for the
purposes of certifying that an individual has a medically
determinable impairment. Further, thousands of PAs are
employed by the federal government as healthcare providers
and work within the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Department of Defense, the Public Health Service, and Indian
Health Services. However, PAs are not considered healthcare
providers within FECA, an oversight that does not align with
state or other federal programs.
H.R. 6087 would ensure that federal employees can access
high-quality healthcare from the provider of their choice, as
well as further align FECA with state workers compensation
programs which recognize PAs as covered providers. It is well
within the education and training of PAs to provide treatment
to federal employees who are injured in the course of their
work for the government, and it is time to remove this
outdated and unnecessary restriction.
AAPA appreciates your work and dedication to the federal
workforce and our nation's healthcare system. If we can be of
assistance to you on this or any issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Tate Heuer, AAPA Vice President, Federal
Advocacy.
Sincerely
Lisa M. Gables, CPA,
Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate that information being shared, but I would like to
address some of the concerns that my good friends from the Doc Caucus
have presented.
We have discussed this in committee representing districts that are
rural, urban, and suburban, and the challenges that are there. Again,
the issue of States' rights and the ability of States to make
decisions, there is a primacy that is there that we ought to consider
very strongly.
A majority of States already allow nurse practitioners and PAs to
diagnose, certify an injury, and oversee patients' treatment.
Furthermore, if we are talking about precedent, our bill will align the
FECA program with other Federal programs currently in place. Currently,
the Federal Government allows care provided or overseen by PAs and NPs
in, I state it again, Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program, and TRICARE.
That is significant. Those are textbook studies on how it is working
already. Adding to this just seems like it is justified and very
important to do.
Going back to the States' concerns, as well, if diagnosing or
treating a particular workplace injury is outside of the scope of
practice for a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant under their
State's law, then they would not be covered under this bill, plain and
simple. The bill preserves States' rights to make those determinations.
H.R. 6087 is simply expanding choice, important at this time,
especially with inflation and the cost that is going on in coming out
of a pandemic and getting in endemic situations.
The Congressional Budget Office, I repeat, noted that the bill would
not affect direct spending. In fact, CBO noted in its score that the
bill may result in injured workers receiving treatment faster and, as
my colleague Representative Courtney said, thereby returning them to
work and productivity more quickly and reducing the actual cost for
some FECA costs in the process.
Getting workers healthy and back to work is not only good for the
individual but also good for our economy as we look to get through
these worrisome economic times.
{time} 1530
I accept the concerns of the medical doctors. I understand that they
have committed themselves to significant training and significant time
in the classroom and in the hospital itself, but we also know that we
have come of an age where doctors very regularly use the services and
need the services of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
There are communities in my district, in rural areas, where the
doctor is a physician assistant. The people appreciate them and receive
good care as well.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend,
Mr. Walberg, and appreciate his leadership on this issue and also, the
bipartisanship that is being shown to the American people today to
address an issue that is important--to Ranking Member Foxx, too--to our
communities.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6087 because of what has
been said. The positive impact that this bill can have within our
medical communities, and giving Americans access to the healthcare that
they deserve is something that deserves all of our support.
This bill would include physician assistants and nurse practitioners
in the Federal workers' compensation program and put them in line with
the State scope of practice. It is also going to improve access to care
for injured Federal workers and postal employers, especially in the
areas that I serve--in rural and underserved areas--like central and
southwestern Illinois.
Getting people back to work as soon as they can once they recover
from an injury is now more important than ever given the record
inflation we are seeing and the staggering 11.4 million open jobs in
this country.
This is a commonsense piece of legislation. I am glad to support the
work
[[Page H5248]]
of my friend, Congressman Tim Walberg, on this bill to ensure that
injured Federal employees return to the workforce quickly.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this important bill.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
the Nursing Community Coalition, which represents 63 national nursing
organizations all across America.
Nursing Community Coalition,
June 7, 2022.
Hon. Joe Courtney,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Walberg,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Courtney and Walberg: On behalf of the
Steering Committee of the Nursing Community Coalition (NCC),
which represents 63 national nursing organizations, we are
pleased to support H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to
Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act, which
would retire outdated barriers in the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act (FECA) that limit the ability of Nurse
Practitioners (NPs) to provide care and treatment for injured
or ill federal employees. The NCC is a cross section of
education, practice, research, and regulation within the
nursing profession representing Registered Nurses (RNs),
Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs), nurse leaders,
students, faculty, and researchers. We appreciate your
continued efforts to improve the health care system for our
nation's federal employees and strongly support passage of
H.R. 6087.
Currently, federal employees can select an NP as their
health care provider under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHPB), and the majority of states
authorize NPs to provide the diagnosis and treatment for a
workplace related injury. However, contrary to the workers'
compensation process in most states, FECA requires that only
a physician can make the diagnosis, certify the injury and
extent of the disability, and oversee the patient's treatment
and care. This barrier places an additional burden on the
over two million federal employees, depriving them from
receiving health care from their provider of choice, as well
as hindering timely access to care and continuity of care.
H.R. 6087 would update the federal workers' compensation
program and authorize NPs to certify disabilities and oversee
treatment for injured or ill federal employees under FECA.
This would improve access to health care for injured or ill
federal employees, particularly in rural and underserved
communities, and better align the federal workers'
compensation program with the majority of states and FEHBP.
By updating FECA to authorize federal employees to select
their health care provider of choice when they are injured or
become ill in the course of their federal employment, greater
access, overall efficiency and better continuity of care can
be achieved.
We appreciate this important legislation and strongly
support passage of H.R. 6087, the Improving Access to
Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act. Should
you have any questions or if the Nursing Community Coalition
can be of any additional assistance please contact the
coalition's Executive Director, Rachel Stevenson.
Sincerely,
American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American
Association of Nurse Anesthesiology, American Association of
Nurse Practitioners, American Nurses Association, Association
of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, National
Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National
Council of State Boards of Nursing, National League for
Nursing, Oncology Nursing Society.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, we have all heard of the physician shortage in
America. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are a critical
component in fulfilling the provider gap. There are 355,000 nurse
practitioners and more than 150,000 physician assistants across the
country.
These healthcare professionals have advanced degrees from nationally
accredited programs and include both classroom and clinical rotations
and must demonstrate clinical competency.
Allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to diagnose,
certify, and treat injured Federal workers to the full extent of their
State license is not only common sense but is smart economic policy to
ensure workers get back to work more quickly and off government
supported programs.
The bill will not remove physicians from providing care to an injured
worker if that is who the patient chooses. The bill is simply giving
injured workers more choice to get the timely care they need.
The CBO scored the bill as having insignificant impact on direct
spending and noted, may result, in fact, in injured workers receiving
treatment faster, thereby returning to work more quickly and reducing
costs for the FECA program.
Lastly, the FECA program is virtually the last remaining Federal
health program that does not recognize the role that PAs and NPs play
in modern healthcare delivery. They can already provide and oversee
care in Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits
program, the VA, DOD, Indian Health Service, and the Bureau of Prisons,
and are recognized by the Social Security Administration.
Furthermore, the bill aligns with the majority of States which
already authorize NPs and PAs to certify and oversee healthcare for
patients in their State workers' compensation programs.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will make the Federal
workers' compensation program more efficient and ensure workers have
access to a health provider of their choice.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, and Mr.
Courtney for their support of this bill, and I urge the rest of my
colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Walberg's eloquence, and comprehensive closing statement I think
really said it all. I tip my hat to him, Ranking Member Foxx, Mr. Davis
from the minority side of the aisle, and the speakers on this side that
really represent a bipartisan message that we are prepared to get our
Federal Employee Workers' Compensation Act modernized so that the hard
work of nurse practitioners and physician assistants and the work that
they do every single day around the country is now extended to a
critical part of our healthcare system and also our Federal disability
benefits system.
This is really about giving patients a choice. There is nothing in
this bill that mandates that they can't go to a physician or that they
don't have that option. In some areas people just don't have that
choice. If you are in a place where the only real access is to a
physician assistant or a nurse practitioner, sometimes for even a life-
threatening injury, we need to open the door to give people that
opportunity. That is precisely what this bill does.
It came out of committee with a unanimous vote. I strongly urge all
of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to follow the lead of the
Education and Labor Committee and pass this bill with an overwhelming
majority.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a steadfast ally of the men and
women serving in the federal government, I rise in support of H.R.
6087, the ``Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured
Federal Workers Act.''
This bill allows for injured federal workers to consult with nurse
practitioners or physician assistants for the diagnosis and treatment
of injuries covered by workers' compensation.
H.R. 6087 will make a needed correction to the Federal Employees
Compensation Act, increasing the accessibility of healthcare for nearly
three million federal employees.
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants represent a growing
portion of American primary care providers, especially for medically
underserved communities.
We must prioritize the needs of our invaluable federal workers.
Lowering the bureaucratic obstacles blocking federal workers' access to
benefits is a necessary measure to protect them.
When Congress has an opportunity to remedy real-world issues with
bipartisan action, especially when it improves the lives of government
employees, it is our responsibility to act.
H.R. 6087 is especially critical in the face of the increasing
workplace risks associated with COVID-19, in which situation an
expanded list of approved medical providers can help fill the coverage
gap.
The pandemic has already stressed the health and wellbeing of federal
workers. Amending the Federal Employees Compensation Act is imperative
to lessen that burden.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, Texas has 143,087
federal workers. I will always fight for these workers by standing up
for their access to healthcare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
[[Page H5249]]
Courtney) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R.
6087, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion
are postponed.
____________________