[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23345-23346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, for 60 years our country has been trying to 
come up with a better way to deliver health care. Despite the lingering 
differences of opinion over how to achieve this goal, we really have 
come along further than we ever have before.
  We all agree we need to put an end to insurance companies' most 
egregious practices. We need to lower the costs of health care for 
everyone. We need to better incentivize preventive and primary care.
  These are all accomplished by the bill which has now passed out of 
our three House committees. Of course, it's much more interesting for 
the media to talk about the few areas where disagreements still exist 
rather than the accomplishments we have made so far. But the 
legislation before us means so much more security for America's 
hardworking families.
  Right now, when you lose your job, it can mean your entire family 
loses access to health insurance. And if you are unfortunate enough to 
have a preexisting condition, which in some States can be defined as 
having been the victim of domestic violence, then you may not qualify 
for any affordable health insurance coverage. Worse yet, when you buy 
health insurance on the individual market, there is a team of people 
ready to comb through your records to find a reason to drop you if you 
are ever diagnosed with a condition that is costly to treat. Now a few 
States have protections against these practices. But don't we agree 
that all Americans deserve access to these protections?
  Ironically, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have often 
touted a supposed ``solution'' to our health care troubles by allowing 
insurers to sell across State lines. If anything, their proposal would 
essentially allow insurance companies to continue their very worst 
practices because insurers

[[Page 23346]]

would simply begin a race to the bottom. They would move their 
operations to whichever State affords the least consumer protections 
and sell those policies across State lines.
  I'm especially concerned because I come from California, a State with 
some of the strongest consumer protections from health insurance 
company abuses. Here are some examples: California law requires that 
insurers cover a minimum stay in the hospital after a mastectomy. Our 
neighboring States of Nevada and Arizona do not. California law 
requires that patients have the right to appeal decisions by insurance 
companies and receive an external review. Idaho and Mississippi do not. 
And California has stricter laws defining what may and may not qualify 
as a preexisting condition. In Florida and Georgia, there are no 
definable conditions that insurers may classify as ``preexisting,'' 
which means that a preexisting condition could mean pretty much 
anything.
  So to my friends on the other side of the aisle who believe that 
selling insurance across State lines will solve all of our problems, I 
remind you that your suggestion would do just the opposite. It would 
strip away vital consumer protections that exist for many patients now 
at the very time our focus needs to be on increasing consumer 
protections for American families.

                              {time}  1515

  We also agree that we need to lower costs. I'm very heartened by 
provisions in this bill that will achieve this shared goal.
  For seniors, we're taking immediate steps to reduce their 
prescription drug costs by closing the doughnut hole. Since the rollout 
of Medicare part D, my constituents and seniors across the country have 
begged for relief from the doughnut hole. The doughnut hole is the 
period of time during which you pay an insurance company to not cover 
the cost of your medications. I have objected to this policy from day 
one.
  Under our plan, seniors will see relief immediately. As we begin to 
close the doughnut hole, prescription drugs will be available at deep 
discounts. Eventually, the doughnut hole will disappear completely. 
This is the relief that America's seniors need, and we all can agree 
that they deserve it.
  We will bring down costs by introducing a public option to compete 
with private insurers. Currently, private insurance companies have 
every reason to increase costs for patients and to reduce 
reimbursements to physicians in order to line their pockets.
  Why? Because there's no competition. There's no one else in the 
market offering consumers a choice. But the public option will finally 
bring greater choices to consumers in the individual insurance market. 
Once that happens, premiums will become more affordable as insurers 
compete for customers. Insurance companies will be enticed to reimburse 
physicians better in order to retain them in their networks. The 
necessity for more affordable choices is something we can all agree on.
  We can also agree that we need to do a better job of improving 
preventive care and giving people the tools they need to be more 
personally responsible for their health and well-being. As a public 
health nurse, I spent decades educating people about the importance of 
adopting healthy habits. But too many people in this country don't have 
access to primary care and never see a health professional until an 
otherwise preventable disease has worsened. How tragic is this?
  H.R. 3200 encourages better primary and preventive care. It does away 
with copays for preventive services. It increases primary care service 
reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid. It makes smart investments 
in community-based prevention and wellness programs. These are the 
things we can all agree upon.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in enthusiastically supporting H.R. 
3200, supporting these principles on which we all agree.

                          ____________________