[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14904-14906]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            PROTECTING AFFORDABLE COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES ACT

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1624) to amend title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act and title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to revise the 
definition of small employer, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 1624

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable 
     Coverage for Employees Act''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF DEFINITION OF SMALL EMPLOYER UNDER HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE MARKET PROVISIONS.

       (a) PPACA Amendments.--Section 1304(b) of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18024(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``101'' and inserting 
     ``51'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``100'' and inserting 
     ``50''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) State option to extend definition of small 
     employer.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), nothing in 
     this section shall prevent a State from applying this 
     subsection by treating as a small employer, with respect to a 
     calendar year and a plan year, an employer who employed an 
     average of at least 1 but not more than 100 employees on 
     business days during the preceding calendar year and who 
     employs at least 1 employee on the first day of the plan 
     year.''.
       (b) PHSA Amendments.--Section 2791(e) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``101'' and inserting 
     ``51'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``100'' and inserting 
     ``50''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) State option to extend definition of small 
     employer.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4), nothing in 
     this section shall prevent a State from applying this 
     subsection by treating as a small employer, with respect to a 
     calendar year and a plan year, an employer who employed an 
     average of at least 1 but not more than 100 employees on 
     business days during the preceding calendar year and who 
     employs at least 1 employee on the first day of the plan 
     year.''.
       (c) Deposit of Savings Into Medicare Improvement Fund.--
     Section 1898(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395iii(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``$0'' and inserting 
     ``$205,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardenas) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 1624.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bipartisan bill before us today is a much-needed fix for small-
business owners and employees struggling to comply with the healthcare 
law. H.R. 1624 is a bill to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act and the Public Health Service Act to revise the definition of 
small employer. The bill would allow the States to continue defining 
the small group health insurance market as employers with 1 to 50 
employees.
  Section 1304 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
changed the Federal definition of the small group market to include 
employers with 1 to 100 employees. The States, however, have been 
allowed to continue defining the small group market as employers with 1 
to 50 employees until January 1, 2016.
  But beginning on or after January 1, 2016, plans sold or renewed for 
employers with 51 to 100 employees will be subject to the various small 
group health plan regulations established by PPACA. These more 
restrictive rating rules will increase health insurance premiums for 
these employers and reduce flexibility in benefit design.
  The new requirements could also lead some employers with 51 to 100 
employees to self-insure to avoid higher premiums. If that happens, 
this could result in adverse selection in the small group pool and 
higher premiums for employers with 1 to 50 employees.
  Unless this current law is reversed, the disruption in the 
marketplace will be significant. For example, it is estimated that, 
under current law, more than 3 million employees will experience a 
double-digit percent increase in their healthcare premiums.
  Ultimately, cost increases for small employers will change their 
choices
regarding offering coverage, could change their business model, and 
will ultimately be felt by millions of workers.
  Because the impact of current law will vary by State, defining the 
small group market should be left to the States, which is a policy 
envisioned in H.R. 1624.
  I am pleased to say there is considerable support for this 
legislation in the House and the Senate.
  The flexibility that would be given to States with immediate passage 
of H.R. 1624 would help ensure stable, small group health insurance 
markets that reflect the unique characteristics in each of the States.
  If Congress passes H.R. 1624, premiums will be lower and allow 
millions of employees and employers to keep the plan they have and 
like. This is a commonsense policy that deserves our bipartisan 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1624.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I reserve the balance of my 
time so that Congressman Guthrie can speak first.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1624, the Protecting Affordable Coverage 
for Employees Act. This bill, which I introduced along with my friend 
from California (Mr. Cardenas), Congressman Markwayne Mullin of 
Oklahoma, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona will protect smaller employers 
from increased

[[Page 14905]]

healthcare costs and will prevent their employees from being forced out 
of their current healthcare plans.
  The small group market is currently defined as 1 to 50 employees, but 
a provision in the healthcare law will expand the group's size from 1 
to 100 on January 1. With this expansion comes more onerous regulations 
and the expectation of dramatic rate hikes.
  One estimate by Oliver Wyman predicts that those in the 51 to 100 
group will see an average of an 18 percent premium increase in 2016 
based on the new rating rules alone. H.R. 1624 stops the mandated 
expansion of the small group market that will occur on January 1 and 
allows States to define their own market.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many Kentuckians who would be impacted 
by this change, and their concerns are real. Small businesses are 
afraid to expand, and mid-sized businesses have no idea what the costs 
would be or how they can plan for this new change.
  This issue has widespread support, with over half the House as 
cosponsors and nearly a third of the Senate as cosponsors. Members on 
both sides of the aisle agree that we must act now to stop this new 
mandate.
  It has been a great pleasure working with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardenas). It is an issue that we see is happening in 
Washington, that is happening out in our districts, out across to the 
businesses.
  Both sides of the aisle have come together to say: Let's change the 
law. Let's make sure that the small businesses and medium-sized 
businesses are not affected, and let's move forward.
  It wasn't just that we signed our names as cosponsors. There was a 
lot of hard work that I know the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardenas) did to bring more and more cosponsors to this bill. This is a 
significant change. It is significant for the people who live in our 
districts. I encourage support.
  I appreciate Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Mullin.
  Mr. CARDENAS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank my colleague from Kentucky 
(Mr. Guthrie). It has been a pleasure and honor to serve with him on 
this bill.
  It is really important for us to understand how monumental this 
moment is. This isn't the biggest bill in the world. But, yet, at the 
same time, if you are a small business in the United States of America 
and you have 1 to 50 employees or now even 1 to 100 employees, this 
bill hopefully will help affect your business and your employees in a 
way that is better.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1624. I truly appreciate the willingness to 
work on a bipartisan bill, as demonstrated today, which is going to 
positively impact so many communities across the country through the 
small businesses it will affect.
  H.R. 1624, the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act, 
introduced by my colleagues, once again, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Mullin, Ms. 
Sinema, and myself--two Republicans and two Democrats is a true 
bipartisan effort--would stop a potential health insurance rate shock 
by allowing States to determine the appropriate size of their small 
group market.
  As a former small-business owner myself, I recognize the struggle 
there is to live out the American Dream. I know how difficult it can be 
when a specific sector of small business is affected by regulations and 
laws created by local, State, or Federal governments.
  I have seen the impact in neighborhoods throughout my district when a 
small local business opens their doors or closes their doors. Their 
supply chain is local. Their employees have a vested interest in their 
success. Their customers treasure the connection a small hometown 
business brings.
  I know I echo the view of the entire U.S. House of Representatives 
when I applaud these small businesses, the risks that they have taken, 
and the celebration of their successes.
  The Affordable Care Act isn't perfect. By no means is the Affordable 
Care Act perfect. But I am grateful for all the benefits that the law 
has provided since its enactment.
  Today more than 16 million Americans have gained access to affordable 
health insurance that did not have it before enacting the act. My 
district is one of only two districts in the United States to see a 
double-digit increase in insured residents since the implementation of 
the Affordable Care Act.
  The Affordable Care Act is the biggest change to American health care 
in the past 70 years. It brings down costs, covering more Americans and 
making dozens of other crucial changes to how our Nation views health 
care. However, no law is perfect.
  When it was first created, Social Security didn't cover agricultural 
and domestic workers. Medicaid didn't begin to cover mammograms until 
1991. Even with these fundamental programs of our Nation's safety net, 
improvement and compromise was necessary to lead to more perfect laws.
  While certain States, like California, have decided to move forward 
with the expansion, this bill still provides States the flexibility to 
ensure market stability for small businesses across the country.
  I appreciate the bipartisan effort to bring this bill to the floor. I 
look forward to advancing the PACE Act and continuing to build on a 
record of working together in a bipartisan fashion.
  I was just sharing a moment with my colleague from Kentucky, 
Congressman Guthrie, in talking about how proud I am of this moment and 
how much I appreciate his willingness to reach across the aisle and 
work with us to make sure that we bring a fix--not the biggest fix, but 
a fix--that will help American businesses and American workers across 
this country.
  It is an opportunity for us to work together. But, more importantly, 
it is an opportunity for us to do the job that we were elected to do: 
to put aside partisan bickering, to make sure that we look at what is 
best for America, try our best to bring a bill to the floor through 
both houses, and, hopefully, get the signature of the President of the 
United States.
  Again, it was due to this bipartisan effort that I think that what I 
just described is going to happen. Come January of 2016, it is going to 
be a better place for all of us--for our businesses and our workers--
because we were willing to work together.
  Once again, it is not the easiest thing to do, but it is something 
that, unfortunately, is far too rare. I hope that this is the 
beginning, the beginning of many of us working together and making good 
things happen for America and its Territories.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1624.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is an important bill. 
It is a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 
1624.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the Affordable Care 
Act, 17.6 million Americans have gained health insurance coverage and 
are no longer one accident, injury, or diagnosis away from financial 
ruin. This is the largest reduction in the uninsured in four decades.
  The ACA has increased access and reduced financial barriers to 
important preventive services, such as cancer screenings and well-woman 
visits by requiring their coverage with no cost sharing. The law also 
stopped insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions or 
placing annual limits on how much health care they will cover.
  Though the ACA is already helping millions nationwide, no law is 
perfect, and there are certainly ways we can improve the ACA and build 
upon its successes. Given the political theatre that tends to surround 
the ACA, I am pleased to see that my Republican colleagues are ready to 
work together on bipartisan proposals such as H.R. 1624 with the goal 
of strengthening the law. Unfortunately, though, I do not agree with 
the approach this bill takes.
  H.R. 1624 would permanently change the law to make the small group 
expansion currently required under the ACA optional for states and 
allow states to ``opt in'' if they choose. Research tells us that some 
states simply are not ready to expand their small group market and that 
expansion in these states could result in higher costs for certain 
consumers. However, the small group expansion was included in the ACA 
for good reason.

[[Page 14906]]

The benefits of expansion such as added consumer protections and 
increased stability for small employers are important and achievable 
goals. States like Washington are already experiencing the benefits of 
an expanded small group market.
  I am concerned that H.R. 1624 is premature, and I would instead 
prefer a few year transitional delay of the small group expansion or an 
``opt out'' option for states instead. I believe these alternatives 
would ensure that states continue to work towards the goal of 
expansion, rather than disregarding the provision altogether.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that this bill was not considered 
under regular order. Such an important issue deserves thoughtful 
discussion and opportunities for amendments. I had hoped to offer an 
amendment that would allow states to ``opt out'' of the expansion. 
Since I was unable to discuss this amendment and other potential 
changes to the bill with my colleagues in a committee markup, I remain 
uncertain that this legislation is the best course of action.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1624, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________