[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3578-3579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, time is running out for us to extend the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, a program that began almost 20 
years ago in this body and the other body and that right now is taking 
care of 10 million children--the children of parents who in most cases 
have full-time jobs that don't offer insurance and full-time jobs that 
don't pay enough so these families can buy insurance for their 
children.
  We know that CHIP works. It works for parents, and it works for 
children. We know that if we don't act now, States will start rolling 
back the CHIP programs. Legislatures are adjourning almost as we speak. 
We need to provide States with certainty so they can budget for CHIP 
now and 4 years into the future.
  Unfortunately, the deal currently being floated in the House would 
not fund CHIP for a full 4 years. Instead, if reports are true, it 
would permanently repeal the sustainable growth rate--the so-called 
doctors fix--while failing to provide much needed certainty to 
children's health care. I want to take care of doctors. I want to make 
sure this is done right because it affects doctors. It affects doctors' 
ability to deliver care. It affects those patients whom doctors serve. 
But how do we leave here taking care of the doctors permanently and 
shortchanging children, only giving them 2 years of health insurance? 
It is past time we fix SGR.
  In 2001, when I was a member of the House, Congressman Bilirakis as 
the Republican chair of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and I as the Democratic ranking member wrote the 
first SGR fix, so I have been fixing the SGR for a long time. But we 
shouldn't be focused in this body and that body on paying doctors at 
the cost of shortchanging our children. Our priority must be passing a 
full 4-year, clean extension of the current CHIP program, on which 
130,000 children in my State depend--again, sons and daughters of 
working Oklahoma families and working Ohio families who are working in 
jobs where they simply don't get insurance and don't get paid enough 
that they can buy insurance. These 10 million children in our Nation 
depend on this.
  A 4-year extension of CHIP will provide Congress, the administration, 
and our States with the necessary time to collect relevant data and 
information to fully analyze and prepare for the future of kids 
covered. Doing only 2 years is not just shortchanging these children 
and creating anxiety in their families, it is also truncating our 
ability, compromising our ability to really understand how to fully 
integrate CHIP into a health care system overall in the future. We 
should be providing certainty and stability for these families, not the 
cliche of kicking the can down the road in favor of a short-term fix. A 
4-year extension provides that certainty and will make a difference 
into the next decade on how, in fact, we take care of low-income 
children.
  In Ohio alone, CHIP provides insurance to 130,000 children. 
Enrollment is expected to grow over the next couple of years. I have 
traveled across Ohio in the last few weeks and have met with parents 
and children, doctors and nurses, to discuss CHIP. I have been to 
Cincinnati Children's Hospital and Toledo Children's Hospital, 
Columbus's Nationwide Children's Hospital and Cleveland's Rainbow 
Children's Hospital. This morning, I was in Mahoning Valley in 
Boardman, a suburb of Youngstown, at the Akron Children's Hospital. 
More than 6,000 children in Mahoning Valley rely on CHIP for care.
  I met with Ericka Flaherty, a Youngstown parent whose children could 
lose comprehensive coverage if we don't extend CHIP now. Her son Chase 
was born prematurely, born at 27 weeks. He was immediately diagnosed 
with a number of chronic conditions, including a heart defect, chronic 
lung disease, and asthma. Chase spent more than 4 months in neonatal 
care, and, thanks to outstanding doctors at Akron Children's Hospital, 
he is alive and growing today. But he needs many routine medical 
visits--visits his family simply can't afford. His parents work, but 
they simply can't afford to treat his conditions, including visits to 
lung specialists, neurologists, an eye specialist, and the regular 
hospital checkup every 2 months. Without CHIP, Ericka would face 
significant financial hurdles in getting Chase the care he needs.
  I also met with Jessica Miller of Lisbon, a community just south of 
Mahoning County, during this roundtable. Her youngest son, Payton, was 
diagnosed with a serious respiratory condition. He had to be life-
flighted to Akron Children's Hospital to receive care when he couldn't 
breathe. He has been diagnosed with type 1 juvenile diabetes. His 
grandmother joined us. Jessica told me that she is so thankful for 
CHIP, that she gets Payton all the care he needs to treat these 
conditions--care she and her husband Justin would have a hard time 
affording otherwise. Justin is working as a paramedic. He was called 
out and couldn't be at our meeting today. Justin is full time in 
nursing school. They are making something of their lives. I don't want 
them to be anxious about the health care of their children.
  Throughout Ohio, I hear the same thing: Providing health insurance to 
children like Chase and Payton isn't just the right thing to do, it is 
the smart thing to do. It means children do better in school. They feel 
better when they are in school. They miss fewer days in school because 
they get preventive care because their health care needs are taken care 
of.
  CHIP has been around 18, almost 20 years. It has always been 
bipartisan. If we follow these children later in life, we see they have 
higher rates of going to college and higher earnings than non-CHIP kids 
who don't have insurance. By all kinds of very quantifiable 
measurements, CHIP is not just good for those families, it is not just 
the right thing to do to continue to fund CHIP over 4 years, it is also 
the smart thing to do for our country.
  Together with more than 40 of my colleagues, I introduced the 
Protecting & Retaining Our Children's Health
Insurance Program--PRO-CHIP--Act, which is a clean 4-year extension of 
funding for CHIP. PRO-CHIP would protect the Pediatric Quality Measures 
Program and provide funding to sustain this program through 2019.
  It would also extend the Performance Incentive Program, which 
provides bonus payments to States that help increase Medicaid 
enrollment among children, because if we provide insurance for low-
income children, they are going to do better, and society is going to 
do better. They are less likely to end up in the emergency room for 
something much more serious. For instance, for a child without 
insurance who has an earache, the mother and father think that it is 
going to cost a lot of money to go to the doctor and that maybe it will 
just get better, they wait a week. Into the second week, the pain is 
worse. The child can't sleep. The child cries. They eventually go to 
the emergency room, which costs a lot more money than going to the 
doctor's office, with the possibility that the child has had hearing 
loss. That is just one example of why we want to provide insurance and 
get them into the doctor early rather than waiting until later.
  PRO-CHIP has been endorsed by every children's hospital in Ohio, the 
Association of Children's Hospitals, virtually every children's 
hospital, I believe, in the country, and other national groups--the 
March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's 
Hospital Association, and Families USA, all of which want a clean CHIP. 
All of them want a 4-year

[[Page 3579]]

extension for all the reasons we talked about.
  More than 1,500 organizations from across the country--including more 
than 75 groups from Ohio and a number from Oklahoma, the Presiding 
Officer's State--have written to Congress asking us to ``take action as 
soon as possible to provide a four-year funding extension for CHIP.''
  Groups, including the Urban Institute, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment 
and Access Commission, and the Bipartisan Policy Center, have all noted 
the importance of the current CHIP program.
  The Urban Institute estimated that an additional 1.1 million children 
will become uninsured if separate CHIP coverage were eliminated. Again, 
these are sons and daughters of parents who have jobs--jobs that don't 
provide insurance and jobs that don't pay enough that they can afford 
insurance. This would be a 40-percent increase, if this were to happen, 
in the number of uninsured children in the United States relative to 
the number projected under the ACA with the continuation of CHIP.
  The Bipartisan Policy Center has called for extending CHIP for more 
than just the 2 years, but note what they say when calling for a CHIP 
extension: ``Two years does not provide sufficient time for state and 
federal elected officials and agencies to address major programmatic 
changes sought by policymakers on both sides of the aisle and at both 
levels of government.''
  Support for CHIP has always been bipartisan. Senator Hatch, 
Republican from Utah; Senator Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts; a 
number of us on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of 
Representatives back in 1997, Republicans and Democrats alike; and 
Chairman Bilirakis and I and others helped to write this legislation 
which has been successful at bringing the uninsured rate for children 
down by more than 50 percent. I am encouraged that Members of both 
parties have shown a willingness to come together. Senate Democrats 
will have a hard time supporting any plan that doesn't extend CHIP for 
a full 4 years.
  I want to support the sustainable growth rate. I helped write the 
original one. I have supported it for 20 years. We shouldn't be doing 
it like this on a temporary 1- or 2-year basis. This is finally going 
to get done right, but we don't do that and then leave out the children 
by only providing 2 years.
  Parents like Ericka and Jessica face enough uncertainty with their 
children's health. Most of us in this body are parents, and a number of 
us are grandparents. Most of us, because we dress like this and we are 
Senators and have good insurance provided by taxpayers--we may have 
anxiety about our children and our grandchildren's health, but we don't 
have anxiety about their insurance and their ability to go to hospitals 
and doctors and specialists to get care. Certainly, we are anxious 
about our children and all the things that could happen, but our 
anxiety doesn't reach into the whole sphere of worrying about how to 
provide insurance for children.
  Ericka and Jessica can't be anything but anxious when they hear that 
CHIP could end, and they understand that it should be 4 years. CHIP 
gives parents like them peace of mind that they will be able to get 
their children the care they need without bankrupting those families. 
We need to make sure these parents continue to have that peace of mind 
with a 4-year extension. The PRO-CHIP legislation we have introduced in 
the Senate with almost four dozen cosponsors makes sure those kids 
don't lose critical coverage by saying no to any deal that doesn't fund 
CHIP for the full 4 years.

                          ____________________