American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Floor Speech
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - February 06, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I thank him for his good work on this legislation.
I have come to the floor to ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I ask for consideration of my amendment No. 201, which I have at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, despite the objection, I hope to have the opportunity later in the day to include this important amendment in the bill. This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Bennett, Senator Hatch, and Senator Kohl.
I first note that my amendment doesn't cost anything. It doesn't add any money to this bill. In fact, it saves money in the long term. My amendment represents a bipartisan effort to strengthen an important part of the bill, which is the health information technology part of the bill.
As we know, technology has transformed our country. I am encouraged that this legislation we are working on would develop a national health information technology system and create over 200,000 new jobs doing it. If implemented thoughtfully, health information technology has the potential to reduce waste, rein in costs, stimulate innovation, and improve quality.
As you know, Mr. President, Minnesota is a leader in the health care community across this country, with the Mayo Clinic and countless other hospitals and clinics in our State. We have been recognized for the measured quality outcomes that have resulted from effective information technology implementation. So we know what we are doing in Minnesota.
In this bill, there are, as I mentioned, very good provisions for the development of health information technology. There are also some privacy provisions, which are necessary and which I support. We recently had a hearing on these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. Out of that hearing came this amendment. One of the things we recognized was that one of the privacy provisions, which is well-meaning, would have the effect of making it hard to collect data to improve the quality of care, which is something Mayo Clinic does so well. One example: You will save $50 billion in 4 years in this country in taxpayer Medicare spending if every hospital used the protocol Mayo Clinic has used for the last 4 years for chronically ill patients. The reason they can do that is they collect data, so they know what the protocol should be.
My amendment ensures that the quality assessment research necessary to improving our health care system is preserved.
As the bill currently stands, all forms of health care operations are subject to regulations to be put forth by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These regulations have the potential to impose varying levels of restriction on the ability of doctors and nurses to share information.
While I support requiring authorization and the use of de-identifiable data in many areas of the health care system, subjecting quality assessment activities to these regulations has the potential to limit patient care and clinic research. That is the last thing we want to do now, as we are looking at collecting that information to spread these protocols across the country to get better assessments of what high-quality care means. That is why Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett are cosponsoring this amendment with me.
I also note that this is supported by the American Hospital Association, as well as the Association of Medical Colleges.
With the United States spending $2.3 trillion per year on health care, we must bring an end to the inefficiencies of the system. We need the information--well-intentioned in the bill--but we must make sure the work going on to share information continues.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to Senator Grassley's amendment, which removes the targeted assistance for the temporary increase in Federal Medicaid funding contained in this bill.
It is well established that Medicaid enrollment increases in direct relation to unemployment growth. For every percentage increase in unemployment, States see an additional 1 million people seeking Medicaid assistance. I find it deeply troubling that at a point when health care is most needed, Minnesota and other States will not be given the assistance the situation demands.
By eliminating the portion of assistance that is targeted based on States' unemployment rates, Senator Grassley's amendment would significantly reduce assistance for States facing the largest increases in their unemployment rates and the largest budget deficits.
Instead of providing aid to those who need it most, his amendment provides relief for States that are, in some cases, even enjoying a budget surplus. Nineteen of the 20 States facing the smallest increase in unemployment would get more assistance under this amendment. Is that an effective use of Federal money? At a time when we should be focusing all our efforts on ways we can best spend taxpayer dollars, sending aid to States that have less need doesn't make sense.
I ask my colleagues to consider this. This is about accountability to the people of this country. This is about targeted assistance. We have heard a lot about targeting spending, putting spending where we need it. This is also about targeted assistance to the States that need it most.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source