Protecting Access to Healthcare Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me.

I hope the American people understand what's going on here today. H.R. 5 represents another in a long line of partisan political attacks on the Affordable Care Act.

Since its passage 2 years ago, this historic law has been under attack. Today's bill would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The Affordable Care Act is replete with provisions to lower Medicare costs, from unprecedented tools to fight fraud to efficiency reforms. The IPAB is a backstop to those provisions.

What the Affordable Care Act does not do--and what the IPAB is prohibited from doing--is increase costs to seniors and people with disabilities or cut benefits. That may be why my Republican colleagues don't like it. If you look at their proposal to take away the Medicare guarantee and turn it into a voucher program, you can see why. Instead of lowering costs for everyone as the Affordable Care Act does, the Republican plan just shifts costs onto the backs of those who can least afford it--seniors, disabled people, and their families. These are the same people who are harmed by the tort-reform provisions of H.R. 5--Federal intrusion coupled with disregard for injured consumers.

Instead of working to improve health care quality, as the Affordable Care Act does, H.R. 5 simply restricts the rights of patients harmed by dangerous drug companies, nursing homes, medical device manufacturers, doctors, and hospitals.

I am especially opposed to arbitrary caps on noneconomic damages. Economic damages provide compensation for lost wages. Noneconomic damages provide compensation for injuries that are just as real and damaging, injuries liking excruciating pain, disfigurement, loss of a spouse or a grandparent, inability to bear children. These arbitrary caps are particularly discriminatory for seniors and children who don't have lost wages and are not worth much.

H.R. 5--higher costs to seniors and disabled people and fewer legal rights for injured consumers. It's a bad deal on both counts.

[Begin Insert]
I hope the American people understand what is going on here today. H.R. 5 represents another in a long line of partisan political attacks on the Affordable Care Act.

Yesterday, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle released their FY 2013 budget proposal. Once again they propose to repeal the Affordable Care Act and once again they propose to end the Medicare guarantee.

I find it ironic that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticize the Medicare program because they claim cost growth is out of control and the program is going bankrupt.

The Medicare provisions of the Affordable Care Act are replete with provisions from cutting fraud to improving the efficiency of health care delivery that will lower costs--without shifting costs to seniors and people with disabilities or cutting the Medicare guarantee. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is designed as a backstop to those provisions--which CB0 tells us will be effective enough that we will not even need IPAB for the next decade.

And, here we are today set to consider legislation to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board not because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a better idea but because they want to get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act and eliminate Medicare.

If IPAB has to act, the Affordable Care Act explicitly states that it can only make recommendations regarding Medicare and cannot make recommendations that would ration care, raise premiums, increase cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify eligibility. IPAB is also supposed to consider the effect of its recommendations on Medicare solvency, quality and access to care, the effect on changes in payments to providers, and the impact on those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

There are certainly ways to improve IPAB and the Affordable Care Act--but the bill before us doesn't make improvements--it just repeals. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be honest with seniors, people with disabilities and the American public about their replacement plan.

What exactly is the Republican alternative? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked a lot about Medicare costs and sustainability, but what is their plan? If the alternative is anything like the proposals included in the Republican budget--which shifts costs to seniors and empowers insurance companies--then I choose IPAB.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have strategically paired IPAB repeal with medical malpractice reform.

We do have a medical malpractice crisis in this country--but it is not that injured consumers are suing too much--in fact, the number of suits has declined. It is not that injured consumers are receiving exorbitant compensation--in fact, the size of settlements and awards have been stable--tracking the rate of medical inflation.

The crisis we are facing in America is that too many patients are the victims of medical errors and too many good doctors are being overcharged by private insurers. We cannot make this a fight between doctors and trial lawyers and lose sight of the fact that too many Americans will be affected by malpractice. Their lives and the lives of their families will never be the same. It is their interests that we must protect.

One in three patients admitted to a hospital experiences an ``adverse event''--they get the wrong prescription, receive the wrong surgical procedure, acquire an infection. But this goes far beyond preventable medical injuries in hospitals. This legislation is so broadly drafted that it will apply to medical devices, pharmaceutical products, nursing homes and for-profit health insurers.

We haven't any assurance that this bill will reduce the incidence of medical malpractice--nor has anyone given us any assurance that it will lower medical liability premiums. But one thing is certain--it will trample on states' rights and take away long-standing civil justice rights. Taking away patient rights does not improve the quality of our health care system--it just leaves injured consumers without recourse.

I especially oppose arbitrary caps on non-economic damages and other restrictions on the rights of medical malpractice victims to seek accountability and compensation for their injuries. We are going to hear from proponents of H.R. 5 that these caps are not harmful because economic costs--medical bills and lost wages--are left uncapped.

But what about injuries that are just as painful but less quantifiable--the inability to bear children, the loss of a spouse or child or grandparent, excruciating pain, permanent and severe disfigurement.

Non-economic damages compensate injured victims for very real injuries--and those who suffer those injuries deserve their full and fair day in court.

H.R. 5 is an attack on victims who, for the rest of their lives, will suffer as a result of negligence and malpractice. We should not add to their pain by denying them their legal rights.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 50.

[End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source