• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obamacare in the Senate: First Week Amendments

    The Senate began debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R.3590) this week. Senators on both sides of the aisle offered amendments to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s huge, 2074 page health care bill. The first votes to take place concerned preventative services for women. As Senators weigh in on this vital topic, Americans have yet another opportunity to examine their actions rather than just their promises and talking points.

    Bureaucratic Control over Health Benefits. This week, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) offered an amendment that would extend the preventative services that women and children receive without co-payments or other forms of cost-sharing with insurance companies.

    Though most Senators agree with Sen. Mikulski’s goal, her amendment would require micromanagement of Americans’ health benefits by the federal government. Insurance companies would be forced to cover, at no charge, all preventative services recommended by the United States Preventative Services Task Force, all immunizations relevant to a given patient, all preventative care and screenings for children as defined by the Health Resources and Services Administration. In addition, any benefits not recommended by the United States Preventative Services Task Force that were recommended by the guidelines of the Health Resources and Services Administration( an agency within HHS) would also be required to be fully covered by insurance companies. The breadth of this federal power to set benefits has incurred the formal opposition of the National Right to Life Committee, inasmuch as HHS would have “sweeping power” to define “preventive care,” including abortion as a medical procedure.

    Because it prohibits out of pocket costs, the Mikulski amendment will increase Americans’ health premiums, and will also affect the range of choices available to women. As Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) put it, “I think we agree [with] Senator Mikulski’s goal that all Americans should be able to get preventive benefits, but we disagree that her amendment achieves that stated goal”.

    Government control of health benefits and medical procedures can be unpopular and have adverse consequences. The United States Preventative Services Task Force’s recent decision to downgrade the necessity of mammograms for women between the ages of 40 of 50 was controversial. But if federal officials control health benefits, that kind of controversy would likely become routine.

    In the case of the Mikulski amendment, all insurance companies would be required to cover all benefits ranked “A” or “B” by the Task Force, but they would be unlikely to cover as many benefits that are ranked lower in order to keep costs down.  Mammograms for women between the ages of 40 and 50 are now ranked “C”. This means that they would more likely be unavailable to women under the age of 50 because of the regulations that would follow from Mikulski’s amendment. The reason: the incentives to offer benefits in addition to those recommended by the Task Force would be scant. According to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), “…according to the Mikulski amendment, those women who are younger than 50 years of age will not be eligible or will not be covered under the mandatory screening requirement that she has set forth in her amendment”.

    Among other things, Sen. Mikulski’s amendment would dramatically strengthen the role of the federal bureaucracy in determining what health benefits Americans can get in their health coverage. According to Sen. Coburn, “…a bureaucracy looking at numbers, not patients, never putting their hand on a patient, will make a decision about what is good for them and what is not.” Nonetheless, Sen. Mikulski’s amendment was passed.

    Safeguarding the Patient-Doctor Relationship. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also offered an amendment to improve patients’ access to preventative health benefits. Under Sen. Murkowski’s proposal, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be prohibited from using recommendations made by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force to deny coverage of medical services. Under the Murkowski amendment , insurers would be required to consult guidelines and recommendations made by professional medical organizations that were relevant to specific preventative services, not recommendations made by federal officials.. As Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) asked the Senate, “…do we have the government decide based on cost or do we have the professional caregivers who know the field decide based on what’s best for that patient? That’s the difference.”

    The amendment would have also prohibited the use of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) as a basis for denying coverage. CER would not override the needs of each unique patient. Sen. Murkowski’s amendment would make such an override unlawful.

    Moreover, referencing the issue of women under 50 not getting mammograms as a covered benefit, as recently specified by a government task force, insurers would be unable to deny coverage based on the recommendations of bureaucrats, instead rather than medical professionals. Nonetheless, Sen. Murkowski’s amendment was defeated.

    Foreshadowing Federal Micromanagement of Health Benefits. Before adjourning on Wednesday night, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) offered an amendment that provides that women under the age of 50 cannot be denied coverage for mammograms based on the recent recommendation of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. The Vitter amendment passed.

    The Senate debate highlighted a crucial problem with the Senate bill: if federal officials are given unprecedented control over the benefits and medical services that all insurance must provide, it is likely that the Congress would be voting on measures like Sen. Vitter’s constantly. This is a tart foretaste of what Americans can expect if Congress insists on transferring such immense power to federal officials.

    Kathryn Nix currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Obamacare in the Senate: First Week Amendments

    1. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      While a noble cause, this characterizes everything in a nutshell. It will cost more money and WHO is going to pay for it?

    2. Cornu Ammonis, US says:

      "Because it prohibits out of pocket costs, the Mikulski amendment will increase Americans’ health premiums…"

      Wow, I didn't know women and children weren't Americans! Thanks for correcting me about the Constitution!

      Also, aren't the coverage specialists at health insurance companies "bureaucrats" also? You know, the ones who are paid bonuses to limit coverage for you in any way possible so their company's profit margin can be higher? Man, I really wouldn't want my health care to be controlled by them.

      Shouldn't we envy the uninsured? Their health care is controlled by no one except their doctors! No slimy government or insurance company agents to deal with. Total economic freedom and market prices for drugs, just like the Heritage Foundation wants, right?

      Give me a break. Attacking preventive coverage for women and children, which can only save money in the long run by preventing expensive acute illnesses from coming up, is not going to fly, even among most fiscal conservatives.

    3. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Cornu,

      Please read the entire article. One concern is no co-payments and no cost-sharing. Why not?

      I ask again, who is going to pay for this if there are no co-payments and no cost-sharing?

      By the time they add another 400 amendments like this it will essentially be government-run health care. This is just one amendment that many people will not have to fund at the expense of others.

      If I have co-payments, so should everyone.

    4. Pingback: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: A Week In Review « AAPS News of the Day

    5. Cornu Ammonis, US says:

      I agree with the principal that cost-sharing is a good idea for those who can afford it. Sure, some middle-class women and children who can afford a copayment will "get away" with not doing it. But most of the people who would be covered by this don't have health insurance, and that's a group with a pretty low average – especially if it's uninsured women and children. I'm completely fine with them not having to pay a cent while I as an adult man will have to pay copayments – I see nothing unfair about this.

      Also, the complaints made are so minuscule compared to the overall benefits of the bill, that it's really picking bones from an egg.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×