BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise today and join my colleague, Senator Wyden, to speak about legislation we have introduced that will protect not only his State but my State of Massachusetts and other States by allowing them to waive out of specific requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
As my colleagues know, my single priority is and always has been to ensure that what we do in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts or the rest of the country, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar that flows from the States into the Federal Government.
This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. It has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts.
It is my belief that Congress needs to be held responsible for its actions, for the policies it advocates, and the legislation that ultimately passes through these Halls to become law. When Congress passes legislation that is harmful--in this case the Federal health care reform legislation, which I did not support--or there is an unintended consequence--which I think is the case when it deals with Massachusetts and the innovations we have had for years, where we have 98 percent of our people already insured--Members need to be bold enough to stand up and fix it regardless of party affiliation and regardless of whether it is popular.
I commend the Senator who is about to speak after me for his leadership on this matter. Senator Wyden has been working very diligently on addressing the concerns for his State. Today I get a chance to do the same. Today we get an opportunity to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure we are doing the right thing, not just for Massachusetts but for other States that seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law.
In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform: expanding access--as I mentioned, 98 percent of our people are already insured--designing systems to increase market participation--from the Cadillac plan, all the way to the fully subsidized Commonwealth Care Program--and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn, however, lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and what does not work, and we are continuing to work on those very issues to make sure we can do it better.
This is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of this piece of legislation that I have introduced in a bipartisan manner with Senator Wyden from Oregon.
As you know, the health care reform efforts of Massachusetts are our own. We were one of the first States in the country to take this upon ourselves to address the very serious problem we had in providing funds to hospitals that were providing care for people who were making a good wage but who were not paying the bills. As a result, the citizens had to subsidize the hospitals to the tune of over $1 billion. So we believed it was imperative for us to get something done.
As difficult as it is to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. I understand that. They may not want to be like Oregon either. Massachusetts is a great State, with, I believe, the best hospitals, physicians, doctors, nurses, treatment facilities, research facilities in the country and around the world. There is a reason why people come to Massachusetts for the care and coverage they need so badly.
But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting reform efforts in Oregon as well. He does not want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different. Its provider network is different. Its beneficiaries and population are different than in Massachusetts.
Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that I would not want to work in the State of Massachusetts, but that is OK. That is what this bill is about. It allows the individual States to have the right to do what they believe is imperative and important for their particular State, which is why the legislation we have introduced--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important.
Right now, as provided under section 1332--the Waivers for State Innovation--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That is the good news. We are allowing States to participate in the process and allowing them not to have duplicate processes or maybe potentially have lesser care and coverage if the Federal health care bill is implemented. So it allows us to continue to provide the care and services we want to provide to our citizens in Massachusetts. The bad news is, this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017. So what are we doing until then--a full 3 years after the PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented?
For me and my dear friend from Oregon it does not make any sense. When I see something that does not make any sense in Washington, I do my best, regardless of party affiliation, to fix it.
The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of the PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not only from an operational standpoint, because the PPACA takes effect in 2014, but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may already have met or exceeded, in many cases, the provisions of the act? So holding Massachusetts back by limiting my State's ability to continue to innovate and remain flexible and responsive to the health care market costs money, and it costs the taxpayers money at a point right now where we don't have a whole heck of a lot of money to go around.
The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible. Let me repeat that: Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for States that apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of the enactment of this bill. I hope this bill is enacted quickly. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals. It makes fiscal sense.
[Page: S8007] GPO's PDF
Taken together, these two changes are not only good for Massachusetts but potentially for other States. They are good for the other States that are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage. That is what it should be. It should be a symbiotic relationship between the Federal Government and the States. The States should have the right to determine what they want to do for their citizenry. Do we think maybe some States could do it better than the Federal Government? I believe when we deal with health care, Massachusetts is second to none, with all due respect to the other Senators in this Chamber.
During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility:
The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for long time. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage it.
I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of States rights, especially when it makes sense, and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Massachusetts Hospital Association in support of my efforts today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT