Sam Brownback on Health Care
Republican Sr Senator (KS)
Refusing ObamaCare like declining a discount on the Titanic
Amid much discussion and dissent, our Administration determined that early adoption of ObamaCare was not in the best interests of Kansas, and returned a $31.5 million grant designed to establish a Kansas exchange. Six years later, the wisdom of that
decision is obvious.
Of the 23 state exchanges established under ObamaCare, a majority have failed, at a cost of billions including significant hits to state budgets. As major insurers abandon the few remaining state exchanges, the decision to
refuse early adoption looks increasingly like declining a discount ticket on the Titanic.
The same holds true for the policy choice not to take the bait on Medicaid expansion. You've heard the promise--hundreds of thousands more beneficiaries at
zero cost to the state--all paid for with 'free' federal money. It would be foolish to endorse the ObamaCare expansion of Medicaid now--akin to airlifting on to the Titanic. Kansas was right. Kansas should stay the course.
Source: 2017 State of the State address to Kansas Legislature
, Jan 10, 2017
KanCare at state level better than ObamaCare
When we took office in 2011, I worked to modernize our Medicaid program. Today, we have higher reimbursement rates for providers, more services for clients and measurable health outcomes for Kansans who participate in KanCare. ObamaCare is failing.
It has increased healthcare costs in Kansas and especially hurt rural healthcare--it was ObamaCare that cut Medicare reimbursements to rural hospitals. We can and should find a Kansas solution that will improve rural healthcare access and outcomes.
Source: 2016 State of the State speech to Kansas legislature
, Jan 12, 2016
Expand Health Savings Accounts
Q: What does your health care plan contain to address racial disparities in access to care?
A: This is a real problem. Itís real people that are involved in this type of situation. I think the question you have to ask is:
Which is the best way to go, then? Do you do it with more government or do you do it with more markets? Because these are real people experiencing this. And I pick more markets and real markets with it.
Because I have not seen, in this country, ever, when the government enters into something on a bigger basis, do we get higher quality service or more of it? We donít. It doesnít work that way. One thing that hasnít been talked about up here is Health
Savings Accounts. We need to expand that so people can save money, tax-exempt, from their work, the employers putting that in so they can have some money for their health care coverage.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University
, Sep 27, 2007
Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity
Q: Healthcare consumes up to 17% of our GNP. It appears that lifestyles that are based in moral principles would reduce healthcare expenditures. Would you support a private healthcare approach that rewards behavior that promotes moral lifestyles--
that is, avoiding alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as obesity reduction, exercise and nutrition that promotes health?
Source: [Xref Huckabee] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate
, Sep 17, 2007
- HUCKABEE: Yes.
- TANCREDO: Yes.
- COX: Yes.
- BROWNBACK: Yes.
- PAUL: Yes.
- HUNTER: Yes.
- KEYES: Yes.
Market-based solution over socialized government-pay system
Q: The SCHIP bill would raise tobacco tax. How do we pay for health care in this country without raising some additional revenues?
A: Well, thatís why I voted against the bill. But it wasnít just that. The piece of it that I think you have to recognize
is that youíve got a fundamental decision to make here on health care, which is 16% of the economy, going north fast, probably headed to 20% of our total economy. Do you think the solution to providing more and better health care is (1) that we should
have more government solutions involved, or (2) should there be more market-based solutions involved? And I think clearly the answer here is you need more market forces in health care. Thatís what we need to do. Instead, youíve got the Democrats doing a
step-by-step march toward a socialized government-pay system. And theyíre very happy to do it that way. But we can get better health care going this way. And we can hold the price of it down and not bust the federal treasury at the same time.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate
, Aug 5, 2007
Eliminate death by cancer in 10 years
92 senators signed a letter that Diane Feinstein and I circulated that called on the administration to set up a focused program to eliminate deaths by cancer by the year 2015. Considering the state of medical technology today, that is not an unrealistic
expectation. That is not to say that people wonít get cancer, because they will. But with suitable treatment they wonít die of the disease.
Eliminating death by cancer is one of my favorite things to talk about. I had melanoma, and my father had
colon cancer. Weíre like most families in this country, where cancer is a familiar topic and a dreaded word.
In some of my speeches [I describe my] plan to end deaths by cancer in ten years. There are a lot of things we could give back to
the world, but if the number-one fear is death from cancer, then giving them back the gift of life would be a wonderful gift. It would be a gift that only this country could give the world. We have everything needed to make this a priority.
Source: From Power to Purpose, by Sam Brownback, p.187-188
, Jul 3, 2007
Supports competitive marketplace with price transparency
Most major metropolitan areas have multiple Lasik eye centers. They advertise their service, so you know the price when you go in. You pay for it with your own money, and itís a competitive marketplace. If the quality of treatment is poor or if injuries
occur, the surgeon is sued.
What happened with Lasik could be instructive for the rest of the health care system. First, Lasik has a market and price competition. Itís open pricing, so we see what costs are involved, up front. Second, weíre using our
own money, so we shop for the best product at the best price.
The problem with the current health care system is that itís not generally seen as using our own money, and we have no price transparency. We donít know what weíre paying for. Frequently a
third party pays the bill.
The patient needs more information, and we need more price transparency. Iíve cosponsored a bill requiring the disclosure of the amount Medicare reimburses on typical procedures [made] available over the Internet.
Source: From Power to Purpose, by Sam Brownback, p.195
, Jul 3, 2007
Supports Health Savings Accounts, not government control
Iíd like to see a greater emphasis on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs allow you to set aside your own money, tax-exempt. Individuals could buy a medical insurance policy with a high deductible of, say, $5,000. The policy would pay for everything ove
that amount, but you would pay for everything up to $5,000 with your HSA.
That way you become more involved in the decision-making. You decide when itís appropriate to seek treatment and how far you want to go with it.
The big danger at the moment,
however, is that the other side is pushing hard for more government control over health care and a bigger government-funded system. The big push for the Democrats is nationalized health care on the order of the failed Clinton health care proposals of the
1990s. I donít think theyíve lost the appetite for doing that now.
The market-engaging solution is the one that can actually work. Our way is to restore market mechanisms to the system, not simply yo have more and bigger government in health care.
Source: From Power to Purpose, by Sam Brownback, p.195-196
, Jul 3, 2007
Offset Third World drug costs by extending US patents
10% of the diseases in the world will receive 90% of the pharmaceutical research. They're the 10% of diseases that Americans commonly suffer from, such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, and other diseases that are common in an affluent society.
90% of the diseases that people get in the world at large, however, receive only 10% of the funding. These diseases tend to be most common in parts of the world that don't have substantial funding or market structure.
What if we allowed up to a 2-year
patent extension on another medicine, as an incentive for these companies to fund research and development of treatments for the diseases of the developing world? It's a way for us to use the dynamics of the marketplace to come up with treatments for
pernicious diseases in other parts of the world. We get research on ancient diseases affecting 100s of millions of people globally. They get short patent extensions. That sounds like a winning, market-based solution to a tough, global problem.
Source: From Power to Purpose, by Sam Brownback, p.190-2
, Jul 3, 2007
Tragedy to make "right to die" legitimate
The debate over what's now referred to as "the right to die" is a complex one. If there was ever an area that demanded ethical and moral answers, this is it. It's your life, after all. Some suggest that you ought to be able to do with your life whatever
you want. If a person finds things so abhorrent and life so difficult that he can't go on, or if he has a terminal illness and no possibility of recovery, the merciful thing to do is to let him take whatever steps he wishes to end it--or so goes the rest
of the argument.
But there are incredible, beautiful things that can happen at the end of life, even amid the pain and difficulty. The transition of the soul from a physical home to a spiritual one is a sacred time. One person's trial can be an
incredible testimony to those around him who survive, particularly family and close friends. I think it would be a terrible tragedy for the government to legitimate the act of taking one's own life.
Source: From Power to Purpose, by Sam Brownback, p.205-6
, Jul 3, 2007
Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug.
Congressional Summary:Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to provide for the regulation of tobacco products by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption. Excludes from FDA authority the tobacco leaf and tobacco farms.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. HEATH SHULER (D, NC-11): Putting a dangerous, overworked FDA in charge of tobacco is a threat to public safety. Last year, the FDA commissioner testified that he had serious concerns that this bill could undermine the public health role of the FDA. And the FDA Science Board said the FDA's inability to keep up with scientific advancements means that Americans' lives will be at risk.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA-30): The bill before us, the Waxman-Platts bill, has been carefully crafted over more than a decade, in close consultation with the public health community. It's been endorsed by over 1,000 different public health, scientific, medical, faith, and community organizations.
Sen. HARRY REID (D, NV): Yesterday, 3,500 children who had never smoked before tried their first cigarette. For some, it will also be their last cigarette but certainly not all. If you think 3,500 is a scary number, how about 3.5 million. That is a pretty scary number. That is how many American high school kids smoke--3.5 million. Nearly all of them aren't old enough to buy cigarettes. It means we have as many boys and girls smoking as are participating in athletics in high schools. We have as many as are playing football, basketball, track and field, and baseball combined.
Reference: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act;
; vote number 2009-S207
on Jun 11, 2009
Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
- Reauthorizes State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through FY2013 at increased levels.
- Gives states the option to cover targeted low-income pregnant women
- Phases out coverage for nonpregnant childless adults.
Rep. FRANK PALLONE (D, NJ-6): In the last Congress, we passed legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support as well as the support of the American people. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the President, who vetoed our bill twice, and went on to proclaim that uninsured children can simply go to the emergency room to have their medical needs met. As the Nation moves deeper into a recession and unemployment rates continue to rise, millions of Americans are joining the ranks of the uninsured, many of whom are children. We can't delay. We must enact this legislation now.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ROY BLUNT (R, MI-7):
This bill doesn't require the States to meet any kind of threshold standard that would ensure that States were doing everything they could to find kids who needed insurance before they begin to spend money to find kids who may not have the same need. Under the bill several thousands of American families would be poor enough to qualify for SCHIP and have the government pay for their health care, but they'd be rich enough to still be required to pay the alternative minimum tax. The bill changes welfare participation laws by eliminating the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to lawfully reside in the country before they can participate in this program. In the final bill, we assume that 65% of the children receiving the benefit wouldn't get the benefit anymore. It seems to me this bill needs more work, would have benefited from a committee hearing. It doesn't prioritize poor kids to ensure that they get health care first.
Reference: SCHIP Reauthorization Act;
; vote number 2009-S031
on Jan 29, 2009
Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare.
Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH's veto message (argument to vote No):
- Extends Medicare to cover additional preventive services.
- Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations.
- Eliminates by 2014 [the currently higher] copayment rates for Medicare psychiatric services.
I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable, and I am vetoing it because:In addition, H.R. 6331 would delay important reforms like the Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies competitive bidding program. Changing policy in mid-stream is also confusing to beneficiaries who are receiving services from quality suppliers at lower prices. In order to slow the growth in Medicare spending, competition within the program should be expanded, not diminished.
- It would harm beneficiaries by taking private health plan options away from them.
- It would undermine the Medicare prescription drug program.
- It is fiscally irresponsible, and it would imperil the long-term fiscal soundness of Medicare by using short-term budget gimmicks that do not solve the problem.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. PATTY MURRAY (D, WA): President Bush vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need. This bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care.
Reference: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act;
; vote number 2008-S177
on Jul 15, 2008
Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require wealthy Medicare beneficiaries to pay a greater share of their Medicare Part D premiums.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES: Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment is to means test Medicare Part D the same way we means test Medicare Part B. An individual senior making over $82,000 a year, or a senior couple making over $164,000, would be expected to pay a little over $10 a month extra. That is all we are doing. This amendment saves a couple billion dollars over the next 5 years. It is very reasonable. There is nothing else in this budget that does anything on entitlement reform, and we all know entitlements are heading for a train wreck in this country. We ought to at least do this little bit for our children for deficit reduction.
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. BAUCUS: The problem with this amendment is exactly what the sponsor said: It is exactly like Part B. Medicare Part B is a premium that is paid with respect to doctors' examinations and Medicare reimbursement. Part D is the drug benefit. Part D premiums vary significantly nationwide according to geography and according to the plans offered. It is nothing like Part B.
Second, any change in Part D is required to be in any Medicare bill if it comes up. We may want to make other Medicare changes. We don't want to be restricted to means testing.
Third, this should be considered broad health care reform, at least Medicare reform, and not be isolated in this case. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 42-56
Bill S.Amdt.4240 to S.Con.Res.70
; vote number 08-S063
on Mar 13, 2008
Voted YES on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare.
TRIBAL MEMBER CHOICE PROGRAM: Members of federally-recognized Indian Tribes shall be provided the opportunity to voluntarily enroll, with a risk-adjusted subsidy for the purchase of qualified health insurance in order to--
- improve Indian access to high quality health care services;
- provide incentives to Indian patients to seek preventive health care services;
- create opportunities for Indians to participate in the health care decision process;
- encourage effective use of health care services by Indians; and
- allow Indians to make health care coverage & delivery decisions & choices.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. COBURN: The underlying legislation, S.1200, does not fix the underlying problems with tribal healthcare. It does not fix rationing. It does not fix waiting lines. It does not fix the inferior quality that is being applied to a lot of Native Americans and Alaskans in this country. It does not fix
any of those problems. In fact, it authorizes more services without making sure the money is there to follow it.
Those who say a failure to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a violation of our trust obligations are correct. However, I believe simply reauthorizing this system with minor modifications is an even greater violation of that commitment.
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. DORGAN: It is not more money necessarily that is only going to solve the problem. But I guarantee you that less money will not solve the problem. If you add another program for other Indians who can go somewhere else and be able to present a card, they have now taken money out of the system and purchased their own insurance--then those who live on the reservation with the current Indian Health Service clinic there has less money. How does that work to help the folks who are stranded with no competition?
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 28-67
Reference: Tribal Member Choice Program;
Bill SA.4034 to SA.3899 to S.1200
; vote number 08-S025
on Feb 14, 2008
Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.
Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]:
- It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
- It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.
- It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. DEAL: This bill
[fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed:
- On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to obtain SCHIP benefits? No.
- On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't go to cover adults.
- On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.
Veto message from President Bush:
Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.
Reference: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act;
Bill H.R. 3963
; vote number 2007-403
on Nov 1, 2007
Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D.
To provide for necessary beneficiary protections in order to ensure access to coverage under the Medicare part D prescription drug program. Voting YES would extend the 6-month enrollment period for the Prescription Drug Benefit Program to the entire year of 2006 and allows beneficiaries to change plans once in that year, without penalty, after enrollment. Also would fully reimburse pharmacies, states and individuals for cost in 2006 for covered Medicare Part D drugs.
Reference: Medicare Part D Amendment;
Bill S Amdt 2730 to HR 4297
; vote number 2006-005
on Feb 2, 2006
Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics.
Vote on an amendment that removes an increase in the Medicaid deduction rebate for generic drugs from 11% to 17%. The effect of the amendment, according to its sponsor, is as follows: "This bill eliminates the ability of generic drugs to be sold using Medicaid. Over half the prescription drugs used in Medicaid are generic. Because we have raised the fees so dramatically on what a generic drug company must pay a pharmacy to handle the drug, pharmacies are not going to use the generic. In the long run, that will cost the Medicaid Program billions of dollars. My amendment corrects that situation." A Senator opposing the amendment said: "This bill has in it already very significant incentives for generic utilization through the way we reimburse generics. Brand drugs account for 67% of Medicaid prescriptions, but they also account for 81% of the Medicaid rebates. This is reasonable policy for us, then, to create parity between brand and generic rebates. This amendment would upset that parity."
Reference: Amendment for Medicaid rebates for generic drugs;
Bill S Amdt 2348 to S 1932
; vote number 2005-299
on Nov 3, 2005
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would allow federal government negotiations with prescription drug manufactures for the best possible prescription drug prices. Amendment details: To ensure that any savings associated with legislation that provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to participate in the negotiation of contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs to achieve the best possible prices for such drugs under Medicare Part D of the Social Security Act, that requires the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of such drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan, and that requires the Secretary to participate in the negotiation for a contract for any such drug upon the request of a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan, is reserved for reducing expenditures under such part.
Reference: Prescription Drug Amendment;
Bill S.Amdt. 214 to S.Con.Res. 18
; vote number 2005-60
on Mar 17, 2005
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit.
S. 1 As Amended; Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $400 billion over 10 years to create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients beginning in 2006. Seniors would be allowed to remain within the traditional fee-for-service program or seniors would have the option to switch to a Medicare Advantage program that includes prescription drug coverage. Private insurers would provide prescription drug coverage. Private Insurers would engage in competitive bidding to be awarded two-year regional contracts by the Center for Medicare Choices under the Department of Health and Human Services.Enrolled seniors would pay a $275 deductible and an average monthly premium of $35. Annual drug costs beyond the deductible and up to $4,500 would be divided equally between the beneficiary and the insurer. Beneficiaries with incomes below 160 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for added assistance.
Reference: Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill;
; vote number 2003-262
on Jun 26, 2003
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.
S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002. Vote to pass a bill that would permit a single 30-month stay against Food and Drug Administration approval of a generic drug patent when a brand-name company's patent is challenged. The secretary of Health and Human Services would be authorized to announce regulations allowing pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers that provide drugs for importation would be required to register with Health and Human Services. Individuals would be allowed to import prescription drugs from Canada. The medication would have to be for an individual use and a supply of less than 90-days.
; vote number 2002-201
on Jul 31, 2002
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages.
Vote to provide federal protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and allow patients to sue health insurers in state and federal courts. Economic damages would not be capped, and punitive damages would be capped at $5 million.
; vote number 2001-220
on Jun 29, 2001
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011. The money would come from the budget's contingency fund. The amendment would also require a Medicare overhaul.
Bill H Con Res 83
; vote number 2001-65
on Apr 3, 2001
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
Vote to establish a prescription drug benefit program through the Medicare health insurance program. Among other provisions, Medicare would contribute at least 50% of the cost of prescription drugs and beneficiaries would pay a $250 deductible
; vote number 2000-144
on Jun 22, 2000
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction.
The Santorum (R-PA) amdt would effectively kill the Kennedy Amdt (D-MA) which would have allowed self-employed individuals to fully deduct the cost of their health insurance on their federal taxes.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)53; N)47
Reference: Santorum Amdt #1234;
Bill S. 1344
; vote number 1999-202
on Jul 13, 1999
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions.
This cloture motion was on a bill which would have increased tobacco restrictions. [YES is an anti-smoking vote].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)57; N)42; NV)1
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on a modified committee substitute to S. 1415;
Bill S. 1415
; vote number 1998-161
on Jun 17, 1998
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing.
Approval of means-based testing for Medicare insurance premiums.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)70; N)20
Reference: Motion to table the Kennedy Amdt #440;
Bill S. 947
; vote number 1997-113
on Jun 24, 1997
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.
Brownback scores 0% by APHA on health issues
The American Public Health Association (APHA) is the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health. APHA is concerned with a broad set of issues affecting personal and environmental health, including federal and state funding for health programs, pollution control, programs and policies related to chronic and infectious diseases, a smoke-free society, and professional education in public health.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: APHA website 03n-APHA on Dec 31, 2003
Establish a national childhood cancer database.
Brownback co-sponsored establishing a national childhood cancer database
Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2007 - A bill to advance medical research and treatments into pediatric cancers, ensure patients and families have access to the current treatments and information regarding pediatric cancers, establish a population-based national childhood cancer database, and promote public awareness of pediatric cancers.
Authorizes the Secretary to award grants to childhood cancer professional and direct service organizations for the expansion and widespread implementation of: Legislative Outcome: House version H.R.1553; became Public Law 110-285 on 7/29/2008.
Source: Conquer Childhood Cancer Act (S911/HR1553) 07-S911 on Mar 19, 2007
- activities that provide information on treatment protocols to ensure early access to the best available therapies and clinical trials for pediatric cancers;
- activities that provide available information on the late effects of pediatric cancer treatment to ensure access to necessary long-term medical and psychological care; and
- direct resource services such as educational outreach for parents, information on school reentry and postsecondary education, and resource directories or referral services for financial assistance, psychological counseling, and other support services.
Opposes government-run healthcare.
Brownback opposes the CC survey question on government-run healthcare
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Federal government run health care system"
Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q5 on Aug 11, 2010
Loosen "one-size-fits-all" approach to Medicaid.
Brownback signed Letter to Pres. Obama from 32 Governors
As Governors, we are writing to you regarding the excessive constraints placed on us by healthcare-related federal mandates. One of our biggest concerns continues to be the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prevent states from managing their Medicaid programs for their unique Medicaid populations. We ask for your immediate action to remove these MOE requirements so that states are once again granted the flexibility to control their program costs and make necessary budget decisions.
Every Governor, Republican and Democrat, will face unprecedented budget challenges in the coming months. Efforts to regulate state operations impose greater uncertainty on our budgets for oncoming years and create a perfect storm when coupled with the current state of the economy.
Health and education are the primary cost drivers for most state budgets. Medicaid enrollment is up. Revenues are down. States are unable to afford the current Medicaid program, yet our hands are tied by the MOE requirements. The effect of the federal requirements is unconscionable; the federal requirements force Governors to cut other critical state programs, such as education, in order to fund a "one-size-fits-all" approach to Medicaid. Again, we ask you to lift the MOE requirements so that states may make difficult budget decisions in ways that reflect the needs of their residents.
Source: Letter to Obama from 32 Governors 110107-Gov on Jan 7, 2011
Provide for treatment of autism under TRICARE.
Brownback signed bill providing for autism treatment under TRICARE
A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the treatment of autism under TRICARE. Revises TRICARE (a Department of Defense [DOD] managed health care program) to authorize treatment of autism spectrum disorders, if a health care professional determines that such treatment is medically necessary.
Source: S.1169&HR.1600 2009-S1169 on Jun 3, 2009
Page last updated: Jul 26, 2017