Ron Paul on Health Care Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

Sub-sections under Health Care:
• Voting+Sponsorships
• Other issues under Health Care

Newt Gingrich's healthcare stances compared to Paul's

Gingrich vs. Paul on Domestic Issues

• Mandatory Sentencing
• Death Penalty
• Gun Rights
• Drugs in Society
• Marijuana Legalization
• Nuclear Waste
• Animal Rights
• Environment vs. Economy
• WikiLeaks
• Outer Space Policy
• Citizen Loyalty
• Health mandate
• Medicare
• ObamaCare

Government should not protect you from yourself

PAUL: No, essentially not, but they have to be a referee. If people are doing things that hurt other people, yes. But if you embark on instituting a society where government protects you from yourself, you're in big trouble, and that's what they're doing.

Q: What about mandates for adults?

PAUL: You talk about ObamaCare using force, but that's all government is, is force. I mean, do you have a choice about paying Medicare taxes? So there's not a whole of different: you're forced to buy insurance. That's one step further. But you have to stop with force. Once government uses force to mold behavior or mold the economy, they've overstepped the bounds and they've violated the whole concept of our revolution and our Constitution.

Markets instead of lobbyists writing drug laws

A: Theoretically, it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don't take good care of us. Who gets--who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy. But you would have private institutions that could become credible. And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not, and they don't need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.

Vaccinating 12-year-olds against HPV is bad medicine

PAUL: Just take the HPV [human papiloma virus]. Forcing 12-year-old girls to take an inoculatio to prevent this sexually transmitted disease, this is not good medicine, I do not believe. I think it's social misfit. It's not good social policy. And therefore, I think this is very bad to do this. But one of the worst parts about that was the way it was done. The governorship in Texas traditionally is supposed to be a weak governorship. I didn't even know they could pass laws by writing an executive order. He did it with an executive order, passed it. The state was furious, and the legislature, overwhelmingly, 90%, repealed this. But I think it's the way it was passed, which was so bad. I think it's a bad piece of legislation. But I don't like the idea of executive orders. I, as president, will not use the executive order to write laws.

States CAN mandate insurance, but it's a bad idea

ROMNEY: Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am. It allows states [to mandate insurance].

Q: [to Paul]: Does a state have a constitutional right to make someone buy insurance just because they're a resident?

PAUL: No, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things. And I would consider that a very bad thing, but you don't send in a federal police force because they're doing it. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution. But we have drifted so far from any of our care being delivered by the marketplace. And once you get the government involved--both parties have done it --they've developed a medical care delivery system based on corporatism. The corporations are doing quite well, whether it's Obama or under the Republicans. The drug companies do well. The insurance companies do well. The patient and the doctors suffer.

Private contract instead of tort reform

• A bill prohibiting lawsuits against restaurants, food manufacturers and distributors based on claims that the food contributed to the plaintiff's obesity
• A bill barring lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of firearms making them liable for gun violence
• Bills limiting the liability of users of defibrillators in emergencies, and nonprofit volunteer pilots

Let people opt out of Medicare

PAUL: Well, under these conditions, it's not solvent and won't be solvent. If you're an average couple, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much. So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine. And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money. Some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just--you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?

Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty

A: They will, if they see that my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice religion and say their prayers where they want. It's an issue of protecting liberty across the board. We don't have the First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. If you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty. You can't hurt other people, but yes, you have the right to do things that are very controversial. If not, then you'll have a government that tells us what we can eat and drink and whatever.

ObamaCare is only as socialized as Bush's & Nixon's reforms

Insurers promote ObamaCare's giant expansion of government

Individual mandate is back door to national health insurance

Yet, as I write this, it appears unlikely that the final bill will create a system resembling the socialized medicine model of Canada or Great Britain. Instead, it appears likely that any health care "reform" plan that actually passes Congress will reject both the free market and socialism in favor of corporatism.

Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care

Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling

Insurance companies & gov’t make healthcare unaffordable

A: Well, we’ve had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It’s not working, and nobody’s happy with it. The doctors aren’t happy. The patients aren’t happy. Nobody seems to be happy--except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.

Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare

Socialized medicine won’t work; nor managed care

Managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked

A: We’ve had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn’t worked well. It’s very, very expensive, and it’s the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it’s a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That’s not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don’t have enough competition. There’s a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications.

Not government’s role to protect people like Terri Schiavo

• HUCKABEE:Yes.
• TANCREDO:Yes.
• COX:Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES:Yes.

Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts.

[Sen. DeMint, R-SC]: The Democrats have Medicare on a course of bankruptcy. Republicans are trying to save Medicare & make sure there are options for seniors in the future. Medicare will not be there 5 or 10 years from now. Doctors will not see Medicare patients at the rate [Congress will] pay.

[Sen. Ayotte, R-NH]: We have 3 choices when it comes to addressing rising health care costs in Medicare. We can do nothing & watch the program go bankrupt in 2024. We can go forward with the President's proposal to ration care through an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats. Or we can show real leadership & strengthen the program to make it solvent for current beneficiaries, and allow future beneficiaries to make choices.

Opponent's Arguments for voting No:

[Sen. Conrad, D-ND]: In the House Republican budget plan, the first thing they do is cut $4 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the wealthiest among us, they give them an additional $1 trillion in tax reductions. To offset these massive new tax cuts, they have decided to shred the social safety net. They have decided to shred Medicare. They have decided to shred program after program so they can give more tax cuts to those who are the wealthiest among us.

[Sen. Merkley, D-TK]: The Republicans chose to end Medicare as we know it. The Republican plan reopens the doughnut hole. That is the hole into which seniors fall when, after they have some assistance with the first drugs they need, they get no assistance until they reach a catastrophic level. It is in that hole that seniors have had their finances devastated. We fixed it. Republicans want to unfix it and throw seniors back into the abyss. Then, instead of guaranteeing Medicare coverage for a fixed set of benefits for every senior--as Medicare does now--the Republican plan gives seniors a coupon and says: Good luck. Go buy your insurance. If the insurance goes up, too bad.

Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Pitts, R-PA]: Section 4002 of PPACA establishes a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which my bill, H.R. 1217, would repeal. The PPACA section authorizes the appropriation of and appropriates to the fund from the Treasury the following amounts:

• $500 million for FY 2010
• $750 million for FY11
• $1 billion for FY12
• $1.25 billion for FY13
• $1.5 billion for FY14
• and for FY15 and every fiscal year thereafter, $2 billion.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill represents the Republicans' newest line of attack to disrupt, dismantle, and to ultimately destroy the Affordable Care Act. For many years, Republicans have joined with Democrats in supporting programs to prevent disease, to promote health and, in turn, to cut health care costs. But today, the House will vote to end funding for the first and only Federal program with dedicated, ongoing resources designed to make us a healthier Nation.

Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug.

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.

Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.

• 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.

Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare.

• 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:
• 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.

Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health.

• Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: Requires group health plans to apply the same treatment limits on mental health or substance-related disorder benefits as they do for medical and surgical benefits (parity requirement).
• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: Prohibits a group health plan from adjusting premium or contribution amounts for a group on the basis of genetic information.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. PALLONE. This is a comprehensive bill which will establish full mental health and addiction care parity. The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 authorized for 5 years partial parity by mandating that the annual and lifetime dollar limit for mental health treatment under group health plans offering mental health coverage be no less than that for physical illnesses. This bill requires full parity and also protects against discrimination by diagnosis.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. DEAL of Georgia: I am a supporter of the concept of mental health parity, but this bill before us today is not the correct approach. This path will raise the price of health insurance, and would cause some to lose their health insurance benefits and some employers to terminate mental health benefits altogether.

The bill's focus is also overly broad. Our legislation should focus on serious biologically-based mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not on jet lag and caffeine addiction, as this bill would include. There are no criteria for judicial review, required notice and comment, or congressional review of future decisions.

I would ask my colleagues to vote "no" today so that we can take up the Senate bill and avoid a possible stalemate in a House-Senate conference on an issue that should be signed into law this Congress.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 268-148

Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: This Act would enroll all 6 million uninsured children who are eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under existing programs.

PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE: 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. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. [But this bill, even with changes, does not meet the requirements I outlined].

It would still shift SCHIP away from its original purpose by covering adults. It would still include coverage of many individuals with incomes higher than the median income. It would still result in government health care for approximately 2 million children who already have private health care coverage.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill protects health insurance coverage for some 6 million children who now depend on SCHIP. It provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. Together, this is a total of better than 10 million young Americans who, without this legislation, would not have health insurance.

The bill makes changes to accommodate the President's stated concerns.

1. It terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year.
2. It prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000.
3. It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.
4. It encourages securing health insurance provided through private employer.

Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.

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]:

1. It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.

It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Does ideological purity trump sound public policy? It shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears that ideology would profoundly change the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, but because of ideological opposition to market-based prices. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time under Medicare.

Under the guise of negotiation, this bill proposes to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program. The current system trusts the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution.

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay.

• Allows hospitals to refuse treatment to Medicaid patients when they are unable to pay their co-pay if the hospital deems the situation to be a non-emergency
• Excludes payment to grandparents for foster care

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages.

Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs.

Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance.

Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits.

Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage.

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide.

Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts.

Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states.

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
1. Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.
2. The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.

Limit anti-trust lawsuits on health plans and insurers.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

• Delineates the relationship between the antitrust laws and negotiations between groups of health care professionals and health plans and health care insurance issuers.
• Applies the "rule of reason" standard to negotiations between a health plan and two or more physicians.
• Awards attorneys' fees to a substantially prevailing plaintiff only when the defendant's conduct was unreasonable or in bad faith.
• Prohibits tying arrangements (linking the participation in one product line to participation in another) between a health plan and health care professional.
• Excludes from this Act any negotiations or agreements including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, or other federal programs.

EXCERPTS FROM CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS:

Congress finds the following:
1. A large number of Americans receive their health care coverage from managed health care plans.
2. The market power of insurance companies has increased tremendously since the early 1990's, due to mergers and acquisitions.
3. Health plans improperly manipulate the practice of medicine through such mechanisms as inappropriately making medical necessity determinations, and knowingly denying and delaying payment.
4. The intent of the antitrust laws is to encourage competition and protect the consumer, and the current per se standard for enforcing the antitrust laws in the health care field frequently does not achieve these objectives.
5. An application of the "rule of reason" will tend to promote both competition and high-quality patient care.
6. In any action under the antitrust laws challenging a health plan, conduct shall not be deemed illegal per se, but shall be judged on the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition and proposed contract terms.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary; never called for a House vote.

Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public 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.

Prohibit mandatory mental health screen for students.

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Rep. PAUL: This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardian. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

[A Congressional commission] recommends that universal or mandatory mental health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a Federally-funded mental health screener makes the recommendation.

Remove restrictions on estriol (menopause medication).

A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) new policy restricting women's access to medications containing estriol does not serve the public interest.

• Whereas menopause is often a challenging transition for millions of women that requires specialized medications and medical treatments;
• Whereas physicians prescribe a variety of pharmaceutical treatment options to treat women experiencing the symptoms of menopause;
• Whereas individual women respond differently to different treatment options;
• Whereas women's physicians determine on a case-by-case basis which treatment option is optimal for each woman;
• Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen and other bioidentical hormone treatments for patients for a variety of reasons;
• Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen treatments that contain estriol to treat menopausal and perimenopausal women;
• Whereas estriol is one of three estrogens produced by the human body;
• Whereas estriol has been prescribed and used for decades in the United States;
• Whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will no longer permit compounding pharmacists to prepare medications containing estriol pursuant to a doctor's prescription;
• Whereas insurers are now denying women reimbursement for compounded medications containing estriol as a result of the FDA's announcement; and
• Whereas the FDA has acknowledged that it is unaware of any adverse events associated with use of compounded medications containing estriol:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Congress that--
1. physicians are in the best position to determine which medications are most appropriate for their patients;
2. the FDA should respect the physician-patient relationship; and
3. the FDA should reverse its policy that aims to eliminate patients' access to compounded medications containing estriol.

Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law.

Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act.

Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act's enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act's health care provisions.

Expand medical savings accounts for employers & individuals.

To expand the availability of medical savings accounts. Amends the Internal Revenue Code with respect to medical savings accounts to:
1. repeal the limitation on the number of accounts;
2. make all employers (currently limited to small employers) eligible to offer accounts;
3. increase contribution deduction amounts;
4. permit employer and employee contributions;
5. reduce high deductible health plan deductibles; and
6. permit accounts to be offered under cafeteria plans.

Expedited licensing for biosimilar products.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to provide for the licensing of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products.
• Allows any person to file an abbreviated biological product application with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Requires such applications to include information demonstrating a high degree of similarity or interchangeability between the biological product and the licensed biological product (reference product).
• Requires the Secretary to:
  1. approve an application and issue a license for a biosimilar product unless the Secretary finds and informs the applicant that the information in the application fails to demonstrate biosimilarity between the biological product and the reference product or the safety, purity, and potency of the biological product; and
  2. establish requirements for the efficient review, approval, suspension, and revocation of abbreviated biological product applications.
• Allows an applicant a determination as to the interchangeability of a product and its reference product based on whether a product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient. Grants market exclusivity to any biological product that is determined to be interchangeable for a specified period.
• Sets forth provisions governing patent infringement claims involving comparable biological products and legal remedies to expedite the adjudication of patent infringement disputes.
• Extends the period for approval of biological products to allow for studies of the use of new biological products in the pediatric population.