Nancy Pelosi on Health Care Democratic Representative (CA-8)

Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax

Vox.com summary:The CA v. TX case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing.

Pelosi in Reuters:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling a "landmark victory for Democrats' work to defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions against Republicans' relentless efforts to dismantle them." President Biden and other Democrats had criticized Republican efforts to strike down the law at a time when the United States was grappling with a deadly coronavirus pandemic.

1987: Change attitudes about AIDS & contact with gays

Her attitude about addressing AIDS and accepting gays wasn't new. During at her home leading up to the Democratic National Convention in 1984, she tried to help expel by example some of the unfounded fear of AIDS, such as the disease could be transmitted by casual contact. She would strategize with openly gay friends at parties . "I'd say to a gay friend, 'Okay let's both dip our chip in the guacamole at the same time, so they can see we are not afraid of each other.' "

Opportunities to achieve major goals don't come very often

[In 2009] she was Speaker now. Pelosi told Obama that the political prospects for passing something significant on health care were never going to be better, something he already understood.

Passage of ACA her proudest achievement in office

President's denial ultimately cost American lives

PELOSI: Yes, I am. I'm saying that, because when he was signing the bill, he said, just think, 20 days ago, everything was great. No, everything wasn't Let's review later what we should have done when. Let's now just stop doing the same thing, which is to deny and to delay, and, instead, to get what we need for the state, so they can meet their needs, to the hospitals, to our health care workers, who are heroes, our first responders and the rest, so that they have what they need, so, again, they don't risk their lives while trying to save other lives.

Profile in Courage: passed ObamaCare & lost Speakership

In 2010, amid a public climate of deepening polarization, Pelosi tirelessly spearheaded the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has subsequently enabled millions of Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care, and improved benefits for tens of millions more; it was the most significant expansion of health care access since the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid nearly half a century before. Following its passage, Pelosi became the subject of negative political attacks from the GOP. Democrats lost control of the House in November 2010, ending her first tenure as House Speaker.

Single payer plans better handled by states

Democratic senator Michael Bennett told a local paper that single payer wasn't "the right approach to solving our health-care problems," partly due to the "massive tax increase" involved.

We'd have to pass ObamaCare bill to find out what's in it

OpEd: "Deem & pass" forced Obamacare past democratic process

In the House, a process called "deem and pass" was legislative tricker to enact legislation that does not have majority backing. It meant the House would pass the 2,700-page health-care bill without ever actually voting for it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it all when she said, in the final days of the debate, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Public outrage and the protests of both Republican and Democratic members compelled Speaker Pelosi to back away from the "deem and pass" strategy of passing the bill without actually voting on it. The ugly health-care debacle finally came to an end with final passage of the overhaul in the House on March 21, 2010. The minority party was completely excluded from the shaping of major reform legislation.

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-OR]: 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 NO 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 YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 NO on small business associations for buying health insurance.

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

Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award.

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

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide.

Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts.

MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare.

Summary of the Medicare Extention of Drugs To Seniors Act (Meds)

Coverage:

• First-dollar 80%/20% benefit (may charge beneficiary less for generics)
• Catastrophic coverage begins at $2000 out-of-pocket.
• No beneficiary would have to spend more than $2288 for prescription drugs (including premium)

Prescription Drug Prices:

• (Reimportation) Beginning 2003, all FDA-approved prescription would be allowed for importation at world market prices after being tested for safety. Once fully implemented, Medicare could set fee schedules based on imported drug prices.
• (Allen Bill) To eliminate price discrimination, manufacturers would charge Medicare and its beneficiaries the price equal to the lower of either the lowest price paid for the drug by other Federal Government agencies or the manufacturer’s best price for the drug.
• (Reasonable Prices) Drugs developed with taxpayer funds would be subject to “reasonable price” agreements when patents are transferred to pharmaceutical companies.

Premiums and Low-income Assistance:

The Government would subsidize low-income beneficiaries to the following levels:
• 100% of the premium and cost sharing for beneficiaries below 135% of poverty.
• Partial subsidy on a sliding scale for those between 135% and 150%

Employer Incentive Program:

Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.

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.

GOP can't beat ObamaCare, so they pretend it's a "disaster".

Heritage Action Summary: This vote would fully repeal ObamaCare.

Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote YES: (2/3/2015): ObamaCare creates $1.8 trillion in new health care spending and uses cuts to Medicare spending to help pay for some of it. Millions of Americans already have lost, and more likely will lose, their coverage because of ObamaCare. Many Americans have not been able to keep their doctors as insurers try to offset the added costs of ObamaCare by limiting the number of providers in their networks. In spite of the promise, the law increases the cost of health coverage.

Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recommendation to vote NO: (robertreich.org 11/22/2013): Having failed to defeat the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are now hell-bent on destroying the ObamaCare in Americans' minds, using the word "disaster" whenever mentioning the Act, and demand its repeal. Democrats [should] meet the Republican barrage with three larger truths:

1. The wreck of private insurance: Ours has been the only healthcare system in the world designed to avoid sick people. For-profit insurers have spent billions finding and marketing their policies to healthy people--while rejecting people with preexisting conditions, or at high risk.
2. We could not continue with this travesty of a healthcare system: ObamaCare is a modest solution. It still relies on private insurers--merely setting minimum standards and "exchanges" where customers can compare policies.
3. The moral imperative: Even a clunky compromise like the ACA between a national system of health insurance and a for-profit insurance market depends, fundamentally, on a social compact in which those who are healthier and richer are willing to help those who are sicker and poorer. Such a social compact defines a society.

Legislative outcome: Passed House 239-186-8; never came to a vote in the Senate.

Make health care a right, not a privilege.

The Progressive Caucus is united in its goal of making health care a right, not a privilege. Every person should have access to affordable, comprehensive and high-quality medical care. We must use our health care dollars efficiently and ensure public accountability in all medical decisions. Based on this goal, we support the following principles:
1. All Americans, including the 44 million currently without health insurance, deserve to have the health care they need, regardless of ability to pay.
2. Medicare must remain solvent and available for the millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities who rely on the program. The Progressive Caucus supports expanding the program to cover prescription drugs and other needed products and services for beneficiaries. We support a Medicare buy-in for individuals age 55 and older. We support lowering out-of-pocket costs for seniors who currently pay, on average, 20% of their income for health care.
3. Proposals should be rejected to change traditional Medicare from a defined benefit to a defined contribution or voucher system.
4. Balanced Budget Act cuts that are negatively affecting patient access to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies must be restored.
5. Medicaid must have the resources to continue to provide coverage and care for low-income individuals, including children in the CHIP program.
6. Individuals with disabilities should retain their health benefits when they return to work and to have access to rehabilitative and other needed services.
7. Funding and outreach and other programs serving low-income Americans should be expanded. Examples of such programs are the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB), Specified Low-income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB), and Qualified Individuals programs; transitional funds for Medicaid recipients who are also welfare-to-work recipients; and for HHS for mental health outreach for the elderly.

Supported funding women's health needs.

The teams of the Women’s Caucus are charged with advancing action on their designated issues in a bipartisan manner. Legislation from Team 2A: WOMEN’S HEALTH:
• HR49—Treatment of Children’s Deformities Act—require coverage for congenital or developmental deformity or disorder due to trauma, infection, tumor, or disease. (Kelly)
• HR306—Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act—prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of genetic information. (Slaughter)
• HR1285—Cancer Screening Coverage Act —require coverage of breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening. (Maloney/Kelly)
• HR1388—Medicare Cancer Clinical Trial Coverage Act—officially expand Medicare coverage to clinical trials (N.Johnson/Cardin)
• HR116—Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act—and HR383—Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act—and HR1070—require coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and treatment of breast cancer. (DeLauro/Kelly/Eshoo)
• HR1816—Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act—require coverage for colorectal cancer screenings. (Slaughter/McIntosh)
• HR961—Ovarian Cancer Research and Information Amendments—provide for programs regarding ovarian cancer. (Mink)
• HR845—Beneficiary Health Coverage Notification Rights Act—require notification of impending termination of coverage resulting from the failure of a group health plan to pay premiums. (Thurman)
• HR1966—Asthma Awareness, Education and Treatment Act—carry out programs regarding the prevention and management of asthma and allergies. (Millender-McDonald)
• H. Con. Res. 64—Cervical Cancer Public Awareness Resolution—recognizing the severity of the issue of cervical health. (Millender-McDonald)
• H.Res. 19—expressing the seriousness of mental illness. (Roukema)
• HR1899—The Health Care Worker Needlestick Prevention Act—require regulations to minimize the risk of needlestick injury to health care workers. (Roukema/Stark)

Supported funding older women's health.

The teams of the Women’s Caucus are charged with advancing action on their designated issues in a bipartisan manner. Legislation from Team 2B: OLDER WOMEN’S HEALTH:
• HR762—Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999—A bill to provide for research and services with respect to lupus. (Meek)
• HR925—Osteoporosis Early Detection and Prevention Act of 1999—A bill to require that health insurance plans provide coverage for qualified individuals for bone mass measurement. (Maloney/Morella)
• HR933—Osteoporosis Federal Employee Health Benefits Standardization Act of 1999—A bill to ensure that coverage of bone mass measurement is provided under the health benefits program for federal employees (Morella)
• HR1187—Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999—A bill to provide for coverage under part B of the Medicare Program of medical nutrition therapy services furnished by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals. (N. Johnson)
• HR2294—Osteoporosis Education and Prevention Act of 1999—A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to help prevent osteoporosis. (Berkley/Roukema/DeLauro/Maloney)
• HR2471—Public Health Osteoporosis Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Act of 1999—A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for screenings, referrals, and education regarding osteoporosis. (E.B. Johnson/Kelly)

Supported funding Prenatal and Postpartum Care.

The teams of the Women’s Caucus are charged with advancing action on their designated issues in a bipartisan manner. Legislation from Team 3B: Prenatal and Postpartum Care:
• HR 1843—Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act—improve prenatal care and delivery of healthy babies by enrolling pregnant women under state CHIP programs and allowing the option of automatically enrolling the babies born to those women in CHIP. (Hyde/Lowey)
• HR2538—Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act—provide for a national folic acid education program to prevent birth defects. 70% of neural tube birth defects could be prevented if women of childbearing age consumed 400 micrograms of folic acid daily. The problem is that a majority of women are still not aware of the benefits of folic acid, nor are they consuming the recommended daily amount. (Roybal-Allard/Emerson)
• H. Res. 163—raise awareness of post partum depression. Approximately 400,000 women experience post partum depression each year. More than just the “baby blues,” the more extreme cases of post partum depression can result in sadness, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, and low self esteem in new mothers. The resolution provides statistics, and provides recommendations on how the US can work to reduce its incidence, including providing information, training of medical providers, and screening of new mothers for symptoms for early detection of the problem. Additionally, the resolution calls on the U.S. to begin to collect data on post partum depression, so that we can measure its extent. (Capps-Kingston)
• HR1848—Right to Breastfeed Act—ensure a woman’s right to breastfeed her child on any part of federal property (federal parks, federal buildings, and national museums) where she and her child have a right to be. (Maloney/Morella/Roybal-Allard) [STATUS: enacted as part of the FY2000 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill]

Supported funding Family and Children's Coverage.

The teams of the Women’s Caucus are charged with advancing action on their designated issues in a bipartisan manner. Legislation from Team 3D: Family Planning and Children’s Coverage:
• HR 1806—Access to Women’s Health Care Act —provide women in managed care plans with direct access to ob/gyn services and the option of choosing their ob/gyn provider (including non-physicians specialists) as their primary care provider. (Lowey/Lazio)
• HR 1636—Teen Pregnancy Reduction Act—The federal government spends more than $200 million annually specifically for teen pregnancy programs or services. These amounts demonstrate a significant investment in a national effort to prevent teen pregnancy. However, we know very little about the effectiveness of teen pregnancy prevention programs because adequate evaluation is not taking place. In an effort to bolster evaluation of teen pregnancy prevention programs of every type, the bill would provide for both a substantial investment in rigorous, scientific evaluation as well as the dissemination of information on programs, models and processes that have proven effective in preventing teen pregnancy. (Lowey/Castle)
• HR 827—Improved Maternal and Children’s Health Coverage Act of 1999—expand health coverage for uninsured children by improving the outreach to an enrollment of children into Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). (DeGette)
• HR 1085—Healthy Kids Act 2000—improve health care for pregnant women and newborns by ensuring direct access to obstetric and gynecological care for women and pediatric care for children, by giving states greater flexibility by allowing them to enroll income-eligible pregnant women in State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and by increasing enrollment of Medicaid-eligible women. This bill also includes sections for pediatric medical education, public health promotion, and research. (Emerson)