Medical Research News

There are no records to display that match the provided criteria.

Madam President, I had a great honor this morning, and it will change the nature of the remarks I intended to make on the Senate floor. I just returned from the World War II Memorial. We had a group of 90 World War II veterans who flew here on an Honor Air flight. Honor Air is a national program. The funds for it are raised by friends, neighbors, and community individuals to help bring their World War II veterans to the Nation's Capital. I have probably visited the World War II Memorial dozens of times—maybe 40 or 50. I visit it every time there is an Honor Air flight from my home State and I am in Washington, DC, I like to be there to say, “welcome and thank you. It is an honor to have you at the memorial that was built for you.”

I visited the World War II Memorial. It is especially meaningful to me personally. My dad is a World War II veteran. My dad has been on the Honor Air flight. My dad will be 98 in November. A few days before the World War II Memorial opened, I walked down there—I was a House Member then, not a Senator—and got a glimpse of what it was going to be like. It is a wonderful place and it reminds us of many things. That day, I stepped away from the memorial and used my cell phone to call my dad at home in Plainville, KS. I was fortunate I got the answering machine, because these are difficult things to tell your parents. So I said, “Dad, I am at the World War II Memorial. Thank you for your service to our country. I respect you and I love you. It was great to be able to say that to an answering machine instead of to your own parent.” My dad actually one-upped me. A few moments later my cell phone rang and he said, “Gerald, I couldn't understand what you said.” So I repeated it in person.

The great thing about the memorial is it causes us to reflect and say things and express ourselves in ways that we otherwise would never do. So that memorial, as do others that honor our service men and women, is one that calls us to say we thank you for your service, we respect you, we love you. That was my experience again this morning. Again, I try to be there every time a group of veterans comes from Kansas, and I was hoping today wouldn't be any different. With the shutdown of our government, with the funding on hold for the National Parks, there was some concern about whether these veterans would be able to actually get to the memorial. It all worked fine. I appreciate the way the morning's events transpired and there was no confrontation and no one wanted to deny those veterans their chance to visit their memorial for the first time.

In addition to those sentiments about these individual veterans, I think what may be of value as we approach today and tomorrow and try to find the solutions that are necessary to solve the circumstance we find ourselves in is a recognition that our veterans--I have had this thought every time I have walked to the Vietnam Wall or to the Korean War Memorial and now to this newer memorial, the World War II Memorial--not a single person represented on that wall or memorialized in the World War II Memorial or the Korean War Memorial, not one of them—I  cannot imagine that a single one of them—volunteered or was drafted for purposes of a fight between Republicans and Democrats. No one went to serve our country, no one volunteered to serve our country because they believed in Republicans or they believed in Democrats. Knowing veterans as I do, my view is they answered the call to duty. They were willing to serve because they believed in America. They believed in the United States and our principles and the freedoms and liberties it provides, and they knew their service would make a difference in the lives of their kids and grandkids. They knew their service would help make America a better place for everyone, but certainly for people they knew—their family members.

I hope I can portray to my colleagues here in the Senate and here in this Capitol building and down Pennsylvania Avenue that the battles we engage in need to be a lot less about Republicans and Democrats and much more about what is good for the country. We ought to use the veterans we met with this morning and those who are memorialized on the National Mall in every circumstance to remind ourselves that there is a higher calling to what we do in our Nation's Capital. There is something more important than political skirmishes.

I don't say this in any Pollyanna way. I don't say it in a way that doesn't acknowledge partisan differences. I always assumed and believed that America sent a variety of people to Washington, DC, to represent their interests and my State of Kansas will probably send somebody different than some other State. We all come here with a philosophy, a background of the way we grew up, the way we think about things, the instructions our constituents have given us, and all of that is reflected in the way we vote, the issues we pursue, the priorities we have. So it is not that we are all supposed to agree, but surely there ought to be recognition that when there is disagreement, as there often is, there is a desire, just as our service men and women had to serve the country, much more important than the desire to serve our political party.

Today's trip to the World War II Memorial, while it is a common experience for me, was especially useful and meaningful because it happened at a time when these veterans came not knowing whether they would be able to gain entry to the memorial. Being there to encourage them and seeing them welcomed and greeted was important but, perhaps equally as important, it served as a reminder to me that what we do in the Senate is motivated by the best of intentions and the greatest of goals; the idea that America is a special place and we who serve here have a special responsibility. We have a chance to try to do something good for the country.

One of the things that has always inspired and pleased me about Kansans—and I assume it is true elsewhere—most of the conversations I have with folks back home are a lot less about what they want me to do for them but more about what decisions they want me to make, to make certain their kids and grandkids have a better life. There is something very great about how we have an interest—as human beings, as parents—in the well-being of the next generation and not just the well-being of ourselves. So my efforts in trying to find resolution to the circumstance we find ourselves in is strengthened, the resolve I have to try to work with others here in the Senate is one that is highlighted by my experience this morning at the National Mall.

I think about where we are and where we need to go. Again, having decried the high partisanship nature of this place, I don't want to detract from that, but we need to be able to have leaders who are willing to have discussions, conversations, and a coming together. It is true of Republicans and it is true of Democrats and it is certainly true of whoever is the President of the United States. We need to make certain we have the ability to recognize that not all of us agree on everything, but with the efforts we make to find a solution to a problem, there is a coming together. It seems to me we have now gotten ourselves in this entrenched position. And while I was pleased moments ago to learn that our President has called congressional leaders to the White House, it is disturbing to me that the message is: But we are not negotiating. I am not certain what the purpose of the White House visit will be. I hope it results in movement, in success.

It is my understanding my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have agreed this morning to not negotiate. All I know about that is what I have read in the press. I don't—again, in an attempt to make certain this doesn't sound partisan and detract from what I was attempting to convey moments ago, we need to make certain Republicans understand we can make progress in the positions we hold even without getting everything we want. So this experience I described of being a Senator—a Member of this great deliberative body—hasn't  been my experience in the short time I have been a Member of the Senate. The idea that we can't negotiate seems to me to be contrary to the purpose of this historic body.

I hope the attitude and approach changes and every Senator recognizes it is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is an opportunity for us to resolve differences and each find some satisfaction in moving in a direction or preserving the status quo, if that is one's position; that because America is a diverse place and that people care differently about different issues and have different opinions, we certainly have a responsibility to represent those views of the folks back home, but recognizing that the country doesn't always agree with us. Surely, there is that common ground, that opportunity to find solutions. My call is for leadership—and by leadership I mean broadly all 100 of us; not leadership in the sense of someone who occupies a position of leadership beyond being a Member of the Senate but all of us—to find the leadership to find the necessary resolve to solve our country's problems.

The Affordable Care Act is a very controversial piece of legislation. It has been said here on the Senate floor, it is the law, it is not negotiable. That position doesn't make sense to me. In fact, the President has delayed, excluded, found exemptions for what is the law. So, surely, if the President can, for example, delay the implementation of the employer mandate, it is not outside of the realm—in fact, I would say it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress—to have the debate, discussion, and consideration of whether to delay the individual mandate. It is the law of the land, but if the President can make changes to the law of the land, surely the body created by article I, the legislative branch, has that opportunity to do so as well. So it ought not be nonnegotiable.

It is time for the Senate to function. It is time for us as individual Senators to provide the leadership to resolve our problems. In my view, we desperately need leadership from the President. While I have serious policy and philosophical disagreements with President Obama, my greatest complaint about his Presidency is his lack of leadership. We need somebody to rally us, to come together and find solutions to those problems, to better resolve our differences. Again, I don't want to detract from the observations about how partisan this place has become by talking about President Obama. In this case, he is a Democrat and I am a Republican, but regardless of who is the occupant of the White House, in order for the Congress to resolve difficult issues, it takes the leadership of a President. My call is, as it was earlier to my colleagues in the Senate to provide leadership—I hope the President, in his meeting with the leadership of the Senate and House today, will provide the leadership necessary to help us move in the right direction and step back from the statement that while we are meeting, nothing is negotiable.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate, and I yield the floor.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) spoke on the Senate floor today about the path forward toward ending the government shutdown and what elected officials in Washington can learn about leadership from our nation's veterans. His remarks followed a morning visit with Heartland Honor Flight World War II veterans at the memorial built in their honor. The World War II Memorial is closed due to the partial government shutdown, but the barricades did not deter the Honor Flight Network from taking the opportunity to visit their memorial.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) released the following statement this morning on Washington's failure to avert a government shutdown:

"Americans expect and deserve their elected officials to work together to find solutions. If we had a functioning Senate we would not be in this position. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats and President Obama refuse to come to the table and work toward a responsible solution with those who disagree with them. They would rather shut down the government than negotiate.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) this week met with the Internal Revenue Service Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel to discuss a number of issues including the IRS' attempt to audit veteran service organizations in Kansas and across the country.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, sponsored a Senate resolution promoting Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, recognized each year in September. The resolution was introduced by Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), and unanimously passed the Senate last night. It supports the goals and efforts of National Suicide Prevention Month and encourages Americans to learn more about suicide’s warning signs in order to help prevent suicide and promote mental health.

“This month is an opportunity to raise awareness and promote discussion of the vital issue of suicide prevention among our military force and veterans,” Sen. Moran said. “We should do everything in our power to support individuals who are at risk and suffering. As a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I am committed to working to reverse the alarming statistic that 22 veterans commit suicide each day in our country. We must make certain veterans struggling from the ails of war have the help they deserve.”

THE FACTS:

  • Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States and the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34.
  • In total, it is estimated that close to six million Americans have lost a loved one to suicide.
  • Servicemembers and veterans of our military are uniquely vulnerable. In 2012 alone, approximately 349 members of the United States Military (active duty, Guard, and Reserve) committed suicide, which is more than the total number of servicemembers who died in combat operations.  This number does not include the more than 6,000 veterans who committed suicide in 2012.

The Suicide Prevention Lifeline can be reached for free, confidential support at 1-800-273-TALK (8255). The Military and Veterans Crisis Line can be reached for free, confidential support at 1-800-273-8255 and Press 1.

###

Sen. Moran Votes "No" on Obamacare Funding

"I cannot support a short-term spending measure that simply enables Washington's pattern of dysfunction to continue... I will continue to work to defund and dismantle Obamacare."

Sep 27 2013

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, today voted “no” on the motion to invoke cloture on the Continuing Resolution (CR). Additionally, he voted against Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) amendment to strip the language defunding the Affordable Care Act from the House-passed CR. Finally, he voted against final passage of yet another stop-gap measure to fund the federal government. Sen. Moran released the following statement on his votes:

“The short-term government funding bill passed by the Senate today is damaging to our country, our economy, and to the American people. The legislation ignores the constitutional responsibilities of Congress to pass a budget each year and set common-sense spending priorities through the appropriations process. Here we are, at the end of yet another fiscal year, and not one appropriations bill has been passed by the Senate. In fact, the last time all of the appropriations bills were passed individually before the September 30th deadline was in 1994. Nearly 20 years later, America faces a staggering $16.7 trillion national debt which is growing by almost $2 billion a day. I cannot support a short-term spending measure that simply enables Washington’s pattern of dysfunction to continue.

“With implementation of Obamacare just days away, many Kansans have been focused on the specific provision within the House-passed CR to defund this misguided law which is jeopardizing health care for millions of Americans. Today I voted ‘no’ on cloture to prevent Majority Leader Reid from restoring funding for Obamacare. Now is the time to defund, dismantle and replace the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats are not listening to Americans.

“While the President and the law’s supporters promised Obamacare would lower health care costs and strengthen our health care system, the reality is such promises have been repeatedly broken. This law is increasing health insurance premiums for individuals and families, forcing Americans off of their current coverage, threatening the survival of hospitals and other providers in Kansas and across the country, and hindering economic growth through onerous new taxes and regulations. This law is causing real harm to real people. It is well past time for its supporters to admit their mistake. I will continue to work to defund and dismantle this disastrous law.”

 

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Kansas Congressional Delegation sent a letter to the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressing concerns with Critical Access Hospital (CAH) recommendations proposed in the recent HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report. The report suggests eliminating the CAH designation for any hospital participating in the CAH program in accordance with state “necessary provider” designations, and fails to recognize the unique circumstances of delivering health care in rural America. Seventy-two of Kansas’ 83 CAHs could be impacted if Congress passes legislation implementing the report’s recommendations.

Full text of the delegation letter to the Secretary is included below:

“We are writing to provide our thoughts regarding report OEI-05-12-00080 released last month by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), and to express our serious concerns with the troubling recommendations this report makes with respect to the Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program. If implemented, the proposals contained in this OIG report would jeopardize the survival of many rural hospitals in our home state of Kansas and endanger Kansans’ access to health care in their own communities.

“Kansas has 83 CAHs – more than any other state – which play a vital role in providing health care to rural Kansans. These CAHs treat hundreds of thousands of patients annually across our state. They comprise a significant component of Kansas’ health care safety net, and are essential to the survival and success of many Kansas communities. The access to health care these CAHs provide determines whether Kansans can grow old in the communities they call home, and whether their children will return to those communities to raise families of their own.

“The proposals contained in this OIG report would have drastic ramifications for these hospitals and the Kansans they serve. The report recommends that Congress pass legislation to allow the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to eliminate the CAH designation for any hospital participating in the CAH program pursuant to the state “necessary provider” (NP) designation. Such a proposal fails to acknowledge the unique circumstances of health care delivery in Kansas and across rural America, and obfuscates the intended purpose of NP designation.

“Under the OIG report’s proposals, CAHs would be stripped of their designation if they did not comply with the original distance requirements, regardless of whether a hospital came into the CAH program under NP designation and whether such change would create barriers to patients’ access to health care. By doing this, the OIG seeks to eliminate the NP determinations authorized for states that have carefully and selectively made their decisions based on unique characteristics of rural areas served by a CAH. These characteristics include patient demographics, geography, specialty care, and community need. We know you are sympathetic to what such analysis entails because, as Governor of Kansas, you personally ensured the NP designation was applied to enable many rural hospitals in our state to participate in the CAH program.

“It is important to recognize that the OIG’s recommendation would eliminate CAHs based entirely on strict mileage requirements, rather than an evaluation of their ability to deliver vital services within their community. Maintaining meaningful access to health care depends on much more than strict mileage requirements between providers. Under the OIG’s proposals, a CAH would lose its status even if another hospital in the proximity provided specialized treatment for unique patient needs not experienced by a typical rural Medicare patient. These specialized treatments include such hospital services as rehabilitative, psychiatric, or a hospital that provides trauma or cardiac care. It is easy to see how adoption of a proposal such as the OIG report suggests would require choosing one type of care over another and would create major health access voids in Kansas and other parts of rural America. 

“Moreover, eliminating CAHs per the OIG’s proposal would trigger a devastating chain reaction, causing not just one CAH to lose its designation but other CAHs that would fall under the report’s modified distance requirement. The absurd result of such a scheme would most likely lead to the closure of both hospitals, severely rationing care in rural America. Also under this proposal, if a CAH lost its designation and became a subsection D hospital, the status of other facilities with alternative Medicare designations, such as Medicare Dependant or Sole Community Hospital status, would be altered as well. This would result in multiple hospitals suddenly facing substantial Medicare cuts and severe financial challenges. In a single blow, the OIG report’s proposals would jeopardize the survival of the majority of CAHs in Kansas and access for their patients who depend on these and other rural health facilities for care. These hospitals already operate on small margins because they provide care to increasingly aging populations across wide areas with a low reimbursement structure. Additionally, these CAHs are extremely important to their respective local economies as one of their largest employers.

“While we strongly believe that Congress must reduce federal spending, lower our national debt, and return to a regular budget and appropriations process, we would have strong concerns with any future legislation that contained the proposals in this OIG report. It is widely understood that hospitals in rural America face a variety of unique challenges. Congress created the CAH program and other rural health programs to address these challenges and strengthen rural health care access for the long term. This report instead based its proposals on an intent to find speculative savings to Medicare and technical mileage requirements, rather than focusing on the needs of individual rural communities. Such proposals would have drastic ramifications for many rural hospitals in Kansas, disproportionately affect patients’ access to health care, and threaten the survival of communities in our state. Based on your unique understanding of these important rural health issues, we urge you to consider other options than those presented in the report for any future proposals you would suggest be enacted into law.”