Medical Research News

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

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.”

I come here this evening with no notes, so hopefully I will be able to communicate my feelings and concerns from the heart and from the brain about the tasks we are about. We have been focused so much on the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, and rightfully so. I consider it one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever to pass a Congress and be signed by a President. I want to start by pointing out something that is receiving, in my view, inadequate attention. We are back on the Senate floor with a continuing resolution. It is almost as if passing a continuing resolution has become the norm, and has almost become a way of life.

I have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee. Our task—and what I would consider a very basic task--is to pass a budget. This is the first time the Senate in 3—almost 4 years—has passed a budget. The House passed a budget. Yet there is no reconciliation and no success in the effort to conference that bill, and so we have no budget framework to go by. The other requirement—again, one that ought to be so basic—is to pass appropriations bills within that budgetary framework. We are here—almost on September 30—and I would remind my colleagues that not 1 appropriations bill out of the 13 appropriations bills that should be passed by September 30 has passed the Senate. It seems to me that it is important to highlight the fact that this place, once again, is failing to do its job. There has not been 1 appropriations bill out of 13.

Why is passing a continuing resolution important? Without it—or if we just do it at will—the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, on behalf of the American people, are never required to prioritize our spending. Does anyone not think the priorities of this Congress should have changed from last year to this year? Have things not changed in our country, in which, if we were doing our work, we would decide how much money each program should receive based upon its effectiveness, its efficiency, whether it is a proper role for the Federal Government, the changing nature, the economic environment of our country? Yet, no, one more time we are here to pass a continuing resolution.

The thing that troubles me perhaps the most about this topic is that it is just a given. We are not complaining about the passage of a continuing resolution; we are focused on a very significant provision in that continuing resolution that very well may be removed tomorrow when the Senate acts. The Appropriations Committee needs to work. Just as we always raise the debt ceiling every time the debt ceiling is met, if we always agree to raise the debt ceiling, what is the effect of a debt ceiling? If we always, every year, pass a continuing resolution, why have an appropriations process in which we are to establish priorities on behalf of the American people as far as how their tax dollars are spent? We are failing miserably, once again, the American people, and it is just happening as if it is of no consequence.

I want the appropriations process to work. I want to eliminate funding for some programs that aren't our business, that the Federal Government should never have been involved in in the first place. I want us to establish the amount of money we can afford to spend on programs within the Federal agencies and departments. It may be true that there are some things on which we might want to spend more money. I would remind our colleagues that, in my view, the primary responsibility of the Federal Government is to defend our country, and what we do in regard to defense spending has a huge consequence upon our ability to fill that vital mission, that constitutional responsibility. We take on too much to deal with.

I have always believed the view that if the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had ever been enforced in the way I or most Kansans would consider its words to mean, our Federal Government and our lives—more importantly, our lives—would be so much different in the United States. The 10th Amendment says that all those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are hereby reserved to the States and people. Yet government continues to grow, and we have an appropriations process that has failed to do anything about curbing that spending.

The issue that is front and center is the President's health care reform measure that passed 3 years ago and is being implemented on October 1, when many of its provisions will kick in, become viable, and the American people will begin to feel the consequences even more so than they have to date. There is no question the Affordable Care Act, as I said earlier, is the most damaging piece of legislation passed, certainly in my time in Congress. Not a surprise: I voted against it. Perhaps not a surprise: I offered the first legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act after it was passed.

The House is often criticized for time and time again passing legislation to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care Act. Yet, if one believes it is so damaging to the country, isn't it our responsibility to do everything within our power to change the policies of Washington, DC? We have before us tomorrow the opportunity to defund the Affordable Care Act. Those who count votes around here say that is not going to happen, that it is a lost cause. But it is important for us to do everything we can to make certain the consequences that are so damaging to America and to Americans are avoided.

For most of my time in the House of Representatives and now the U.S. Senate, I have chaired the Rural Health Care Coalition. I care about the access to health care by citizens across our country who happen to live in rural areas and core centers of cities and urban centers of our country—high  Medicare populations, high Medicaid populations. Yet I have no doubt that with the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, hospitals who serve rural communities will be greatly damaged and we will lose many hospitals. When we lose a hospital, we lose the doctor, the pharmacy; we may lose the nursing home or the assisted living center--huge consequences to people who have paid taxes all of their lives through their employment to support Social Security and Medicare. Yet, because they choose to live in a rural community, the chances of them being able to access the health care that to a large degree they pay for disappears.

It seems to me that the stories being told on the Senate floor—and I listened to the Senator from Nebraska moments ago talk about examples within her State and her constituents, describing the problems created by the Affordable Care Act. We all have those examples. I have no doubt that Democrats hear the same stories Republicans hear. Yet we can't seem to be responsible enough to make the changes. We will have the opportunity to repeal—to defund, I guess is the better way of saying it--the Affordable Care Act, and we ought to do it.

The focus today and yesterday and the day before has been on Republicans and the strategy of how to defund the Affordable Care Act. It is pretty irrelevant in the overall scheme of things how we do it; it is whether we get it done. And we ought to be expecting Democratic Senators, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, to be just as helpful in trying to change, defund, repeal, alter the Affordable Care Act on behalf of our country.

The focus ought not to just be on how we do it among Republicans; it ought to be on questioning my colleagues about whether they are willing to step forward and admit there are problems with legislation they supported. It is not just a Democratic problem. I remember legislation that I voted against that was supported by Republicans overwhelmingly—in fact, broadly supported. After it passed—I was on the losing side, a very small minority—I spent my next few years trying to get it amended. No one likes to admit it when they vote for a bill and then it is a problem. But who would be surprised? What American would not think—Americans have great common sense and judgment. What American wouldn't think that the passage of a bill with thousands of pages late at night by the slimmest of margins, with no bipartisan support, wouldn't have some problems that need to be addressed?

I talked about how our process here is dysfunctional when it comes to the appropriations process. I heard colleagues earlier this afternoon saying we ought to work together and come to the floor and offer amendments. Here is the problem: There will be no opportunity for any amendment to be offered other than the amendment offered by the majority leader. So we are saying that we could maybe cooperate to find some solutions to the problems that come from the Affordable Care Act, but, oh, by the way, the only amendment that is really going to be made in order is changing the expiration date of the continuing resolution and removing the provision that provides for no funding for ObamaCare.

This is one of the most important votes I will ever face—or one of the most important issues, is probably a better way of saying it, I will ever deal with as a Member of the Senate. How we deal with the health care of millions of Americans has a huge consequence—economic, their health, their well-being, their family, their ability to get a job. Yet we are going to dispense with this issue in a matter of minutes tomorrow with one vote on an amendment to remove the defunding of the Affordable Care Act.

Wouldn't the Senate and wouldn't America be better served if we were given the opportunity—again, if there are Senators on the Democratic side who agree there are problems, aren't there issues we could raise that would allow us to have a debate and a vote and determine where we could find some way to get rid of the ominous, threatening nature of the Affordable Care Act?

The Senator from Nebraska talked about her examples. Time and time again we hear about the amount of money the Affordable Care Act is going to cost, about the premiums going up. We have seen the numbers that have just been released. For my State of Kansas, there will be significant increases in the premiums for anyone who is participating in the exchange.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) joined Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) in introducing legislation to make certain family planning services and programs effectively promote information about adoption. The Adoption Information Act (S.1539) would require federal grant recipients to provide assurances to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding their plan to issue adoption promotion literature.

“Every child deserves the opportunity to be part of a permanent and loving family,” Sen. Moran said. “Individuals using federal family planning programs should be educated about adoption to ensure they’re making fully informed decisions. The Adoption Information Act makes certain adoption is promoted as a viable option.”

Specifically, the legislation would require family service project or program grant recipients to:

  • Provide each person served by the project or program a pamphlet containing a list of all the adoption centers in the state, along with contact information, at the time that person inquires about family planning services;
  • Verbally inform each person that the pamphlet was provided by HHS and contains a list of adoption centers located in the state; and
  • Provide clients with an opportunity to read the pamphlet.

Under this bill, HHS is required to prepare, distribute and update annually the pamphlets provided to individuals and families. Additionally, the bill makes clear HHS can only use previously appropriated funds to carry out these requirements.

In 2007, there were just 18,078 infant adoptions in the United States, a rate of 4.2 domestic infant adoptions per 1,000 live births, according to the National Council for Adoption.

Last month, Congressman Robert Wittman (R-Va.) introduced similar legislation (HR.3062), which is awaiting action in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

The Adoption Information Act is supported by the National Council for Adoption.

 

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – author of S. Con. Res. 7, the bipartisan resolution that makes clear a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) that undermines constitutional freedoms of American gun owners will not be ratified by the Senate – responded to Secretary of State John Kerry signing the U.N. ATT.

Sens. Moran and Udall Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Protect Military Pay, Disaster Relief in Event of Government Shutdown

Bipartisan Plan Ensures Troops Will Not Suffer if Congress Fails to Do Its Job

Sep 24 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced bipartisan legislation today to make certain the nation's military families, including National Guard units assisting in disaster recovery, will not have their paychecks delayed in the event of a government shutdown. The common-sense and bipartisan Udall-Moran Military Pay Protection Act is based off of a similar proposal the senators introduced in January.

"The financial well-being and readiness of those serving our country must not suffer due to gridlock on Capitol Hill," Moran said. "I am hopeful the President and Congress will come together to confront our nation's fiscal challenges instead of continuing to push them off to a future date. As indecision continues, this legislation will give our military members, critical civilian workers and National Guard assisting in disaster relief the certainty they deserve. It is the least we can do for those who give so much."

"Colorado’s flood victims and military families shouldn’t suffer if Washington gridlock and partisan stalemates lead to a government shutdown," Udall said. “This bipartisan bill will ensure that our troops, critical Defense Department civilian workers and the people they help on a daily basis are not hurt by Washington-style partisanship.”

In the event of a government shutdown, the Udall-Moran bill would:

  • Guarantee uninterrupted funding for domestic National Guard disaster relief and recovery missions;
  • Ensure service members continue to receive their military pay and allowances on time; and
  • Allow paychecks to continue to critical civilian workers deployed in combat zones or doing jobs critical to supporting military operations.

# # #

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) have reached out to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Mary Jo White with concerns about rulemaking related to the implementation of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed into law in early 2012. Sens. Moran and Warner believe the rules originally meant to help American businesses and startups access more capital so they can grow and create jobs may instead be overly burdensome and penalize investors and startups.

Their letter to the Chairman reads:

“As the Commission implements the final rules and considers the proposed rules, we encourage the Commission to keep in mind the bipartisan intent of Congress to enhance capital access for entrepreneurs. We are hearing from angel investors and startups that certain aspects of these rules may actually reduce funding for job-creating small businesses and increase red tape for all involved…We urge the Commission to adopt straightforward rules to verify accredited investor status and to streamline reporting requirements for issuers and investors in order to achieve the purpose of the JOBS Act.”

Click here to read Sens. Moran and Warner’s specific concerns regarding:

  • Release 33-9416, Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and 144A Offerings
  • Proposed Release 33-9416, Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 Under the Securities Act