Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
APRIL 20, 1999, TUESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
740 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
THE
HONORABLE JOHN A. BOEHNER
CHAIRMAN
BEFORE THE HOUSE
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - "EMPLOYER HEALTH PLAN ACCOUNTABILITY: DO
PARTICIPANTS HAVE ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS?"
BODY:
Good afternoon everyone and welcome to our third in a series of hearings
we are holding to examine the different aspects of employer sponsored
health insurance in the United States. Today we will hear from
a panel of witnesses who will discuss employer health plan
accountability and whether plan participants have adequate protections. ERISA
was designed to maximize flexibility in plan design while ensuring that
participants' rights were protected. Among the specific topics is whether plan
participants have an adequate method for dispute resolution.
At today's
hearing we will explore the various levels of accountability in
health plans. ERISA health plan accountability
is a major interest to and the primary jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. The
media would have the public believe that accountability and other issues in
Managed Care are failing. While there certainly may be room for improving the
private health care system, the issues of accountability and
participant protections must be fully understood. Many questions must be asked
and answered before embarking into uncharted territory that could adversely
effect employer-provided health
coverage.Health care should be accountable, accessible, and
affordable for all Americans. If there is a way to enhance consumer confidence
and trust in their health plans without putting care out of
reach for the 43 million Americans who don't have health
insurance, we have the responsibility to find it and get it done.
Today,
over 140 million Americans have health coverage under private
health plans sponsored by employers. ERISA was crafted in such
a way as to provide employers flexibility in how plans were specifically
designed (within certain guidelines and regulations) and to be free from
individual state regulation in a multi-state operating environment. This was
done to encourage private employers to voluntarily offer fringe benefit plans to
employees at the lowest possible cost. Health law is a delicate
balance between adequate protections for plan participants and plan flexibility.
Employer-provided health benefit plans are evolving. Plans
are designed today differently than they were in the 1980's due to the different
conditions in the medical market place and the changing nature of the labor
pools. The strength of employer-provided health benefit plans
is their ability to evolve to meet the needs of both employers and employees and
accommodate future market forces.
As I stated at our last heating, this
Subcommittee, with its jurisdiction over ERISA, has the responsibility to
carefully consider proposed legislative and regulatory changes to ERISA. Before
we impose new binding rules on ERISA plans we should review current standards
and determine what problems, if any, need to be addressed with a Federal
solution. Our duty as lawmakers is to carefully evaluate the testimony and
record before us to form a strategy that doesn't significantly increase costs or
the uninsured, protects patients - not providers, provides new
affordable options for the uninsured, and provides care not
court. These four parameters should guide us in our efforts to make any
improvements in the current health care system.We are all aware
that the Senate HELP Committee has reported out legislation including a new
external review structure. We must understand how the benefits claims process
works and judge the effectiveness of the current rules before we impose new
Federal rules on employer plans.
At the Subcommittee's first heating, I
stated that we must all understand that amendments to ERISA involve tradeoffs
between cost and access. The greater the regulation, the higher the cost of
insurance and the greater the risk employers will drop coverage for their
workers. Thus, regulatory amendments must be made with care.
Congress should
be cautious in crafting any new requirements under ERISA. If it is deemed
necessary to implement any new mechanism for ERISA plans, it should be done only
after careful consideration and thought. Proposed changes to ERISA must
withstand the test of time in a rapidly changing marketplace.
I know that
both parties are interested in helping to make America's health
care delivery system as efficient, effective, and all-inclusive as possible.
Improving the system with legislation starts with building consensus, and
building consensus starts with listening. That is what our hearings are all
about.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 22, 1999
