AUL’s Analysis of Senator Baucus’s Finance Bill

by Mary Harned on September 22, 2009

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), released his Committee’s health care reform bill on September 16, 2009.  The SFC bill, America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, provides the spending cuts which will offset the costs of health care reform.  The SFC and the Senate HELP Committee share jurisdiction over health care reform in the Senate, but only the SFC can determine the funding offsets.

The SFC is scheduled to mark up its bill this week.  For daily updates on life-related amendments in the SFC mark-up, click here.  The SFC marks up “in concept” as opposed to amending specific statutory language.  In other words, the process works like this:  First, a member of the Committee offers an amendment to change a provision of the bill.  After debating the amendment, the Committee members vote on it.  If a majority of the members vote in favor of the amendment, the bill’s language will reflect the change made by the amendment.  Three Senators, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) plan to offer amendments during the mark up concerning abortion.

Currently, the SFC bill addresses abortion in a way that closely parallels the abortion provisions in the House health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as added by the Capps amendment. One key difference in the SFC bill, however, is its rejection of the public health insurance option. Where the Capps amendment assures abortion will be a mandatory public plan benefit, the SFC bill does not raise this same concern because it does not include a public plan option.

Pro-life Provisions

On abortion the SFC bill:

Leaves intact state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements (see pg. 25); and

Ensures that at least one insurance plan in each state exchange does not provide coverage for abortion (except for abortions in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother) (see pg. 27).  

On conscience protection:

Maintains Federal conscience protections and abortion-related antidiscrimination laws (see pg. 25).

Pro-abortion Provisions

However, the SFC bill also:

Allows qualified health plans to provide coverage for all abortions (see pg. 26) and mandates that at least one plan in each state exchange provide coverage of all abortions (see pg. 27);

Permits “cost-sharing credits” to go to private plans that cover abortion services provided that the plans “segregate” the funds and use only premium dollars to pay for the abortion services (however, this accounting mechanism does not hide the fact that the government is allowing the plans that cover abortions to receive the credits) (see pg. 26);

Would allow the federal government to mandate abortion coverage for abortions in private health insurance if the Hyde amendment ever fails (see pg. 26).

Is not funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations Bill, so the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits the use of taxpayer money for abortion through the Medicaid program) does not apply to the bill. 

AUL Action urges the SFC to accept the pro-life amendments offered by Senators Hatch and Enzi in the upcoming days and to respect life through this important reform.

End of Life Provision

There are no provisions addressing end-of-life issues in the Bill.

Physician Quality Reporting / Rationing Provision

The SFC bill would require the Secretary of HHS “to provide reports to physicians that compare their resource use with that of other physicians or groups of physicians caring for patients with similar conditions.”  Beginning in 2015, “payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician‘s resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization.”  In other words, doctors who fall in the top 10% of expenditures, compared to doctors treating similar patients and conditions, would be penalized.  This could lead doctors to make decisions based on reimbursement concerns rather than concerns for their patients.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 2 trackbacks }

Reality Check: The Reality Behind the Rhetoric About Abortion in Health Care Reform - charmaine_yoest’s blog - RedState
September 29, 2009 at 10:00 am
Des Moines Register Staff Blogs
October 15, 2009 at 12:39 am

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

frank harlow September 24, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Please tell me how I can obtain a copy of the Senate Finance Committee healthcare reform bill. Also, please Provide your comments on this bill so that I may inform members of my parish of the language included in this bill. I have a self-assigned role to provide factual information to them. Thank you for your assistance. Frank Harlow

Jim Lykins September 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm

We have here government – run health care system here with the that is no different than the original health bill with the exception of ” reimbursment ” for doctors who ” keep in line ” with other doctors to see who can ration care the best! Obamacare by any other name is still ” government run ” health care!

Harwood Hopkins October 7, 2009 at 9:49 pm

We have here government – run health care system here with the that is no different than the original health bill with the exception of ” reimbursment ” for doctors who ” keep in line ” with other doctors to see who can ration care the best! Obamacare by any other name is still ” government run ” health care!

Leave a Comment

Previous post: The Capps Amendment: A Pro-Life Analysis

Next post: Agenda-Motivated Claims that RU-486 is “Safe” and “Easy” Are Dead Wrong