WASHINGTON, DC – Wednesday, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor on the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) reauthorization bill being debated this week. The bipartisan plan to renew the program will ensure all 6.6 million CHIP-covered kids keep their health insurance, and will reach 3.2 million more uninsured children in America’s working families. President Bush has already announced he will veto the bill if passed in Congress.

 

In 2002, Cantwell worked with the Senate Finance Committee to allow Washington to use a portion of its allocation to cover children from Medicaid-eligible families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level. Before this fix, Washington was only able to use a small portion of its CHIP funds and was forced to return millions in funding. 

 

 

“Mr. President, I also rise to talk about the children's health initiative program and why we need to reauthorize the program that is about to expire in September.

 

“But I want to thank Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller and Hatch for their countless hours of meeting before the Senate finance committee met to mark up this bipartisan package. Fact that this bill passed out of committee with such a bipartisan effort shows that people are working on both sides of the aisle to make children's health care a priority.

 

“And while my colleagues have talked a lot about what the administration has threatened to do in vetoing this legislation, in fact, as my colleague from Iowa just mentioned on the floor, the president's own budget request does not put enough money on the table to take care of those currently enrolled in the children's health care program in a bipartisan effort here in the United States Senate, we are working across the aisle to say, yes, we want to do more, we want to cover about 3.2 million more children. So I thank my colleagues for those hours of meetings and I thank their staff for coming up with this comprehensive solution in moving us a little further down the way in covering more children in America and why it's such a priority.

              

“Some of my colleagues have mentioned why this is such an important timing and many have mentioned the fact that the bill and authorization is expiring in September. I think there's a more important reason, and the important reason is that we are seeing the cost of health care continue to rise. The fact that premiums have doubled probably in the last five to six years, the fact that insurance now is somewhere between $12,000 and $14,000 a year. A family who is at an income of $40,000 a year for a family of four is finding it very hard to keep pace. Those premiums may have doubled but I guarantee you their wages and salaries have not doubled. So more and more people are finding themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide health care for their children.

              

“And I can tell now talking to people from all over Washington State, there is nothing more concerning to a parent than the health of their child. And nothing more scary to think that they may not -- may not -- be able to get the health care attention their child needs. So for us, we have a choice, a very smart choice. This is a cost-effective bill. If you think about the cost of providing children's health insurance under this proposal, we are taking those on incomes who can't afford private insurance or can't find it available in the marketplace or maybe their employer is not providing it. They now under this program, with state and federal matching dollars, can provide health insurance for roughly $2,000 a year per child. Maybe a little more, a little less in some instances from those who are currently on the program to the new enrollees, but somewhere around $2,000 a year.

              

“Now, think about that. Think about the fact that if you don't have health insurance and now a child either delays that health care or basically waits until the last minute and has to go into an emergency room, I guarantee you the cost of a child's visit to an emergency room is probably going to be at least $3,000. So the fact that we can make this prudent investment for 3.2 million more American children, not only is this about the safety and health of their future but it is about a plan that helps us in making sure we have an efficient health care system and giving those children their due need.

              

“Now, too many families, as I said, are being forced to go out without this coverage. And what does that mean? You know, we talk about preventive care. We talk about maintenance care. But it means that these children are going without regular checkups, that they're missing more school than other children and that they have to wait in the emergency room to get an answer about something that is a basic illness. And it means that simple infections of something like an ear infection or cavities or asthma or diabetes goes untreated, that they spiral out of control. And that child may fall further and further behind in their academic career and in school. I believe, Mr. President, no child should be forced into a special education program just because their health care needs haven't been provided for.

              

 “And so this bill does step up with better coverage so that we can treat things like injuries and infections and detect far worse things like chronic illnesses and to make sure that we are managing those conditions of children before they get out of control. And I know that it's upsetting to my colleagues to read things like uninsured children are five times more likely to delay their health care or that uninsured children are four times more likely to go without a doctor visit for two years, or that uninsured children admitted to hospitals due to injuries are twice as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts. That is a horrible statistic that points to the dilemmas of not providing health care coverage for children.

              

“Now, I know my colleagues have been out here on the floor and have been debating this issue as it relates to fairness and it relates to geography, but I tell you no child knows that they are somehow prohibited from getting access to health insurance because of geography. Nor should the United States Senate make the mistake in thinking that we are making geographic choices. This bill is about flexibility. And it starts with the flexibility of individual states, because this is a partnership between the states and federal government in deciding what percentage of the federal poverty line they are going to cover. You can see that the states in white have been more aggressive in covering a higher percentage of the federal poverty line and those in the yellow-gold color are obviously below the 200% of the federal poverty line. Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why certain states are more aggressive or more active in covering this area. I would say that if you look at the cost of living in these areas, they are challenged by what it takes to maintain a household, to put their children in school, to take care of their health care needs.

 

“For example, there are parts of the country -- I know the presiding officer, he -- you know, if you look at what it takes to provide the same goods and services in New Jersey and compare that with someplace like -- like Arkansas, you're talking about a $13,000 difference in what it costs to provide the same services. In little rock, it might cost $30,000 for that -- those services, those goods, those products, and it costs you $43,000 in New Jersey. That is why that this flexibility is so important in the program and the fact that we allow states to turn -- to determine and we match that on a federal dollar. Now, the second thing that I think we haven't focused enough on is the fact that we also have disparity in insurance costs. If you look at what it costs to provide insurance, and as I said, it's expensive in Seattle. We think of it as expensive.

 

“We think of it as a challenge to provide health care insurance. But you can provide health care insurance in Seattle for $13,000 but if you look at New York, it's $16,542. So this notion that somehow New York or New Jersey are getting a better deal because they live in a high-expense area of the United States and somehow even with that extra cost of insurance we should prejudice legislation from serving those children, I say that's a mistake. Because every child that America that is covered by this health insurance program will be healthier. And every child that is covered and healthier will be not only a more contributing citizen to our society but also we are going to reduce our own health care costs in the future.

 

“So this is a wide and prudent plan that we have such a diversity in this proposal. And I would ask my colleagues to -- before they come out and look at formulas and try to offer amendments that basically cut states from having the flexibility in these formulas, that they should consider the geographic disparity and the challenges that those individuals -- that those individual states face. I really do believe, Mr. President, the children's health care program provides a critical backstop to families. They would rather be in a situation where they could provide the health care I’m sure for themselves, and I have certainly met Washingtonians who have given up their own health insurance just to provide health insurance for their children. We need to prevent the number of uninsured children in this nation from growing and this bill, the children's health care program, should be reauthorized, expanded to make sure that we do stop the number from growing and attach our principles of covering at least 3.2 million now and as we see brighter budget days, coming back and covering the rest of children in America.”

 

 

MP3 file available at: http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/cantwell/cantwell070801.mp3

 

 

 

# # #