Health Reform '24 Hour' Mandate Doesn't Thrill Senate Panel

NU Online News Service, Oct. 2, 3:25 p.m. EDT

The Senate Finance Committee completed work on health care reform legislation early today without action on the "24 hour amendment," which would have merged medical components of workers' compensation and auto insurance with health insurance.

Officials of the American Insurance Association cautioned, however, that while heartened at the panel's decision, the issue could resurface when the bill hits the Senate floor.

The amendment would have merged the health care components of workers' compensation insurance with health care delivery reform legislation the Senate Finance panel has been considering for two weeks.

The panel ended consideration of the bill at 2:15 a.m., said Blain Rethmeier, a spokesman for the AIA. He said, however, that the final vote to report the bill to the Senate floor will not occur until next week, after the panel receives a preliminary estimate of its cost from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The bill was proposed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., 10 days ago as one of 564 amendments that members of the Finance panel wanted added to the health care reform legislation, but was not offered during the committee markup, Mr. Rethmeier said.

As soon as the amendment–known by the industry as "24-hour health coverage"–was filed, all industry trade groups sent a letter to the committee. They contended that "the amendment would upend the systems now in place to protect injured workers, drivers and passengers."

The insurers added that the 24-hour coverage concept "would destroy the healthy and competitive auto insurance marketplace."

In response to the committee decision today, Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said, "So-called '24 hour' is a misguided concept that would distort the market and limit consumer choice."

He added, "It has failed everywhere it's been tried because competition has kept the total costs of the different pieces lower than that of a complex '24 hour' policy.

"We are pleased that the committee members responded to our concerns and decided not to take up this problematic amendment," Mr. Grande concluded.

In a statement, Mr. Rethmeier said, "We won the battle in committee but there's still a chance this could come up when the bill is considered by the full Senate."

He added, "The entire industry is continuing our efforts in strong opposition to the amendment, and we have to remain vigilant until the very end."

"You don't need this," he noted, pointing out that opposition was voiced in a letter signed by the American Insurance Association; the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers; the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America; the National Association of Health Underwriters; the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

In its letter, the property and casualty industry argued that health insurance reform is already a "major legislative undertaking," and integration of the medical components of workers' comp and auto insurance is a very complex issue in its own right.

Moreover, the letter said, the matter has not been the subject of hearings in the Finance Committee or any congressional committee.

"In light of the serious damage it would do to our nation's workers' compensation and auto insurance systems, we respectfully urge the Finance Committee not to add the Rockefeller Amendment to the pending bill," the letter added.

The concept of "24-hour coverage," the letter said, was looked at in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s and not pursued.

"Among other factors, implementation would be extremely difficult," the letter said, adding that, in addition, several states experimented with pilot projects (California, Kentucky and Oregon) that were not successful.