Health Care Legislation Has No Antitrust Amendment In Senate

In reaction, Blain Rethmeier, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association, said, "We're glad our arguments against modifying McCarran have appeared to carry the day in the Senate, but the battle's not over."

He added, "We expect this issue will heat up again next year, and it's going to take the entire industry being united to oppose this in the final bill."

Joel Kopperud, a director of government relations for the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, added, "Indications that the anti-trust amendment is not included in the manager's amendment are encouraging."

Mr. Kopperud said, "We've been increasingly frustrated trying to underscore the fact that medical malpractice insurance is a liability product, not a health product, and repealing the antitrust exemption could have wide-spread implications beyond the line of property and casualty insurance."

He cautioned that the industry's efforts to keep the language out of the bill will obviously continue, "and we have an uphill battle since the language is already in the House bill and our industry continues to be a popular political punching bag."

Ben McKay, vice president for government relations for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of Amercia commended the Senate, saying when McCarren-Ferguson is explained to legislators they understand the benefits. He said there is no demonstrated need for removing the exemption and state's have already estabilished non-competitive conduct by insurers.

"Proposals to revisit McCarran-Ferguson could instead have dangerous negative repercussions," said Mr. McKay. "Changing the state-based system could open the door for costly litigation and increased trial-lawyer suits. This could lead to reduced insurer competition and consumer choice."

He added, "The insurance industry has a long track record of delivering consumer protections and transparency. Our message is, let's not derail what has been working for consumers for over 50 years."

Under Senate rules, that would set up a decisive cloture vote now planned for 1 a.m. Monday. Final passage could come Christmas Eve, or even on Christmas Day, according to a tentative timeline prepared by the office of Majority Whip Richard Durbin's, D-Ill.

But Democrats hope that if they do get 60 votes for cloture Monday, proving they have the votes for passage, Republicans will agree to yield back time and allow a final passage vote on Wednesday, staffers said.

In his comments on Sen. Leahy's decision, his staffer said, "The provision is in the House bill and Sen. Leahy will continue to work for inclusion in the legislation in both the pending Senate bill and in final health care reform legislation."

The provision, containing language in S. 1681, passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee several months ago, had 16 co-sponsors in the Senate.

According to industry officials and congressional staffers, the decision not to offer the amendment was made as Democrats closed off the amendment process night in an effort to get a vote for final passage by Christmas Eve.

It was also seen as part of the continuing effort to get the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a former insurance commissioner and the key to getting 60 votes for final passage.

Sen. Nelson has said the language would allow insurance policies bought with federal subsidies to cover abortions even if private premiums are separated.

But he also prevailed on Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate majority leader, to not include the language in S. 1681 in the committee print of the health care reform legislation Sen. Reid introduced in November.

According to aides, Sen. Reid will likely file three cloture motions on the bill on Saturday.

This story was updated Dec. 21 at 3:35 p.m. EST