Milk Price Forward Contracting Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Quality Improvement Act of 2004.''

This bill will establish a new payment incentive structure for quality health care, starting with the Medicare Advantage and End Stage Renal Disease programs. Under this policy, Medicare would give a financial boost to plans and renal care providers demonstrating the highest quality care and a bonus to those that are working hard to improve.

Why focus on quality? I hear from all corners that the U.S. health care system is unsustainable in its current form. Costs are rising, and the care provided is not always appropriate or necessary. Not to mention that 43 million Americans lack health insurance.

As I travel around Montana, I hear so much from so many constituents about the rising cost of health care. Countless parents tell me they are struggling to pay for health care for their families, afraid that one more illness will force them into bankruptcy. Working people tell me they fear their employers will raise their premiums or drop

coverage altogether due to rising health care costs. And employers, both large industries and small enterprises, tell me they face competition from companies in countries where healthcare is significantly less expensive. While these employers are trying to keep jobs at home, health care costs are pushing them abroad.

And most recently, my personal experience with the health care system has brought the issue of health costs and quality even closer to home.

A few weeks ago, I chose to have an elective procedure to keep my heart healthy. I have excellent health care coverage, and I was able to seek out excellent doctors and nurses at the Mayo Clinic. In short, I am fortunate that the care I received was high-quality care. The doctors and nurses who took care of me were on the ball--making sure I got the right medications with no dangerous interactions, using proper surgical safety so I wouldn't get an infection, and providing good follow-up care so I could get back to my family and back to work.

My experience with the health system was a positive one. Unfortunately, not everyone is as lucky. Ninety-eight thousand people die every year in this country as a result of medical errors. That's 270 people each day. An appalling statistic. Many of these deaths can be prevented, and we must work to make sure that they are.

In addition to the cases of medical error we know about, there are many that go unreported and even undetected. Studies have shown that patients in the U.S. receive recommended care and treatment when they visit the doctor or hospital only about half of the time. Failure to follow proper patterns of care or recommended guidelines can lead to poor outcomes, and it is also more expensive in the short and long run.

Errors can mean more trips to the hospital or to the doctor, more drugs, and sometimes even additional surgeries. Each preventable medication error costs about $4,700 in added hospital costs alone, not to mention the personal costs of childcare and lost wages, and the societal costs of lost productivity.

While not as fatal as actual errors, missed health care opportunities also carry a cost. Each year, missed health care opportunities-- inappropriate care and generally poor quality care costs the U.S. health system more than $1 billion dollars in avoidable hospital bills and 41 million lost work days, which costs American businesses about $11.5 billion. Improving the quality of health care can reduce health care costs and stimulate our economy. In a time of slow economic growth and large deficits, health care is a compelling place to start.

Last year's Medicare Modernization Act got the ball rolling. The Medicare bill ties hospital reimbursement to reporting data on specific quality indicators. And hospitals are responding. Today, almost 2,000 hospitals are sharing data with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid on at least one of the quality measures. Knowing more about the care that is delivered across the country should help us target incentives and resources to improve quality. It also provides employers and patients with new information about where to find the best deal for their health care dollar. And it also provides hospitals a way to compare their performance to other hospitals.

The bill I am introducing today builds on this strong start. It would establish a mechanism to pay for quality in the Medicare Advantage and End Stage Renal Disease Programs, through bonus payments for the best quality nationwide and bonuses for improving from one year to the next. Rewards for improvement are an important piece of my proposal--last year, the top ten percent of health plans in the country reported perfect scores on a set of quality indicators. There is no doubt that they deserve recognition. But we don't want to leave behind smaller or historically poorer-performing organizations that are making major strides to improve.

Medicare Advantage plans, which tend to utilize a coordinated model of care, have a unique opportunity to impact a patient's health outcomes--plans have access to information about a patient's medical history, and can follow patients more closely to ensure that they are receiving appropriate preventive, acute, and follow-up care. Medicare Advantage plans can translate their own payments into quality incentives downstream. They can reward providers for performing certain procedures known to be effective, or for prescribing drugs known to have equal or greater effectiveness at a reduced cost. And they can improve a beneficiary's preventive and wellness benefits.

Dialysis clinics that participate in Medicare through the program for patients with End Stage Renal Disease have a momentous mission, helping these patients enjoy life for years longer than we might have thought possible just a few decades ago. Because dialysis is such a complex operation, quality of care is extremely important.

Plans and providers in the Medicare Advantage and ESRD programs have already started measuring and reporting on quality, which makes them an excellent place to start. But I want to be clear these programs should not be singled out simply because they are ahead of the game. Working with ESRD providers and Medicare Advantage plans heralds the beginning of a longer journey, and we need to stay the course.

First, we need to monitor this quality incentive program and ensure that the methods used to measure health care quality and evaluate performance are evidence-based and valid.

Second, we should evaluate the impact of a pay-for-performance program on health plans and providers--particularly small organizations and those that are just entering the market. Additionally, because last year's Medicare legislation made payment and policy changes to these providers--for example, a short-term payment increase for ESRD and a new payment policy and the addition of regional plans for Medicare Advantage--we would need to keep a close eye on the consequences of these changes and the interaction with the pay-for-performance quality initiative and take action where necessary.

Third, we should look with a wide lens and move forward with quality initiatives in all government health care programs. It is our responsibility to set an example for the industry through quality improvement programs in Medicare and Medicaid, including traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

As I mentioned, the National Voluntary Hospital Reporting Initiative is a groundbreaking program, but we need to do more in traditional Medicare to encourage high quality care. My bill sketches out a roadmap that will lead us toward expanding the quality measures currently collected for fee-for-service providers, and ultimately toward additional Medicare payment systems that promote quality improvement.

We can also do more to focus on quality care in Medicaid. Today, there are a number of people at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services whose responsibility it is to improve the quality of care in Medicare. On the Medicaid side, there is one person--one person who, while given the responsibility for quality, has no resources or authority to develop program innovations.

You might say that quality is already addressed in Medicaid. I applaud my colleague and Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, for encouraging CMS to increase its quality improvement activities for home and community-based services in Medicaid. We should build on this foundation and broaden the effort. We need to identify barriers to quality improvement throughout the Medicaid program, and take steps toward removing those barriers.

The bill I introduce today would target a few of those barriers, and it would require further studies to identify others. It authorizes money to hire new staff--experienced health professionals--to improve the quality and coordination of care delivered to Medicaid beneficiaries. It explores ways to integrate data on Medicaid beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicare--the dual-eligibles and coordinate the care they receive from both programs. Many dual- eligibles are among the sickest and costliest beneficiaries. By better coordinating their care we can improve health outcomes and save money in both programs at once.

As you can tell, I have a lot of ideas. But I have only scratched the surface of this issue and am deeply committed to working with my colleagues in the

Senate to move forward. This bill is a good start, but it is just that--a start. We must do more.

Many of my colleagues in the Senate also care deeply about improving the health care system, and I commend their efforts to develop courageous proposals that will spark change. Senator Clinton introduced a bill last year, the Health Information for Quality Improvement Act. More recently, Senator Kennedy Introduced the Health Care Modernization, Cost Reduction, and Quality Improvement Act.

These bills lay out a comprehensive array of policies to improve health care quality and reduce costs, and my bill focuses on one piece of that picture--paying for quality. They represent the gold standard toward which we should all be working. But we share a common goal to make the most of the American health care dollar, so that we can provide better care to more people.

As I mentioned, health care in this country is more expensive than it is elsewhere. But we don't necessarily get more for our money. The United States spends twice as much on health care than any other country, but studies have shown that quality is about the same. Better in some areas, worse in others, but all in all about the same. No matter how you cut it, that means that the value of our health care-- what we are getting for each dollar is less in the United States than in other developed countries.

I've always believed that Americans were all about value. We are the country of start-up companies and the home of Wal-Mart. We know about good business, and we know about hard work. We should know more--and do more--about health care.

We are an amazing country, but today our health care system is sick. Why? It is not the fault of hard-working doctors and nurses who put in long hours to make their patients healthy. It is our fault. We need to support the work of health care professionals by providing the right resources and designing payment systems to promote quality. Today, it takes an average 17 years for a new discovery in medical care to move from the lab bench into regular clinical practice. And for providers working in settings without regular Internet access or without the luxury of time to peruse medical journals, it may take even longer. As Members of Congress, we have the opportunity to change the system, to provide incentives for good care, funding for research into best medical practices, and to require the development and reporting of quality measures.

The road to this goal is long and difficult. I call on my colleagues for their energy and support, and I call on health care professionals and the health insurance industry to work with us. This is challenging work, and involves many difficult decisions. But I've never been one to shirk a challenge, and I hope you will join me. This bill is the beginning of what must be a strong bipartisan push to improve our health care system--to increase quality of care, to reduce costs, and to strengthen the American spirit.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2004'' with Senators Corzine, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Clinton, Johnson, Mikulski, Durbin, and Dayton. This legislation would phase-out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the interim, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses.

When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to a July 2003 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.2 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.''

As Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said of the report, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2- year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''

These are people who are the most seriously disabled in our society and most in need of immediate health services. And yet, it is estimated that one-third of the 1.2 million currently federal policy puts the disabled on hold for 2 long years. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.

In fact, various studies show that death rates among SSDI recipients are highest during the first two years of enrollment. For example, the Commonwealth Fund report, entitled Elimination of Medicare's Waiting Period for Seriously Disabled Adults: Impact on Coverage and Costs, 4 percent of these people die during the waiting period. Of the estimated 400,000 uninsured disabled Americans in the waiting period at any given time, 16,000 of them will die awaiting Medicare coverage. This is unacceptable.

Moreover, this does not factor in the serious health problems that others experience while waiting for Medicare coverage during the 2-year period. Although there is no direct data on the profile of SSDI beneficiaries in the 2-year waiting period, the Commonwealth Fund has undertaken a separate analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1998 to get a good sense of the demographic characteristics, income, and health conditions of this group.

According to the analysis, ``. . . 45 percent of nonelderly Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had incomes below the federal poverty line, and 77 percent had incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Fifth- nine percent reported that they were in fair or poor health; of this group, more than 90 percent reported that they suffered from one or more chronic illnesses, including arthritis (52%), hypertension (46%), mental disorder (36%), heart condition (35%), chronic lung disease (26%), cancer (20%), diabetes (19%), and stroke (12%).''

As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''

Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some corresponding decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both federal and state governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.

The Commonwealth Fund estimates that, of the 1.26 million people in the waiting period, 40 percent are enrolled in Medicaid. As a result, the Commonwealth Fund estimates that federal Medicaid savings would offset nearly 30 percent of the increased costs in its study. Furthermore, states, which have been struggling financially with their Medicaid programs, would reap a windfall that would help them better manage their Medicaid programs.

Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on the Medicaid to often have a different set of providers, to then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers.

And finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk- pools

would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the report notes, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.''

I urge passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004, a bill to strengthen our laws on protecting consumers and businesses from receiving unwanted commercial advertisements by facsimile, while at the same time preserving a key method of doing business for thousands of companies, large and small, across the United States. The sending of unsolicited commercial communications by facsimile--``junk faxes''--has been illegal since 1991, and the Federal Communications Commission is charged with enforcing that prohibition. Those who engage in ``blast faxes'' can and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as their behavior imposes unreasonable expenses upon residential and business facsimile subscribers.

However, the FCC has long recognized an exception to this general ban on unsolicited faxes when the parties sending and receiving the fax have an established business relationship. Businesses of all shapes and sizes regularly conduct their transactions via facsimile, such as real estate agents, wholesalers and distributors, travel agents, and those in the convention industry. In our modern economy, companies that are often hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other do business together, often with the same or greater frequency as with those just up the street. And the reality of business is that sometimes you need to communicate in writing, and it needs to get there right away.

The established business relationship exemption recognized this reality, and ensured that government was not placing an undue hardship on business owners. Yet inexplicably, on June 26, 2003 the FCC issued a new rule that eliminated the established business relationship. Under this new rule--which is set to take effect on January 1, 2005--the sender of a fax would have to acquire, in writing, the permission of the recipient to receive an unsolicited fax before the fax could be sent, even if the recipient made a verbal request that the information be faxed.

As Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, I can state that the business community has in unison called upon Congress to take action to rectify this situation. Industry groups estimate that it will cost businesses an average of $5,000 in the first year alone to comply with the new law, and as much as $3,000 each year thereafter in record- keeping costs. These numbers do not take into account the potential lost business that could easily result if a primary method of business- to-business communication is cut off. Quite simply, small businesses in particular will suffer significantly if these rules are allowed to take effect.

My bill will restore the established business relationship exemption, allowing standard business transactions to continue without inhibition. The term ``Established business relationship'' means the same thing in the Junk Fax Prevention Act as in the regulations governing the Federal Do-Not-Call Registry: it means that the fax subscriber either made an inquiry of the sender within the prior three months or a purchase from the sender within the prior 18 months.

The Junk Fax Prevention Act also strengthens the protections available to fax recipients by adding an opt-out provision that the current law does not have. Even if an established business relationship exists, a fax subscriber can still request to not receive unsolicited faxes. The senders of these faxes must, by law, honor these requests, and they must include a notification of this right on every fax they send.

As a strong supporter of consumer rights, I also want to assure my colleagues that this bill does not in any way place consumers at risk. Very few consumers own fax machines, and those who do are protected by the general ban on solicitation and the opt-out provision if they do have an existing business relationship. To ensure that the privacy of consumers and businesses is protected, my bill also provides for studies by both the General Accounting Office and the FCC to evaluate the effectiveness of enforcement.

Small businesses have weathered the storm of the economic downturn over the past several years. As our economy now climbs out of recession and people return back to work, American businesses--our nation's employers do not need these unnecessary economic restraints to further hinder their recovery. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in bringing relief to American businesses and pass the Junk Fax Prevention Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hatch to introduce the Imported Explosives Security Act. Domestic manufacturers are required to place identification markings on all explosive materials they produce for important security reasons. These markings enable law enforcement officers to determine the source of explosives and help them solve crimes. Yet, these same identifying markings are not required of those explosives manufactured overseas and imported into our country. This impedes law enforcement efforts and poses a security risk.

The legislation we have introduced today is simple and straightforward. The legislation would simply treat imported explosives just like those manufactured inside the United States, requiring all imported explosives to carry the same markings currently placed on domestic explosives. It would require the name of the manufacturer, along with the time, date and shift of manufacture, to be placed on all explosives materials, whether they are manufactured here or abroad. These markings can be a tremendously useful tool for law enforcement officials, enabling investigators to determine the source of explosive materials. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the explosives can then be tracked through records kept by those who manufacture and sell them, often leading them to the criminal who has stolen or misused them. At a recent Senate hearing, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that ``determining the source of the components to any explosive device will assist you in determining who was responsible for any act using such a device.''

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives first sought to fill this gap in the law when it published a notice of a proposed rulemaking in November 2000. Now, nearly 4 years later, this rulemaking still has not been finalized. Each year, more than 25,000 pounds of stolen, lost, or abandoned explosives are recovered by law enforcement. When explosives do not carry appropriate markings, they

cannot be quickly and effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes.

Millions of pounds of unmarked explosives have already been distributed in this country. Each day we delay closing this loophole, we let more untraceable explosive materials cross our borders and undermine our national security. Failure to address this very straightforward issue in a timely manner unnecessarily hinders law enforcement's ability to solve crimes. Because the Department of Justice has not issued regulations to close this loophole in a timely manner, it is now incumbent upon us to act for them.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. This bill will allow a one year open enrollment period for thousands of career military personal who are not allowed to sign up for education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

In 1976 Congress created the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) as a recruitment and retention tool for the post-Vietnam era. However, Congress greatly expanded education benefits in 1984 and allowed individuals with VEAP accounts to transfer their benefits to the new MGIB in 1996. The opportunity to convert to MGIB was important because the benefits available were much greater than those under VEAP.

However, those individuals who were on active duty before 1985 and did not participate in VEAP were not eligible to sign-up for MGIB, leaving a gap in available coverage for certain career military personnel. Congress has voted several times in the last decade to allow VEAP participants opportunities to transfer to MGIB, but there has never been an opportunity for those who did not have VEAP accounts to sign up for the new program, excluding them from taking advantage of MGIB educational benefits.

My bill would correct this inequity and allow individuals falling into this gap to attain MGIB benefits. Organizations such as the Non- Commissioned Officers Association, the Association of the United States Army, and the Military Coalition have come out in strong support for this legislation.

I believe that we must do more to honor our Nation's commitments to our military personnel. As the father of a soldier in the Army, I fully appreciate what a poor ``quality of life'' can do to the morale of military families. We have a long way to go, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure our country's military personnel receive the benefits they deserve.

Today, there are fewer than 74,000 VEAP ``decliners'' on active duty. These men and women have dedicated their lives to a career of service to the Nation, and many are deployed in harms way leading our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For these servicemen and women--many of whom are reaching retirement eligibility--time is running out. Therefore, before it is too late, I encourage my Senate colleagues to support the Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act and provide our servicemen and women with the benefits they deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.