Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), and I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment No. 122, which will prevent funds from being used to finalize or…
Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), and I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment No. 122, which will prevent funds from being used to finalize or implement the proposed HHS Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rule.
This rule makes unnecessary changes to the MDRP that have been in place for decades.
If implemented, the proposed MDRP rule will discourage research and the development of medicines while jeopardizing Medicaid beneficiaries' access to affordable drugs. This change would be bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for manufacturers.
This rule is yet another overreach by unelected bureaucrats trying to make health decisions for our constituents without any statutory authority to do so.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stop this rule from taking effect, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I rise this evening to try to correct a grave error made by CMS.
My amendment would prohibit funds from being used to finalize, implement, or enforce CMS's proposed nursing home staffing mandate rule.
It is insane.
The proposed rule would require nursing homes to provide 24/7 onsite registered nurse coverage and a minimum of 0.55 RN and 2.45 nurse aide hours per resident day.
As CMS noted in the proposed rule, the proposed NA and RN requirements exceed those in nearly all States, and if finalized, these new floors would increase staffing in more than 75 percent of nursing homes nationwide.
In other words, more than three-quarters of nursing homes in America today would not be compliant if the proposal went into effect.
To comply with the hours per resident day requirement, urban facilities would be required to hire an additional
10,495 RNs and 61,348 NAs, while rural facilities would be required to hire an additional 2,100 RNs, 15,000 NAs.
Likewise, to comply with the 24/7 RN requirement, an additional 1,900 RNs would be needed in urban areas, 1,300 in rural areas.
Collectively, the nationwide compliance cost for nursing homes is estimated to be $40 billion over the next 10 years. Those are CMS's own estimates.
Additionally, the rule requires States to collect and report on compensation for workers as a percentage of Medicaid payments for those working in nursing homes and intermediate care facilities, but for providers alone, implementation costs would be $9 million per year for 4 years, or $36 million over 4 years, and once the rule goes into effect in year 5, an additional $18 million per year for 6 years, totaling $144 million over the decade.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the need to ensure that patients receive high-quality healthcare service. I have been doing it for 35 years. However, this rule as proposed would exacerbate existing workforce constraints throughout the Nation, particularly in rural communities, increase burdensome reporting requirements, and substantially impact the finances of nursing homes, ultimately limiting seniors' access to critical healthcare services.
It is an unfunded mandate on under-resourced facilities, and it is absolutely out of touch with reality.
In a study released just last week, more than 60 percent of nursing students today in nursing school don't even plan to treat patients after graduation.
We have a massive shortage now. We are not going to have ones coming in the future. How in the hell are we going to implement this going forward? Where are the nurses going to come from?
The ranking member of Connecticut said earlier today during general debate that we have a shortage of nurses today. I absolutely agree. This is not a partisan issue.
I would encourage CMS to work with Congress on reforms needed to ensure seniors receive the highest quality care. I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, even the ranking member said earlier today-- let's roll back the film--there is a nursing shortage. There is a nursing shortage in our country.
While the rule may be well-intentioned and it makes you feel good, the nurses aren't there. They can't just come out of the middle of nowhere. They just can't. I would love for there to be more nurses. We could open up more beds at our hospitals and take care of more patients.
They are not there. They are not there, and this is where the Democrats are just so out of touch. I get that it makes them feel great. I am happy, but when reality strikes, it is hard. We don't have the nurses. Then you mandate these nursing homes to have nurses that they don't have, so guess what? They close.
Now, where are your parents going to stay? Where are your grandparents going to stay? Nowhere. It is absolutely out of mind that this is being proposed because CMS is absolutely out of touch with reality for the day.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It actually makes sense where the rule does not, and I yield back the balance of my time.