WASHINGTON - (March 23, 2010) - Senator Chuck Grassley said today that he will offer an amendment for rural health care equity during Senate debate on the health-care reconciliation bill. Grassley said at issue is how Medicare calculates payments to physicians and unfairly penalizes rural doctors, making it increasingly difficult for rural Medicare beneficiaries to find a doctor.

Grassley said his amendment this week would repeal the special deal for five selected frontier states that became law today when the President signed health-care reform legislation. The higher payments given to these five states, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Utah, come at the expense of every other state and will make it more difficult to secure passage of formula changes to achieve equity for rural states nationwide. The Grassley amendment would improve physician payments for all rural states, not a selected few.

Grassley said his amendment to the reconciliation bill also would make clear that a side agreement reported over the weekend between House members and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for an Institute of Medicine study about geographic disparity cannot interfere with the clear-cut improvement made during Senate debate on the health care bill to improve the accuracy of the data the government uses to factor in physician practice costs in determining Medicare payments. Last September, the Finance Committee adopted a Grassley amendment to make this change. The Senate proposal was much stronger than the health care bill in the House of Representatives because the House bill only had a study to make recommendations.  It didn't make actual improvements to the status quo for rural providers.

"I want to make sure the agreement with Secretary Sebelius that somehow accompanies the House health-care reconciliation bill, cannot un-do the actual formula fix established by the Grassley amendment in the health-care reform bill to secure more equitable payment for doctors serving Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas," Grassley said.

The Grassley amendment that's part of the health-care reform that became law today tells Medicare officials to use accurate data. Grassley said his concern is "if the House reconciliation bill results in the Institute of Medicine coming up with different data and makes recommendations that aren't consistent with the requirements for the practice-expense geographic adjustments that are now law, we could be back where we started, or worse off. It's  unclear what was agreed to between Secretary Sebelius and the House, and what the advantage is for rural health care equity for physicians, so anything could happen."

The senator said that another concern is that descriptions of the study promised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services say it would be part of the work of the new Independent Payment Advisory Board.  "The purpose of that Board is to cut Medicare spending, which likely will not result in improvements for rural areas," Grassley said.

"I hope senators don't let politics get in the way of making sure these important policies are established in a way that is equitable and fair. These formulas determine how well Medicare works, or doesn't work, for beneficiaries in rural states," Grassley said.

Separately, the health-care reconciliation bill passed by the House and pending in the Senate also raises questions by creating a new reimbursement cliff for doctors in Medicaid, on top of the physician payment formula problem that exists already in Medicare. "As bad as the physician payment problem is in Medicare, House members now have set up the same kind of problem in Medicaid. The health care reform bill puts another 16 million Americans in Medicaid, so Medicaid's problems will get even bigger. That's a disservice to beneficiaries in both programs," Grassley said.

###

SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, HOLDS A NEWS TELECONFERENCE

MARCH 23, 2010

GRASSLEY:  Tomorrow, our Agriculture Committee is going to start consideration of what's called the child nutrition bill.  This bill is a -- is going to bring into consideration a number of improvements and heavy investment in programs that gives kids healthier meals and learn more nutritious habits.  Some of the improvements that are expected in the bill, changes in current law include making science-based nutrition standards based on dietary guidelines for all foods sold in the schools.  It encourages wellness, physical activity at child care centers, a nice improvement to help get kids off of the couch and actively take part in their own health.  And the bill would give the first increase in reimbursement rates to schools in more than 30 years.  There are some concerns about using EQIP money as an offset to pay for nearly half the bill.  Some will argue that not all the EQIP dollars were spent last year, but the problem with that argument is that the funds are lost from the baseline for the 2012 farm bill yet to be negotiated.  I look forward to seeing amendments offered in committee to improve the bill without increasing the deficit.

Tom Rider?

QUESTION:  Good morning, Senator.  Senator, I was visiting with the Iowa cattlemen.  They're quite concerned about that EQIP money.  Will you be offering any amendments yourself to try to restore that funding?

GRASSLEY:  I don't -- I haven't reached a decision on that yet, but my guess is that I probably would not, but I think that others are, and then I've got to look at what they substitute as a source of revenue on that point to whether or not it'd be EQIP or other dollars.

Tom Steever?

QUESTION:  Good morning, Senator.  Even though the House-passed version of health care came on Sunday, there is still some more work to be done in the Senate on health care.  What -- do you see any problems coming up with -- with that?

GRASSLEY:  Well, I hope there's a lot of problems coming up with it, because I don't support the bill.  You know, I voted -- the bill the president's going to sign today I voted against just before Christmas.   Now, this reconciliation bill is supposedly changing some things in that bill that got it enough votes so the bill the president's signing could pass the House.  And so I don't see things in this bill changing my mind and probably would vote against it, but I intend to offer some amendments.  One amendment I would offer is that this bill, the president's a very strong proponent of it, but he's not covered by it.  So I'm going to offer an amendment that the president, cabinet members, not executive branch civil servants, but political appointees and their staff and the president, the White House be covered by it.  And that's a follow-on to my amendment that I got adopted in the Finance Committee that will be in the bill the president's signing this morning that members of Congress and their staff get their health care insurance through the exchange.  It should be the same for the president.  The president thinks this is such a good program, then shouldn't he get his health care the same way that members of Congress would get their health care under this bill, through the exchange?  I just think it's -- that's one of the things.  Then there are some things on rural health care and reimbursement for low reimbursement states that I'm going to be offering amendments on, as well.  And naturally, I hope that these amendments carry, and that's why they're being offered.

Bob Quinn?  Dan Skelton?

QUESTION:  Good morning, Senator.  The administration has become more active on trade.  We've seen the deals with Russia on pork and China on pork in recent weeks.  Can you give us an update?  What's the status of Isi Siddiqui as chief ag negotiator?  Is there any movement on that nomination?

GRASSLEY:  No.  And there isn't.  It's being held up.  But I can tell you this, that a real litmus test of the president moving on trade ought to be judged from the standpoint, is he pushing Colombia, Panama, and South Korea?  Those are all negotiated.  They're all under fast track.  That's a real litmus test.  Now, I know he's put out a lot of other things.  And I don't oppose what the president wants to do in these other areas, including what you just give him credit for accomplishing, but a real test of the seriousness of this administration ought to be -- the benchmark ought to be Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.  Until I see those being pushed by this administration -- and I'm going to help them -- I have serious doubts about whether or not they ought to be given much credit for pushing trade.

Stacia?  Gary, Arkansas?

QUESTION:  Senator, first, I would like to go back, again, to the Child Nutrition Act and EQIP.  Why isn't all the EQIP money being spent?

GRASSLEY:  I would only guess that it's getting approval.  I wouldn't say that there's not enough applications.  But -- but it's -- it's crimped by appropriations.

QUESTION:  My theory has always been that, in particular, Stenholm and Combest had sought a large amount of EQIP money because they feared EPA was going to clam down on large livestock operations.  This would have been, you know, 2002.  EPA didn't do that, and the EQIP money wasn't needed.  Do you see any -- any reason to believe that?

GRASSLEY:  Well, that may be the reason, but you can't count on this EPA in this administration, not in the future, being tough on -- on any livestock operation, large or small, and -- and so consequently, the need for more EQIP money.

QUESTION:  OK.

GRASSLEY:  Jean?  Oh, go ahead.

QUESTION:  I also wanted to ask about climate change, because you're hearing talk that the three senators working on a compromise proposal may release it by the end of the month.  Are there any items in it that you find appealing?

GRASSLEY:  I will wait until it's released and then answer your question at that time.  But if you -- if it is released and you anticipate a question like that down the road here, after we get back from spring break, let my staff know so I'm prepared to answer it for you, because I -- I do want to be able to answer that for you.

QUESTION:  OK.  Do you see any likelihood that any climate legislation...

GRASSLEY:  No.

QUESTION:  ... may pass this year?

GRASSLEY:  No.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

GRASSLEY:  And, obviously, that's what I hope for, Gary.

Jean, Agrinews?  Matt Wilde, Waterloo Courier?

QUESTION:  Morning, Senator.  I have a question dealing with flooding issues and farm policy.  In northeast Iowa, we've endured two major floods in 15 years.  And the Cedar River and other waterways, as you know, are out of their banks again (ph).  Some people believe that modern grain production, farm policy, and intensive tiling of farm ground is to blame or partly -- or mostly to blame for floods.  It's suggested to me that the government payments force farmers to predominantly raise corn and beans, which don't exactly help hold back the water, and -- and then, of course, we don't have the native grasses like we used to have.  So are lawmakers in Washington concerned about this?  Is that -- is ag policy partly to blame?  And what can be done to change this?

GRASSLEY:  I don't policy-makers in Washington are concerned about that for the most part.  And to some extent, not necessarily just answering the hypotheticals that you bring up, but I would have to say that any government program, whether it's a farm program or some other program, whether it's an expenditure or which you could call a subsidy or whether it's a tax incentive, they -- they do tend to influence the marketplace.  Some of them are meant to influence the marketplace.  Most cases are meant to influence it positively.  In -- in -- in the case of agricultural programs, I would say that -- that I doubt if you would say the northern half of Iowa that this would apply to, but I think in the 1960s, '70s and the '80s, you had a lot of grassland that would be better used for cow calf operations in southern Iowa, probably plowed up because of the incentives of the farm program.  But I believe that -- that the extent to which the concept of a safety net for agriculture is very important.  And by safety net, I mean just a minimum amount to get people, farmers over humps that are beyond their control, like natural disaster, international politics, you know, war, a lot of things that affect farming, that the farmer has no control over, that -- that we have a safety net to protect those farmers from catastrophic drops (ph) in prices beyond their own control.  But the extent to which farm programs have gone beyond that and helped a very small percentage of the farmers that maybe don't need subsidy because of high income and big operations, they can get over these humps themselves.  It has subsidized them to get bigger.  But except for within the -- then getting back to within the concept of a safety net for small- or medium-sized farmers, I think that -- that you can't take these considerations that cause your -- your question to be raised very seriously because what we're talking about is a farm program to maintain the continuity of food supply.  And -- and that's done for two reasons, one, for the national security of our country, and the other one is for the social cohesion of our society, because you've got to have food for your military, and Germany and Japan learned in World War II they didn't have enough food, so that's why they protect their farmers to a great extent.  The United States ought to learn that lesson.  And then social cohesion.  You know the old saying, you're only nine meals away from a revolution.  So if we don't have a stable food supply, we'd have a more chaotic society.  So those two considerations have to override the issues that you brought up.

QUESTION:  OK.

GRASSLEY:  Are you plowing up -- are we growing too much grain?  I'll bet some of these very people that raise those questions would be the first to cry out that if we didn't have enough food when they go to the supermarket.

QUESTION:  OK.  Thank you, Senator.

GRASSLEY:  All right.  Hey, I see Ken Root down here.  Ken, are you on there?

QUESTION:  Yes, but nothing to get excited about, sir.  I'm not on the air until next week on WHO-TV, so I'm just monitoring this week, but I want you to be prepared for a question next week, sir.

GRASSLEY:  Well -- well, I'll be prepared.  You bet.

QUESTION:  OK.  And I may have the WHO people ask it to you again on the television piece that you do.  Don't you do that at 1 o'clock on the same day?

GRASSLEY:  Yes, I do.  I do.

QUESTION:  OK, so sharpen up your -- you know, your wit, if you wouldn't mind, sir.

GRASSLEY:  Well, I welcome you back.

QUESTION:  Well, thank you very much.

GRASSLEY:  And just in case the rest of you people didn't know Ken Root was still alive, he's alive.  OK.  Anybody else want to jump in?  OK.  Thank you all very much.

QUESTION:  Thank you, Senator.

END

National menu labeling effort will also take effect soon

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement after President Obama signed into law The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate-passed comprehensive health reform measure approved by the House earlier this week.  Harkin, as Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was on hand at the White House to witness the bill signing.

"It's been a long debate and a hard-fought battle, but today, the hundred year struggle to provide affordable, quality health care coverage is over.  In signing this bill into law, President Obama today rewrote history, and in doing so, made access to health care available to millions of Americans. I've been on hand for a number of White House bill signings, but witnessing this particular event has been one of the most poignant of my career," said Harkin.

"I am most encouraged that with this reform, we will begin to recreate America as a genuine wellness society - a society focused on healthful lifestyles and preventing the chronic diseases that take such a toll on our bodies and our budgets.  And make no mistake, this bill doesn't just tinker around the edges; it changes the paradigm."

The Prevention and Public Health title of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates incentives to prevent chronic disease and rein in costs across the full health care spectrum.  At the federal level, creating a new inter-agency council to develop a national health strategy, creating a dedicated funding stream to support these efforts; at the clinical level with doctor training and coverage of preventive services and the elimination of co-pays and deductibles for these services; and at the grassroots level with grants for community initiatives that will support more walkable communities, healthier schools and increased access to nutritious foods in safe environments.

The legislation also includes a bipartisan compromise brokered by Harkin and others to provide mandatory disclosure of calories on menus and menu boards to help reduce rising obesity rates by enabling Americans to make healthier food choices.  The compromise combines key elements of the Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act, sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the Labeling Education and Nutrition (LEAN) Act, sponsored by Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). 

"A critical component of the just passed federal menu labeling is that the nutrition information is right on the menu or menu board next to the name of the menu item, rather than in a pamphlet or in tiny print on a poster, so that consumers can see it when they are making ordering decisions," concluded Harkin.  "It's a common-sense approach that's also a step toward good public health."

Prevention and wellness provisions of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will:

• Provide $15 billion in mandatory spending to support prevention and wellness activities.

• Eliminate cost sharing on recommended preventive services delivered by Medicare and all insurance plans available in the Health Insurance Exchange.

• Support two independent, advisory task forces ? the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (TFCPS) ? to strengthen and coordinate these bodies' efforts to conduct rigorous, systematic reviews of existing science and recommend the adoption of proven and effective services.

• Support investments in the science of prevention to further expand the base of information available for evaluation by the task forces.

• Provide coverage under Medicare, with no co-payment or deductible, for an annual wellness visit that includes a comprehensive health risk assessment and a 5-10 year personalized prevention plan.

• Deliver clinical preventive services by  covering 100% of the cost of USPSTF-recommended preventive services for Medicare beneficiaries, providing enhanced federal Medicaid matching funds to states who offer USPSTF-recommended services, requiring coverage of tobacco cessation services for pregnant women in Medicaid and by making clinical preventive services a required benefit of insurance available in the Health Insurance Exchange.

• Deliver community preventive services by investing in state, territorial and local public health infrastructure and by providing grants to implement recommended services.

• Require chain restaurants to put calorie counts directly on their menus and to make other nutritional information available so that consumers can make informed choices about what they eat.

St. Anthony Catholic Church in Davenport is celebrating a project milestone this Sunday, March 28 at 3:00 pm at 417 North Main Street in Davenport, IA. Please read the attached press release and project fact sheet regarding the dedication of St. Anthony Catholic Church.

Construction Ends for Historic Davenport Landmark

St. Anthony's Catholic Church to hold Dedication Ceremony on Sunday, March 28, 2010

Davenport, IA - The oldest church in Davenport, IA will reach an important milestone this week. St. Anthony's Catholic Church will hold a dedication ceremony on Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. at 417 N. Main Street in Davenport, IA to commemorate the completion of construction on their new building addition and renovation.

Founded in 1837 by Fr. Samuel Mazzuchelli, St. Anthony's Catholic Church has been a major part of Quad City history over the last 172 years. Having outgrown their current facility due to this congregational outreach to meet the spiritual needs of the surrounding community; construction began on a 7,200 s.f. addition and renovation project to the existing parish in June 2009. This addition included a new Multipurpose Hall, Education Center, Gathering Center, Parish Offices and a warming kitchen, patio, and distribution window, affectionately named "McAnthony Window," which is used to serve meals to the homeless and underprivileged.

St. Anthony's McAnthony Window also received a covered patio area with heating elements for colder months. The McAnthony Window helps to meet the needs for those who have little or no other means of support. They previously prepared between 125 and 150 meals a day, 45,000 meals a year, out of a small, residential kitchen.

This project aims to achieve a more unified, aesthetically pleasing campus, which will attract attention to the historically significant church square and coincides well with the city's downtown beautification plans. In addition, it will create a unified square with historic emphasis placed on the original church building, a building to which Antoine LeClaire himself contributed the lead gift.

Russell Construction, located in Davenport, IA, served as the Design/Builder for the $1,800,000 addition and renovation project. Russell has delivered over $40 million in religious facilities in and around the Quad Cities area. SGGM, located in Davenport, IA provided architectural services. For more information on Russell Construction or SGGM, please visit their corporate websites at www.russellco.com or www.sggm.net.