Prepared Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Opposition to Coburn Amendment

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Mr. President, I'd like to express my strong opposition to amendment #220 offered by Senator Coburn.  Senator Coburn's amendment would raise the tax on domestic energy production by repealing an incentive for the use of homegrown ethanol.

I'm astonished that given our current situation, there are some who would prefer less domestic energy production.  With conflicts in the Middle East and crude oil more than $100 a barrel, we should be on the same side.  We should all be on the side of more domestically produced energy.  The tremendous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil has never been more clear.

In light of this threat, we should have an energy policy of "all of the above."  I support drilling here, and drilling now.  I support renewable energy.  I support conservation.  And, I support nuclear energy.  It's counterproductive for senators from Big Oil country to single out energy that comes from American agriculture.  I didn't pick this fight.  I support energy from all sources.  I support traditional oil and gas.  And so do American taxpayers with tax incentives, for an industry that's 100 years old.

So, the attack on homegrown energy is really remarkable.  We shouldn't be fighting each other over domestic energy sources.  We should be fighting OPEC and foreign dictators and oil sheiks that hold our economy hostage.

The author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean, homegrown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible.  It's important to remember that the incentive exists to help the producers of ethanol compete with the oil industry.  And remember, the oil industry has been well supported by the federal treasury for more than a century.  President Obama, in his budget request for 2012, has advocated repealing a dozen or so subsidies to big oil.  He's argued that a century-old industry no longer needs tax breaks.  With oil prices at one-hundred dollars a barrel and record profits being made, some could certainly question why this industry needs any taxpayer subsidies at all.  President Obama's proposal would repeal about $44 billion in oil and gas subsidies over 10 years.

I'd like to remind my colleagues of a debate we had last summer on an amendment offered by Senator Sanders.  The amendment he offered would have, among other things, repealed about $35 billion in tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry.  Opponents of the Sanders amendment argued that repealing the oil and gas subsidies would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence on foreign oil.  Opponents also argued that it would cost U.S. jobs, and increase prices at the pump for consumers.

I tend to agreed with these arguments.  All of my Republican colleagues and more than one-third of Democrats did as well.  But, a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase that will surely be passed on to American consumers.  Repealing incentives for ethanol would have the same exact result.

I know that removing incentives for oil and gas will have the same impact as removing incentives for ethanol.  We'll get less domestically produced ethanol.  It will cost U.S. jobs.  It will increase our dependence on foreign oil.  It will increase prices at the pump for American consumers.  Mr. President, we're already dependent on foreign sources for more than 60 percent of our oil needs.  Why do my colleagues want to increase our foreign energy dependence when we can produce it here a home?

So, I'd like to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing oil and gas subsidies but support repealing incentives for renewable fuels:  why the inconsistency?  Where are the amendments from fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks to repeal the oil and gas subsidies?  The fact is, it's intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified, but that it's irresponsible to do so on oil and gas production.  If tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and good paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas important?

It's even more ridiculous to claim that the 30 year-old ethanol industry is mature and thus no longer needs government support, while the century old oil industry still receives $35 billion in taxpayer dollars.  Regardless, I don't believe we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly during this weak economy.

The senator from Oklahoma insists that because the renewable fuel is required to be used, it doesn't need an incentive.  But, with oil prices at $100 a barrel, oil companies are doing everything they can to extract more oil from the ground. There isn't a mandate to use oil, but it has a 100-year monopoly on our transportation infrastructure.  When there is little competition to oil and it's enormously profitable, wouldn't he argue that the necessary incentives exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support?  Oil essentially has a mandate today.  The economics of oil production are clearly in favor of the producers. Why do they need taxpayer support?

It's also important to understand the hidden cost of our dependence on foreign oil.  A peer-reviewed paper published in 2010 concluded that "....$27 to $138 billion dollars is spent annually by the U.S. military for protection of Middle Eastern maritime oil transit routes and oil infrastructure, with an average of $84 billion a year."  Mr. President, this is $84 billion in American treasure spent on the defense of shipping lanes to quench our thirst for foreign oil.  It's not reflected in the price at the pump.  It's a hidden cost.

Milton Copulos, an advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a veteran of the Heritage Foundation, testified before Congress in 2006 on this issue.  He testified that the hidden cost of imported oil is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline from the Persian Gulf.  There is no hidden U.S. military cost attributable to homegrown ethanol.

Let's have the debate on ethanol.  But, let's debate it in the context of a comprehensive energy plan.  This debate should include the subsidies for all energy production. Don't single out ethanol.

Nearly every type of energy gets some market distorting subsidy from the federal government.  An honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, and biomass.  It's hypocritical to put our economic and national security at risk by targeting ethanol, while disregarding the subsidies for all other energy sources.  Repealing the ethanol tax incentive will raise taxes on producers, blenders and ultimately consumers of renewable fuel.  This amendment is a gas tax increase of over five cents a gallon at the pump.

I just don't see the logic in arguing for a gas tax increase when we have so many Americans unemployed or underemployed and struggling just to get by.  I know we all agree that we cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during this time of economic uncertainty.  Unfortunately, those members who have called for ending the ethanol incentive have directly contradicted this pledge because a lapse in the credit will raise taxes, cost over 100,000 U.S. jobs at a time of near nine-percent unemployment, and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

The taxpayer watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform, considers a repeal of this incentive to be a tax hike.  Americans for Tax Reform states, "Repealing the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase."  I agree with them.

Now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the American people.  Now is not the time to send pink slips to ethanol related jobs.  Ethanol currently accounts for 10 percent of our transportation fuel.  A study concluded that the ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the federal treasury in 2009 -- $3.4 billion more than the ethanol incentive.  Today, the industry supports 400,000 U.S. jobs.  That's why I support a homegrown, renewable fuels industry.

I'd like to conclude by asking my colleagues: If we allow the tax incentive to lapse, from where should we import an additional 10 percent of our oil?  Should we rely on Middle Eastern oil sheiks, or Hugo Chavez?  I'd prefer we support our renewable fuel producers based right here at home, rather than send them a pink slip.  I'd prefer we decrease our dependence on Hugo Chavez, not increase it.  And I certainly don't support raising the tax on gasoline during this weak economy.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Grassley Warns of Bailed-out Banks' Repaying Bail-outs With Government Funds

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley is asking the Treasury secretary for assurances that banks bailed out with government funds will not be allowed to use another government program to pay back their bailouts.

"The reports that banks from New York to Nashville are using federal dollars from the so-called Small Business Lending Fund to increase profits and 'pay back' TARP make this look like another TARP-style money shuffle," Grassley said. "Replacing one form of government subsidy with another wasn't a repayment when GM did it and it still isn't.  The Treasury Department has an obligation to put the brakes on any tricky bookkeeping that misleads the American taxpayer and subverts what this program was supposed to do."

Grassley wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, citing media reports and a bank earnings statement to investors that banks in Pennsylvania, Nashville and New York that received money through the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) are considering paying back that bailout with money received through the federal Small Business Lending Fund.  One bank touted increased "profitability" in converting TARP funds to Small Business Lending Funds in its quarterly earnings report.

Grassley asked Geithner for assurances that a repayment shuffle will not take place.  He asked for a description of Treasury's oversight plans to prevent such a shuffle and for information including a list of banks that have applied for loans under the small business program.

Last year, Grassley exposed the misleading nature of claims from the Treasury Department and General Motors that the company repaid a TARP loan through a business turn-around.  In fact, its repayment was via federal money held by the government.

The text of Grassley's letter to the Treasury secretary is available here.


Davenport, IA - March 24, 2011 - Fresh Coat Fresh Coat of Southeast Iowa today announced the launch of www.freshcoatquadcities.com as an information portal for Quad Cities area home owners and businesses to find information about painting projects. With articles being added almost every day and an online monthly newsletter of painting tips, the website is anticipated to quickly become Iowa's primary resource for residential and commercial painting projects.

Future plans include educational guides on selecting a painting contractor and professional advice from experts in the field.

The web site will be an invaluable resource for Iowa area homeowners and businesses in finding accessible information to address their painting needs. Information will be efficiently categorized for easy navigation.

The owner of Fresh Coat Fresh Coat of Southeast Iowa stated, "Our main objective is to be the number one painting resource guide for assisting everyone in the Quad Cities area with their painting needs. The depth of knowledge and resources at www.freshcoatquadcities.com is simple, concise and offers every homeowner some information about their home."

About Fresh Coat Fresh Coat of Southeast Iowa - Painting is a product and service industry and ultimately the success of any painting company is driven by customer satisfaction. At Fresh Coat, we believe in the core values of honesty, integrity, experience, and a commitment to doing what we say we will do. We also believe that these values are the keys to our client's satisfaction and are the first steps towards developing long-term business relationships. Not only do I care about my clients, I also care about my community and the environment. Our Davenport painters are proud to offer eco-friendly, "Green" paint options. We also support nonprofit organizations and community groups fundraising programs. For more information please visit them at www.freshcoatquadcities.com.

***

Washington, DC - March 15, 2011 - Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) joined a bipartisan effort to keep the government running and voted to support a temporary measure that incorporates cuts from both parties:

"Let me be clear, passing two-week or three-week stopgap measures is no way to run a government," said Rep. Braley. "But when the choice is a temporary spending measure or a government shutdown that would deny care for our veterans and stop Social Security checks from going out - then I believe it's my duty to make sure crucial programs all over Iowa and the country are not disrupted by a shutdown.

"It's long past time that we sit down and have a responsible, adult discussion about the budget - and pass a long term spending plan that gives American families, soldiers and businesses the certainty they deserve."

###

Washington, DC - Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) issued the following statement in response to the Iowa State House vote to pass a Republican bill that curbs collective bargaining rights for working families in Iowa:

"Today's action by the Iowa House of Representatives is a blatant attack on our state's middle class. At the very moment that our economy is showing signs of improvement, the Republicans in the Iowa House have thrown a punch to the gut of thousands of Iowa families. This bill is shameful."

# # #

Passage of House File 525 a huge disappointment for Iowa's working families

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), issued the following statement after the Iowa House of Representatives voted 56 to 39 to pass a measure that restricts the collective bargaining rights of public workers.

"Following Wisconsin's vote earlier this week, I was hopeful that Iowa's House Republicans would choose a different path, and not resort to using our public sector workers - our friends and neighbors - as a political scapegoat.  Unfortunately, today they voted to strip Iowa's public servants of meaningful collective bargaining rights.  It is a shameful thing to do to those who work so hard for the public good, and it will only undermine the economic recovery of our great state.  

"Let's not forget who we are really talking about.  We are talking about the police officers and firefighters that put their lives on the line to keep our families safe.  We are talking about the elementary school teachers who make sure our kids know their ABCs.  Our public servants deserve respect - especially from our elected officials.  They did not cause the recession, and they do not deserve to be treated this way.

"Iowans have a very strong sense of community - they know that in tough times it's important to support your friends and neighbors and do all you can to lift people up, not tear them down.  Working families are facing unprecedented challenges, and it's time that we all come together to do whatever we can to help rebuild a strong middle class with good jobs, fair wages, and benefits.  My hope is that the Iowa Senate defeats this measure."

Legislation Helps Level the Playing Field, Protects Jobs for Illinois Brick-and-Mortar Businesses

CHICAGO - March 10, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today signed legislation to require all companies doing business in Illinois to collect and remit the legally required sales taxes. House Bill 3659 - the Mainstreet Fairness Bill - was a bipartisan initiative that passed both houses of the General Assembly with overwhelming support.

"Illinois' main street businesses are critical to ensuring our long-term economic stability, which is why they must be able to compete with every company doing business online in Illinois," said Governor Quinn. "This law will put Illinois-based businesses on a level playing field, protect and create jobs and help us continue to grow in the global marketplace."

The law, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Verschoore (D-Rock Island) and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), will require all online retailers who contract with an "affiliate" in Illinois to collect sales tax on customer purchases and remit it to the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR). Illinois currently collects sales tax revenue from the more than 20,000 retailers with physical locations in the state, including online and catalog sales from these vendors.

"Illinois retailers are crucial components of our state economy and our local communities. We need to ensure that those businesses are not at a disadvantage in our modern marketplace. I believe this law is an important step in leveling the playing field for Illinois businesses," said President Cullerton.

"As more consumers decide to do their shopping online, we must make sure that our local businesses are competing on a level playing field with online retailers," said Rep. Verschoore. "I would like to thank Governor Quinn for signing this law, which will help Illinois businesses stay competitive."

"The Illinois Retail Merchants Association proudly stands with Governor Pat Quinn today as he signs House Bill 3659 into law," said David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. "This puts Illinois as a national leader in restoring fairness - fairness for retailers, fairness for the economy but most importantly, fairness for taxpayers. No taxpayer should be punished because out-of-state companies won't play by the rules. Thanks to the leadership of the legislature and the Governor's action today, we can all rest easier knowing that the right policy prevailed and everyone is now on an even playing field."

Illinois law currently requires taxpayers and businesses to report and pay sales tax on items purchased from retailers that do not collect sales tax on their behalf. The Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) estimates that between $153 million and $170 million in sales tax revenue per year goes uncollected, as individuals and businesses are unaware of or avoid their obligation to pay sales tax on such items.

"It's a matter of fairness. Stores and businesses located in Illinois employ Illinois workers, support community programs, and, through the property, income and sales taxes they pay, allow us to provide vital public services," said Brian Hamer, Director of Revenue. "Online merchants with affiliates in Illinois should be required to remit the same taxes."

"I want to thank Governor Quinn for signing this bill. His action has helped independent bookstores like mine, and thousands of Main Street retailers all across the state," said Becky Anderson, co-owner of Anderson's Bookshops. "Illinois businesses will no longer be penalized simply for complying with sales tax laws. This is going to help retailers expand and create jobs."

At the request of Governor Quinn, the Alliance of Main Street Fairness (AMSF) has begun a website (www.standwithmainstreet.com) to help Illinois affiliates expand their customer bases. The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) will partner with the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and AMSF to provide growth opportunities, foster an environment to create more Illinois jobs and provide online shopping consumers with greater opportunities to save money.

The law is effective immediately.

###

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Senator Chuck Grassley issued the comment below about the Senate budget votes today.  Grassley voted for the House-passed proposal.  It was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56.  He voted against the substitute offered by the Senate Democratic leadership.  It was defeated by a vote of 42 to 58.  Both measures needed 60 votes to pass.  Grassley is a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Grassley comment:

"Today's votes emphasize that there are no more excuses for the Senate Majority Leader.  His proposal for a mere $4.7 billion in spending reductions is clearly not credible.  It's time for the majority party in the Senate to get real about the federal budget and lead an effort to pass meaningful spending reductions.  The $61 billion in cuts adopted by the House comes from government spending programs that saw a 24 percent increase from 2008 to 2010.  What's more, $61 billion is just 1/25th of this year's $1.5 trillion federal deficit.  Forty cents of every dollar spent in Washington today is borrowed.  The Senate needs to do its part in responding to the clear message from voters last November.  Washington can't continue to spend money it doesn't have, at the expense of future generations."

New Law Protects Minority Community Voting Rights; Increases Openness and Transparency in Redistricting Process

CHICAGO - March 7, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today signed a bill into law that protects the voting rights of racial and language minority communities throughout Illinois and encourages public participation in the redistricting process.

"Ensuring that everyone's voice is heard in government is crucial to our democracy," said Governor Quinn. "This new law will help ensure that racial and language minority groups throughout our state are able to elect leaders accountable to their interests and concerns."

Senate Bill 3976 protects the voting rights of racial and language minority groups in Illinois by helping prevent a community's electoral identity from being weakened by being divided into multiple legislative districts. The new law creates the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011, which allows legislative districts to be drawn to create crossover districts, coalition districts or influence districts.

A crossover district is one in which a racial or language minority group makes up less than a majority of the voting age population, but is large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with some support from larger groups. A coalition district is one where several racial or language minority groups may join together to elect a candidate of their choice. An influence district is one where a racial or language minority can influence the outcome of an election, even if its preferred candidate cannot be elected.

The new law also ensures that the legislature will hold a minimum of four public hearings before passing future redistricting plans. The new law was sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) and takes effect immediately.

"As we move forward with the redistricting process, this important new law gives us the tools and public input needed to create a map that is fair and representative of the people of Illinois," said Currie.

The ceremony was held at the Chinese American Service League, in Chicago's Chinatown neighborhood. The neighborhood is currently divided into four city wards, three state senate districts, four state representative districts and two county board districts. Community leaders say the neighborhood's division into so many districts has significantly reduced its influence in government, and that as a result, the area's interests are underrepresented.

This bill was supported by numerous community organizations, including: the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community, the Chinese American Service League, the Asian American Institute, the Korean American Resource and Cultural Center, the United African Organization, the Resurrection Project, and the United Congress of Religious and Community Organizations.

###

Grassley Fights Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid

 

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today introduced legislation to build on key reforms to fight fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.  The measure comes the day of a Senate Finance Committee hearing exploring ways to fight health care fraud.

 

"These are huge programs with billions of dollars going out in fraud each year," Grassley said.  "The bad actors are getting bigger and bolder all the time.  They're able to stay out of law enforcement's reach too often.  It says a lot when you hear organized crime has gotten into health care fraud because it's so profitable.  It's time to try new things.  Stopping bad payments before they go out instead of trying to collect them after the fact is common sense.  More transparency about billing and payments increases public understanding of where tax dollars go.   The bad actors might be dissuaded if they knew their actions were subject to the light of day.  Congress should act quickly to pass the reforms out of respect for taxpayers and on behalf of program beneficiaries."

 

Grassley said his bill includes provisions that would:

 

  • limit tax dollars lost to fraud by giving the government more time to pay Medicare providers when fraud, waste and abuse are suspected than is allowed under the existing pay-and-chase model;
  • enhance coordination among federal agencies responsible for fighting medical identity theft, in which thieves use personal and health insurance information to bill for medical treatment and prescription drugs fraudulently;
  • stop payments for illegal, unapproved drugs;
  • beef up enforcement capabilities by expanding the range of individuals subject to penalties; and
  • require Medicare claims and payment data to be available to the public by provider name for the first time, similar to other federal spending disclosed on www.USAspending.gov.

 

Grassley said the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act of 2011 is comprised of reforms with bipartisan support.  Grassley led the development of a number of fraud-fighting provisions during the bipartisan work in the Senate in the last Congress on comprehensive health care legislation.  Some of the items were enacted, but others were not and are included in Grassley's new bill.  He also introduced the Medicare payment reform measure in the last Congress.

 

The federal government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379 billion on Medicaid in fiscal year 2009.  It is estimated between $40 billion and $70 billion was lost to fraud that year.

 

The federal False Claims Act is one of the most effective tools against health care fraud.  Grassley authored a major update of this law, in 1986, with Rep. Howard Berman of California.  Since then, the law has recovered more than $28 billion and deterred billions of dollars in additional fraud against the taxpayers.  The whistleblower provisions that were created by the 1986 update are among the most successful elements of the False Claims Act.   This year, the False Claims Act brought in $3 billion in recoveries, with $2.5 billion from health care fraud cases, and nearly $2.4 billion of the recoveries thanks to the qui tam whistleblower provisions.

 

Grassley also is working to ensure that the civil recovery of public dollars that otherwise would be lost to fraud is buttressed by a robust criminal prosecution.  At the end of last year, he asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to account for the falling number of criminal prosecutions.  He also intends to introduce legislation this year to require the Attorney General to report details of False Claims Act settlements to Congress.  "It's a matter of accountability," Grassley said.

 

Grassley is Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, with jurisdiction over the Justice Department and federal False Claims Act matters.  He is a senior member and former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over federal health care programs.

 

A summary of the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act follows.

 

Video of Grassley's floor speech on the legislation is available here.

 

The bill text is available here.

 

Grassley's statement at today's Finance Committee hearing is available here.

 

 

The Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act of 2011

Summary of Provisions*

 

Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents

Sec. 2. Enhanced Medicare and Medicaid Program Integrity Provisions

Payment Suspensions CMS and its contractors currently have the discretionary authority to withhold payment in whole or in part if there is reliable evidence of an overpayment or fraud. CMS regulations stipulate the procedures CMS and its contractors must follow when deciding to suspend payment. The provision would make this discretionary authority mandatory and require the Secretary to suspend payments to a provider or supplier pending a fraud investigation, except in cases when there is a determination that such a suspension is not supported by good cause.

Extension of Time to Pay Claims Under current law, payments must be made for clean claims within 14 to 30 days.  This is known as the "prompt payment rule."  The provision would require the Secretary to extend the time that Medicare payments must be made to providers if there is a determination of the likelihood of fraud, waste and abuse.  OIG would also have to make recommendations at least annually on what categories of providers would warrant an extension of the time period in the prompt payment rule, and CMS would have to respond to these recommendations.

 

Sec. 3. Requirements for the Transmission of Management Implication Reports by the HHS OIG

A Management Implication Report (MIR) is a document the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) produces identifying systematic weaknesses or vulnerabilities in federal programs to fraud, waste, or abuse, and recommending ways to correct or minimize them.  Often detected in the course of an investigation, these identified weaknesses can exceed the parameters of the investigation and represent fraud, waste, or abuse across the federal healthcare system.  This provision would require the OIG to inform Congress when it transmits MIRs to the Secretary and requires the Secretary to respond to OIG within 90 days.

 

Sec. 4. Medical ID Theft Information Sharing Program and Clearinghouse

Medical identity theft contributes to a significant portion of health care fraud.  This provision would require the Secretary to establish an information-sharing program with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which maintains identity theft complaints received by both the FTC and the Social Security Administration. The Secretary would be required to establish methods to identify and detect medical identity theft and establish responses to warning signs of medical identity theft.

Sec. 5. Permissive Exclusion from Federal Health Care Programs Expanded to Individuals and Entities Affiliated with Sanctioned Entities

HHS OIG has the authority to exclude health care providers from participation in Federal health care programs. Exclusions are mandatory under certain circumstances, and permissive in others (i.e., HHS OIG has discretion in whether to exclude an entity or individual). This provision would subject individuals who have had past ownership or control interests with sanctioned entities or past ownership or control interests with an affiliated entity of sanctioned entities to the OIG's permissive exclusion authority.  The provision would explicitly apply to MA, PDP, and Medicaid managed care plans as well as their participating providers and suppliers

 

Sec. 6. Public Availability of Medicare Claims Data

This provision would require the Secretary to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public in accordance with privacy, security, and disclosure laws in a manner similar to other federal spending disclosed on www.USAspending.gov.

 

Sec. 7. Medicaid Exclusion from Participation Relating to Certain Ownership, Control, and Management Affiliations

Medicaid law requires states to exclude individuals or entities from Medicaid participation when a state is directed to do so by the Secretary, and to deny payment for any item or service furnished by the individual or entity. States are required to exclude these individuals and deny payment for a period specified by the Secretary.

 

The measure would require Medicaid agencies to exclude individuals or entities from Medicaid participation if the entity or individual owns, controls, or manages an entity that: (A) has unpaid or unreturned overpayments during the period as determined by the Secretary or the state; (B) is suspended, excluded, or terminated from participation in any Medicaid program; or (C) is affiliated with an individual or entity that has been suspended, excluded, or terminated from Medicaid participation during the period. This provision would be effective January 1, 2011.

 

Sec. 8. Payment for Illegal Unapproved Drugs

This provision would ensure that the Medicaid program does not provide reimbursement for covered outpatient drugs that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under a new drug application (NDA), an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or drugs grandfathered under prior FDA determinations.  The Social Security Act currently prohibits the reimbursement of illegal, unapproved drugs which fall outside the definition of a "covered outpatient drug".  However, Medicaid continues to make payments for illegal, unapproved drugs.  For example, in 2008 it was reported that nearly $198 million were paid in reimbursements for unapproved drugs from 2004-2007.

 

This provision would prohibit a state from making a payment for any covered outpatient drug unless the state first verifies with the FDA that such a covered outpatient drug is being legally marketed.  It also would require the FDA to establish a public registry of all drugs that are not approved under an NDA or ANDA and include the drug, the person who listed the drug, and the authority that does not require the drug to receive approval via an NDA or ANDA.

 

Sec. 9. Requiring Individuals or Entities that Participate in or Conduct Activities under Federal Health Care Programs to Comply with Certain Congressional Requests

This provision would require individuals and entities that participate in federal health care programs to comply with requests for documents, information, or interviews by the chairmen or ranking members of committees of jurisdiction.

 

-30-

Pages