U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–400 WASHINGTON : 2019

H.R. 1384, MEDICARE FOR ALL ACT OF 2019 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019 

Available via http://govinfo.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, Chairman 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida, 

Vice Chair 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania 

JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York 

DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma, 

Ranking Republican 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

DON SISSON, Staff Director 

KELLY DIXON, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PROCESS

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida, Chairman 

JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York, 

Vice Chair 

MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania 

DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia, 

Ranking Republican 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

NORMA J. TORRES, California, Chair 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado, 

Vice Chair 

MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania 

JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona, 

Ranking Republican 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Chair 

DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida, 

Vice Chair 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas, 

Ranking Republican 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 30, 2019 

Opening Statements: Page 

Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules ........................... 2 

Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma 

and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules ..................................... 4 

Witness Testimony: 

Mr. Ady Barkan, Founder, Be A Hero Organization ..................................... 7 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 10 

Dr. Charles Blahous, J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Chair and Senior 

Research Strategist, Mercatus Center ........................................................ 14 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 17 

Dr. Dean Baker, Senior Economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research ............................................................................................................. 24 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 27 

Ms. Grace-Marie Turner, President, Galen Institute .................................... 39 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 41 

Dr. Sara Collins, Vice President for Health Care Coverage and Access, 

The Commonwealth Fund ............................................................................ 57 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 59 

Dr. Doris Browne, Immediate Past-President, National Medical Association ................................................................................................................. 103 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 106 

Dr. Farzon Nahvi, Emergency Room Physician ............................................. 109 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 112 

Questions and Additional Testimony: 

Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules ........................... 114 

Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma 

and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules ..................................... 119 

Hon. Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 124 

Hon. Rob Woodall, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ................................................................................................................... 128 

Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland ....................................................................................................... 135 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas .......................................................................................................... 141 

Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 148 

Hon. Norma Torres, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared Statement ................................................................... 154 

Hon. Debbie Lesko, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona ................................................................................................................ 155 

Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ................................................................................................... 161 

Hon. Donna E. Shalala, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 170 

Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 179 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

Statement from National Nurses United dated April 30, 2019 .................... 187 

Statement from Diane Archer, President, JustCareUSA.org dated April 

30, 2019 .......................................................................................................... 220 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record—Continued 

Letter from Mayra E. Alvarez MHA, President, The Children’s Partnership dated April 29, 2019 ............................................................................. 227 

Statement from the American Hospital Association dated April 30, 2019 .. 230 

Statement from Eagan Kemp, Health Care Policy Advocate, Public Citizen, dated April 30, 2019 ............................................................................ 234 

Article by Erica Werner, Washington Post, entitled ‘‘House GOP plan 

would cut Medicare, Medicaid to balance budget’’ dated June 19, 2018 .. 244 

Article by Alex Cooke, CBC News, entitled ‘‘ ’This is the face of the 

health-care crisis’: Woman issues plea to N.S. premier’’ dated April 

25, 2019 .......................................................................................................... 246 

Letter from Nathan Rodke, Washington Community Action Network 

dated April 29, 2019 ..................................................................................... 253 

Letter from Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator, the Labor Campaign 

for Single-Payer dated April 26, 2019 ......................................................... 254 

Letter from Nancy J. Altman, President, and Alex Lawson, Executive 

Director, Social Security Works dated April 29, 2019 ............................... 255 

Letter from Dr. John Aldis dated April 22, 2019 ........................................... 257 

Statement from Rebecca Wood dated April 30, 2019 .................................... 258 

Letter from the Partnership for Employer Sponsored Coverage dated 

April 30, 2019 ................................................................................................ 261 

Opinion Editorial by Enrique Padron, the New York Post, entitled ‘‘Hey, 

Democrats: Here’s the price I paid for your socialist dream’’ dated 

April 17, 2019 ................................................................................................ 264 

Paper from Dr. Giles Birchley, Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Bristol 

Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol entitled ‘‘Charlie Gard and the weight of parental rights to seek experimental treatment’’ dated May 17, 2018 ...................................................... 268 

Curriculum Vitae and Truth in Testimony Forms for Witnesses Testifying 

Before the Committee ................................................................................... 273 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION HEARING ON H.R. 

1384, MEDICARE FOR ALL ACT OF 2019 

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON RULES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room H– 

313, The Capitol, Hon. James P. McGovern [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McGovern, Perlmutter, Raskin, Scanlon, Morelle, Shalala, DeSaulnier, Cole, Woodall, Burgess, and 

Lesko. 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The CHAIRMAN. The Rules Committee will come to order. Good 

morning, everybody. And I want to welcome our witnesses to the 

Rules Committee. Thank you so much for being here. Before I give 

my opening statement, I would like to outline the time agreements 

that we reached between the majority and minority on this committee for the purposes of this hearing. In the Rules Committee, we 

have no rules, but we are going to have rules today, at least a little 

bit. 

So, you know, while the rules of our committee provide members 

with 5 minutes to ask questions of the witnesses, that rule has not 

been followed for as long as I can remember. I believe we have 

reached a fair agreement with our minority that respects the time 

of our expert witnesses and provides members of this committee 

with ample time to ask questions. 

Under the agreement, the chair and ranking member will provide an opening statement around 5 minutes. If other members of 

the committee have opening remarks, we ask that you submit those 

statements for the record. Each witness will then have 5 minutes 

to provide an opening statement. If you go over a little bit, fine. 

But if you see that red light on, that means try to wind it up. 

After the committee receives testimony from our witnesses, each 

member of the committee will have about 15 minutes to ask questions of the witnesses. And if a member has a question for Mr. 

Barkan, please ask him your question at the beginning of your 

time and then proceed with your questions for the other witnesses 

to give Mr. Barkan some time to type his responses. Please be sure 

to leave some time at the end of your questioning for his responses. 

The chair and ranking member will have an additional 15 minutes to provide comments throughout the hearing or to provide additional time to members during questioning. The minority’s addiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

tional time must be used before the majority’s last member begins 

his or her questioning. The chair and ranking member will have 

about 5 minutes to close, and the chair will close after the ranking 

member offers his very, I am sure, eloquent closing remarks. 

I want to thank Ranking Member Cole for his assistance in 

reaching this agreement, and I thank all of our members, both 

Democratic and Republican, for participation in this hearing. And 

before I begin, I just want to acknowledge some people here in the 

audience. You saw Speaker Pelosi was here a little bit earlier. We 

appreciate her coming by. And Congresswoman Katie Porter is 

here from California. We are grateful that she is here in the audience. In addition, we have Amirah Sequeira from National Nurses 

United, Jean Ross from National Nurses United, Nicole Jorwic 

from the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, Kristy Fogle 

with the Maryland Progressive Healthcare Coalition, Robert Kraig 

with People’s Action, and Savanna Lyons with People’s Action. Rebecca Wood and her daughter, Charlie, are here. Charlie was born 

prematurely, and before the age of 3, she had suffered through 

more therapies and injections than most experience in a lifetime. 

And as the expenses piled up, Rebecca and her family faced tough 

choices regarding Charlie’s treatment, which highlight the need for 

adequate long-term care in this country. 

Jennifer Epps-Addison is sitting behind Ady from the Center for 

Popular Democracy; Nate Smith, Ady’s lifelong friend and caretaker; Liz Jaff, president of Be a Hero, which is Ady’s organization; 

and Elazar Barkan, Ady’s father, is here. I am sure you are very 

proud of your son today, as we all are. Yochai Benkler, Ady’s uncle, 

is here; and Ari Benkler, Ady’s cousin. And the incredible Pramila 

Jayapal is here. When I get to my opening statement, I want to 

thank her again because it is her legislation that is why we are all 

here today. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS AND CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES 

Let me begin with my opening statement. I believe this is a historic day. Today the Rules Committee is holding a hearing on the 

Medicare for All Act, and this marks the first time Congress has 

ever held a hearing on Medicare for All. And I want to thank again 

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell and their staffs, Senator Sanders and his staff as well, for 

leading this effort and for all their help with this hearing. But I 

particularly want to thank Congresswoman Jayapal for her commitment and her dedication to this issue, and we are all grateful 

to her. 

We have a talented witness panel with us today, and I have a 

sneaking suspicion that we will have a lively debate. And that is 

a good thing. After nearly a decade of Republicans talking only 

about how to rip healthcare away from people when they were in 

charge, this majority is here to discuss how to expand coverage and 

how to lower costs and improve outcomes in the process. 

I have long believed that healthcare is a right for all, not a privilege for the lucky few. That is why I voted for the Affordable Care 

Act, a law that gave 20 million more people access to health covVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

erage. It banned insurance companies from discriminating against 

cancer patients and women and made sure that health plans actually covered essential benefits. 

The ACA changed lives. It saved lives. But we knew then that 

it was never going to be the last stop in healthcare reform, that we 

were always going to have to come back and build upon those core 

values. And that is what today is all about, because the work of 

reform isn’t done. Twenty-nine million Americans are still without 

coverage. Forty-four million people have coverage that isn’t there 

for them when they need it. And all of us deserve healthcare that 

we can afford without health insurance middlemen unnecessarily 

jacking up costs or deciding who gets care. Because it is still true 

today that for too many in America, you can go broke if you get 

cancer; you can lose your home if your kids get sick. That is not 

healthcare being delivered as a basic human right; that is 

healthcare that remains out of reach for too many. 

The Medicare for All Act would change that. The 29 million uninsured Americans in our country today would get healthcare. The 44 

million underinsured people would have the peace of mind of finally knowing that their healthcare will be there for them when 

they need it. And all of us—workers, seniors, students—all of us 

will be free from crushing out-of-pocket costs. 

Importantly, this bill would also guarantee for the first time that 

people living with disabilities have access to services they need to 

live with dignity. The Medicare for All Act is a serious proposal. 

That is why more than 100 Members of Congress are cosponsors. 

That includes me, and it includes some others on this panel. Not 

only does it deserve to be part of the discussion as we consider 

ways to expand and strengthen coverage, it deserves to move forward. I hope today is just the start. 

Congress should be a place where we tackle big things, where we 

are not afraid to have hearings and real debates. I know we won’t 

pass this bill overnight, but we won’t pass it unless we start the 

dialogue. 

This Democratic majority was built by Americans tired of political leaders who tried to sabotage their healthcare and who looked 

after the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone 

else. The American people in the last election spoke loudly and 

clearly. They wanted a Congress that works to expand coverage. 

They are sick and tired of the problems that are fundamental in 

our system today. 

So, if my Republican friends want to use a lot of scary words like 

‘‘government takeover’’ and ‘‘socialism’’ today, have at it. They tried 

that during the passage of Medicare. They tried that during the 

passage of Social Security. They tried that during the passage of 

the Affordable Care Act. And every time, the American people saw 

through it and supported those programs. This would be no different. 

And by now, we all know that the Republican plan for healthcare 

can be summed up in one word: repeal, no replacement. To the extent that they had a healthcare plan, I think it could probably be 

summarized as take two tax breaks and call me in the morning. 

They didn’t hold a single hearing on the repeal plan last Congress, 

not one. Well, this majority is taking a different route. We have 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

fantastic witnesses who will talk about this bill today. Some are 

for; some are somewhere in the middle; and some are against. 

But I want to focus on one witness. With us today is Ady 

Barkan. Ady is a father and a husband and, out of circumstance, 

a healthcare advocate. I think we all have a picture of Ady’s beautiful family here today. And I am sure your son is incredibly proud 

of you being here at the first ever Medicare for All hearing. We are 

so honored that you are here. 

If you recognize Ady’s name, it is because he has been fighting 

like hell for his life and for all of ours. Ady was diagnosed with 

ALS in the fall of 2016. Since then, he has battled insurance companies, drug companies, medical device companies. You name it, 

Ady has battled it just to get the care that he needs. 

And I say ‘‘battle’’ because that is exactly what he has had to do. 

Battle to get care, battle to get services, battle to get life-sustaining 

medical equipment. But no one should have to fight a healthcare 

company while they are fighting for their lives. 

I can’t do Ady’s story justice. I will let him tell it. But I will leave 

my colleagues with this: If you think healthcare in America is just 

fine today, if you think we only need to nibble at the edges of reform, look at Ady after what he has gone through and try to tell 

him that. 

Of course, Ady, you are welcome to stay here as long as you want 

and take any breaks that you want. We are just honored that you 

are here. You literally put your life on the line to travel here from 

California, and we are fortunate to be able to hear your story. 

Let me just close with this: You know, in Washington, we talk 

a lot about national security. That is everybody’s favorite topic. 

And I believe we need to expand the definition of national security 

to include more than just the number of bombs we have. National 

security should also mean things like quality healthcare for every 

person in this country. You know, we expect the Federal Government to defend us against enemies abroad. I don’t think it is too 

much to expect the Federal Government to protect us against illnesses here at home. 

We are going to have a spirited debate here. I am looking forward to it, but before I get started I want to first recognize our distinguished ranking member from Oklahoma, my good friend Mr. 

Cole. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM COLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AND 

RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I too want 

to thank you for holding the hearing. 

And I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming and participating. I had the opportunity to read all of your testimony. And, 

frankly, I found it very informative in all cases and quite moving, 

obviously, in a number. 

And it is interesting to me to note, Mr. Chairman, that while, as 

you pointed out, there is a variety of perspectives, as there should 

be, amongst our witnesses today, each and every one of them is interested in the best possible healthcare for the American people. 

And they may disagree over how they get there, but it is a noble 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

and worthy goal that you all share and, frankly, you have all dedicated a lifetime in pursuit of. So I am very grateful for that, as I 

know every member of this panel is. 

Today’s hearing, Mr. Chairman, is quite extraordinary. We are 

here today to consider H.R. 1384, the Medicare for All Act of 2019. 

Unlike our usual weekly hearings, today’s hearing is an original jurisdiction legislative hearing, covering a bill over which the Rules 

Committee has some original jurisdiction. I say ‘‘some’’ because out 

of the 120 pages of bill text, the Rules Committee has jurisdiction 

over precisely one of those pages. That is it, just one page. Yet we 

are about to hold our first original jurisdiction legislative hearing 

in nearly 3 years on this bill. That is what makes this hearing extraordinary. 

I also think it is worth noting that Speaker Pelosi’s personal 

committee is the one to take the first swing at this ball when three 

other committees in the House can claim wider jurisdiction than 

Rules. Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education 

and Labor could, and should, all conduct multiple hearings on this 

legislation as well. And, frankly, I am sure ranking Republican 

members of those committees will be requesting their chairs to 

take up this legislation in the relevant committees. And I hope that 

happens. 

Of course, there is a reason it is coming to Rules first, and that 

is because this bill too is an extraordinary bill. What Democrats 

are proposing today would completely change America’s healthcare 

system and not, in my view, for the better. Medicare for All would 

require all Americans to pay more in taxes, wait longer for care, 

and receive potentially worse care. Even worse, it would put our 

current Medicare recipients at risk. 

As Medicare is structured now, current Medicare recipients and 

Medicare Advantage plan holders are, by and large, satisfied with 

the healthcare they receive. In particular, Medicare Advantage 

plans are extremely popular. However, this radical bill puts Medicare itself at risk by enrolling millions of new recipients who have 

not paid into the program in the same way current recipients have. 

It would reduce the quality of services, enforce longer wait times, 

and ban Medicare Advantage entirely. For current Medicare recipients, Medicare for All really means Medicare for none. 

Indeed, this bill is a socialist proposal that threatens freedom of 

choice and would allow Washington to impose one-size-fits-all plans 

on the American people. Private health insurance would be completely banned. Everyone, every man, woman, and child in America 

with private employer-based or union-based health insurance, 

would lose their plan. Even if you like your plan, you really can’t 

keep it. 

More than 150 million people will lose health plans they like, 

plans that they bargained for, and, in many cases, plans that they 

have earned through years of hard work. Medicare for All throws 

it all out the window in favor of a one-size-fits-all government-run 

health plan. 

We will hear from one of our witnesses, Ms. Grace-Marie Turner, 

on the impact this will have on employer-sponsored insurance and 

the method by which roughly half of Americans receive their 

healthcare. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

In the midst of all this, I think the majority needs to be honest 

about the phenomenal cost of this new program. We are going to 

hear from Dr. Charles Blahous, a former public trustee for Social 

Security and Medicare. He reviewed Medicare for All for the 

Mercatus Center and authored a very telling study on the topic. 

Dr. Blahous’ work showed the previous more basic version of Medicare for All would cost at least $32 trillion over the next 10 years, 

and, frankly, the version in front of us would cost more than that. 

The majority has not told us how much this massive new program will cost, how they will raise the money to pay for it, or 

whose taxes will have to go up to pay for it. On the last concern, 

I can assure you that the answer is everyone. Everyone’s taxes will 

have to more than double to pay for this program. The majority 

needs to be honest with us and with the American people about the 

cost. 

Beyond this, I would like to point out one of the most egregious 

provisions of the Democratic healthcare bill is that it relates to the 

Federal funding of abortion. As many know, the Federal funding of 

abortion has been limited for well over three decades by several 

legislative provisions: The Hyde amendment limits taxpayer public 

funding of abortion; the Weldon amendment prohibits States from 

discriminating against providers that do not support abortions; the 

Church amendments protects the conscience rights of health practitioners; and even ObamaCare maintained limited conscience protections. 

However, this bill contains none of them. It requires coverage of 

comprehensive reproductive care, quote/unquote, which includes 

elective abortions paid for with taxpayer dollars. Section 701 of the 

bill explicitly states that this bill must ignore these Federal laws 

dating back 33 years. 

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you are encouraging your leadership to pursue hearings and markups within the committees that 

have primary jurisdiction over the majority of healthcare issues— 

Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means—so that we can ensure that longstanding life protections are included as you move 

Medicare for All to the floor for a vote. 

Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to today’s hearing, hope our 

witnesses can shed some light on these and other questions as we 

review this proposal that, if passed into law, would dramatically 

change the American healthcare system for absolutely everyone 

and, in my opinion, not for the better. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole, for your statement. And let me just assure you that I hope all of the committees 

of jurisdiction will do hearings on this bill because I think that 

would be, as I mentioned in my opening statement, a big contrast 

to the way my friends on the other side of the aisle conducted 

themselves when they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 

There were no hearings. Hearings are a good thing. And as far as 

why Rules is beginning, I would like to think it is because it is an 

enlightened chairman. 

We are ready to begin. Our first witness is Ady Barkan. Ady is 

a lawyer and an organizer with the Center for Popular Democracy 

and the founder of the Be a Hero PAC. He helped design and draft 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

policy proposals to enhance the quality of low-wage jobs in New 

York City, including the right to paid sick days, regulation of major 

retailers, and unionization of the car wash industry. He graduated 

from Yale Law School and Columbia College cum laude. And as I 

said in my opening statement, we are deeply honored to have you 

here, Mr. Barkan, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF ADY BARKAN, FOUNDER, BE A HERO 

ORGANIZATION 

Mr. BARKAN. Chairman McGovern and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Ady 

Barkan. I am 35 years old, and I live in Santa Barbara, California, 

with my brilliant wife Rachel and our beautiful toddler Carl. She 

is an English professor at the University of California-Santa Barbara, and I am an organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy 

and the Be a Hero project. 

I earned my bachelor’s degree from Columbia University with a 

major in economics and my law degree from Yale Law School. For 

20 years, since I was a freshman on my high school debate team, 

I have been giving speeches and presentations on topics like 

healthcare reform and the Federal budget, but never before have 

I given a speech without my natural voice. Never before have I had 

to rely on a synthetic voice to lay out my arguments, convey my 

most passionately held beliefs, tell the details of my personal story. 

Three years ago, Rachel and I felt like we had reached the mountaintop. We had fulfilling careers, a wonderful community of 

friends and family, and a smiling chubby infant boy. We could see 

decades of happiness stretching out before us. The sun was shining, 

and there was not a cloud in sight. And then, out of the clear blue 

sky, we were struck by lightning: ALS, a mysterious neurological 

disease with no cure and no good treatment, a life expectation of 

3 to 4 years. Most of its victims are in their fifties and sixties. I 

was 32. 

Every month since my diagnosis, my motor neurons have died 

out, my muscles have disintegrated, and I have become increasingly paralyzed. I am speaking to you through this computer because my diaphragm and tongue are simply not up to the task. 

Although my story is tragic, it is not unique. Indeed, in many 

ways, it is not so rare. Jennifer Epps-Addison, the president of my 

organization, is sitting next to me. Like me, her husband was 

struck at a young age by a neurological disease, multiple sclerosis. 

Ten percent of Americans have a serious disability. Every family 

is eventually confronted with serious illness or accidents. On the 

day we are born and on the day we die and on so many days in 

between, all of us need medical care. And yet in this country, the 

wealthiest in the history of human civilization, we do not have an 

effective or fair or rational system for delivering that care. I will 

not belabor the point because you and your constituents are well 

aware of the problems: high costs, bad outcomes, mind-boggling bureaucracy, racial disparities, bankruptcies, geographic inequities, 

and obscene profiteering. 

The ugly truth is this: Healthcare is not treated as a human 

right in the United States of America. This fact is outrageous, and 

it is far past time that we change it. Say it loud for the people in 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
8 

the back: Healthcare is a human right. For my family, although we 

have comparatively good private health insurance, ALS now means 

paying out of pocket for almost 24-hour home care. This costs us 

$9,000 every month. The alternative is for me to go on Medicare 

and move into a nursing home away from my wife and my son. So 

we are cobbling together the money from friends and family and 

supporters all over the country, but this is an absurd way to run 

a healthcare system. GoFundMe is a terrible substitute for smart 

congressional action. 

Like so many others, Rachel and I have had to fight with our insurer, which has issued outrageous denials instead of covering the 

benefits we pay for. We have so little time left together and yet our 

system forces us to waste it dealing with bills and bureaucracy. 

That is why I am here today urging you to build a more rational, 

fair, efficient, and effective system. I am here today to urge you to 

enact Medicare for All. There are three simple reasons why Medicare for All is the right solution, the only solution to what ails the 

American healthcare system. I will summarize them here, but I 

urge you to read the fantastic testimony submitted by the National 

Nurses United for more details. 

First, Medicare for All will deliver to everyone living in America 

the high-quality care that we deserve. The law will provide comprehensive care, including primary and hospital care, dental, vision, reproductive, and mental healthcare. We will all be allowed 

to see the doctors and specialists we want. And crucially, the program will provide for long-term services and supports that will 

allow people like me to stay in our homes and communities with 

the people we love. This will dramatically improve life for the tens 

of millions of people whose families include older or disabled people. 

Second, Medicare for All will save the American people enormous 

sums of money. Under the program, there will be no premiums, no 

deductibles, and no copays. That means that we will no longer need 

to choose between paying the rent and filling a prescription. It 

means we will no longer delay necessary care until it is tragically 

late and tragically expensive. It means that we won’t have to worry 

every year when our employer announces the new rates. It means 

that we can finally start to eliminate the atrocious racial and economic disparities that destroy so many lives, that rob our communities of so much dignity, that strip us all of our common humanity. 

Any proposal that maintains financial barriers to care, any proposal that continues to charge patients exorbitant copays, 

deductibles, and premiums will necessarily leave people out. Any 

proposal that maintains the for-profit health insurance system will 

require that some people don’t get the healthcare they need. Without the generous support of my family and friends, this would include me. 

Crucially, Medicare for All is the only way to make our 

healthcare system more efficient. Over the past 3 years, I have 

seen firsthand how the current system creates absurdly wasteful 

cost-shifting, delays, billing disputes, rationing, and worry. Administrative waste is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars every 

year. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
9 

Medicare for All will streamline the entire system, letting doctors 

and nurses focus on delivering care instead of on paperwork. As a 

single-payer program, Medicare for All will be able to eliminate immoral price gouging by pharmaceutical and device companies. The 

fundamental truth is that too many corporations make too much 

money off of our illnesses, and they are spending zillions of dollars 

lobbying and campaigning and fighting to stop us from building 

something better. 

It is very important to emphasize the following point: These cost 

savings are only possible through a genuine Medicare for All system; other proposals to increase health insurance coverage, such as 

those that would make Medicare compete with private insurance, 

would not facilitate administrative and billing savings. There are 

many other major benefits to Medicare for All detailed in the written testimony submitted by the nurses and others. 

But my time to deliver this testimony is running out. And in a 

much more profound sense, my time to deliver this message to the 

American people is running out as well. So I want to end on this 

third and final note: Our time on this Earth is the most precious 

resource we have. A Medicare for All system will save all of us tremendous time. For doctors and nurses and providers, it will mean 

more time giving high-quality care, and for patients and our families, it will mean less time dealing with a broken healthcare system 

and more time doing the things we love together. 

Some people argue that, although Medicare for All is a great 

idea, we need to move slowly to get there, but I needed Medicare 

for All yesterday. Millions of people need it today. The time to pass 

this law is now. Winning this reform will not be easy. The monied 

interests will do everything in their power to stop us, and yet, despite these obstacles and despite the personal challenges that I 

face, I sit before you today a hopeful man, a hopeful husband, and 

a hopeful father. I am hopeful because right now there is a mass 

movement of people from all over this country rising up. Nurses, 

doctors, patients, caregivers, family members, we are all insisting 

that there is a better way to structure our society, a better way to 

care for one another, a better way to use our precious time together. 

And so my closing message is not for the members of this committee; it is for the American people. Join us in this struggle. Be 

a hero for your family, your communities, your country. Come give 

your passion and your energy and your precious time to this movement. It is a battle worth waging and a battle worth winning. For 

my son, Carl, for your children, and for our children’s children, we 

have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to win what we really deserve. No more half measures, no more healthcare for some. We 

can win Medicare for All. This is our Congress. This is our democracy, and this is our future for the making. 

[The statement of Mr. Barkan follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
10 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 36400A.001
11 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 36400A.002
12 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 36400A.003
13 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 36400A.004
14 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Barkan. 

I appreciate it. I think this entire committee is grateful for your 

testimony, and we are honored to have you here. 

Let me yield to my colleague, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. I simply want to echo your remarks. It is a great privilege to have you here and at considerable sacrifice and risk to yourself, which is a testament to your courage. We are very happy and 

honored to have you in this debate, in this hearing today. Thank 

you. 

We will go next to Dr. Charles Blahous, who is the J. Fish and 

Lillian F. Smith Chair and Senior Research Strategist at the 

Mercatus Center at George Mason University as well as a visiting 

fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, previously 

served as a public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare programs, and was deputy director of the National Economic Council 

under President George W. Bush. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES BLAHOUS, J. FISH AND LILLIAN F. 

SMITH CHAIR AND SENIOR RESEARCH STRATEGIST, 

MERCATUS CENTER 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Thank you very much. Chairman McGovern, 

Ranking Member Cole, all the members of the committee, I greatly 

appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the estimated Federal budget costs of Medicare for All. 

Before I proceed to the estimates, just a few caveats. This is not 

an analysis of whether Medicare for All is good policy or bad policy. 

It is purely a cost projection. And as I discuss the factors that play 

into the estimates, it is purely by way of explaining how they affect 

the numbers. 

The second caveat is that my testimony is based on an analysis 

of the Medicare for All Act of 2017, introduced by Senator Sanders 

in the last Congress. Obviously, there are more recent bills introduced by Representative Jayapal and by Senator Sanders himself. 

These would be expected to cost somewhat more because they have 

added long-term care benefits, but I have had not had an opportunity to analyze these bills. 

Medicare for All would add somewhere between $32.6 trillion 

and $38.8 trillion in new Federal budget costs over the first 10 

years. The $32.6 trillion estimate is a lower bound estimate. It essentially assumes every cost containment provision in the bill saves 

as much as possible. If, instead, things play out more consistently 

with historical trends, the new Federal costs would be closer to 

$38.8 trillion. And I will say more about the specific assumptions 

later. 

Now, obviously, such enormous numbers are very difficult to 

grasp. We are talking about 11 to 13 percent of our GDP in 2022 

rising to 13 to 15 percent of GDP in 2031 being added to the Federal ledger. And we simply do not have historical experience with 

permanent government expansions of this size. So, to provide a 

sense of the magnitude, the study notes that doubling all currently 

projected Federal individual and corporate income taxes would be 

insufficient to finance even the lower bound estimate of $32.6 trillion. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
15 

Now, to be clear, these would not be the total costs of Medicare 

for All. These would be the Federal Government’s net new costs 

above and beyond currently projected Federal health obligations. 

Total Federal spending on Medicare for All over the first 10 years 

would be somewhere between $54.6 trillion and $60.7 trillion. 

Now, the vast majority of these costs would arise simply from the 

Federal Government’s assuming responsibility for health spending 

that is now done by others, by State and local governments, by private insurance, and by individuals in their payments out of pocket. 

Other aspects of Medicare for All would add to that existing health 

spending. Still others are intended to bring costs down. 

The biggest factor increasing health spending under Medicare for 

All would be its expansion and increased generosity of health insurance coverage. Spending on behalf of the currently uninsured 

would rise, as one would expect and presumably intend. Additional 

benefits would be provided that Medicare currently doesn’t, such as 

dental, vision, and hearing services. 

Perhaps most importantly, as has been noted here, Medicare for 

All would provide first dollar coverage of all Americans’ health expenses, meaning no deductibles, no copays, no other cost-sharing. 

And this would considerably increase the demand for health services for the well-documented fact that the more of people’s 

healthcare that is financed by their insurance, the more they tend 

to consume. So, under Medicare for All, the Federal Government 

would not only take on responsibility for funding currently projected health services but a significantly increased demand. 

Now, other provisions of Medicare for All are expected or hoped 

to reduce costs. The study assumes substantial administrative cost 

savings from eliminating private health insurance and it brackets 

a range of possible outcomes of efforts to negotiate lower drug 

prices. 

Now, the big variable here is payment rates for health providers. 

The bill indicates that providers will be paid at Medicare payment 

rates, and these are much lower than those that are paid by private insurance. For hospitals, the payment reductions would be 

more than 40 percent for treatments now covered by private insurance; and for doctors, the reductions from private insurance rates 

would start out around 30 percent, on average. They would grow 

even steeper over time, reaching 42 percent within 10 years. 

Now, importantly, these reduced payment rates would be substantially below providers’ reported costs of providing services. We 

do not know what would happen to the supply, timeliness, or quality of healthcare services if we were to impose sudden provider payment cuts of this magnitude while simultaneously increasing the 

demand for services. And because of this, several other studies performed prior to the bill’s introduction assumed higher payment 

rates than Medicare’s would be needed. 

Now, my study did not take sides on whether these provider payment cuts would be desirable. But purely from an analytical standpoint, you have to recognize that they are much larger and more 

sudden than lawmakers have historically been willing to implement. If historical patterns continued and such payment reductions 

did not occur, Medicare for All would further increase national 

health spending even above current projections. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
16 

My written testimony provides comparisons showing that these 

estimates are generally similar to those of other experts when you 

adjust for the years being estimated as well as for alternative assumptions regarding the administrative costs, prescription drug 

costs, and provider payment rates. 

I hope this information is useful, and I thank the committee 

again for the opportunity to discuss these important aspects of 

Medicare for All. 

[The statement of Mr. Blahous follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
17 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 36400A.005
18 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 36400A.006
19 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 36400A.007
20 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 36400A.008
21 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 36400A.009
22 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 36400A.010
23 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 36400A.011
24 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. 

Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and cofounder of the Center for 

Economic and Policy Research, CEPR, in Washington, D.C. His 

areas of research include housing and macroeconomics, intellectual 

property, Social Security, Medicare, and European labor markets. 

He is the author of several books, and his piece ‘‘ ‘Medicare for All’ 

is not a fantasy’’ was recently published on CNN’s website. He received his B.A. from Swarthmore College and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. 

Mr. Baker, we are very honored to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN BAKER, SENIOR ECONOMIST, CENTER 

FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole. I have to say it is a great honor to be next to Ady again. 

I knew Ady from prior days when we were in the Fed Up coalition 

to pressure the Fed to allow more full employment, and that was 

an amazing effort that Ady deserves enormous credit for in addition to his great subsequent work. And I appreciate being here. 

I want to make three main points and then say a little bit about 

the transition. First off, I want to say that Medicare for All is affordable, that the bulk of the payments should be coming from 

shifting employer premiums to government basically to taxes. So it 

is not additional money out of workers’ pockets. 

Secondly, that the amount of additional revenue that will be 

needed depends hugely on the extent to which we can reduce input 

costs. And here what we have to keep in mind front and center is 

that we pay twice as much for everything as everyone else in the 

world, and that doesn’t make sense. And the third point is that 

lower costs can be associated with better care, not just for the obvious reason that it will increase access but for other reasons, that 

we should expect better outcomes. 

On the first point, in terms of the overall affordability, taking a 

look at Dr. Blahous’ numbers, my basic story is very comparable, 

that you are looking at incorporating somewhere on the order—I 

was looking at 2021 to 2030; I think those might be slightly different years—but incorporating the private payments under the 

government budget. It is about $33.4 trillion, by my calculations, 

using CMS numbers. 

First off, though, we know that there will be a lot of administrative savings. There was an analysis done back in 2003 by Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein that compared our administrative costs with Canadian administrative costs. Most obviously, you have the huge difference in what we actually pay upfront for insurance; but in addition to that, we have huge administrative costs in providers: hospitals, doctors’ offices, nursing homes. 

They all have to have large numbers of staff to deal with different 

billing from different insurers. So, using their figures, I calculate 

that we would get that tab down to $25 trillion. Still considerable. 

That is shown in table 1 of my written testimony. 

The second point, second adjustment, we will see more utilization. I think that with the amount of utilization, we are somewhat 

shooting in the dark here because we don’t know what happens 

when we, in essence, make more healthcare free or cheap for peoVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
25 

ple, but the important point to keep in mind that 70 percent of our 

healthcare costs come from roughly 10 percent of the population. 

The point about that is those 10 percent, they are either on Medicaid or they have hit their out-of-pocket limits. In other words, 

they are not already constrained. So we are looking at 30 percent 

of total costs. So how much more will that go up? We don’t know. 

I assume 10 percent of the total bill in the calculations. We need 

more research on this. 

Also, there will be some out of pocket again. That will be debated, how much you have. I assume 1 percent of GDP. That leaves 

us, after we account for the $11.6 trillion in employer payments, 

we are left with $13.6 trillion, still a substantial bill over a decade. 

But then I go, okay, well what about input costs? And I won’t go 

into these in great detail; it is in my written testimony. But if we 

look at our input costs, as I say, if we look through medical equipment, prescription drugs, physicians’ payments, dentists’ payments, 

we pay twice as much as everyone else in the world. Now, will we 

get down to others’ levels? That is an open question, but there is 

no obvious reason we should be paying twice as much for our 

drugs, for our medical equipment as people in France and Germany. We don’t pay our auto workers twice as much. We don’t pay 

twice as much for cars. It is not clear why we should pay twice as 

much for healthcare. 

And let me just focus quickly on prescription drugs. CMS projects 

we will spend roughly $6.6 trillion on prescription drugs. Now, the 

assumption in the bill, and by most people who have analyzed it, 

we can get that down a lot. One of the points I like to make is we 

are not talking about making prescription drugs cheap. The problem is we make prescription drugs expensive. Drugs would be 

cheap if we didn’t give government-granted patent monopolies. I 

understand there is a rationale for that, but the point is we can 

fund the research in alternative ways, and they would be cheap. 

So, just to come quickly to the last points, we could expect better 

care. People shouldn’t have to deal with the stress. Ady and his 

family shouldn’t have to deal with the stress of paying for their 

bills. That has to be a negative in terms of care for someone, a cancer victim, someone else suffering from a serious disease that they 

have to deal with bills. Also, in the case of prescription drugs, our 

opioid problem, at least it is alleged, is in large part the result of 

our patent monopolies. Purdue Pharma would not have done as 

they are alleged to have, pushed their drug, insisting that it wasn’t 

addictive, when they had evidence it was. We helped create that 

problem by granting patent monopolies. 

Lastly, some points on the transition; I would be cautious on how 

you do it. First off, fix Medicare. It is absurd that we don’t have 

an out-of-pocket limit on traditional Medicare. We need that. Secondly, not incorporating the drug benefit. We don’t have standalone 

drug plans in the private sector. Why do we have that with Medicare? It just raises costs. That is utterly pointless. And we overpay 

the Medicare Advantage plans. A recent analysis found we overpay 

them by roughly 13 percent, $20 billion a year. No reason for that. 

Secondly, in the transition, I would say allow a buy-in, have a 

competitive Medicare plan. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
26 

The third point, reduce input prices. I can give you lots of ways 

in which we can get input prices down. In addition, as I said, to 

public funding of research for prescription drugs. 

And, lastly, as just a very, very simple first step, how about lowering the Medicare age of eligibility to 64? That is very affordable 

in the scheme of things. A lot of 64-year-olds are already on Medicare through disability, or they are on Medicaid. A great downpayment, in my view. 

So, long and short, I think it is affordable, but we have to be 

careful in how we get there. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
27 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 36400A.012
28 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 36400A.013
29 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 36400A.014
30 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 36400A.015
31 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 36400A.016
32 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 36400A.017
33 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 36400A.018
34 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 36400A.019
35 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 36400A.020
36 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 36400A.021
37 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 36400A.022
38 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 36400A.023
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. GraceMarie Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a public policy research organization that she founded in 1995 to promote an informed debate over free-market ideas for health reform. She has 

been instrumental in developing and promoting ideas for reform to 

transfer power over healthcare decisions to doctors and patients. 

She speaks and writes extensively about incentives to promote a 

more competitive patient-centered marketplace in the health sector. 

STATEMENT OF GRACE-MARIE TURNER, PRESIDENT, GALEN 

INSTITUTE 

Ms. TURNER. Thank you, Ranking Member Cole. Thank you, 

Chairman McGovern, members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify today. 

Let me begin by saying that I believe there are important shared 

goals for health reform. Everyone should be able to get health coverage to access the care they need. It should be affordable. People 

should be able to see the doctors they choose. We must guard the 

quality of care, and we must protect the most vulnerable with a 

strong safety net. 

Millions of Americans are frustrated with the current system. 

Health care costs too much, and many are simply priced out of the 

market. Those with insurance say premiums and deductibles are so 

high they might as well be uninsured. Those on public programs 

like Medicaid struggle to find physicians, especially specialists, who 

can afford to take the program’s low payment rates. People are 

hurting, and they feel powerless, like cogs in the $3.6 trillion 

health sector with little power to impact choices or costs. 

But it is hard to see how consumers would be more empowered 

when dealing with a single government payer. In a country that 

values diversity, will one massive program with one list of benefits 

and one set of rules work for everyone? 

I was in the gallery the night that the House passed the Affordable Care Act in March of 2010 and heard Member after Member 

talk about the importance of passing the bill in order to finally 

achieve universal coverage and to lower cost. Nine years later, with 

millions still uninsured and costs doubling in the individual market, our Nation is still struggling to achieve those goals. 

In calling this hearing today, you acknowledge the growing interest in this bold proposal. But when people learn that Medicare for 

All would mean much higher taxes and losing the coverage they 

have now, support plummets. What happened recently in Colorado 

and Vermont when they tried and failed to create their own singlepayer systems I think is important to study. 

I believe the growing presence of government in the health sector 

is a significant contributor to its dysfunction. Government officials, 

not consumers, increasingly determine what services can or must 

be covered, how much will be paid, and who is eligible to both deliver and receive these services. Third-party payment systems lead 

to significant disruptions, and insurers and others must respond to 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
40 

government rules and regulation, shoving consumers to the bottom 

of the healthcare totem pole. 

Rather than dramatically expand the role of government, I believe we need to look more carefully at these problems and target 

appropriate solutions that empower consumers and build on what 

works. 

Medicare for all’s promise of unrestricted access to benefits is virtually unprecedented, and it is difficult to anticipate the impact of 

this new system. Representative Jayapal’s bill implies a recognition 

of cost by imposing global budgets to contain spending. Paying doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates would force many to close or 

significantly cut back on services and would worsen the existing 

physician shortage. 

We do know from the experience of other countries that global 

budgets and centrally-determined benefit structures lead to rationing, waiting lines, and lower quality of care, as I describe in my 

testimony. Tragically, it is often the most vulnerable who are left 

behind when the demand for services outpaces resources. 

Many Americans would see it as severely disruptive to lose their 

current coverage when public programs as well as job-based health 

insurance would be shut down under Medicare for All. 173 million 

Americans get health coverage through the workplace, a highly valued benefit. 

My colleague Doug Badger explains that the employment-based 

health system is really a central pillar in our health sector. It produces a nearly 3-to-1 ratio in value-to-tax expenditures. Employer 

plans also pay doctors and hospitals more than Medicare and Medicaid do and provide the margins that most providers need to maintain quality and even keep their doors open. 

Employers also have more flexibility to tailor insurance to the 

needs of their workforce, to advocate for them and to provide education and incentives about good health. 

I describe in my testimony targeted solutions already underway 

to give individuals and workers more, not fewer, choices and to provide States with more resources and flexibility to help their health 

insurance markets recover. I describe work by the Health Policy 

Consensus Group, which I facilitate, in developing a plan to reduce 

the cost of health insurance while protecting the poor and sick, including those with preexisting conditions. 

Finally, Americans want more, not fewer, choices in health coverage, yet Medicare for All would put them on a single government 

program. When government officials are making decisions about 

what services will be covered, as the legislation explicitly says, how 

much providers will be paid, how much citizens must pay in mandatory Federal taxes, then consumers will have even fewer choices 

than they do today. It will reduce access to new technologies, stifle 

innovation, and result in a near doubling of the tax burden. 

I would welcome the opportunity to work with you to achieve the 

goals of better access to more affordable coverage and better protection for the vulnerable. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Ms. Turner follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
41 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 36400A.024
42 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 36400A.025
43 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 36400A.026
44 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 36400A.027
45 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 36400A.028
46 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 36400A.029
47 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 36400A.030
48 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 36400A.031
49 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 36400A.032
50 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 36400A.033
51 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 36400A.034
52 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 36400A.035
53 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 36400A.036
54 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 36400A.037
55 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 36400A.038
56 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 36400A.039
57 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Sarah Collins is vice president for healthcare coverage and 

access of the Commonwealth Fund. As an economist, she directs 

the fund’s program on insurance coverage and access. Dr. Collins 

has led several multiyear national surveys on health insurance and 

authored numerous reports, issue briefs, and journal articles on 

health insurance coverage, health reform, and the Affordable Care 

Act. Early in her career, she was an associate editor at U.S. News 

and World Report, a senior economist at Health Economics Research and a senior health policy analyst in the New York City Office of the Public Advocate. 

Dr. Collins holds an A.B. in economics from Washington University and a Ph.D. in economics from George Washington University. 

Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF SARA COLLINS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

HEALTHCARE COVERAGE AND ACCESS, COMMONWEALTH 

FUND 

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for this invitation to testify on proposals to reform the 

U.S. health system. My comments are going to focus on gains in 

health insurance since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the 

problems people continue to report affording insurance and 

healthcare, and the potential of recent congressional bills to address these problems. 

The ACA brought sweeping change to the health system in expanding comprehensive health insurance to millions of Americans 

and making it possible for anyone with health problems to get coverage by banning insurers from denying coverage or charging more 

because of preexisting conditions. 

The number of uninsured people has fallen by nearly half since 

the ACA became law. There has also been a decline in the share 

of people reporting problems paying medical bills or not getting 

needed care because of cost. The large body of research on the ACA 

shows that the law’s overall impact on people’s ability to afford insurance and get healthcare has been positive. 

However, three distinct yet interrelated problems remain: 29.7 

million people remain uninsured; 44 million people with insurance 

have plans that are leaving them underinsured; and healthcare 

costs are growing faster than median income in most States. The 

stalled gains in coverage stem from five primary factors: 17 States 

have not yet expanded Medicaid; people with incomes just over the 

eligibility threshold for marketplace subsidies and many in employer plans have high premium costs; congressional and executive 

actions on the individual market and Medicaid have reduced potential enrollment in both; undocumented immigrants are ineligible 

for subsidized coverage; and cost-sharing is climbing in individual 

market and employer plans. 

A major factor underlying trends in both uninsured and underinsured rates is growth in healthcare costs. Healthcare costs are 

the primary driver of premium and deductible growth in private insurance. There is growing evidence that a major cause of 

healthcare cost growth are prices paid to providers, especially hospitals. There is also evidence that these prices explain the wide 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
58 

healthcare spending gap between the U.S. and other wealthy countries. And there is also evidence that the greatest provider price 

growth is occurring in private insurance. 

Congressional Democrats have introduced several bills to address 

these problems. The bills all propose to expand the public dimensions of our private and public health system and may be grouped 

into three categories: bills that add more public plan features to 

private insurance, such as enhancing marketplace subsidies and reinsurance; bills that give people a choice of public plans alongside 

private plans, such as plans based on Medicare or Medicaid offered 

through the marketplaces; bills that make public plans the primary 

source of coverage, such as Medicare for All bills. 

These bills are an amalgam of provisions that individually or collectively have the potential to make the following changes in the 

health system: improve the affordability, benefits, and cost protection of insurance; slow cost growth in hospital and physician services, prescription drugs, and administration; reduce the number of 

uninsured and underinsured people. 

Some notable estimates of the effects of these bills’ provisions include lifting the top income eligibility threshold for marketplace tax 

credits could insure nearly 2 million more people and lower silver 

plan premiums by nearly 3 percent at a net Federal cost of $10 billion. Allowing HHS to negotiate prescription drug prices under a 

Medicare for All approach could lower drug prices by 4 percent to 

40 percent. A Medicare for All approach could lower administrative 

costs from a current 14 percent of spending in commercial plans to 

anywhere from 6 percent to 3.5 percent of all spending. The estimated effects of a Medicare for All approach on U.S. health expenditures range from a decline of 10 percent to an increase of 17 percent. 

What has captured the most attention in the debate about Medicare for All is the significant shift in how healthcare would be paid 

for. Most Medicare for All bills shift most financial responsibility 

to the Federal budget. This shift raises important questions about 

financing sources, in particular the incidence of taxation. 

But what is notable about the range of national health expenditure estimates under a Medicare for All approach is that the increase in expenditures is often less than the increase in demand for 

health care induced by providing comprehensive coverage to everyone. These spending estimates vary widely because of assumptions 

about the degree of change in provider prices, prescription drug 

costs, and administrative costs. But the mechanisms for slowing 

cost growth in these proposals could be considered, refined, and applied not only in single-payer approaches but in other health reform approaches as well. 

In the absence of congressional action on improving coverage, 

many States have stepped up and implemented policies such as reinsurance programs. But improving coverage for everyone will ultimately require Federal legislation. Expanding coverage, limiting 

families’ costs, and slowing cost growth are achievable goals, and 

these bills provide mechanisms to move forward on each. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Collins follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
59 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 36400A.040
60 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 36400A.041
61 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 36400A.042
62 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 36400A.043
63 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 36400A.044
64 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 36400A.045
65 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 36400A.046
66 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 36400A.047
67 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 36400A.048
68 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 36400A.049
69 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 36400A.050
70 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 36400A.051
71 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 36400A.052
72 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 36400A.053
73 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 36400A.054
74 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 36400A.055
75 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 36400A.056
76 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 36400A.057
77 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 36400A.058
78 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 36400A.059
79 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 36400A.060
80 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 36400A.061
81 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 36400A.062
82 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 36400A.063
83 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 36400A.064
84 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 36400A.065
85 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 36400A.066
86 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 36400A.067
87 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 36400A.068
88 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 36400A.069
89 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 36400A.070
90 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 36400A.071
91 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 36400A.072
92 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 36400A.073
93 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 36400A.074
94 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 36400A.075
95 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 36400A.076
96 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 36400A.077
97 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 36400A.078
98 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 36400A.079
99 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 36400A.080
100 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 36400A.081
101 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 36400A.082
102 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 36400A.083
103 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Doris Browne is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Medical 

Corps and the 118th president of the National Medical Association. 

Dr. Browne retired from the National Cancer Institute, where she 

managed the breast cancer chemo prevention portfolio. She was a 

Woodrow Wilson Public Policy Scholar in 2007 where her research 

focused on breast cancer health disparities. Her focus is on achieving health equity. 

Dr. Browne now serves as the president and CEO of Browne and 

Associates, a small business specializing in improving health outcomes. Dr. Browne graduated with a B.S. from Tougaloo College, 

a historically black college in Mississippi; an M.P.H. from the University of California in Los Angeles; and an M.D. from Georgetown 

University. She is a medical oncologist by training. And we are 

thrilled to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF DORIS BROWNE, IMMEDIATE PASTPRESIDENT, NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 

Dr. BROWNE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, 

Ranking Member Cole, and members of the committee. I thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss universal health coverage for all Americans, particularly the vulnerable underserved population. 

I am here as the retired military medical officer and the immediate past president of the National Medical Association, which is 

the largest and oldest national organization representing the interests of more than 30,000 African-American physicians and the patients we serve. 

As the Nation’s only healthcare organization still devoted to the 

needs of African-American physicians and their patients, we are 

disturbed by the vast health inequities of our vulnerable populations. With numerous and often insurmountable obstacles to receiving quality healthcare, people of color experience differences in 

access to care, the affordability of these services, implicit bias by 

some providers, and limited participation in clinical research, 

which has consequences around viable medical treatment. And the 

NMA has been responding to inequities in the healthcare system 

throughout our history. Most notably, we were the only organization to support the Medicare Act of 1965. 

Research reveals that African Americans, of course, are more 

likely than other racial and ethnic groups to experience health inequities, and in my written testimony, I address some of those concerns. But given the disproportionate impact on chronic diseases in 

communities of color, Congress must find ways to make healthcare 

coverage affordable, accessible, and of high quality for all. 

For the National Medical Association, healthcare is more than a 

provision of medical services. Healthcare is a multifocal, complex 

product which takes into account the critical determinants of 

health, including the socioeconomic conditions, housing, education, 

food and nutrition, environmental exposures, genetics and biological factors. And while the ACA was a step in the right direction 

and made substantial improvements in our healthcare system, it 

did not go far enough. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
104 

And in order to stem the high prevalence morbidity and mortality of chronic diseases, we must first develop a comprehensive 

agenda around health equity. And health equity is a state in which 

everyone has the opportunity to attain their full health potential, 

and no one is disadvantaged. It is imperative that healthcare be 

provisioned to surpass one’s social position or socially defined circumstances. Health equity and opportunity are inextricably linked. 

When health equity is achieved, there is no health disparities. 

Universal health coverage is a pathway to achieving that health 

equity. It has the potential to address poverty, inequality, and discrimination. It can also provide a more efficient and effective costsaving healthcare system for everyone. Because health equity and 

opportunities are linked, the health equity as I have indicated, 

there will be no health disparities. 

The government has maintained a track record for providing 

comprehensive healthcare throughout the military’s TRICARE program, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other sponsored 

programs, as you know, with Medicare and Medicaid and others. 

These programs have diligently worked to confirm affordable access 

to high-quality healthcare benefits for millions of citizens covered 

by these programs. 

Under DOD’s TRICARE, which is the second largest single-payer 

health system in the country and second only to the VA program, 

both of these high-caliber systems adhere to high-quality, evidencebased, accessible care for their beneficiaries. A patient should not 

have to decide between getting their full prescriptions filled and 

whether they should buy food. And, of course, that certainly is 

something that we have seen in the private sector, taking care of 

cancer patients, where they would decide maybe I should fill only 

a part of this prescription. Part care does not get you to remission 

in cancer. 

Every patient should have the opportunity to receive first-class 

medical care rather than being considered second best because of 

a lack of insurance, provider’s bias, and limitation of the Medicaid 

system. And we have seen this over and over where an individual 

may not get the approved drug for care in cancer but get the second best because their system did not have the drugs on the formulary. 

The best framework for universal health coverage is through collaboration and engagement of diverse multisector partners, including the communities in which they serve. Some of the existing 

healthcare programs already have the infrastructure and provider 

network to serve our communities. But improvement is needed to 

target the excessive costs, service accessibility, while minimizing 

the duplicative services that we see in many cases. 

I want to leave you with two points. First, we must adopt a system of universal coverage that minimize the administrative medical costs. It does not matter what label you use, whether it is 

Medicare for All, universal health coverage, single-payer, whatever. 

The coverage must be one that would allow the patient the ability 

to choose the provider for their care. And care should be the same, 

no matter whether you receive it in Mississippi or California, 

whether you are in rural America or urban America. And it should 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
105 

not be restricted based upon language, age, gender, racial and ethnic areas. 

And, secondly, we must continue to address the physician shortage and funding of our safety net hospitals. 

Dr. BROWNE. Universal health coverage would allow for increased investment in educating more providers and allowing for 

additional residency slots. With consistent and predictable provider 

costs, we can end the two-tiered system of healthcare that has 

placed hospitals that serve low-income and minority communities 

at risk for closure. 

Universal coverage would ensure that our safety net hospitals 

are sufficiently funded and resourced. The NMA will continue its 

long history of advocacy and education. We believe that all individuals in every community in the United States have a right to 

equal, quality, high-quality healthcare that is accessible, affordable, 

comprehensive, and coordinated. We begin by providing the comprehensive coverage benefits that we have under Medicare for All. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Browne follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
106 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 36400A.084
107 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 36400A.085
108 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 36400A.086
109 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much. 

And before I go to Dr. Nahvi, I just want to acknowledge Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from Michigan who has arrived here. 

She is a coauthor of the Medicare for All Act, along with Congresswoman Jayapal, and we appreciate her leadership and her being 

here. 

Last, but certainly not least, Dr. Farzon Nahvi is an emergency 

medicine physician and an assistant professor for emergency medicine in New York City. Dr. Nahvi completed his M.D. and residency at NYU School of Medicine and has been featured on 

NowThis discussing his patients’ struggles with the current 

healthcare system, and he is on the board of directors of the New 

York Metro Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program. 

And I would urge my colleagues to Google Dr. Nahvi. He has 

some really interesting and compelling videos that highlight some 

of the inadequacies of the current system. We are happy to have 

you here. 

STATEMENT OF DR. FARZON NAHVI, EMERGENCY ROOM 

PHYSICIAN 

Dr. NAHVI. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, thank you, Ranking 

Member Cole, for inviting me to be here today. My name is Farzon 

Nahvi. I am an emergency medicine doctor in New York City, and 

I support Medicare for All. 

As an ER doctor, I have the opportunity to help all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. I get to save investment bankers from 

heart attacks and strokes, and I get to help homeless veterans from 

hypothermia in the winter. And that is what I love about my job. 

The idea that I could help any person with any problem at any 

time is what attracted me to emergency medicine in the first place. 

But over the years, I have learned that it becomes impossible to 

care for someone when our medical system forces them to fear 

things like bankruptcy and foreclosure when they decide to seek 

medical care. 

Now, if you ask any ER doctor, any ER nurse, or even any ER 

janitor in this country, you are going to hear countless, countless 

stories of people who came into the hospital to seek medical care 

only to walk out in the middle of the treatment AMA. AMA stands 

for against medical advice. And people often walk out against medical advice often because they are concerned about the cost of their 

treatment. 

The reality for many people in this country is that seeking medical care means weighing one’s health against one’s wallet. Now, 

everyone in this room is very smart. Everyone in this room already 

knows all the statistics. You already know that 41 percent of Americans have skipped a visit to the ER in the past 12 months because 

of cost concerns. 

That is easy to gloss over, but we should let that sink in. That 

is 41 percent of Americans. Over two in five Americans have 

skipped a visit. They felt that they needed to go to the ER, but 

then they decided not to go seek medical care because they were 

concerned about the cost of that visit. 

You also already know that 45 percent of Americans live in fear 

that a health event could lead to bankruptcy. But I see these numVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
110 

bers every day on the ground level. I have to look these patients 

in the eye, and I want to put some faces on those numbers that 

you all already know so well. 

A few weeks ago, I took care of a patient who I was sure had 

appendicitis. I recommended a CAT scan. We discussed IV antibiotics and possibly a surgery. But a short while later, this patient 

flagged me down, she pulled me aside, she asked me to pull out her 

IV because she wanted to go home. 

Now, she wasn’t stupid. She wasn’t crazy. She didn’t distrust 

doctors or anything. The patient just was concerned about the cost 

of her treatment. She did some research on her phone. She learned 

that in some rare cases appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics 

alone. She asked me if I could give her a prescription so that she 

could go home. 

Now, you don’t need to be a doctor to know that this is far, far, 

far from the standard of care for appendicitis. All cases of appendicitis need a hospital admission, IV antibiotics, and probably a surgery. I told her that there were way too many things that could go 

wrong with her plan and I strongly advised against it. 

Now, she asked about me about the risks and I told her the 

truth. I told her about the possibility of an abscess formation, perforation of her bowels, sepsis from infection, and even death. This 

is not an exaggeration. This is just the truth of what happens when 

you don’t treat appendicitis. 

She sat back. She asked me for some time. She thought about 

it for a long while, but eventually she flagged me back down. She 

decided to leave. In her own words, she said, thanks, Doc. I appreciate all you have done. I really do, but I just don’t know if I am 

going to be able to afford this. I am going to go take my chances. 

Now, in my line of work, I often have to give people really bad 

news. I often tell loved ones that their family members have died. 

I have had to tell parents that their child has died, children that 

their parent has died. I have had to tell spouses that their husband 

or wife has died. But I can tell you with complete sincerity that 

watching someone sick walk out of the door with something that 

is completely treatable right here in the richest country in the 

world is just as awful a feeling as any of those conversations. 

About 1 year ago, I took care of a young lady who came in for 

an overdose on fish antibiotics. She had a fever. She couldn’t afford 

an ER visit, so she decided to go to her local pet store to buy some 

fish antibiotics for her symptoms. She had had a job interview coming up, and she wanted to make sure she was better for that interview. 

Now, of course, fish antibiotics come as a packet of powder. You 

put them in a fish tank so the fish can eat it. There are obviously 

no instructions for human consumption. She ended up overdosing 

by an order of magnitude. She had side effects that affected her 

brain and her central nervous system. She fell down a staircase 

while she was on that job interview actually and she had to be admitted to the ICU, all of that because she felt like she couldn’t afford a simple visit to the ER for a simple fever. 

Twenty-one years ago, when she was 10 years old, my fiancee, 

who is here right now, she lost her mother because her mother decided to delay medical care for her abdominal pain until only after 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
111 

her stomach cancer had already spread beyond any hope for treatment. A housekeeper raising two daughters, my fiancee’s mother 

was worried about the cost of her care, and she paid for it with her 

life. 

I am here today because my patients and my fiancee deserve better than this. These stories and countless, countless, countless others are absolutely ridiculous to be taking place right here in the 

richest country in the world. 

I am not asking for much. All I want to do is practice medicine 

in a world where I no longer have to watch a patient walk out of 

the ER without medical care that could save their life because they 

are worried about going bankrupt. And I never want to see another 

patient who thinks their best option for medical care is to go to 

their local pet store. To simply treat someone for a problem as simple as appendicitis in 2019 or to have my human patients take 

human antibiotics from a human pharmacy are absolutely not radical ideas. 

From my perspective on the ground, the solution has to involve 

approaching medical care in just the same way we approach educating our children, maintaining our roads, or supporting our 

armed forces. All this means is treating healthcare like any other 

public good, creating a universal healthcare system like Medicare 

for All, so that when they are at their most vulnerable, my patients 

never have to make any consideration except simply to do what 

they need to do in order to get better. 

Once again, thank you Chairman McGovern, Ranking Member 

Cole, and the Rules Committee for inviting me to be here. I am 

looking forward to any questions. 

[The statement of Dr. Nahvi follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
112 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGnsert graphic folio 138 36400A.087
113 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGnsert graphic folio 139 36400A.088
114 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all very much for testifying. Before I 

ask some questions, I have a few unanimous consent requests I 

want to add into the record. 

You know, our healthcare system is built with checkpoints that 

more often than not prohibit a person from being able to access 

healthcare, including preauthorization requirements, lifetime limits, network restrictions, cost, and the inherent discrimination built 

into the system. 

Without objection, I would like to submit a letter from the National Nurses United, an organization with 150,000 members. 

Their letter explains how gatekeeper obstacles would be eliminated 

with this bill. 

And I would like to thank Jean Ross, president of the National 

Nurses United, who is with us here today, for her leadership and 

her work in ensuring that every American has access to affordable 

healthcare in this country. Jean is here in Washington, D.C., with 

the nurses from 28 different States advocating for Medicare for All. 

We want to thank you. 

[The document is printed at page 187] 

Without objection, I would like to submit in the record a letter 

from Diane Archer, the founder and past president of the Medicare 

Rights Center, which is a national nonprofit consumer service organization. In her letter she brings to light the serious concerns with 

Medicare Advantage and how Medicare for All, an improved and 

expanded Medicare system, can fix these problems. 

And, you know, a child’s access to healthcare is crucial. They are 

going through a time of rapid brain and body development, and it 

is important that their health coverage reflects their needs. Yet a 

recent survey by Georgetown Center for Children and Families 

found an increase in uninsured children for the first time in a decade. 

[The document is printed at page 220] 

Without objection, I would like to submit a letter from The Children’s Partnership, a California-based nonprofit child advocacy organization working to ensure that every child has access to 

healthcare. 

This letter outlines the critical components of health coverage 

and care for children that should be addressed in any policy Congress considers, including Medicare for All. And I would like to 

thank Mayra Alvarez, president of the Children’s Partnership. 

[The document is printed at page 227] 

Hearing no objection, those documents will be added to the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me begin my question. Mr. Barkan, let me 

ask you a question and then I will come back to you in a minute 

for the answer. But you know a little bit about how health insurance companies deny claims. And you testified that your medical 

bills cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars a 

month. You also talked about the time commitment it takes to fight 

back against these denials. 

My question is, what are some of the services or medical devices 

that were denied by your insurance company? And how is your life 

impacted by not having those services? And I will go to the next 

question then come back to you, Ady, in a minute. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
115 

Let me say to Drs. Baker, Blahous, and Collins, you are all 

economists. Tell me, are economists always right? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, no, right? Yeah. I mean, you should try 

being a Member of Congress. We are always right, right. 

But seriously, though, let’s look at the studies. You know, even 

looking at Dr. Blahous’ study from the conservative Mercatus Center, it seems like the studies suggest that Medicare for All could 

cost a little more or a little less than we are currently paying now, 

right. Getting that right? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. I think that is fair. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. So worst-case scenario, we could spend 

about what we are spending now nationally on healthcare and 

guarantee that another 29 million people get healthcare coverage, 

we could end crushing out-of-pocket costs for everyone, and we 

could include new services for seniors and the disabled. I mean, 

that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. 

When we have all these warnings about the high cost, I mean, 

we are spending an awful lot on healthcare right now, and we are 

not getting the services and the effectiveness that we are all demanding. And so I just want to put that out there because I think 

that it is important for people to put all this in perspective. We are 

not talking about all new costs. We are talking about costs that 

were already built into the system. 

Dr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. If I could just throw a quick point in on your point 

about comments not being right. You know, I think the Affordable 

Care Act hasn’t gotten as much credit as it should for reducing 

costs. And, again, one could argue how much it deserves credit for 

the slowdown in cost growth, but if you go to 2008, the projections 

from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for 2017 compared with what we actually spent, we spent 1.5 percentage points 

of GDP less on healthcare than what they had projected. So that 

comes to $300 billion that year. 

Same thing if you look at the CBO projections. We are spending 

half a percentage point of GDP less on Medicare than what they 

had projected in 2010 before the bill passed. 

Now, whether you want to say the Affordable Care Act was responsible for all that slowdown, that is a totally arguable point. 

But the point was we are actually doing pretty good in terms of 

slowing the course of healthcare cost growth with, even as we increased government involvement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Collins. 

Ms. COLLINS. I just wanted to—my testimony covers the range 

of estimates that are currently out here, including Dr. Blahous’. 

And what you do see is exactly what you said. Some estimates 

show a decline in national health expenditures, some show an increase in national health expenditures. It depends crucially on savings that we can potentially get from lower provider prices, from 

prescription drug costs, from administrative costs. 

But I think what one of the major contributions of the Medicare 

for All bills is putting the issue out there on how much we are paying providers right now. I think that is a really critical issue. It is 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
116 

why we do see some savings in some of the estimates that we have 

seen of the Medicare for All bills. 

It is a conversation that the country needs to have right now, 

and the differences and the changes in expenditures under these 

approaches put a fine point on that issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Look, all of us here, as Members of Congress, we 

do casework too, right. And we get an inordinate amount of casework that is healthcare related, and it is always about fighting 

with insurance companies, right. It is always about crippling costs. 

The point I am trying to make is that I would like to think we 

all believe we can do better. I am simply saying, when people push 

the panic buttons on cost, I mean, we are spending an awful lot 

right now and we are not getting the result we want. 

And to me, Medicare for All offers a better way to go forward and 

it gives us more care. And by the way, for senior citizens, it gives 

them Medicare plus. Seniors get a lot more than they are getting 

right now. 

I don’t know, Ady, are you ready to—all right. 

Mr. BARKAN. First of all, my plan doesn’t cover long-term care, 

and so we have to pay for 24-hour care, which is incredibly expenses (sic). In addition, my insurance company, Health Net, denied me a breathing-assist machine. Health Net ruled that the ventilator and medicine provided by my neurologist was not necessary 

and that I would have to pay full price. The company also denied 

me a brand-new FDA-approved medicine to treat ALS. 

The first time I had to complain publicly and generate an outcry 

for them to reverse their decision. The second time I had to organize a protest at their headquarters. But most people don’t have 

the ability to do that, and nobody should have the obligation to do 

that. But this is a big part of how insurance companies make their 

money. They deny, delay, and wait for patients to give up. 

I believe that approximately one-quarter of claims are denied. As 

a result, people get sick, get sicker, and die. Fundamentally, the 

priority for health insurance companies is to make a profit, but 

that is not in the public interest. By getting the profit motive out 

of the healthcare industry, we can refocus on the real priority: delivering high-quality healthcare. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Nahvi. 

Dr. NAHVI. I just wanted to piggyback on that. I do think when 

health insurance companies deny claims, that it is not only unethical. I just want to share a couple of examples of when it is just 

financially stupid as well. 

I have a couple cases I will share real quick. In my hospital recently there was a 28-year-old female, she came in with a regular, 

run-of-the-mill urinary tract infection—super easy to treat with a 

course of outpatient antibiotics. No problem. 

She was denied that claim for the antibiotics. No good reason 

was given why but she was charged $300 over the counter in cash. 

She couldn’t afford that. She ended up going to the other side of 

the pharmacy, ended up buying some cranberry juice because she 

thought that might be her best option to treat her UTI. 

She ended up coming into the hospital 2 days later, septic, with 

a fever, high heart rate, had to be admitted to the hospital and get 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
117 

IV antibiotics. We denied her $300, but now we are paying thousands of dollars for that. 

There is another example I had. I had a patient that came in, 

he was having a heart attack. His cardiologist came down, recognized him, and started yelling at him and said, why did you stop 

taking the antiplatelet medication that I told you you cannot stop 

taking? 

He said, 6 months ago, I was admitted to the hospital with complications from my diabetes medications. My endocrinologist told 

me I can’t stop taking those. I had to make a decision. I couldn’t 

afford both of them, so I stopped taking my antiplatelet medications. He ended up coming back in with a heart attack. 

Because we insufficiently covered these patients’ prescription 

medications, we ended up paying more in the long run. 

Another example. There is a patient I had, she was 38 years old. 

She had a long history of depression. Her depression was controlled 

with some psych medications. She had been on these medications 

for many years. Out of nowhere, her medical insurance company 

started denying that medication. She stopped taking them. She 

couldn’t get in to see her psychiatrist for another month or two. So 

she ended up coming in because she was feeling suicidal and had 

to be admitted to the hospital. 

All three of these cases these patients had bad medical outcomes, 

and that is horrible in and of itself. But it is just—financially it 

doesn’t make any sense. We ended up paying more for these bad 

outcomes, and that needs to be a part of this discussion as well. 

And when we talk about all these estimates of cost, I imagine 

that the kind of cost savings we would see by making sure patients 

are covered and fully covered, we don’t really see that in these 

numbers because there is no way to really account for what we are 

seeing on the ground level. This would save a lot of money. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Browne. 

Dr. BROWNE. Yes. Well, certainly in the oncology area we see 

this, most particularly with people of color, because, one, they have 

a fear of going to the doctor to begin with, and so they will deny 

that that lump is there and think it is going to go away, in many 

cases will say I will pray it away. But when they finally come in 

after being denied several times, it is advanced disease and they 

require much more care that is much more costly, but the outcome 

is negative because they tend not to survive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barkan, let me ask you a question and then 

I will come back to you. You indicated, again, you are paying all 

these thousands of dollars worth of medical bills. And that you 

have turned to a GoFundMe page online, the online fundraising 

website to help you cover the cost. 

If you didn’t have GoFundMe, what other household costs or family bills might not get covered to cover your care? You know, you 

are a pretty popular guy. Even I have seen your Twitter feed and 

know all about your work. Relying on GoFundMe might be something that someone of your stature can do, but not everybody could 

do that. 

What if you don’t have the Twitter following you have? How 

would you afford the care? And do you think there is anything sane 

about our GoFundMe healthcare system? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
118 

While you think of that answer, let me go to Dr. Browne and 

Nahvi. Based on your testimonies, I am guessing that these stories 

of insurance companies denying care isn’t surprising, right. 

Dr. Browne, you are a cancer specialist. Can you tell the committee how a prepaid system like the military compares to a postpaid system like the one for the civilian population, and how it differs when it comes to patients getting the care that they need and 

actually following the doctor’s best medical advice? 

And, Dr. Nahvi, you testified about your patients who put costs 

before their healthcare out of necessity or fear, and you have told 

some really horrible stories here. Do you believe that you are free 

to practice the best medicine you can, that your patients are free 

to take your advice without fear, or do you think that there is 

something standing between you and your patients getting the care 

that they deserve? 

Dr. BROWNE. Yes. Well, in the prepaid system in the military as 

a military provider, whether it is cancer or general internal medicine, it is an equal access system, and we do not have to be concerned with can that patient afford an MRI or should I just order 

an X-ray. 

Again, I know that the best possible care is what I can provide 

for those patients, and so I order the MRI and get the best care 

for those individuals so they don’t look at, do I have a copay? Is 

it some out of pocket? They go to that facility in the integrated system and they get the best care. 

If you are outside, you weigh that. Maybe I should see if a CAT 

scan will suffice and I can still see the dimensions of this mass and 

its distinguishing features to whether I should order surgery. 

If the patient cannot afford for even a CT scan, then I look at 

what are the other kinds of things that I can order to get that patient to the care that they need. And that is not the way I was 

trained to practice medicine. You go in to provide the best possible 

care for those patients. And it is not based upon costs, it is based 

upon need so that you can improve the health outcomes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Nahvi. 

Dr. NAHVI. I couldn’t agree more. The answer to your question 

is, no, I don’t think I am practicing the best medicine I can practice. I feel like I am practicing with one hand tied behind my back. 

I feel like every time I—not every time, but oftentimes when I recommend something to my patients, they sit down and they think, 

can I afford this? Should I do it? Before they decide whether to do 

it or not. 

And these are lose-lose conversations. I feel like if I try to tell 

someone to do something and they say, no, I don’t know if I can 

afford that CAT scan and they walk out, their health suffers. 

But even if I convince them, I don’t feel terribly good about myself. If I convince someone to get a CAT scan that they are not sure 

they could afford, we might be taking care of their health, but I 

walk away thinking, did I just kind of sentence this person to years 

of debt that they are not going to be able to pay off? So there is 

no winning a lot of these conversations, and I am not giving the 

best care. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Barkan. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
119 

Mr. BARKAN. If I couldn’t use GoFundMe, I would probably start 

by asking my parents to start spending down their retirement savings. Then we would go hat-in-hand to friends. Nobody dealing 

with a serious illness should have to do either of these things. We 

should instead have a rational, fair, comprehensive social safety 

net that actually catches us when we fall. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And if I may, I am going to follow your lead here, and I want 

to submit a letter, without objection, from the American Hospital 

Association in opposition to the legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The document is printed at page 230] 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could, Ms. Turner, I will start with you. H.R. 1384 explicitly 

makes it illegal for private health insurers to provide for service 

that the government would provide under this legislation. How 

many people would lose their current health insurance that they 

have if we did something like that? 

Ms. TURNER. Nearly everyone would lose the current health coverage they have, including the 173 million Americans with jobbased health insurance. In addition, those with ACA coverage, seniors and others on Medicare, those on Medicaid and the Children’s 

Health Insurance Program all would be reassigned to the new 

Medicare for All program. 

Mr. COLE. So under this legislation, really, if you liked your plan, 

you liked what you had, you would have any option at all to keep 

it? 

Ms. TURNER. Only if you are covered under the VA or the Indian 

Health Service, as I understand it. 

Mr. COLE. Well, believe me, a lot of people in the Indian Health 

Service might want to make this change. That is another issue. 

Ms. TURNER. Oklahoma is—— 

Mr. COLE. Yeah. That gets to what Congress does and doesn’t do 

in that service. 

But anyway, let me ask you this in followup to that. How would 

this impact both employers who provide the coverage and employees who are satisfied with what they are actually receiving? 

Ms. TURNER. I think this is a significant issue. Colorado considered a ballot initiative in 2016 to create a single-payer system for 

the State. There was serious pushback from people who had not 

understood at first that it meant that they would lose their private 

coverage, including employer coverage. 

The employer-based system is a central pillar in our health sector for a number of reasons. Employers are able to help their employees access care by offering them different health plan options. 

They listen to their employees, what benefits they need, and what 

matters to them. Employers are always trying to balance costs and 

benefits to get the best deal for their employees. Many also offer 

wellness programs. They know that a healthy workforce is beneficial. They invest a lot in their employees. 

But I think there are two other points that are really crucially 

important. One is that employer plans pay higher rates to hosVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
120 

pitals, doctors, and other providers to make sure their employees 

have access to the care and the treatment they need. 

Medicare—and Medicaid—underpay for health care, but because 

employer plans pay more, those on public programs still are able 

to access care. So part of the value of the employer-based health 

insurance system, covering 173 million people—half of the population of the country, including retirees, workers, dependents, et 

cetera—is helping to support the current Medicare system. 

Also both employers and employees get a tax break: health insurance is part of the compensation package companies offer their employees and therefore is deductible, and for employees, the value of 

their health insurance is excluded from their income. 

My colleague, Doug Badger, says that the value of employersponsored health insurance was about $991 billion, almost $1 trillion, in 2016, and the tax break is worth about $350 billion to support employer-based health insurance. So that tax break supports 

3 to 1—and some estimates are even higher—health insurance for 

half of the country. 

Our robust employer-sponsored insurance system, which has 

evolved over 70 years in this country, is unique to America. We 

started on this path through some permutations of history, but it 

is something that people enormously value and has become a central pillar in our health sector. 

Mr. COLE. Well, your answer actually anticipated a lot of my 

next question, but let me put it to you this way and get your response on this as well. If we, as this bill calls for, held the reimbursement rates for providers at Medicare and Medicaid levels, 

how would that impact the providers? What—how—what do you 

think the response would be? 

Ms. TURNER. I am not an economist. I am a policy person. But 

the former actuary for CMS anticipated, when Congress was considering and actually enacted cuts to Medicare providers, that if 

hospitals and physicians were to see 40 percent payment cuts, 

many of them simply could not keep their doors open. They do not 

have that kind of a margin. They would either dramatically curtail 

services or they would wind up closing their doors, and you would 

have many fewer physicians in practice. 

Mr. COLE. Well, fortunately, you are sitting right next to an 

economist, so I am going to ask Dr. Blahous for his response to the 

same question. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, I think the honest answer is that the effects 

are unpredictable. We do know the data. We know the data indicates that Medicare payment rates for hospitals over the time window, first 10 years of Medicare for All, Medicare payment rates are 

a little bit more than 40 percent below private insurance rates. For 

physicians, they are about 30 percent below at the beginning of 

that 10-year period. But those relative reductions under the 

MACRA law become even steeper, so they would be about 42 percent by the end of 10 years. 

And the honest answer is we have no idea how providers would 

respond to this. We do know, roughly, that under the legislation 

the demand for health services would increase by probably about 

11 percent. Other studies have made similar estimates. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
121 

And if we make simultaneous very dramatic reductions in payment rates to providers at the same time as this increase in demand, none of us can say for certain how they would respond. We 

do know from the Medicare Actuary’s Office that Medicare payment rates—that the margins on treating Medicare patients are 

negative for about 80 percent of hospitals. And Medicare for All 

would extend that situation to the population as a whole. How providers would react to that, what sort of disruptions there might be 

in the timeliness or quality or supply of health services, we simply 

don’t know. 

Mr. COLE. Let me ask you this, because we all know that not all 

hospitals, you know, are equally profitable or serve populations 

that are equally affluent. Certainly, in my district we have lost a 

number of rural hospitals in recent years that have both—they are 

treating a population that is older, quite often sicker, and enjoys 

less private coverage, so they rely very heavily on Medicare and 

Medicaid and they are having a tough go. 

Again, if we remove that, it suggests to me the impact wouldn’t 

be equal all across the country. In other words, I think rural areas 

in particular would really take a pretty hard hit unless something 

was done to change the rates. Is that a fair—— 

Mr. BLAHOUS. I think that is fair. And I—just to add an additional perspective on this, from the vantage point of my study, my 

main reason for flagging this issue is primarily just to help with 

understanding of the numbers. 

We have a set of cost estimates that would arise if you assume 

that these very dramatic payment reductions were implemented 

right from the get-go, right in the very first year. But if you look 

at the historical patterns of congressional behavior, you do not see 

a willingness to impose sudden cuts for providers or anything close 

to that magnitude. 

And if you think those historical patterns of congressional behavior were to continue, the cost estimate for the legislation would be 

much, much higher. It would be more in the area of $38 trillion 

rather than $32.6 trillion. 

Mr. COLE. Let me ask you this, and I am going to address this 

to all of you, if I may. We will just start actually down here and 

go across. This is an enormously complex undertaking that we are 

talking about to change the entire healthcare system. I lived 

through one of these things as many of my colleagues did, the discussion, debate, and then the implementation of ObamaCare, the 

ACA. 

Is 2 years a sufficient period of time? Because that is what the 

legislation calls for, as I understand it. Within 2 years, we would 

make this entire transition. Is that a realistic—even for those of 

you that want to go in this direction, I worry about the timeframe, 

so—— 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I would just say that you would have to be cautious. Two years in certainly very ambitious. 

I just want to add quickly, if you are referring to your hospitals 

as largely rural and they already have a large number of Medicare 

patients, if that is the case, they are less likely to be a danger because they are already getting reimbursed at Medicare rates. 

Mr. COLE. Well, they also get private payments as well. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
122 

Mr. BAKER. Understood, but it is a smaller share. 

Mr. COLE. But if every patient they treated was at Medicaid and 

Medicare levels, I promise you, most of them would close. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I can’t comment on the specific providers in 

your district. That may well be true. 

Ms. COLLINS. I think the transition issue, you can certainly decide to extend it, make it a longer period of time. The ACA was a 

4-year transition period, so that certainly is something that you 

could consider. 

I did want to address the cost shift argument in the Medicare 

payment area. The evidence really does not show that the reason 

that private provider prices are higher is because Medicare prices 

are so low. If that were the case, we would see consistently higher 

margins all the way across the country. Instead, we see a lot of 

variability across the country. 

So the way this works is that private providers are negotiating 

with commercial carriers’ prices that work the best for them. In 

concentrated markets, they get higher prices, and insurers want 

them in their network, so they concede to those higher prices. They 

then take that negotiated rate to employers. Employers then have 

to pay higher premiums. They reduce their workers’ wages. They 

increase deductibles. So those costs get shifted ultimately to people. 

So there is really not a lot of evidence that the cost shift argument is a reason for higher prices. It is really these non-transparent price negotiations that occur in the private market. 

Mr. COLE. Dr. Browne. 

Mr. BARKAN. Representative, may I please—— 

Mr. COLE. Oh, yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARKAN [continuing]. Respond to the employer issue you 

asked earlier? 

We don’t expect employers to provide their workers with education for their children or with fire insurance. There is no reason 

to tie healthcare to employment. It just exacerbates the negative 

impact of job loss, and, frankly, it is a huge burden on employers. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Browne. 

Dr. BROWNE. Yes. I just wanted to add, in terms of people of 

color, the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement cost is not the 

same across the board, so our providers are already getting a lower 

rate. It is not likely that they are going to go out of business. 

And in terms of employers and the amount that is being paid, 

many of the smaller businesses go to part-time individuals so that 

they do not have to carry that cost. And so, again, I think for providers that we are concerned about, they are not going to walk out 

on taking care of their patients even though they are getting a 

lower rate. 

Mr. COLE. Dr. Nahvi. 

Dr. NAHVI. Sure. I assume you are asking the question from an 

implementation perspective. But from a physician perspective, we 

are ready for this not in 2 years but 2 years ago. I am ready to 

stop seeing my patients not get good care because they can’t afford 

things. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
123 

Mr. BLAHOUS. And I will answer the question, as I am answering 

every question, from the Federal cost perspective. When I did my 

study, I was dealing with a bill that had a 4-year transition and 

was not able—did not feel myself able to score the effects during 

that 4-year transition period because very unpredictable factors 

like transition costs, voluntary buy-in rates, things like that. 

And so for simplicity’s sake, I assumed that in that fourth year, 

everything just instantly sprang forth fully formed, that we instantly had administrative cost savings, we instantly had a level 

shift downward in prescription drug costs, that we instantly had 

the full implementation of these provider cuts. 

So you could look at that and you could say, well, those might 

be reasons why the lower-bound estimate, even assuming a 4-year 

transition, would be an understatement. If you had a 2-year transition, obviously that increases the likelihood that the lower-bound 

estimate is a gross understatement, because there is probably very, 

very little chance that we would be able to attain those instant administrative cost savings, those instant drug cost savings that I am 

assuming in the lower-bound estimate. 

Mr. COLE. Ms. Turner. 

Mr. BARKAN. Representative, may I please weigh in on the transition issue? 

Mr. COLE. Let me let Ms. Turner. I have very limited time left, 

and then I will come right back to you, if I may. 

Ms. TURNER. Mr. Cole, there is an excellent article in today’s 

Washington Post about Vermont’s experience that is both relevant 

and instructive. Reporter Amy Goldstein took an in-depth look at 

Vermont’s experience in trying to create a single-payer healthcare 

system for the state—Green Mountain Care. Leaders worked for 4 

years and were unable to figure out, for the small State of 

Vermont, how to structure it, how providers would be paid, and 

how to collect enough taxes to pay for it. 

The initial cost projections took what Goldstein calls ‘‘a 36,000- 

foot view’’ of what the costs were going to be. But when they got 

into the hardwiring of implementation, they found that the costs 

were going to be so high that it would be highly disruptive to the 

State’s economy and so disruptive to the current structure of their 

healthcare delivery system that they had to pull the plug on it. She 

wrote that Vermont ultimately found it would be very difficult to 

dismantle one healthcare system and replace it with another. 

Mr. COLE. May I—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, absolutely. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. Mr. Barkan, please. 

Mr. BARKAN. Here is what I know for sure: I needed Medicare 

for All to be in effect yesterday. If the richest nation in the history 

of the world really decided to, we could guarantee healthcare as a 

right and we could probably do it more quickly than people think. 

But the problem is that right now, we are not even trying. Too 

many people in the halls of this building are fine to accept the status quo that leaves people like me behind. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
124 

I want to yield myself a minute here to make a couple of points 

to amplify Ady’s point. Employer-sponsored healthcare means the 

effects of job loss are amplified. It also puts a huge burden on employers. Imagine if we expected employers to provide for fire insurance, as was mentioned, police insurance, school funding for K-12, 

and the paperwork that is all part of that. It is insane. 

And just one other point here, because I think some of us are 

looking at this whole initiative from a different perspective. People 

aren’t going to lose their healthcare with Medicare for All. I mean, 

you would actually get to keep your doctors and go to your hospitals that you currently have. The only difference is you wouldn’t 

have to deal with insurance companies. And I don’t know about 

you, but that is not my favorite thing to do when I get sick. 

I now yield to my good friend, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I just want to thank this panel, everybody. The 

professionalism in your testimony is very much appreciated by this 

Congressman and I know the Rules Committee generally. 

Mr. Barkan, a couple questions for you. You know, you talk a lot 

about time. Another guy in a chair like you, Stephen Hawking, he 

wrote a number of essays on time, but time is really a key piece 

to all of this. And you talked about a number of things, you know, 

the effect of taking time and the waste of time on you personally. 

So I would like you to maybe expand on that a little bit. 

And then you also said we could save enormous sums of money. 

I would like you to expand on that. And then you said we could 

avoid immoral price gouging. I think those were your words. So I 

am just putting those three things that you talked about, I would 

ask you to expand. 

Now, to the economists, I would like to just talk a little bit more 

about the money that is in the system, in the healthcare system— 

it is the biggest part of our economy. In its own right, the 

healthcare system, 19, 20, 21 percent, 18 percent, whatever it is, 

it is far bigger than anything else. 

So my first question, I guess, to you, Dr. Baker and Dr. Collins, 

is how does that percentage of our overall economy compare to the 

rest of the world, other countries, industrialized countries? 

And, I guess, to all of you, and, Dr. Blahous, you as well, the 

overall savings that we might expect from something like this— 

and, you know, there was an economist, Bob Pollin, and sort of his 

approach to these things, because it is a massive change. And why 

do we want to undergo a massive change if we are not going to 

save some money and have better outcomes for patients? And I will 

get to you doctors, you medical doctors in a second to talk about 

the outcomes. 

And then, Ms. Turner, just so you know, I am going to talk about 

Colorado, so I will tee that up for you. 

Mr. BAKER. Okay. Well, we spend about 18 percent of our GDP 

on healthcare, and that is roughly twice the average from the 

OECD. You have a range. If you take a lower-cost system like the 

U.K., we could finance that whole system from what we spend now 

in the public sector. That is how much we are out of line with everyone else. 

And, you know, the point that I think is striking, on the one 

hand, we have huge administrative cost, but the other point that 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
125 

I was trying to emphasize in my both comments and my written 

testimony, we pay twice as much for all the inputs, so twice as 

much for the drugs, for the medical equipment, for our doctors, on 

down the list. 

And, again, that is not true of our cars. It is not true of our auto 

workers. So you are sort of hard pressed to say why do we have 

to pay twice as much for drugs as everyone else? We don’t pay 

twice as much for our—you know, our cups here and our cars, but 

we do. And that, I think, speaks to the enormous potential savings. 

Again, I understand none of that is easy. You are the ones that 

have to fight with these people, because these excess payments— 

that is income for people. But if we just make the comparison, 

what does it look like, the U.S. compared to everyone else, we are 

paying twice as much on average. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Dr. Collins. 

Ms. COLLINS. I would just echo Dr. Baker’s comments. And we 

have a—there is a chart in my testimony that shows all the detail 

on the countries that pay so much less than we do. And—but I 

would also make the point, that we also don’t get commensurate 

outcomes for the spending that we are making. So we actually have 

worse outcomes in a number of areas than other countries that are 

spending far less. So the quality issue is a huge issue internationally as well. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And, Dr. Blahous, and I appreciated your testimony when Mr. McGovern was asking you some questions about, 

you know, ultimately it is kind of a push, maybe it is a little bit 

of a loss, maybe a little bit of a gain. This Dr. Pollin, I guess, economist from University of Massachusetts, thinks that there is a big 

savings. Do you have any comments on that? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, sure, if I could try to unpack it a little bit. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Sure. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. And I want to build off some of the things that Dr. 

Baker and Dr. Collins have said. I think it was well stated by Dr. 

Baker that most of the costs from the Federal perspective are a 

shift. They are a shift from costs now being borne by the private 

sector to the Federal Government. I would add to that that the 

Federal Government would also be assuming costs that are currently borne by State and local governments. So it is not just the 

private sector, but it is all of that. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Right. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. It is primarily a shift. That is the biggest piece of 

the Federal cost. 

Now, there are other things that would increase the cost beyond 

that. And I thought Dr. Collins said something earlier that I 

thought was very useful, where she said basically the total national 

cost increase would be less than the utilization increase. So in 

other words, the biggest part of this cost increase is an increase in 

service demand and utilization. 

Now, maybe we can cut into some of that increase by savings on 

administrative costs, savings on drug prices, things like that. Now, 

we wouldn’t be able to offset that cost completely with those measures, and that is where the cuts to provider payments come in. The 

question is, would we be able to cut provider payments enough to 

offset that additional cost? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
126 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, and I think Dr. Nahvi mentioned this, 

and it is in somebody else’s papers, you know, that two out of five 

people don’t take advantage of healthcare, their need for healthcare 

because of fear of expense, that they walk back out. And he gave 

some dramatic examples. So in effect, you know, there is a lot of 

demand that is not being met because people are afraid of the cost. 

So I was a bankruptcy lawyer for many, many years before I was 

elected to Congress, and obviously one of the biggest areas of bankruptcy is because of healthcare costs. So I do appreciate your comments, Dr. Nahvi, when you said, yeah, I may convince somebody 

to stay there, but now have I saddled them with some debt that 

could cause a bankruptcy or something else. 

So there are all sorts of issues here, but I think to Dr. Browne 

and Dr. Nahvi, and then I would like to get back to Mr. Pollin’s 

kind of estimates, if we were to go to this Medicare for All or universal healthcare system, do you agree that there would be more 

demand on the system? And can we—could we, from a provider 

standpoint, manage that? 

Dr. BROWNE. Thank you. Yes. I think that there would not necessarily be a demand on the system. I think you would practice 

medicine in a more appropriate, better way. And the idea is that 

you are going to increase your educational components for your patients and practice prevention. And if you put prevention into practice, you are not going to have many of those hospitalization visits 

that will end up in the intensive care units, and so there is cost 

savings there. 

We have not practiced prevention, and we have been talking 

about it for years and years, and it is just going to the wayside. 

If we get people to come in and to do their immunizations and get 

those standard tests of screening, so screening and early detection, 

find the diseases at an earlier stage and, again, you can then provide that care at a more cost effective—and so the demand is not 

going to increase. We are practicing care in a more efficient, effective way. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Dr. Nahvi. 

Dr. NAHVI. Yeah. I would like to echo that. So I gave you a couple examples of people that came in, didn’t get the care they needed, then ended up having more expensive care. There will be some 

people that will be using more care, but we are going to be more 

efficient as well with primary care and other ways to utilize our 

healthcare system. 

As an ER doctor, I see a lot of people come in with late-stage disease because they didn’t get to go to their primary care doctor 

when they needed to and then we end up paying more for that. The 

reason for that is we have laws, a Reagan-era law called EMTALA 

in 1986, it is the Emergency Medicine Treatment and Active Labor 

Act. It makes it such that anyone insured, uninsured, documented, 

undocumented, whoever they are, they could come to the ER when 

they need to come to the ER and we treat them. And if they can’t 

foot the bill, the taxpayers foot the bill or the hospital does. 

I think if we expand coverage, we get these people utilizing care 

at the right places. They end up going to their primary care doctors 

to get their diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol conVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
127 

trolled so they don’t end up having strokes and heart attacks and 

coming into the ER for those things. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Do you think a system like this would help you 

avoid some paperwork? 

Dr. BROWNE. Most certainly. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. So you could be treating your patients? 

Dr. BROWNE. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Ms. Turner, and then I would like to go 

back to Mr. Barkan. So—and I appreciated your testimony because 

you really kind of laid it out as to, you know, 70 years ago, it was 

you paid out of your pocket or you got charity care. And a lot of 

that charity care was underwritten by the churches, by charitable 

organizations. 

And then Kaiser came along and said people are getting hurt. 

We have got to do a war effort. And so Kaiser Steel and Kaiser 

Aluminum and all those guys, they created the employer—they 

started the employer system. So we are in this massive system, 

and to change it is obviously a big undertaking. So I agree with all 

of that. 

With respect to Colorado, so I am from Colorado, and I support 

Ms. Jayapal’s legislation and I support the—beefing up of the Affordable Care Act. And I support—there is an effort out there that 

says for anybody 50 and older, you can buy into the Medicare system. So I think all are improvements over where we are today. 

But my question to you on Vermont and on Colorado, just as a 

voter on that thing, I voted against the ballot initiative because I 

didn’t think Colorado on its own could undertake a Medicare for All 

system, that it was national in scope, and that is why I went this 

way. But I am happy to have you comment on it a little bit more. 

Ms. TURNER. You know much more about the political debate in 

Colorado than I do. In Vermont, they were assuming that much of 

the money that currently is flowing to the State through 

healthcare, whether it would be employer contributions, ACA 

funds, existing taxes, et cetera, all would go toward funding the 

new single-payer system. They also were assuming there would be 

additional Federal funds coming in through a Section 1332 State 

Innovation waiver Vermont planned to request. And they still 

couldn’t make it work. 

Regarding Colorado, I did several debates in the State about the 

ballot initiative in 2016, and the feedback that we continually got 

was from people who were very nervous about losing their current 

coverage and the taxes that would be required to support single 

payer. Proponents talked about all of the funds currently supporting employer-based health insurance going toward the new 

plan, but that just wasn’t enough. Studies showed the new taxes 

required would have significantly disrupted the economy. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And I think you are right from a policy and 

a—kind of a political standpoint, it wasn’t enough to overcome a 

number of the concerns and fears. But I think, you know, listening 

to the testimony of the economists and the doctors and just, you 

know, our own experience—you know, my wife had a difficult surgery, initially denied. I mean, I can’t tell you the panic that hits 

a family when something like that happens. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
128 

You know, so there are all sorts of issues. And I am just pleased 

that Mr. Cole and Mr. McGovern were able to work out the details 

so that we could actually have this hearing and get this ball rolling, because I think it is a very important conversation for this Nation to have. 

Mr. Barkan, do you—can you answer my questions? Are you 

ready for that? 

Mr. BARKAN. Thanks very much for your questions. This 

healthcare system only works if you are a pharmaceutical or insurance industry executive who wants to maximize their own profit at 

the expense of people like me. It is simply unconscionable that I 

should have to pay $9,000 per month for lifesaving medical care at 

a time when the insurance industry is raking in record profit. That 

is wrong, and it needs to stop. 

Here is the thing. It is a huge stress to have to fight with insurance companies over what they will cover. It is a huge financial 

strain. But most of all, I have come to realize that our time on 

Earth is the most precious resource any of us have. 

I wish I didn’t have to be here today. I think you are wonderful 

Congressmen, but, frankly, I would rather be back at home being 

with my wife and playing with my son instead of trying to wake 

the conscience of this Nation’s lawmakers. 

Every day is precious for me. I don’t have time on my side. Americans who are dealing with the everyday realities of their 

healthcare don’t have time on their side. No one should have to 

fight to be treated with dignity again, and that is why I am here 

today. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Woodall. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

holding of the hearing and the way you have conducted it so far. 

We have a tough time. It may not be obvious to you though, Mr. 

Barkan, with your reference to awakening the conscience of Congress. It may be obvious to you that we don’t always get a good, 

healthy conversation on issues of this. 

I credit the young woman to your right there. Ms. Jayapal is— 

I cannot support her legislation, but I absolutely support her. And 

there is a way to have a conversation—I know you are, Pramila. 

I don’t worry. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Open arms, buddy. 

Mr. WOODALL. There is a way to have that hearing. 

In fact, The Washington Post, I don’t know if you all saw the article on you all this hearing. The Washington Post did an article 

on this hearing and you all as the witnesses and made a point of 

saying—in fact, they quoted Ms. Shalala saying that we are not 

going to make ourselves look crazy this morning, was the quote 

they grabbed. 

The Washington Post observed that there are lots of ways to 

start this conversation and that the chairman and the leadership 

of the House went out of their way to pick a group of folks who 

were going to start it on a healthy, productive measure. And I hope 

you take your role in that with a great deal of pride, as I take the 

chairman’s role in that with a great deal of pride. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
129 

I want to start with the numbers. Mr. Blahous, I appreciate what 

you do, what you did as a trustee. I used to read your work regularly. I read it less now that you are in the think tank world. I read 

it more when you were in the government world. 

My understanding is that our payroll taxes, our Medicare and 

Social Security taxes are the largest tax that about 85 percent of 

American families pay. And yet every time I read a report from you 

or read those reports, and they haven’t got any better, is that there 

is not enough money coming in to do the things that we have promised to do. 

I can’t believe that I read your testimony correctly, but I want to check it out with you. $32 trillion over 10 years as the best-case 

scenario, not for the total cost of Medicare for All but just the addon to the current Medicare program that is already there. Am I 

reading that correctly? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Yes. That is a lower-bound estimate of the additional Federal obligations above and beyond current Federal health 

obligations. 

Mr. WOODALL. I sit on the Budget Committee, and we are—you 

know, we are not able to pass a budget out of the Budget Committee because we couldn’t even agree as a committee on how to 

sort out our current challenges, much less future challenges. But 

it is—it was going to be about a $4.5 trillion budget, a little under 

that. 

Best-case scenario, $3.2 trillion annualized over 10 years. Worst 

but more appropriate scenario is your nearly $40 trillion number. 

The worst-case scenario or an expected scenario? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. I wouldn’t say it is a worst-case scenario. I think, 

basically, the cost estimate over 10 years would be in the region 

of $40 trillion, if you didn’t assume any particular targeted savings 

from Medicare for All. 

Of the different categories of potential savings from Medicare for 

All, I think the relatively most likely is probably administrative 

cost savings, which would bring the total down to about $38.8 trillion over 10 years. But depending on your assumptions for provider 

payment rates, drug costs, things like that, the additional Federal 

cost would be somewhere between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion. 

Mr. WOODALL. Help me with that math. Looking at your bestcase scenario, your lower bound, everything goes right. What are 

we talking about in a per-American cost, per-person cost? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, this is very crude, but it is about $10,000 per 

capita, per person in additional Federal cost. 

Mr. WOODALL. $32 trillion, 320 million Americans? Okay. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. So basically—exactly. I mean, $35 trillion, 350 

million Americans, it is about $10,000 per person. 

Mr. Woodall. Okay. That is real money. 

And I was listening to your testimony, Dr. Collins, as you were 

going through some of those numbers and talking about after the 

Affordable Care Act, things that had gotten better. And I want to 

stipulate that I agree with everything that you said about increased outcomes. 

What wasn’t reflected there, though, is whether we got the best 

bang for our dollar. Of course, if I spend 1 trillion new dollars on 

healthcare subsidizing American families with their healthcare 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
130 

costs, when I run a poll that says are your healthcare costs easier 

to manage today than they were yesterday, folks are going to say 

yes. 

Mr. WOODALL. I don’t think that is the right question, though. I think the question is, we agreed to spend $1 trillion. Are we 

spending that $1 trillion in the way that helps the most families 

do the most for themselves, reduce those stresses that we have 

talked about? 

Have you seen any data along those lines? Not did we do better, 

but did we do the best we could do, given the enormous resources 

we invested? 

Ms. COLLINS. We can actually do better. Seventeen States 

haven’t expanded Medicaid. So that is one area where we haven’t 

fully implemented the law. There have been some changes to the 

cost-sharing reduction subsidies in the marketplaces that have 

bumped up premiums on silver plans, which has hurt some people, 

but people’s tax credits adjust. And actually, the Federal Government is paying a lot more because we are not paying these costsharing reduction subsidies. 

So, in terms of implementation, there are definitely areas where 

we could do better. We could extend the subsidies so that people 

just over that threshold for marketplace tax credits could afford 

their plans. 

But I also want to say too, before—didn’t really—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Let me reclaim my time just for a second, because 

I understand that if we wanted to improve the Affordable Care Act 

in its current structure, there are lots of things that folks are 

doing. In fact, I suspect there are lots of men and women around 

this table who would rather do that than the Medicare for All plan. 

That wasn’t the question I was asking, though. 

My question is, and it goes a little bit to what Dr. Nahvi said. 

He said 41 percent of folks reported they didn’t go to the ER, even 

though they thought they needed to go to the ER. Every ER physician I talk to says, Rob, we are in a conscious effort to keep people 

out of the ER. People keep wanting to come to the ER. We don’t 

want them to come to the ER. We want them to go to our urgent 

care center right next door, because when they come to see us, if 

they don’t really need to see us, we are wasting valuable resources 

on them in our environment, because it is hyper expensive. We 

could have served more people in more ways if we could have redirected them. 

That is what I am thinking about, maximizing the dollar that we 

are spending. Let’s agree we are going to spend more money, but 

let’s demand the very best of that money. 

And I think about that in your case, Dr. Nahvi. How does the 

Medicare for All plan, as Ms. Jayapal has crafted, what incentive 

is there than to do what all ER physicians are telling me needs to 

be done? We got to keep folks out of the ER, get them into urgent 

care instead. What is the skin in the game that keeps me out of 

your office? 

Dr. NAHVI. There doesn’t need to be skin in the game. People 

want to go to their primary care doctor. They don’t want to see me, 

and, frankly, I don’t want to see them. I agree with the doctors you 

talked to. When a patient comes to me and they want me to adjust 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
131 

their diabetes medication, because I am the only doctor they could 

see, because I am the only doctor they could access because I am 

in the ER—I feel totally comfortable intubating someone, doing 

chest compressions, treating a heart attack or a stroke or stabbing 

or gunshot—But I don’t feel comfortable adjusting someone’s diabetes or high blood pressure medication. That is a primary care doctor’s job. 

Mr. WOODALL. Your experience is that overutilization in the ER 

doesn’t come from my misunderstanding as a consumer what my 

needs are; it comes from EMTALA requires you to see me and that 

is why I show up on your doorstep? 

Dr. NAHVI. Yeah. Patients often come in and they will come to 

the ER, they say, I took my blood pressure at a pharmacy. I went 

to the Rite Aid, and they had the machine there for free. It was 

through the roof, so I didn’t know what to do, so I come to the ER. 

I don’t want them there. I want them to go to their primary care 

doctor. It will be cheaper for them. It will be better for them. It will 

be cheaper for all of us. It will be better for me. That is a win-win. 

I don’t need to incentivize them. They already want to go there; 

they just can’t get in. 

Mr. WOODALL. That is a win-win. I think about that, Ms. Turner, 

in some of your testimony, about your desire to do better. You have 

invested a lifetime in trying to move us in a better policy direction. 

I was visiting with a small town doc in Georgia. We did not expand Medicaid in Georgia. And he said, Rob, you hand out all the 

new Medicaid cards you want to if it will make you feel better, but 

I am the only doc in five counties who still sees Medicaid patients 

and I can’t fit anybody else in my waiting room. 

So we are not going to achieve Dr. Nahvi’s goal of providing more 

care. We will just achieve a policy goal of feeling better about what 

we are doing in rural Georgia as it sits today. 

What policy reason is there if I want to achieve Dr. Nahvi’s goal 

of not seeing folks walk out the door because they can’t pay for 

their care? I don’t understand the policy reason to take away all 

of the DOD healthcare system that my men and women in uniform 

tell me that they love. I don’t understand why we have to abolish 

every union healthcare system that my union members back home 

say, Rob, I have got the best healthcare on the planet. Why to 

achieve the goal of serving the underserved is the policy solution 

to take everything away from people who already feel well-served? 

Ms. TURNER. I think that is really a crucial issue. We need to fix 

the current system rather than blowing it up—because there are 

a lot of existing programs in the employer community, in 

TRICARE, in Medicare—to provide coordinated care, to provide 

better access for people—more humane, more patient-centered care. 

If Medicare fee-for-service is used as the model, all that is blown 

up. And can we create a new system for better coordinated care in 

2 years? That would be extraordinarily difficult. I think we have 

to value what we have, build on that, and solve the problems that 

we have, not destroy what has worked in a system built over decades. 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, even in the Medicare system, in my jurisdiction, I live in a suburban area, and so, we have lots of providers, 

but more than 40 percent of my seniors have opted for Medicare 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
132 

Advantage. They have said, I don’t want the traditional Medicare 

system. I have a better option now that you have provided that option. I am going to choose that. And, of course, that goes away, too. 

We poison the well of productivity around here on a regular 

basis, and I want to thank each one of you in your testimony. No 

one went out of their way to poison the well. And, again, you were 

chosen for a reason, to get this conversation started. I think we can 

achieve Dr. Nahvi’s goal of not having the underserved walk out 

on what ought to be an affordable procedure, though I think we can 

do it without what—Dr. Blahous is virtually doubling the Federal 

budget, a Federal budget that I am not paying for today, that I am 

borrowing from others. 

What I love about Ms. Jayapal is she doesn’t hide from those 

numbers that you have laid out. She recognizes it is going to be a 

tremendous increase in tax burden for the country—you can’t get 

to $40 trillion without that—and believes it is worth it. And that 

is the conversation that we have to have. 

I want to ask, and I will ask the good doctor who has more experience in the military system than most of us do. I don’t hear frustrations from my servicemen and women about their quality of 

care. In fact, what I hear them say is, Rob, because I am deployed 

all over the planet I have to have something different than what 

would work in just metro Atlanta in general. 

Is it necessary to achieve the goal that you want for America and 

our healthcare system to abolish that system that we promised our 

men and women in uniform, or could we keep that system while 

trying to achieve some other goal? 

Dr. BROWNE. I think you can keep that system and build on it. 

Medicare for All, whatever label you put on it, can be that system. 

And that is what I am saying. The government is paying for your 

health services, my health services, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, DOD 

already. You can duplicate that and label it whatever you want, because you see the efficiencies there. 

And particularly when we talk about the goal that Dr. Nahvi is 

mentioning for the underserved, you have to have the educational 

component and address the social determinants of health. If you 

are in an area where there is a food desert and you can’t get nutritious food, you can’t exercise, you have to have a whole list of prescriptions when they come in to see you and they lay it out. 

If you can provide them with preventive care and education, they 

will become healthier and not need the bag of pills, not need to go 

to the emergency room, and also, they have an assigned primary 

care provider that is going to keep them out of the emergency 

room. 

Mr. WOODALL. I am glad you raised that. It is troubling to me, 

again, particularly given the trillions upon trillions that we are 

talking about investing here, that we are only talking about treating people after something bad has happened. There is nothing in 

here that says, what we ought to do is make sure that you are eating better before this happens. Diabetes, as it contributes over a 

quarter of our healthcare cost, nothing in here that says we need 

to get to exercise ahead of time. It is all a response to crisis instead 

of intervening before the crisis. So that is what healthcare professionals see. I don’t go to my—— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
133 

Mr. BARKAN. Representative, may I—— 

Mr. WOODALL [continuing]. On a good day. I go on a bad day. 

Let me ask this, and it goes to what Mr. Barkan said. I think 

you said 10 percent of American families are grappling with someone who is disabled in their household, the healthcare costs there 

are related to that. 

I do think it is outrageous that GoFundMe is what folks would 

call a successful healthcare system. I don’t call that a successful 

healthcare system. But what I don’t want to do is refocus America’s 

resources away from your family and towards my family, if I am 

not in the 10 percent that is facing crisis. I want to focus the resources on the families that need them most. 

Is it clear from your advocacy and your work that we have to 

change it for everybody, instead of doubling down on those families 

that we know—there is not a man or woman who is not touched 

by your testimony, and who doesn’t want to do better for you, not 

just on this committee, but in this entire Congress. And I worry 

that we are losing an opportunity to agree on that by trying to take 

the conversation even broader. 

Mr. BARKAN. Representative, may I please weigh in on the cost 

issue? 

Mr. WOODALL. Please. 

Mr. BARKAN. One thing I can’t help but think about today, Congressman, is how we always seem to find the money for things like 

tax cuts for the wealthy, and for corporate tax cuts. We never ask 

where the money will come from when we declare war. We always 

seem to just find the money. We only ask how we will pay for it 

when it comes to our health. 

This is such a clear problem with such a straightforward solution. We can save taxpayers money, we can save money for families, and we can provide high-quality medical care for every American by doing what every industrialized nation on earth already 

has. 

Mr. WOODALL. If you would indulge me just one moment, Mr. 

Chairman, I thank you. 

I have to disagree with you, Mr. Barkan. And I do worry that 

that kind of pithy one-liner makes it harder to get to where we 

need to go. It is not just healthcare that we have this conversation. 

I live in a district that is a majority/minority district. Twenty-seven 

percent of my constituents are first-generation Americans. 

We have the best education system in the country in our district. 

So says the Broad Prize that awards us year after year. We pay 

for that, and it is hard to pay for it. Our taxes are very high, but 

we make a decision every day. Are we going to have the best education system, or the second best, or the bottom best? 

Public housing in this country, Dr. Nahvi referenced that earlier, 

talking about some of our rights. We have people who live in desperately dangerous communities today, desperately unhealthy communities today, and we are not coming up with the money for those 

things either, because money is in every conversation. 

And I want to agree with you 100 percent, I support a war tax. 

I think it is absolutely immoral that we have taken the war off of 

the front page of the paper, and unless you have a family member 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
134 

who is at risk there. I know the chairman supports that as well, 

having that conversation and putting skin in the game. 

I would share with you, most respectfully, I need you to believe 

that folks on every side of the aisle care as much about serving 

men and women in need as folks on any other side of the aisle. It 

is not a budget dollars and cents issue; it is paying for those things 

that we value. We value you and we want to pay that. 

Mr. Chairman, you have been overly indulgent, and I am grateful. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I want to make sure that Dr. Nahvi—he had 

his hand up, and I want to make sure he gets—— 

Dr. NAHVI. Yes, I just wanted to pick up on one thing you did 

say. You said that you talked to the men and women in uniform, 

and they are usually satisfied with their care. I work at a private 

hospital, a public hospital, and I also work at the VA as well. And 

that has been my experience too. 

And I think you inadvertently just made a great case for Medicare for All. Our VA system is wonderful. We provide excellent 

care, and I never had a patient at the VA leave against medical 

advice because they were worried about the cost of their treatment. 

So I think that our men and women in uniform have great care. 

And it is a federally funded program where the doctors there are 

employees of the government, and we have a single formulary, and 

we take care of patients in a great medical way, and also, a financially responsible way. So I do think if it is good enough for our 

men and women in uniform, it is good enough for all Americans. 

Mr. WOODALL. Just so we don’t confuse the issue, of course, the 

VA system stays under the Medicare for All plan. I am talking 

about the DOD system. Very different conversations I have with 

veterans about the VA system and DOD families who are serving 

abroad. But I take your point. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Before I get to Mr. Raskin, because 

I am the chairman and you are the ranking member, we have a 

little extra time. 

Mr. COLE. When did I get that extra time? I am thrilled. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do have that extra time. You just haven’t 

used it, that is all. You can yield it back at the end if you want. 

But just a couple of points. Just to Mr. Barkan’s point about, you 

know, when it comes to certain things, we don’t question money 

and the cost. When it comes to healthcare, we do. That is just a 

fact, and I know it is an uncomfortable fact, but it is. 

I mean, we passed a tax cut bill, which I know you guys supported. We didn’t. I didn’t support it. But we didn’t have a hearing 

on it in the committee of jurisdiction. And it came right to the 

Rules Committee, and it went to the floor. I mean, we could argue 

whether that was a good idea or bad idea. I think it was a bad 

idea. But it is just the issue of how we are going to pay for it never 

really came up. 

And you and I agreed that when we are engaged in wars halfway 

around the world, we ought to pay for it, not just put it on the 

credit card. And we just don’t do that, right? I mean, we make believe that we don’t have to. But when it comes to healthcare, we 

do. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
135 

Mr. Woodall raised two important points. One was that Medicaid 

rates are lower than private insurers, but that is when they pay, 

right? But we know that private insurers don’t always pay. 

And Dr. Collins, I would appreciate if you could explain this for 

us, and also, would Medicare for All pay the lowest rates? 

Ms. COLLINS. Actually, Medicaid rates would go up under the 

Medicare for All proposal. 

The CHAIRMAN. And insurance companies don’t pay oftentimes. 

We do casework all the time in our districts where we have people 

who have issues, and when it comes to paying for the bill, the insurance companies say no. I mean, that is a reality in this country, 

right? 

Ms. COLLINS. That is exactly right. And surprise medical bills are 

a huge issue right now. Congress has taken up this issue. People 

are getting bills for services that they thought were covered. And 

that continues. 

And outside of the surprise billing issue, people have very high 

deductibles. People talked about how great employer-based coverage is. People in employer-based plans across the country, their 

premiums and deductibles comprise about 12 percent of median income on average. Employer-based coverage is also one of the largest sources of increase in the underinsured rates that we are seeing. So it is a problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have talked to a lot of hospitals. I have a lot 

of hospitals in my district. In Massachusetts, we have some really 

fine hospitals. But one of the things they complain to me about all 

the time is the fact that they invest so many man- and woman 

hours into filing claims with insurance companies to get paid for 

what they provided. And sometimes, they get to the point where it 

is not worth the time, and they just eat the cost. I throw that out 

there to make sure that people appreciate that fact. 

I am now happy to yield to Mr. Raskin from Maryland. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Before I begin, 

I wanted to submit for the record a statement from Eagan Kemp, 

who is the healthcare policy advocate for Public Citizen, which 

makes the important point that even Americans who have insurance today are facing spiraling costs, and that a Medicare for All 

system will enable us to lower drug prices and restrain the extraordinary growth in drug prices we have been seeing. 

[The document is printed at page 234] 

Mr. RASKIN. I also want to recognize the presence today of the 

president of National Nurses United, Jean Ross, who is the leader 

of an organization that has been heroically fighting for healthcare 

for all Americans for many decades. And I just wanted to recognize 

her. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this historic hearing, which 

is a breakthrough in the national dialogue about healthcare, and 

what we are going to do to deliver healthcare to all of our people. 

I think not since Senator Kennedy had a hearing several decades 

ago about healthcare have we had one that is this comprehensive, 

this detailed, and this serious. And I want to thank colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle for participating. 

I especially want to thank you, Mr. Barkan, for your very lucid 

and poignant and compelling testimony today. And I wanted to 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
136 

start by saying that 9 years ago, I sat where you sit, metaphorically speaking. I was suffering from reflux symptoms and went to 

the doctor, who recommended that I go in for an endoscopy. And 

they said, while we are at it, why don’t we have a colonoscopy. We 

wouldn’t normally do it this early. I think I was 47 at the time. 

But let’s just go ahead and do it. 

And when I woke up, they said, well, we have good news and bad 

news. The endoscopy went fine, but we found something in the 

colonoscopy. And I had Stage III colon cancer and was off to the 

races. And I did it all. I did radiation. I did chemotherapy. I had 

surgery twice. And I can’t imagine any of my fellow citizens going 

through such a trauma, something of such an enormous emotional, 

psychological, and family strain as that, and not know where they 

are going to get insurance. 

And I was a State Senator and I was covered by Maryland’s 

health insurance plan. But most State legislators don’t make very 

much money. I think we were getting paid $40,000, $45,000, but 

we had a great health insurance plan. And I was covered and I was 

able to deal with it. But it opened my eyes to the fact that this is 

a crisis in our country, that there are tens of millions of people who 

don’t know what they would do in the event that they came down 

with a diagnosis like that. 

Like Mr. Barkan, I decided that I was going to try to go through 

this personal crisis by staying at work and by engaging with the 

things that I loved. And one of the things I was working on was 

I was leading the floor fight in Maryland for marriage equality. 

And we adopted marriage equality. We became the first State in 

the Union to do so without a judicial order compelling us to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, you know, all glory to Massachusetts in all cases, 

but Massachusetts did have that judicial order from the Supreme 

Judicial Court telling them they had to do. In Maryland, we didn’t 

have that, but we passed it anyway. 

And, you know, as the floor leader, you have got the opportunity 

when it is all over to make a little speech. And I got up to thank 

my colleagues, because I had been wearing a chemo belt to the debates, and to session for several weeks. The guy who sat next to 

me, Jim Brochin, who is a great conservative Democratic State 

Senator from Baltimore County, said that I just wore the chemo 

belt to try to get sympathy and votes for marriage equality, which 

is probably right. But we ended up pulling him over and changing 

his mind about it, so it worked, I guess. 

But I got up and I said, you know, that I had learned something 

in this process about the difference between misfortune and injustice. Because if your life is going great, you have got not one, but 

two jobs that you love and a wife that you love—and my wife is 

here today—and kids that you love and constituents you love, and 

you go to the doctor and the doctor tells you, you got Stage III cancer and you got a 50/50 chance of coming through it alive, that is 

a misfortune. It is a terrible misfortune, but it is just a misfortune, 

because it is built into the nature of our species, you know. Any 

of us could be assigned such a verdict on any particular day. Anybody could get such a diagnosis. 

But, but, if you experience such a misfortune, and you get such 

a diagnosis and you can’t get healthcare, because you love the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
137 

wrong person or you lost your job, or you are not working or you 

are too poor, that is not a misfortune; that is an injustice, because 

we can do something about that. 

And life is hard enough, Mr. Chairman, with all of the illness 

and accident and heartbreak, for government to be compounding 

the misfortunes of life with the injustice of denying people access 

to healthcare when they get sick. And in the richest country in the 

history of our species, at its richest moment, not to advance forward to adopt a Medicare for All system is to deny I think the common humanity of our fellow citizens. 

And I read an essay during that period by Susan Sontag, who 

said that everybody is born with two passports. And one passport 

is to the land of the healthy and living; and the other is to the 

passport of the sick and the dying. And we all hope that we are 

just going to use one of our passports in life, but in truth, all of 

us are going to use both of those passports. And to me, it is an elementary question of democratic solidarity and equality whether we 

are willing to acknowledge that all of us are going to use those 

passports, and we should make everybody’s trip as easy as possible. 

So I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I am not going to hide 

that fact. I am not just a neutral objective questioner here. But I 

am fascinated about how we are going to get through this process 

and bring everybody aboard and come up with a system that makes 

sense to all Americans. 

Now, I want to ask a question that came up before—I think Mr. 

Barkan raised it—about how we ended up tying in our society 

healthcare to people’s employment. I read something, and I don’t 

know whether it is true, but I read something which suggested that 

goes back to World War II when there were wage and price controls and employers, in order to attract new talent, had to give 

them something better than higher wages and they offered them 

health insurance. And that began quite accidentally, quite arbitrarily, the connection of employment and healthcare. And I just 

wonder if anybody could illuminate that for me. Perhaps, Mr. 

Baker, you could. 

Mr. BAKER. That is, in fact, the history. And, of course, it spread, 

you know, to a wider range of employers, so that the vast majority 

of people below Medicare age are getting their insurance through 

their employer. And, you know, this has come up previously. 

I could speak now as a former employer, because I was a codirector at Center for Economic and Policy Research for 17 years. 

We hated having to deal with our healthcare insurance, you know, 

just for obvious reasons. We were busy. We were trying to do lots 

of other things. 

Mr. RASKIN. And most small businesses hate it, because they are 

not in the healthcare business, right? 

Mr. BAKER. That is exactly right. And on top of that—— 

Mr. RASKIN. They are running a movie theater or they are running a think tank or a farm. 

Mr. BAKER. And, you know, we are trying to keep our workers 

happy, obviously, our employees happy, and they have different 

needs. And, you know, we are trying to find—frankly, I don’t know 

and I don’t want to know what is the best insurance plan for my 

individual workers, but we had to pick—talk about one size fits all. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
138 

We had to pick one plan that was going to be better for some people, worse for others. We didn’t want to be in the business, and I 

can’t imagine any employer wants to be. 

Mr. RASKIN. So a Medicare for All system will liberate small 

business in America from the obligation of trying to figure out what 

is the best healthcare plan for their workers and from paying for 

it. Is that right? 

Mr. BAKER. That is right. And I should also point out we had an 

insurance broker, an additional cost. You know, we had someone 

who would go through the plans with us. You know, this is a total 

waste. 

Mr. RASKIN. You describe in your testimony, Dr. Baker, how financing Medicare for All starts by looking at how we are spending 

money today and then making it more efficient. And in many ways, 

that description of how to finance it sounds remarkably similar to 

a study done by another witness here, Dr. Blahous from the 

Mercatus Center. And in a piece for the American Enterprise Institute, he wrote the following: Quote, ‘‘Medicare for All supporters 

are correct to observe that Americans already pay for the vast majority of health spending that would occur under Medicare for All 

and that most of the Medicare for All’s costs are, therefore, not new 

to the national economy.’’ 

Do you agree on that point with—— 

Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. I mean, clearly, there would be some increase in utilization, and that is partially the point. But I think 

that is limited for two reasons: One, that the people who most 

heavily utilize care—and this is something we have to keep in 

mind—basically, 10 percent of people account for 70 percent of the 

cost. Most of those people already are not limited by cost, strictly 

speaking, because they are either on Medicaid or they have hit 

their out-of-pocket maximum. So these are, you know, where we 

might expect big increase in cost. 

But the other point that has been made by several people here, 

you have a lot of people that incur high cost because they are not 

getting the care they should need at an earlier stage. So then they 

end up going to the emergency room with very expensive care, 

when they could have had very simple care if they had had access 

to a primary care physician. 

Mr. RASKIN. The other industrialized countries on earth have arrived at national healthcare plans, the kind that has proven so elusive for us. I want to ask a couple questions about that and first, 

perhaps, Dr. Collins, we can start with you. What is the principal 

value they are seeking there? Is it justice for everybody, so that everybody gets healthcare; is it efficiency of the system; or is it the 

public health in general, to advance public health? What are the 

values they are seeking to vindicate? 

Ms. COLLINS. I would say certainly all three. I mean, I think that 

having universal coverage enables people, everybody to get 

healthcare that they need. It definitely promotes efficiently run 

healthcare systems. People have access to care that makes them 

productive. 

We have a big problem when we have 30 million people uninsured, so it reduces their overall productivity as well. So I would 

say it is all three of those things. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
139 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. And, Dr. Browne, do you agree with that, that 

all of those values are achieved? 

Dr. BROWNE. Certainly. And I think you also have to look at if 

you have a healthier workforce, you are going to have cost savings 

in your employment business, because the time that you lose for 

sick days and getting off and taking care of family and all of that 

would not be achieved, because you are then fully working and 

staying healthy. So yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thanks. Dr. Nahvi, I have got a question for you, 

because I have received an increasing number of visits from doctors 

and nurses and people in the healthcare system who say that the 

current system we have got is not working for patients, and it is 

interfering with their ability to deliver quality healthcare to people 

for a whole host of reasons, including the ridiculous amount of time 

that they have to spend on bureaucracy and fighting with insurance companies whose financial model is to not pay for people’s 

healthcare. 

The question I want to ask you is this: I think it was Ms. Turner 

who said we shouldn’t just blow the whole system up. Of course, 

some of my colleagues across the aisle voted 70 times to blow up 

the Affordable Care Act. They wanted to take that system down. 

But I want to ask you a tough question about the transition from 

the Affordable Care Act to one that covers everybody, and tries to 

lower cost in the system, squeezing out the money that we all pay 

for copays and deductibles and constantly escalating premiums. 

As I understand it, President Obama said, We want to reach 

across the aisle and we will go to the plan that was cooked up at 

the Heritage Foundation. Now, that fact has been buried, but this 

was the Heritage Foundation plan, the Affordable Care Act. And it 

was the model for what Governor Romney did in Massachusetts, 

right? And so the idea was let’s take the Republican plan of the individual mandate, which they came to revile and denounce, and 

put that at the heart of the system. They considered it an expression of individual responsibility. 

Then what happened was it became politicized, and rather than 

that compromise working, they turned on it, they renamed it 

ObamaCare. They voted dozens of times to try to destroy it and not 

replace it, but destroy it and leave nothing there, despite the fact 

that tens of millions more people got healthcare because of the Affordable Care Act. It was a giant step forward. And yet, we know 

of what its limitations are. 

Now, is it going to be possible for us to move from the Affordable 

Care Act, with its limitations, to a Medicare for All system? Is that 

going to be too complicated for us to accomplish? 

Dr. NAHVI. I don’t think it is too complicated. And I also would 

say that we actually need to do it. I think just expanding the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t cut it. 

And I gave three examples earlier: Of the 28-year-old female that 

had the urinary tract infection that tried to drink cranberry juice 

to solve it; and the gentleman that stopped taking his antiplatelet 

medication; and the lady with the depression medications. All these 

people—I don’t know if I made this clear—they all had private insurance, and it just wasn’t cutting it for them. They ended up having these problems despite having private insurance. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
140 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, sometimes people think Medicare for All is 

just for the 30 million people who have no health insurance. That 

for me probably would be enough. But it is actually for the 45- or 

50 million Americans who have a weak insurance plan, where the 

premiums are always going up, the deductibles are going up, the 

copays are going up, and it doesn’t work for them. So what we are 

looking for is a system that is going to serve all Americans. 

Now, it has been suggested by our, you know, distinguished colleague that, well, we don’t want to interfere with the plans that are 

working. The plans that are always cited in that question are single-payer plans, like the VA or the military. So they say, don’t mess 

with the people who have single payer now, because they love it. 

And then the point of the political opposition is to try to scare 

everybody into thinking, well, if we have single payer for all Americans, if we patriotically bring everybody in, then it is going to interrupt the single-payer provision that we have got now, right? 

Is it the case that we cannot afford a system that works for all 

Americans without taking away healthcare for people who are getting it from the VA or getting it from the military and so on? 

Dr. NAHVI. I am not an economist, but as an ER doctor, one of 

the first things you learn is that when things are getting crazy, you 

need to stay cool, calm, collected. Oftentimes, when everyone 

around you is yelling about all sorts of things, usually the problem 

is not that hard to deal with and we can deal with it. 

So from a big-step-back perspective, I apply something that I call 

the ‘‘look test’’ to this. Just look at what is out there and what 

makes sense. So if someone is coming here and arguing that heavier-than-air flight is not possible, but I just point to an airplane, 

I say, but look, I see an airplane, so I hear what you are saying 

but that can’t be true. 

So the corollary to that is when everyone starts yelling and 

screaming that doctors are going to get paid so much less and these 

systems can’t function, the hospitals are going to have to close, I 

would just point to other countries that are doing similar things 

and I would say, I hear you, but it seems to be working just fine. 

Mr. RASKIN. Do any of the economists want to weigh in on this 

point? In order to have a Medicare for All system, do we have—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to lend you 2 minutes of my time. 

Mr. RASKIN. Oh, forgive me. Okay, I didn’t realize I was over. 

Okay. Let me just—I thought it said 2. 

Mr. BARKAN. Congressman, may I make a comment? 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I will yield back. I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I get my 2 minutes back. 

Mr. BARKAN. Congressman, may I make a comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. BARKAN. Congressman Raskin, 10 years ago, just before you 

got sick, when I was in law school, you came to speak to a student 

group. I was so inspired and amazed by the vision you laid out, and 

I decided that you were the kind of lawyer and public servant I 

wanted to become. And your comments today once again inspire me 

and give me hope for the future. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. Barkan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
141 

Before I yield to Dr. Burgess, I want to ask unanimous consent 

to insert in the record an article that appeared in the Washington 

Post back in June of 2018 entitled ‘‘House GOP plan would cut 

Medicare, Medicaid to balance budget.’’ 

[The document is printed at page 244] 

The CHAIRMAN. And I do that not to break the spirit of camaraderie here, but simply to point out that, you know, when you complain about the lack of adequate reimbursement of Medicaid and 

that providers don’t want to oftentimes take Medicaid, and then 

you support a budget that cuts Medicaid, that it is a little bit kind 

of not consistent. I ask that be put in the record. 

I also want to acknowledge that during the hearing Congressman 

Adam Schiff came in, and now we have Congresswoman Ilhan 

Omar here. We are happy to have you. 

I am now happy to yield to Dr. Burgess. 

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it under advisement that you said you are happy to yield to me. 

So it is interesting. I used to be a student of medical irony. I am 

a physician as well. Worked in the ERs when I was putting myself 

through residency at Parkland Hospital. We didn’t have CAT scans 

back in those days. So you got operated on for appendicitis. It was 

probably a lot cheaper and more direct. 

However, I used to be a student of medical irony. Now I have 

kind of branched out and policy irony is part of my realm as well. 

And it is just I find it ironic that we are here today criticizing employer-sponsored insurance, that it is so bad, and yet the Affordable Care Act that we debated in this room many, many years ago 

had an employer mandate built into the Affordable Care Act. Employer insurance is so good we want to require one to have it. So 

just a point of historical context. And it is not my goal to relitigate 

the Affordable Care Act and how we got here. There are good books 

written on it. I think one of our witnesses has written a book, one 

of your committee members has written a book. So I encourage you 

all to check out Amazon; I am sure they are still available. 

But I do have to say that, you know, as the Affordable Care Act, 

President Obama was elected. He was elected, he said, on a 

healthcare mandate. And I reached out to the transition team and 

I said, Look, I didn’t give up a 25-year medical career to come up 

here and sit on the sidelines while you all do this. Talk to me. 

There may be some places where we can work together. And they 

thanked me very much for my participation. That is the last I ever 

heard of them. 

The same with then-Chairman Waxman, who was the new chairman of my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee. And 

the same discussion with Chairman Waxman. I didn’t quit my day 

job to come up here and watch somebody else do healthcare reform. 

Talk to me. There are perhaps places where we could work together. And, again, I never got a response. 

So, again, my purpose was not to relitigate the Affordable Care 

Act, but it has come up several times today. And yeah, there were 

some missed opportunities. And I say that having been part—and 

just for people who are watching at home, I don’t want to say this 

committee is not normal, but normally, healthcare policy would 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
142 

come through one of the committees of jurisdiction, what are called 

authorizing committees. 

Mr. Cole is an appropriator, so he pays for everything we authorize very graciously. But one of the authorizing committees would 

have had this type of hearing, and probably done it over several 

iterations. But this hearing in the Rules Committee is somewhat 

unusual. I mean, I haven’t been on the Rules Committee more than 

8 years, but it is unusual in my experience. We had two primary 

hearings when Republicans were in the majority, but they were on 

things that were outside of the normal realm of the authorizing 

committee. So just, I want you to know it is a little unusual to have 

this hearing, but it also indicates—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Dr. BURGESS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a new sheriff in town, that is why we 

are doing the hearing. 

Dr. BURGESS. What is that? 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a new sheriff in town, that is why we 

are doing the hearing. 

Dr. BURGESS. Exactly the point. This issue is so important to the 

Speaker of the House. This is the Speaker’s committee. This committee is not—this committee is nine to four. Mr. McGovern is 

never going to lose a vote in this committee. If he did, he would 

probably have to leave town. So this is the Speaker’s committee. 

The ratio was set up by a Texan, Sam Rayburn, who everything 

up here is named after Mr. Rayburn. Got a room downstairs. Got 

a building over there. I have got a freeway at home named for Mr. 

Rayburn. Mr. Rayburn set up the ratio of the Rules Committee in 

1961 to facilitate enacting the agenda of a young activist, President 

John F. Kennedy. And the ratio has stood ever since. 

But it is unusual to have this hearing in the Rules Committee. 

But I make that point because this is the Speaker’s committee. The 

Speaker has elevated this. This is what the Speaker wants us to 

be talking about today, this week, this month, and so we shall. 

I do have a number of specific questions, and I apologize for getting—it is just hard, because I devoted my time and experience to 

one of the authorizing committees that deals with healthcare, NIH. 

Our committee, our committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, 

produced Cures for the 21st Century. I mean, we can argue about 

how we are going to pay for things, but if we ain’t got the things 

to pay for, it is a crazy argument. 

And, Dr. Browne, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for 

your service to the National Medical Association. I will tell you 

when we were doing Cures, and it had gone through all of the 

machinations that we could go through in the committee and the 

House had passed it, the Senate dragged their feet, and then an 

election happened and they decided they better get busy and pass 

Cures, because things weren’t getting any better for them after the 

2016 election. So they did, they passed a version of Cures. We 

quickly got a conference committee together, worked out the differences. 

And Mr. Rush, Bobby Rush, on our Energy and Commerce Committee came up to me and said, Doc, we forgot sickle cell. And, 

well, we didn’t really forget sickle cell. We were trying not to be 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
143 

disease specific. This was about funding for research in the broad 

perspective. But I got what he was saying, because several months 

before, we had had a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee in the summer of 2016. And we had a witness from the 

Sickle Cell Disease Association, and she made the statement that 

it had been 40 years since a new sickle cell treatment had been approved by the FDA, 40 years. That meant the stuff that I was 

using at Parkland Hospital in the 1970s, that was state of the art. 

I could probably go back to work tomorrow, because it hadn’t 

changed. That was an astounding statement that day. 

So, obviously, we were at a point with the Cures bill that nothing 

could be changed. The Senate had agreed, the House had basically 

agreed, and we were going to go to the floor for a vote and the 

President was going to sign it. I think it was the last bill signed 

by President Obama. It is a great bill, and evidence of what the 

Energy and Commerce Committee is capable of doing if we take 

our time and do things correctly. 

I did make a commitment to Mr. Rush that I would work to get 

a new sickle cell authorization. It hadn’t happened since 2004. That 

was tacked onto one of the Bush tax cuts. So it wasn’t a true sickle 

cell reauthorization. And the next month, when I was chairman of 

the Health Subcommittee, we passed a sickle cell authorization bill. 

And it took the Senate forever, as it always does, but in October, 

they passed their version. We approved their version over here on 

the House floor and the President signed it into law, the first major 

sickle cell authorization that had been passed in certainly over a 

decade, and with no new therapy. 

And then here is why this is important, because I normally don’t 

watch 60 Minutes. I don’t think I watched it the night it was 

broadcast, but someone said, you should go to YouTube and look 

at this 60 Minutes broadcast on sickle cell. And if I am not violating copyright laws, I encourage people to do that. 

It was a fantastic discussion of what someone is doing at the 

NIH with fixing the genetic defect that causes sickle cell. I mean, 

that is unheard of. It is a two-base error and it seems like something—it is just a spelling error, simply spell check should have 

caught that, but it didn’t. And this doctor has worked out a system 

where they are actually able to put that corrected DNA into a patient’s cells. And I got to tell you, I am an Episcopalian, so I don’t 

emote, but when I saw that picture of the blood film on 60 Minutes, 

that young woman who they were treating, and these were all normal red blood cells, I mean, I broke down and cried. That is incredible that that child could have that blood film picture. 

And, Doctor, you know from your time in the emergency room, 

a sickle cell patient, I mean, they go into crisis and it is tough. 

There is not a lot you can do. And people worry about prescribing 

opiates now. We should be judicious, but at the same time, these 

are people who need pain relief. And the old treatments of hydration and Thorazine, I suspect, is still one of the things that you do. 

But this is a great step forward. 

And, again, I bring that because the authorizing committee did 

that. Another bill that we did, I hated the sustainable growth rate 

formula. When you talk about Medicare for All, my God, there was 

one point where the Congress said, You know what, we are just 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
144 

going to cut your medical reimbursement for doctors, not for hospitals and not for insurance companies, not for Pharma, just for 

doctors, 20-some percent every year. Oh my God. 

And it never goes away. It was written in a way that even if 

Congress came back in and added some money, which we would do 

every year in December called the doc fix, if we did that, it still 

added onto what the eventual cost that the Congressional Budget 

Office would score as if you are going to repeal this, this is what 

it is going to cost due to the vagaries of something called the updated adjustment factor. And I am not an economist, I don’t understand what that is, but it was bad, I know that. 

Thirteen years it took me to repeal the sustainable growth rate 

formula, and I did. And I did it in a bipartisan fashion. We had 

a 51-to-0 vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We had 

393 votes on the floor of the House. We had 92 votes on the floor 

of the Senate. So that was a great example of bipartisan cooperation to correct a major problem that we had with delivery of our 

healthcare. 

But you can’t stop there. And this is one of the things I learned. 

That when you finish a big bill like that and hand it off to the 

agency, with all due respect for anyone who might have worked at 

the agency at one time in their life, when you hand stuff to the 

agency, things can happen to it, and you have got to keep your eye 

on it. As members of the authorizing committee, we have had multiple oversight hearings on the implementation of what is called 

the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. 

So this was a major Medicare improvement that was agreed to 

in a bipartisan fashion, but, I mean, there is not a day, not a week 

that goes by that someone does not call my office with some concern about something that they are going to either not be able to 

do, or be required to do because of something the agency said— 

rulemaking that the agency makes. 

So I encourage people when they read this bill, this Medicare for 

All bill—and it is a real bill and is a real consideration. This is the 

Speaker’s committee. We are considering this bill in the Speaker’s 

committee. I worry about it, because of the number of times it says 

in that bill the Secretary shall, the Secretary shall. We are talking 

about the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

With all due respect to anyone who might have been the Secretary of Health and Human Services at one time, that is kind of 

a difficult way for health policy to evolve, because then it goes out 

of the realm of the people’s House to the agency. And what was the 

statement that Mr. Raskin made? A ridiculous amount of time 

spent on bureaucracy. 

If you think that is going away, if the fine folks over at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building are in charge of everything, if you 

think that ridiculous amount of time spent on bureaucracy is going 

away, it ain’t. It will still be there in some form or fashion and it 

quite possibly could be worse. 

So I appreciate your indulgence. I just had a lot I wanted to get 

off my chest. 

Ms. Turner, let me ask you, because this comes up all the time 

in the issue of administrative cost in HHS and CMS. I mean, administrative cost, that is a little bit of—it is a little misleading, beVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
145 

cause if I want to go up and start an insurance company—I would 

never do it, but if I did, and I was going to take care of a lot of 

people, I would have to go borrow a lot of money. There would be 

a cost of capital that I would incur. CMS does not have to account 

for the cost of capital, do they? 

Ms. TURNER. No, Dr. Burgess, it does not. Actually, Merrill Matthews with the Institute for Policy Innovation did a study with an 

economic consulting firm some time ago, looking at the comparisons of Medicare administrative cost with private insurance. And 

he said most of these comparisons are really apples to oranges. And 

when you include everything, including not only the cost of capital, 

but the Federal Government’s ability to collect premiums and resources and the difference in the population of Medicare versus 

those that are younger, then it comes out pretty even. 

But I think the key point is that somebody is going to have to 

determine what benefits are allowed or not, who is going to be an 

authorized provider, how those providers are going to get paid, how 

the paperwork is going to get collected. Those jobs still must be 

done. 

Dr. BURGESS. And we turn all that over to the Secretary with 

this Medicare for All bill. 

Ms. TURNER. There is no question that somebody is still going to 

have to do the administrative paperwork. All of the medical goods 

and services that the taxpayers will be paying for as part of the 

new Medicare for All program will have to be documented and payments will have to be processed, et cetera. That is not going to go 

away. 

Dr. BURGESS. Let me just take what time I have remaining and 

I need to enter into the record, ask unanimous consent to enter 

into the record. We are limited, only have two witnesses on the Republican side, so we are not able to have a patient. I wanted to 

bring this article that was printed this morning in CBC.ca. A mother in Nova Scotia living with cancer is challenging Premier Stephen McNeil to meet with her after a years-long battle with the 

province’s healthcare system. In an emotional video, she said she 

went undiagnosed for 2 years because she couldn’t access a family 

doctor. By the time she was diagnosed, her cancer had progressed 

to Stage III. This is the face of healthcare in Nova Scotia. ‘‘I cannot 

receive help for trauma that I experienced because of the failed system until sometime in July.’’ That is for the mental health that she 

thinks she requires. 

Doctors for Nova Scotia replied. Tim Holland, president of Doctors for Nova Scotia, says this is the first time he has heard this 

kind of story. He said this experience has all the elements of the 

problems that Nova Scotians are facing with their healthcare system, lack of a family physician, lack of access to emergency care, 

and knowing full well that those emergency departments aren’t 

equipped to be diagnosing cancer, are stretched thin themselves. 

And I would like to insert that for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The document is printed at page 246] 

Ms. TURNER. Dr. Burgess, could I just say that I think we must 

not ignore what we see happening in other countries. In Canada, 

if you can’t access a primary care physician, you can’t get a referral 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
146 

to an oncologist. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, actually spends a great deal of time tracking average wait times. The 

average wait time is about 5 months for specialty care. 

In the U.K., we see ambulances driving around London for hours, 

waiting for the emergency room to have space to let a patient in. 

When they get in, patients are often warehoused in hallways. I cite 

an example in my testimony of people dying in a hospital emergency room hallway waiting to get care. 

So we have to look at the experiences of other countries. That is 

how they ration care. They ration through waiting lines and the 

lack of access to surgeries, diagnostics, and new medicines. In the 

United States, we have access to almost more than 95 percent of 

all new medicines. In France, patients in the government system 

can access only half of these new medicines. So that sickle cell 

treatment you discussed earlier may be available theoretically, but 

are you going to get it if the government has to pay for it? 

Dr. BURGESS. I need to yield back. I know I have more time later 

on. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will use my time. Dr. Nahvi had a comment. 

Dr. NAHVI. I just did want to bring something up. And first of 

all, I do want to say, Dr. Burgess, I am always impressed at the 

way medicine was practiced back then, and I always am thankful 

for the luxuries that our generation has in dealing with this. So I 

did want to say that. 

But I did want to comment on something you said about kind of 

going through the normal protocols and taking our time and making sure we do it right. I do think that is critically important. If 

we are going to do something of this scale, we have to make sure 

we do it right. 

But on the flip side, part of the reason I am here, because my 

patients are suffering and they are dying. So I want to advocate. 

We just need, I think, a little bit more of a sense of urgency. We 

have to go through the right channels, we have to do things right, 

and we have to take our time, but we have to do this with a sense 

of urgency that people are dying as we are waiting and as we are 

doing this, and we need to have that fire to keep moving, whatever 

the solution is. And I do think that is critically important. 

At the end of the day, a lot of people here have mentioned that 

this is the United States. We are the richest country in the world. 

But we are also the boldest, most entrepreneurial country in the 

world. If we decide we want to do something, we can do it. And I 

am a little bit worried that there is a lot of finding problems with 

the solution rather than finding solutions to the problem, as my 

dad would say. And I think we need to invest more to try to start 

with the starting position that we can get this done and we need 

to get this done because people are dying and people are suffering, 

and then go through all the right channels, as you said, and do it 

the correct way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Collins, I will yield to you, but I also would 

like some clarification here. We have heard that kids, seniors, 

workers, everybody would lose their coverage under Medicare for 

All. I mean, is that right? Will all of us be left without healthcare 

under Medicare for All, and how would that coverage be better 

than today? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
147 

Ms. COLLINS. I mean, the way the bills are structured, everybody 

would move from the current coverage they have, for the most part, 

and into a new system of plans with more comprehensive benefits 

in many cases. So it is not true that people would lose their insurance coverage. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have a comment? 

Ms. COLLINS. I did want to just address the wait times in other 

countries and the rationing of care. I mean, clearly, we are rationing care. Insurers are rationing care right now. We are rationing 

care by leaving so many people uninsured. So it is all a matter of 

how you use that term. 

But also in other countries, we actually have wait times that are 

very consistent. In our surveys of international systems, we find 

that wait times for specialists are about the same as they are in 

the United States. In countries that have had wait time issues, like 

the U.K., they have addressed those. So it doesn’t mean that a single-payer system there (in another country) is going to be the single-payer system here (that we develop). There are ways to address 

wait times, and certainly other countries have done that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to add something about the Rules Committee, since it was brought up that it is unusual that we are having a hearing in the Rules Committee. It is not so unusual. Actually, this is the oldest committee in the Congress, and we do big 

things. I am proud of the fact that we moved the Affordable Care 

Act forward and we insured 20 million people who didn’t have 

health insurance. 

And I think it shouldn’t be unusual that we do hearings. When 

we did the Affordable Care Act, the House held 79 bipartisan hearings and markups, and we had over 239 amendments. 121 amendments were accepted. I mean, this was an enormous undertaking. 

Is it perfect? No. 

And we contrast that to the way my Republican friends handled 

the repeal bill. It basically bypassed the hearing process entirely. 

We just came right here to Rules and then right to the floor. So 

there is a contrast here. I don’t think hearings should be viewed 

as unusual or undesirable. This is an opportunity for everybody to 

be able to say what is on their mind, pro and con, and that is not 

a bad thing. And, Dr. Nahvi, please go ahead. 

Dr. NAHVI. Yeah. I just wanted to say one thing about rationing. 

You mentioned that we are already rationing with the uninsured, 

but we are also already rationing with the insured. When 41 percent of Americans felt like they needed to go to the ER in the past 

12 months, but then didn’t, and considering only 12 percent of 

Americans are unemployed, that is still about a third of Americans 

that have insurance that feel they need to go to the ER but don’t. 

That is rationing by any other name. That is self-imposed rationing, and that is part of the crisis. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Dr. Browne, quickly. 

Mr. BARKAN. Chairman, may I make a comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARKAN. Anecdotes aside, we know that single-payer systems 

in other countries have better outcomes than we do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Browne. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
148 

Dr. BROWNE. I want to thank Dr. Burgess for the support of the 

sickle cell bill and how that has come about. And yes, we have one 

new drug that was just recently approved for the disease. 

And speaking to Mr. Raskin’s comment, I want to say that even 

though I have a niece who, unfortunately, died from colon cancer, 

she was at the age of 48 so she could not get the screening test, 

because her insurance did not cover it. She waited too late, and she 

had advanced stage disease and died. 

So, again, having Medicare for All or universal health coverage, 

would allow those individuals to get the kind of screening test that 

does not follow those guidelines, because at any age, if you are having symptoms, you need to be treated. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Scanlon. 

Ms. SCANLON. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, for the opportunity to participate in this hearing, to help us explore how we continue to try to make good on a commitment to accessible and affordable universal healthcare. I am grateful for the expertise and 

effort that my colleagues, especially Congresswoman Jayapal and 

my fellow freshwoman colleague, Congresswoman Shalala, have 

put into introducing and analyzing this legislation. 

I have no question that healthcare is a human right and that no 

family should have to go bankrupt or worry about putting food on 

the table due to medical costs or have to create a GoFundMe page. 

I understand that we have to find a way to address what my colleague, Mr. Raskin, called the injustice of being unable to afford 

medical care when hit with a misfortune of medical trauma. 

You know, I have already supported measures that would try to 

lower prescription drug costs, allow Americans over 50 to buy into 

a public option, but I am trying to parse the best way forward from 

here to protect the Affordable Care Act and move to whatever our 

next step is. 

There are constituents in my district who believe that Medicare 

for All is the best path forward, and there are others who are concerned about how it is going to work. And those concerns are multifaceted. They are rooted in fear of rising costs, changes to their existing employer or union-based insurance, and for many, the impact on their jobs. 

So it is my hope that I can get some information from this panel 

to help get answers to these important questions that I can take 

back to my district as we have this critical conversation about what 

a just transition to Medicare for All would look like, and how we 

achieve that elusive universal coverage. 

So, Dr. Collins and Baker, when we are talking about best ways 

to get to universal coverage, including Medicare for All, one of the 

things we talk about a lot is the financial burdens of the current 

health system on individuals. So whatever we do, how do we address the cost of rising premiums, prescription drugs, copays, 

deductibles? 

Can you talk about the impact a Medicare for All system would 

have on those premiums, copays, and deductibles for individuals? 

Dr. Baker first. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, of course, if you did go the full ride of Medicare 

for All, basically those all go away. I mean, this is—basically, what 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
149 

we are doing is taking money that we are paying out of our pocket, 

our employers paying for us, that will go in taxes. I mean, it is a 

tax increase, if people think that is bad, whatever. But, I mean, it 

is money that we are paying now and instead it will be paid by the 

government for these services. 

So it is—you know, it relieves that problem. There is no doubt 

about it. I mean, the question is, you know, how to do that in a 

way that is least disruptive, how to do that in a way that is as efficient as possible. But there is no doubt about it, it takes away 

those costs that are now borne by individuals. 

Ms. SCANLON. Can I follow up on that? Is there any analysis of 

how an individual’s tax burden would compare to their savings? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, a lot will depend on how you actually structure 

the tax. My friend Bob Pollin, I think it was referenced earlier, at 

the University of Massachusetts, did an analysis and they have a 

payment plan. It is, I think, a reasonable one, but, I mean, it really 

would depend on how you decide to pay it. 

And also, again, you know, I had emphasized this point earlier, 

getting cost down. Now, we do know we get administrative cost 

down and we could argue how much, but I think there is no doubt 

about it, we are getting rid of an insurance industry. We also get 

rid of the administrative expenses that hospitals, doctors’ offices, 

other providers have. That is a clear savings. 

The other question is what about the other inputs. How much 

will we save on drugs? I mean, I argue we should save a lot on 

drugs because I think we pay—I mean, basically, I think it is absurd. Drugs are cheap. We make them expensive. That seems stupid to me. Same with medical equipment. And I think our doctors’ 

pay should be more in line with doctors elsewhere in the world. 

But those are all things that are up for debate, how much do you 

depress those costs. 

But, again, you know, point of reference, we look at other countries, they pay about half as much per person on average. There 

is some range there. There is no reason we should be paying so 

much more than other countries. 

So can we get as low as the average, can we—will it take us 5 

years, 10 years? Those are all—you know, that is very, very much 

up for grabs. But it should mean that a typical person will pay 

much less in taxes than what they are paying now for their 

healthcare. 

Ms. SCANLON. Ms. Collins. Dr. Collins. 

Ms. COLLINS. Yeah, I would just say—add to that that, you know, 

there are—in my testimony, there are about 10 other bills that provide sort of smaller steps towards universal—ultimately towards 

universal coverage. And there have been lots of different reform approaches that have been modeled by the Urban Institute and 

RAND; approaches that the Commonwealth Fund has funded modeling for. 

So there are lots of ways to improve people’s cost sharing to 

lower premiums. Even in employer-based plans, there are lots of 

policies for moving this more slowly. Obviously there are tradeoffs. 

The Affordable Care Act, the lesson of the Affordable Care Act has 

been that we haven’t seen any congressional legislation to improve 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
150 

the Affordable Care Act since it was passed. So there are definitely 

tradeoffs. 

But I would also say for people with employer-based coverage, 

there are lots of hidden costs in employer-based coverage. People 

make wage concessions so that they can have employer coverage. 

People, contribute a lot in premiums even with the wage concessions, and they are seeing increasingly higher deductibles. 

So a movement towards Medicare for All obviously would replace 

those costs because it would do away with the employer-based system, and taxes would rise in order to finance that. But for many 

people, depending on how you would structure the taxes, many people would probably see a net cost of health insurance go down depending on their income. So the incidence of taxation would matter 

quite a bit. 

But I think the controversy in Vermont really did come down to 

legislators not being able to explain this change of financing from 

premiums to taxes to their constituents. 

Mr. BAKER. If I could also just add quickly on Vermont. You 

know, I think every one of us agree that at least the goal, I mean, 

of Medicare for All is putting downward pressure on input prices 

like drugs, like medical equipment, which certainly the U.S. as a 

consumer can clearly do. Vermont with 600,000, 700,000 people 

probably doesn’t have the same sort of bargaining power. 

Ms. SCANLON. In speaking with experts in my home State of 

Pennsylvania, they have talked about long-term care as being one 

of the big drivers in cost and an issue that we really need to struggle with, particularly with all of the aging boomers coming into the 

system. How does Medicare for All deal with that? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, the plan, you know, the Jayapal plan does 

cover long-term care, and that is a major problem in the current 

system, both because it is not covered in general, but also, you do 

have this coverage under Medicaid which creates this absurdity 

where you have many people that could get by fine with home 

healthcare that is not covered, but they could have nursing home 

care that is covered. 

It is obviously a less desirable situation for that person and their 

family, if they could get by with having some minimal amount of 

home healthcare to then—rather than going into a nursing facility, 

but on top of that, of course, it is much more expensive. 

So it is—you know, what we want to do is provide people with 

the care they need, not have them getting care that they may not 

need, but that is affordable because of the way we have structured 

the payment system. 

Ms. SCANLON. You had something? 

Ms. COLLINS. And I think too there has been talk about people 

losing their Medicare. But actually, under the bills, the Medicare 

for All bills, Medicare benefits would actually improve substantially, including with the addition of long-term care and home 

health services. 

Ms. SCANLON. So that would be another area where there could 

be substantial savings as a result of transitioning to this system? 

Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. I mean, you get all sort—you know, we 

have had references to this earlier. You have all sorts of perversions in our current system because some things are covered, I 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
151 

mean, most importantly emergency room, so people can’t see a primary care physician, run to the emergency room. So that is not 

good healthcare, and it is an incredible waste of resources. The people in the emergency room should be dealing with emergency situations, not someone who can’t see a primary care physician. 

Ms. SCANLON. In terms of a just transition for those whose livelihoods are dependent upon the current system, can you speak at all 

to how that would occur? 

Mr. BAKER. It really depends on how you write in—what you 

write into the law. So can you have something where you have special employment benefits for people in the insurance industry? It 

would be the most obvious people who would lose out. I mean, I 

think that is a reasonable thing that has come up with climate 

change as well. So what are we going to do for people in the fossil 

fuel industry if we move aggressively to promote solar and wind 

energy. 

So I think that is a reasonable thing for Members of Congress 

to look at. I mean, it is not in here in part. You know, I know the 

Jayapal bill has, you know, support for that, but, I mean, again, 

how you structure that, you know, it really depends on what Congress were to decide. 

And obviously, it is a consideration that we don’t want to see 

workers lose their jobs and suddenly be unemployed. Is the situation worse than in other industries, because, you know, better or 

worse, workers are always losing their job. I don’t mean to be cryptic about that. I take that very, very seriously, but I am just saying 

we have to think carefully how does that fit in with our other benefits. 

Ms. SCANLON. Can you also—— 

Mr. BARKAN. Representative—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Yes. 

Mr. BARKAN [continuing]. May I please weigh in on the cost 

issue? 

Ms. SCANLON. Please. 

Mr. BARKAN. It is very important to emphasize the following 

point: These cost savings are only possible through a genuine Medicare for All system. Other proposals to increase health insurance 

coverage, such as those that would make Medicare compete with 

private insurance, would not facilitate administrative and billing 

savings. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. I actually was just going to speak to that 

subject and whether—what you saw is the pluses and minuses of 

the proposals that we move to a public option that would force the 

private insurance companies to compete. 

Mr. BAKER. Yeah. I actually am sympathetic to that as an interim measure. I mean, I would like to see us get to Medicare for 

All, but I laid out, you know, what would you do in a transition. 

And I said part of the story first is, you know, we have kind of glaring inadequacies of the current Medicare program. Most obviously, 

there is no out-of-pocket cap, which is something—I am embarrassed to say how long I was in Washington doing policy work before I realized that, because it is kind of like why is there not an 

out-of-pocket cap? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
152 

Also, the fact that prescription drugs are—we have a separate 

drug benefit, that makes no sense. You don’t have separate drug 

benefits in the private sector. Why did we think that made sense 

in Medicare? 

So having those together—and also, of course, Representative 

Woodall made reference to the fact that many people get Medicare 

Advantage. Well, part of the story is we are subsidizing that. So 

we pay about 15 percent—I think it is 13 percent more for a person 

on Medicare Advantage than we would pay for the person with the 

same healthcare condition in the traditional plan. Those are serious problems with the traditional plan. 

But in terms of the savings, if you envision a situation where we 

actually fix the Medicare program, so we probably have instead of 

two-thirds of people on traditional Medicare, probably 80 or 90 percent. I mean, I am guessing here, but, you know, clearly a higher 

percentage. And then on top of that we let people buy into it, I 

think we are talking about a massive, you know, program at that 

point. 

And I think there would be administrative savings for the simple 

reason that what I suspect is you would have a lot of providers that 

say we don’t want non-Medicare people. You know, we—you know, 

this is a huge blind spot. They might ask ‘‘why do we want to deal 

with United Health and other insurers when it requires so much 

additional administrative staff?’’ 

But the point is, you know, why do we want to play with them 

when we have this huge block, we know what they are doing, it is 

standardized, we don’t have to play games. So I think there would 

be large administrative savings, which is not to say I don’t want 

to see us go all the way towards Medicare for All, but I am just 

saying there would be savings with the intermediate step. 

Ms. SCANLON. Dr. Collins. 

Ms. COLLINS. I think there are some very critical design issues 

too in the Medicare for All in where you set the provider rate. The 

bills propose at Medicare rates, but clearly some of the analyses 

that have been done have looked at rates that are somewhat higher. 

But that is also a key design issue for a public plan. And going 

with a public plan option based on Medicare, maybe rolling it out 

in certain parts of the country where there are very few insurance 

companies gives—would give us an opportunity to see how that 

would work, where you would set the price, and what might work 

the best. So that would be an advantage of starting with a public 

plan based on Medicare or Medicaid. 

Ms. SCANLON. And that also relates back to the chairman’s concern that if we keep slashing Medicare and Medicaid funding, then 

it becomes more difficult to get people on the provider side to buy 

in. 

Ms. COLLINS. That is right, yep. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Lesko. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is important to note that all of us, no matter what side 

of the aisle we are on, want to improve healthcare. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
153 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlelady yield just one second? 

Mrs. LESKO. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. If it is okay, I think what I am being told is that 

everybody needs a little bit of a break. If it is okay with you, can 

we take a break for votes and then come back? 

Mrs. LESKO. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you can’t come back, then we will go right 

to you. 

Mrs. LESKO. Can I come back? 

I can come back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. So we are going to take a little bit of a 

break. 

Right. So we are going to take a little bit of a break, you know, 

and when votes are over with, we will come back. And we have a 

few more people to ask questions and then closing remarks and 

then we will bring this to a conclusion. 

So I thank the witnesses for their patience, but I think you are 

entitled to a break now. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Rules Committee will come back to order. 

And before I yield to Mrs. Lesko, I just want to ask unanimous 

consent to insert into the record a statement from Congresswoman 

Norma Torres, who is on this committee, who wanted to be here 

today, but she was on a fact-finding mission to South America and 

she has encountered some unforeseen problems leaving the country 

so she can’t be here. But I am hoping that means that—— 

Mr. COLE. We had nothing to do with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. I ask unanimous consent to put this in. 

But Mrs. Torres, I know, is a strong advocate for universal 

healthcare. 

[The information follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
154 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 36400A.089
155 

The CHAIRMAN. So at this point, where we left off, I will yield 

again to Mrs. Lesko. 

Mrs. LESKO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I hope Rep. Torres 

comes back soon. That is—hopefully, she is not being held against 

her will or something. 

Okay. You know, I just wanted to say we have had a long discussion here, and I think members on both sides of the aisle—I mean, 

I can speak for myself and my friends on the Republican side—we 

want to solve the healthcare problem. We do believe that there is 

problems in the healthcare right now and that improvements can 

be made. But I think we should do this in a bipartisan fashion, because I think really big issues like this actually need to be done 

in a bipartisan fashion. 

So when I was in the State legislature in the State senate, I actually worked on legislation to address surprise medical bills, 

which had been brought up before. And I got everybody together 

in a room and we kind of hashed it out. It was controversial, but 

we got it done. So I think that if we did work in a bipartisan fashion, we actually could get things done, even though we disagree on 

certain issues. I do really believe it can be worked out. 

However, this bill is not bipartisan. This is a very partisan bill. 

And I am sure that you know that most, if not all, Republicans in 

the House are probably going to vote against it, if it gets up for a 

vote. And certainly, the Senate is not going to hear it. So, you 

know, I don’t know why we are doing this, but, you know, we are, 

so here we are. 

So as we have discussed in this several hours here, several reputable studies have been—have put that the extra price tag to the 

government of a one-size-fits-all healthcare system is north of $30 

trillion, with a T, over 10 years. And as has been said before, some 

States have already tried to implement government-controlled 

healthcare, but the price tag is too high. 

In Vermont, as was stated, they said no because it said that the 

payroll taxes were going to increase by 11.5 percent and income 

taxes by 9 percent. And that was enough for even the Bernie Sanders constituents to say no thank you to this government-controlled 

healthcare. 

Given this history and that the Federal Government is already 

running massive debt deficits and the Medicare program is already 

reaching insolvency, I think that it is unclear that this new bill is 

going to solve any of our problems, and it is questionable how it 

is even going to be paid for. 

I would like to spend some time now talking about one of the 

most successful innovations in Medicare since its inception, the 

Medicare Advantage plan programs. This bill would take that all 

away, as we have talked about before. All Medicare Advantage 

plans would be gone. And so Medicare Advantage enrollment has 

almost tripled from about 7 million people in 1999 to over 20.4 million people that want Medicare Advantage in 2018. 

The 2019 annual report of the Medicare trustees released last 

week indicates that 37 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are currently in a Medicare Advantage plan and that this percentage is 

expected to rise to 40 percent over the next 10 years. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
156 

Also, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 88 percent of 

Medicare Advantage enrollees have plans which include prescription drug coverage, and about half of these beneficiaries pay no 

premium at all, which is the case of my mother. My mother is on 

a Medicare Advantage plan. She loves it. She doesn’t pay anything 

extra for drugs. And I can tell you that if we took this away from 

her, she would not be happy. And if we forced her into another 

plan, she would be confused, because it is difficult, as you all know, 

to navigate this whole healthcare system. 

So, I guess, I wanted to point out, I got some numbers of how 

many people in—are members here that are here present today 

have their constituents that are on Medicare Advantage and that 

would lose it under this bill. 

So the first one, the one that has the most people under Medicare Advantage is actually Representative Morelle. You have 

98,360 of your constituents or 66.4 percent of all the Medicare population has Medicare Advantage in your district. And, Ms. Shalala, 

you have 81,043 of your constituents that have Medicare Advantage, which makes up 60.3 percent of all the people on Medicare. 

I come in third at 75,887 of my constituents are currently on Medicare Advantage, which is 44 percent of all of the people on Medicare in my district. And I can go on and on. But my point is, Medicare for All would take away all of this from everyone. 

And so my question is to Ms. Turner. What do you think about 

that? Do you think seniors are going to be happy that their Medicare Advantage plans are taken away? 

Ms. TURNER. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to voluntarily, 

as you said, enroll in private plans that provide better coordinated 

care, integrated care so that they can have one plan that provides 

access to physician coverage, to hospital care, prescription drugs, 

vision, and dental. And MA plans often provide additional benefits. 

So, yes, I think seniors have gravitated to these plans because 

they give them more resources to deal with an ever-more complex 

healthcare system, and they highly value this coverage. And now, 

about 20 million seniors overall are on Medicare Advantage, and as 

you say, the number grows all the time. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. 

And my next question really has to do with how the bureaucracy 

would work under this program. So I would like to take a few minutes to walk through what I understand the process a hospital 

would need to go through to fix a leaking roof under this bill. 

So let’s start off with a simple example and what happens under 

the current system. The roof is leaking. The hospital administrator 

or maintenance division calls somebody out to inspect it. Maybe 

they get a couple of bids, decide on a contractor, and the leak gets 

fixed. Pretty simple. 

But what happens, as I have been told, under this Medicare for 

All bill, well, first, since the hospital has a provider agreement, it 

needs to get funds from the government’s capital expenditure budget to fix its roof. To get those funds, they have to submit an application to the regional director. Once they submit the application, 

they have to wait, wait until the regional administrator decides to 

review the application. How long will that take? What happens to 

the roof in the meantime? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
157 

But that is not the end of the process. After it goes through the 

regional director, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 

to review the application and decide whether to approve the application and how much money should be provided. 

Now, I am sure that the Secretary of the Health and Human 

Services has many more important things to do than go through 

applications for funding of a leaking roof. So how long does that 

take? Who knows. This bill doesn’t set any limits on either of these 

two review processes. 

So a hospital could be sitting for months in line waiting for their 

application to be reviewed. We all know how painful it can be going 

to DMV, department of motor vehicles, sitting in that line, waiting 

for your number to be called. Imagine having to go to a Federal Department of Motor Vehicle for every little thing you need. Need a 

new X-ray machine? New application and wait. Need to buy the 

software upgrade for your electric (sic) health records system? New 

application and wait. 

And every single Medicare for All provider across the country is 

going to be forced through this one system. Everyone will be doing 

a lot of waiting. We need less bureaucracy in the system, not more. 

So that is a problem I see. 

Also, Ms. Turner, you have spoken about wait times in your testimony in other countries who have government-run healthcare. Is 

there anything in this bill to protect the American people from astronomical wait times? 

Ms. TURNER. There is not. And I do believe the promises being 

made about Medicare for All evoke memories of earlier promises— 

that health insurance premiums would go down by $2,500 a year 

for a typical family, that everybody could keep their doctor, everybody could keep their plan . . . 

It is easy to say these things, but much, much harder to deliver. 

When you wind up with a system that is promising free access to 

the system without any checks, it is impossible to imagine the current infrastructure being able to meet the demands for care without having ever-lengthening queues. 

And that is, of course, what we see in other countries and why 

the Fraser Institute keeps track of how long those waiting times 

are, and why in the U.K., people can be waiting for a year for surgery. In Canada, the province may run out of money before the end 

of the year. And if you had a surgery canceled in late November, 

sorry, the hospital is not doing any more surgeries this year. Get 

back in line. 

Mrs. LESKO. Yeah. And so speaking of wait times, you know, it 

wasn’t that long ago that Phoenix VA Medical Center was in the 

news, in the spotlight because of really long wait times for our veterans at the hospital. And some of the claims were that veterans 

died while they were waiting. 

And so one of the solutions that has been worked on and was 

supported by our late Senator John McCain was that there be more 

freedom of choice for the veterans outside of the government-run 

healthcare plan so that they could go see a private doctor if there— 

the wait lines—the wait time was too long. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
158 

Now, to me, Ms. Turner, does this seem like the opposite approach, like we are going to more government-run healthcare instead of allowing patient choice? 

Ms. TURNER. This plan is extraordinarily comprehensive in 

bringing everybody and virtually all current systems—public and 

private—under the Federal Government’s control. Even in the 

U.K., people can buy private insurance. In Canada, patients who 

can afford it come to the U.S. for care. The Mayo Clinic has thousands of patients coming to the United States from Canada. So the 

fact that people would have a difficult time finding a private option 

in this country under Medicare for All, I think, would concern 

many Americans. 

Mrs. LESKO. Well, thank you. It certainly concerns me. 

Dr.—— 

Mr. BARKAN. Congresswoman, may I make a comment about 

Medicare Advantage? 

Mrs. LESKO. Can I ask Dr. Blahous a question first, and then if 

I still have time, certainly. 

Dr. Blahous, will this bill provide free healthcare for illegal immigrants? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, the bill I analyzed indicates that it would 

be—the benefits would be provided for every resident of the United 

States, and it is left to the Secretary of HHS to basically promulgate regulations that define who a resident is. There is nothing in 

the legislation that excludes the undocumented immigrants from 

receiving benefits, so my working assumption was that they would 

be eligible for benefits, yes. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. 

And as members, as we have—you already know, I come from a 

district where the number one—the number one concern is border 

security and illegal immigration. I know we all come from different 

districts, and so I can tell you that my constituents and I would 

guess the majority of citizens in the United States would not feel 

happy that they are going to be forced to pay for illegals that aren’t 

citizens free healthcare. 

And so with that, I am done with my questions. And, sir, you had 

a comment. 

Mr. BARKAN. Medicare for All would deliver all of the benefits 

that are currently provided for with Medicare Advantage. Seniors 

wouldn’t lose the choice of paying for Medicare Advantage. They 

would receive better coverage for no cost. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. And thank you for your comment. But 

I can tell you, firsthand experience, my mother is on Medicare Advantage. It took quite some time to figure out which program was 

the correct one for her, and now she likes the doctors that she has, 

she is happy with that, she doesn’t like changes. 

And my understanding is that this bill would take away that program and require everyone, everyone, no matter what they are on, 

if they are on Medicare Advantage or not, they would all have to 

take this government-run program, and I just find that unacceptable. It is not based on choice. It is government-run mandated 

healthcare. 

Thank you. And I yield back my time. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
159 

The CHAIRMAN. I know Dr. Nahvi was trying to be recognized. 

You still have 44 seconds, so why don’t we yield to him. 

Dr. NAHVI. I will be real quick. So I guess one thing that is worth 

pointing out is that regarding undocumented immigrants, we are 

already providing care for them for free in the most expensive way 

possible. They are coming to the ER because of that 1986 law 

signed by Ronald Reagan, and they are getting care and no one can 

stop them, and it is the most expensive place to get it. 

Medicare for All would provide such that these patients who are 

already getting care would just get that care in a more fiscally responsible way at the primary care doctor’s office. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, sir, I thank you for your testimony. But most people in the 

United States are not going to voluntarily want to be paying for illegal immigrants’ free healthcare. And so there is a difference between people coming here illegally and showing up in the ER. 

And, by the way, we have a huge crisis at the border. And I 

hope—I am going to introduce several pieces of legislation, and I 

hope that Republicans and Democrats will get on board and realize 

we have a crisis at the border and we have to mitigate it. 

But I can tell you, I go to a lot of different meetings in my district and, quite frankly, throughout the State, and there is not 

going to be anybody happy about paying their taxes for free 

healthcare for illegal immigrants. 

Dr. NAHVI. But it is not about ideology. We are already doing 

that. The only difference would be we would save money in doing 

the same thing that we are doing now. 

Mrs. LESKO. Well, we can debate this. Obviously, we disagree, 

but I can tell you, I have heard loud and clear from people consistently they do not want their taxes going to pay for free healthcare 

for illegal immigrants. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I have a couple of unanimous consent requests. First, without objection, I would like to insert into the record a letter from the 

Washington Community Action Network, Washington State’s largest grassroots community organization with 44,000 members. 

[The document is printed at page 253] 

I would like to insert a letter from the Labor Campaign for single-payer healthcare with 15 national unions at eight State labor 

federations and a large number of local and regional organizations. 

[The document is printed at page 254] 

I would like to insert a letter from the Social Security Works, an 

organization which seeks to protect and improve the economic security of disadvantaged and at-risk populations; a letter from Dr. 

John Aldis, a doctor in West Virginia. And they all support Congresswoman Jayapal’s Medicare for All legislation. 

[The document is printed at page 255] 

The CHAIRMAN. Also, Rebecca Wood’s daughter, Charlie, who— 

this is Charlie right there—was born prematurely. I mentioned this 

at the beginning of my testimony. She had suffered through more 

infections, surgeries, physical therapists, and injections than most 

of us deal with in our lifetime. Her medical costs added up quickly, 

and much of that was paid for out of pocket. The financial devastaVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
160 

tion that forced her family to make tough choices regarding Charlie’s treatment highlights the need for adequate long-term care in 

this country. 

Without objection, I would like to insert into the record this story 

submitted by Rebecca Wood where she thanks Representative 

Jayapal for her work. In the story she says, and I quote: Long-term 

supports and services included in this bill are crucial to families 

like mine. The bill would provide mandatory coverage of community-based services that people with disabilities need and want. Additionally, it ensures that services are equal across geographic 

areas, a problem that I have personally had to contend with. I 

want that in the record as well. 

[The document is printed at page 258] 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Dr. Blahous, I want to thank you. This is 

a personal thing for me, but when talking about the issue of immigrants, you referred to this group of people as undocumented immigrants. I much prefer that than having people refer to them as 

illegals. It is just a personal thing with me. 

I don’t think anybody in this world is illegal, but I will just say 

to Mrs. Lesko who asked why are we doing this hearing, I mean, 

we are doing this hearing because many of us, not just Democrats 

but Republicans as well, are concerned about the fact that we have 

29 million people who do not have insurance, over 40 million people 

who are underinsured, who are afraid to get sick because they are 

afraid they are going to go bankrupt, and we need to do better. The 

system that we have in place is deeply flawed and it is hugely expensive, and we all think we can do better. 

I think Medicare for All is the way to go. Others have different 

opinions. But that is why we are here. And, you know, I would love 

to come up with a bipartisan solution here, but I will remind my 

colleague that—because I have been in the minority for 8 years. 

And every time there was a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 

I don’t recall ever being consulted or ever being asked to be part 

of any kind of discussion on how we should move forward. 

And before I yield, I know Mr. Barkan had an additional comment he wanted to make. 

Mr. BARKAN. Congresswoman Lesko, you said you are not sure 

why we are doing this hearing, given that the Republican-controlled Senate won’t pass Medicare for All. First of all, if you don’t 

remember, I want to remind you that we last ran into each other 

in Arizona during your election. 

Mrs. LESKO. I do. 

Mr. BARKAN. At that time, when I asked you about Paul Ryan’s 

plans to cut Social Security, you had no idea what I was talking 

about. 

Mrs. LESKO. That is not accurate. 

Mr. BARKAN. Well, it seems you have chosen to not get your facts 

straight today either. Why are we having this hearing? To keep 

people alive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond. 

The CHAIRMAN. I yield. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
161 

You know, the reason that I said that statement is because we 

are going through the Rules Committee, first of all. It is not—this 

bill is not being heard in a regular committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are a committee. 

Mrs. LESKO. And also, I would like—this is a big issue, and I do 

believe we need to have high-quality healthcare at a reasonable 

cost for patients. And I concede that we can definitely improve on 

our healthcare system. 

But something this big, what—my point was something this big 

and this major, I think both parties need to work on together. And 

we are not going to agree on everything. I already know this. I did 

pension reform in my State. I did surprise medical bill. I did contentious things, but we worked through it. 

And I know that, you know, Representative Cole has said that 

in the past here he has worked on big issues in bipartisan fashion, 

and that is what I think we should do. Now, this—I mean, you 

must concede that you don’t think that this is going to pass because you didn’t ask for input from Republicans. 

And even though we are in the minority here, the Senate is still 

Republican and you still have a Republican President. And so that 

was my comment, why I said that, because we—I would hope that 

we would work on something that is actually going to pass, and 

that is what I would like to do. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And, again, we are the Rules Committee. We are the oldest committee in the Congress, and we are one of the committees to which 

this bill was referred. And I hope all the other committees do hearings. Unlike when my colleagues were in charge where there were 

no hearings on any of these issues, we are doing hearings. 

And in terms of input, everybody is offering suggestions and we 

have witnesses who have all kinds of opinions, and we are having 

this discussion. This is what you are supposed to do. This is a deliberative process, right. 

And I think this has been good. I think this discussion has been 

good. I don’t agree with what most of my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle have said. I think it has been a good discussion, 

and I think it needs to continue beyond this committee, and we are 

going to do that. 

Having said that, I now yield to Mr. Morelle. 

Mr. MORELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, thanks for organizing this hearing today. I think we 

have an extraordinary panel of people testifying. I think this is the 

appropriate place to begin the conversation around healthcare. And 

I would congratulate Congresswoman Jayapal for introducing an 

ambitious piece of legislation that has brought us together. 

This is an important conversation about a critical issue facing 

Americans—America’s patients and what we must do to ensure 

that we have quality, affordable healthcare for all of our citizens. 

Tomorrow, May 1, I would—should be celebrating my daughter 

Lauren’s 33rd birthday, but unfortunately, Lauren passed away 

nearly 2 years ago of triple-negative breast cancer. 

Doctor, thank you for all your good work on breast cancer. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
162 

And while it is a personal tragedy for my family and myself, we 

are hardly unique. I don’t think there is a member in this room, 

I don’t think there is a member in this body that hasn’t been personally touched by tragedy as it relates to healthcare. And we have 

certainly—there is no one who has not heard from countless citizens about the many ways in which their lives are touched by illness or by the difficulties in our healthcare system. 

After making what I consider significant progress, we are backsliding now because of purposeful action taken by the White House. 

At the end of 2018, the percentage of U.S. adults without health 

insurance reached a 4-year high. More than 1 million people across 

the Nation have lost coverage since 2016, and almost 14 percent of 

Americans are without health insurance today. Those are numbers 

we haven’t seen since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. 

And this is in part because of the actions of the President, cut 

funding for the ACA, push Americans into junk short-term health 

plans, which we don’t even allow in the State of New York where 

I am privileged to represent, deny essential services, shorten enrollment periods for families to sign up for coverage, create burden 

after burden to seek Medicaid coverage, and repeated attacks on 

women’s healthcare and essentially family—and essential family 

planning services. 

The fact is, Donald Trump does not have a plan to address 

healthcare, unless you consider dismantling the Affordable Care 

Act, stripping away protections for people with preexisting conditions, leaving millions of hardworking Americans without health 

coverage, a plan, to say nothing of the nearly 70 million uninsured 

or underinsured people in this country. 

Unlike the President, the members of this House believe it is 

critical we address the healthcare crisis head on, whether it is this 

plan or others. We can begin taking steps toward meaningful 

healthcare reform that lowers costs, improves and strengthens the 

quality of care, improve patient experience, the so-called triple aim 

of healthcare, and ensures every person in our Nation has coverage 

they can depend on. 

And I think the American public has been clear. They want essential health benefits, protections from annual and lifetime caps 

without discrimination based on preexisting conditions. 

And I would say that the President and many of his colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle, including Senator McConnell, who 

has indicated that the Senate, despite the talk about bipartisanship here, isn’t prepared to even address healthcare until after the 

2020 elections, which I consider reprehensible at the very least. 

I think instead we welcome the opportunity to look to the future 

and begin the work of making our healthcare system, which has serious shortcomings and concerns, more affordable, more equitable, 

and simpler for people in my community and across this country. 

So I think this hearing is entirely appropriate. 

Having said that, I—there are a number of concerns. I have a 

number of questions regarding the financing of this system, 

healthcare cost trend lines, cost containment measures, some of 

which have been talked about, provider reimbursement. 

So I would like to start perhaps, and I would ask anyone to feel 

free to respond, but I note that, Dr. Collins, you have talked a little 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
163 

bit about this, but Dr. Baker as well, the—currently, as I look at 

it, we spend, according to CMS, $3.5 trillion a year in healthcare 

all in, that is all payers, private insurance, public insurers, and my 

back of the envelope, which is not very good. 

But even if you assume the 3.5 percent increase in the CPI and 

healthcare, which is pretty low, but let’s just for argument’s sake, 

we would be at about 4 and 3-quarter trillion dollars in 2026 over 

the next 10 years, about $41 trillion healthcare spent. Most of that, 

as I think you know, goes to healthcare spends in hospitals and 

physicians. 

So what I am struggling to understand is—and right now, Medi- care payroll is about, I think, $289 million out of what is right now 

a $3.5 trillion spent. So as I think about it, and I was trying to figure out how this works, we saw it today in The New York Times, 

the number of corporations in the United States are now paying 

zero taxes, some getting rebates, how we will struggle to make this 

work unless there is a pretty dramatic increase in payroll tax. 

And I recognize—I apologize for the long question—but I recognize that people are paying premiums now. Those premiums presumably would go to pay, now instead of premiums, taxes, which 

will pay for the spend. So there is clearly a movement of those. But 

there are disparities as well. Some businesses pay for health insurance right now, coverage for their employees; others do not. 

So this is not as though it is going to be a smooth transition. But 

if you could talk about how the financing would work, in some detail, and if you have thoughts about income taxes, payroll taxes, 

other forms of taxes or premiums to meet that spend. 

Mr. BAKER. I will take a stab at that. First off, you know, there— 

you know, we have talked about this. There clearly are large administrative savings. You know, most immediately we know that 

the private health insurance industry spends about 20 percent, in 

fact, probably about 25 percent of what it pays out in benefits in 

administrative cost. Whereas our private—whereas the Medicare 

system, traditional Medicare system, it is less than 2 percent. If we 

use Canada as a reference point, it is less than 3 percent. You 

know, so that allows for very, very large savings. In addition—— 

Mr. MORELLE. Yeah. May I—— 

Mr. BAKER. Go ahead. 

Mr. MORELLE. I apologize. But let me just—as I looked at it, the 

private insurance, this will help perhaps guide your answer, private insurance is about a third of the Medicaid—or of healthcare 

expense. 

Mr. BAKER. Healthcare. 

Mr. MORELLE. So about $1.2 trillion right now. And I—if you estimate 18 percent savings, which is I think what others have 

talked about, translates to about $214 billion. So I will give you 

that. So—but I want to talk about the tax. So let’s take that out 

of the mix, but you still have a—even if you—— 

Mr. BAKER. Right. 

Mr. MORELLE. Even if you could realize all $200 billion, you would still be at a $3.3 trillion spend. So let’s—I will give you 

that—— 

Mr. BAKER. Okay. But there is also—and I am not trying to avoid 

your question. There is also administrative costs that are incurred 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
164 

by hospitals, by doctors’ offices, other providers, which would largely go away. They don’t go to zero, but, again, comparing the U.S. 

to Canada, and there is research on this, our providers pay much 

more. So that would be additional savings. 

I also—you know, and I talked about this in both my written testimony and my oral comments, we do have to reduce payments to 

providers. There is no—you know, we pay twice as much for our 

drugs, for our medical equipment, for our doctors. You know, how 

much do you get those down, you know, you could argue on that. 

But I do think we have to get those closer in line to the rest of the 

world. 

Now, how do you get the rest of the money? To my view, I think 

a payroll tax has to be a very big part of the picture, because basically, healthcare premiums that are paid by employers are very 

similar to a payroll tax now. And as you point out, many employers 

don’t pay that. Well, I think that is a problem, you know. 

So, you know, just as we have had other mandates on employers 

and, in fact, we do have mandates on employers in the Affordable 

Care Act, then, you know, I think you would in effect have to do 

that with—you know, in effect, a payroll tax would be equivalent 

to a mandate. So I think that would be the biggest chunk. 

I would also look—and, again, obviously this could be done a 

thousand different ways towards, other forms of progressive taxation where you would disproportionately have high-end earners, 

whether it be income tax. You know, there is Senator Warren running for President who is proposing a wealth tax. I think there is 

problems with that. I don’t think you want me to get into that. But 

I think we can get more taxes from high-income people who have 

been the big winners in the economy over the last four decades. 

So—— 

Mr. MORELLE. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Anybody have anything that they would like to add relative to 

the—how we pay for this? 

Ms. COLLINS. I will just jump in real quick and just make the 

point I made earlier about the significant cost growth that is occurring from provider prices and private insurance. So that is a key 

growth push in the healthcare system right now. 

Mr. MORELLE. Yeah. And you answered that earlier, and I wanted to just understand a little better what you said. As I sort of 

think about it, and this is borne by the experience of talking to hospitals, physicians, other providers in my district and around New 

York, is that essentially the public payers, Medicare, Medicaid, 

CHIPs, and other programs, are too low for providers, and essentially the commercial world of the private insurance, whether it is 

self-insurance or the commercials, essentially subsidize payments 

to allow providers to be successful. 

Did you—but you said something earlier that I thought was at 

odds with that or—and I didn’t really understand that. 

Ms. COLLINS. Right. So that—so I will just—yes. So the literature 

on the cost shift, which is a cost shift from lower payments in 

Medicare program and Medicaid program, are made up by higher 

prices in the—— 

Mr. MORELLE. Correct. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
165 

Ms. COLLINS [continuing]. In private insurance. The literature 

really does not show that. 

A study that was done in Colorado on this issue found that the 

higher margins that providers were getting—the higher prices providers were getting in Colorado were going towards more administrative costs, higher margins, buildings, other things like that. 

There wasn’t evidence that there was a cost shift. The prices were 

not going to fund their lower rates on Medicare. 

Mr. MORELLE. So would your argument be—I am sorry. 

Ms. COLLINS. And there is an enormous amount of literature 

showing that too. 

Mr. MORELLE. So would your argument be that we could pay at 

Medicaid or Medicare rates and not substantially affect the quality 

of providers or that we would not impact their ability to provide 

service? 

Ms. COLLINS. You know, I think that they—so the—so a key 

thing about the healthcare market that is so different from every 

other market is that prices drive costs in this market. Costs in 

other markets drive prices, so prices are a fair reflection of the cost 

of production. In healthcare, and particularly in private insurance, 

we choose the prices we want to pay. We choose the cost level we 

want to be at. 

So the—we know there is huge amount of evidence right now 

that the major growth in healthcare costs is occurring in what we 

pay providers and private insurance. If we want to get control of 

our healthcare costs, we have to start focusing on that issue. And 

this—— 

Mr. MORELLE. So—— 

Ms. COLLINS. What these bills have done—— 

Mr. MORELLE. Yes. 

Ms. COLLINS [continuing]. Is bring this issue up. 

Mr. MORELLE. The—so that—and I—some of you have looked at 

other health systems around the world. You know, in Rochester, it 

would not be unusual to pay a neurologist, a neurosurgeon 3 quarters of a million dollars or more, and we are not one of the higher 

costs compared to some other metro areas. What would be a comparison to what a surgeon of that kind would get compensated for 

in another place? Canada? Great Britain? Anyone know? 

Mr. BAKER. Odds are it would be closer to $200,000, $250,000. 

They would be getting compensated considerably lower. Now, you 

know, I have had arguments with doctors about their compensation 

because they all think they get too little, but, you know, they don’t 

pay for their education, for the most part, in other countries. I 

mean, to my view, that is not closely offsetting, but, you know— 

but they don’t—that is a point to keep in mind. 

Mr. MORELLE. Yeah. I want to talk just a little about—— 

Mr. BARKAN. May I comment, Congressman? 

Mr. MORELLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARKAN. I want to say you are asking good questions. It is 

important to ensure we have a clear way to pay for such an ambitious policy proposal, but we are the richest country in the history 

of the world. We pay for far more expensive things like wars of 

choice. We can afford to do this. We just need to decide to make 

it happen. It is a political challenge, not an economic one. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
166 

Mr. MORELLE. Well, I appreciate that very much. And I agree 

with you that this is ultimately about what people are willing to 

do, but there are challenges to doing this and there will be disruptions in the marketplace. But we would—if we didn’t go into it with 

a clear-headed view of what this will mean, then I think we are 

doing a disservice to have this conversation without talking about 

that. 

I do want to talk—and I apologize, I only have just a couple minutes left. As it relates to cost containment, utilization issues, I was 

involved in a practice transformation grant that we got from the 

Affordable Care Act I chaired back in Rochester called the Rochester Health Innovation Collaborative, where we embedded essentially case managers that were nurse practitioners that worked on 

social determinants of care, really tried to drive down the cost 

curve for—particularly for older, chronically injured or chronically 

ill individuals. 

We had some success. I am not really sure where I see the pressure to do that in this system. This is—from my mind, unless you 

have a different view, this is essentially a fee for service. Not sure 

how utilization declines or how you get better coordinated care, because I don’t see incentives to do that, but perhaps in the last moment or so folks could comment, anyone on the panel. 

Dr. BROWNE. Yes. Thank you so much for the question. I think 

if you are looking at the plan and the comprehensiveness of the 

services that you are going to provide, it behooves the plan to have 

those coordinators that are part of it that is going to go out, and 

whether it is community health workers in cancer, of course, we 

call them navigators, that is going to make the patients understand 

how to utilize the system in a more appropriate way. 

So you are talking about a patient-provider partnership and you 

are going to bring about better care. You are looking at whether 

you are providing them nutrition and food services, exercise programs—— 

Mr. MORELLE. Well, and I—and I don’t mean to cut you off. I 

think that those are all great, and I agree with you. The goal here 

ought to be try to reduce the healthcare spend or at least bend the 

cost curve down, and you can do that with some of those things. 

I am just not sure that I see in a fee-for-service system that this 

essentially moves to where the incentives are to do that. I am not 

sure who provides that kind of coordination, because I don’t see an 

incentive in this. I just see fee for service. I am really afraid of that 

because I think it blows out potentially the long-term healthcare 

trend lines in terms of cost. 

Dr. BROWNE. Well, I am looking at it sort of in a prepaid way 

so you have incentives built in the program. If you are basing it 

on the kinds of system that we have in TRICARE or you are looking at—and, again, that is a large integrated health system, or 

even some of the services that is provided under the VA, so you 

focus more on the preventive aspect of it. 

You want to keep—and TRICARE and all services want to keep 

our patients out of emergency rooms, and so you build in emergency care facilities, you then expand your hours, you get those 

people to practice prevention. And, again, that is not utilizing the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
167 

costs that is there, and then they can get an incentive for keeping 

people well and healthy. 

Mr. MORELLE. Well, and I completely agree, if there is a system 

that allows us to do that, and I am not sure this entirely sets up 

the incentives—— 

Mr. BARKAN. Global billing is exact—global billing is exactly how 

we bend the curve. No more fee for service. 

Mr. MORELLE. Well, I agree. I am just not sure that this proposal 

contains that, but—and if it does, what do you do in a metro region 

when you exceed your—I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I know I am— 

exceeded my time. But I appreciate your thoughts on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to finish your thoughts? 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes. I am just going to say one more thing. Medicare has been a leader in innovative payment practices for providers in accountable care organizations. I mean, there is no reason 

why those kinds of innovations could be brought into a bill like 

this. 

Mr. MORELLE. But haven’t those largely been done by some of 

the private insurers that create the programs around Medicare because you use private insurance right now to do it? I would love 

to talk to you maybe offline. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I apologize for taking up time. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. And I would yield to Mr. Cole because 

he has some unused time. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

I only have a couple minutes here, so I am going to kind of move 

you along pretty rapidly. Forgive me for that. 

Committees of primary healthcare jurisdiction right now are literally moving legislation that would make fixes to the ACA. And 

some of that legislation literally could be here in the next few 

weeks in front of this committee. 

So my question is this, and if you can, give me a yes or no, I 

would appreciate it. And I will start with you, Ms. Turner, is do 

you support abandoning the—these committee efforts to reform the 

ACA in favor of Medicare for All? 

Ms. TURNER. You know, the Trump administration is trying to do 

a lot of things to give people more choices who have been shut out 

of the market. Some of them are options such as short-term limited 

duration plans—— 

Mr. COLE. I have got to ask for a yes or no or I am not going 

to be able to get all the way through the panel. 

Ms. TURNER. So should they—should the—— 

Mr. COLE. Should they abandon those efforts and focus on Medicare for All, or should we keep moving with the efforts to fix the 

ACA? 

Ms. TURNER. I think we should try to do what we can to fix the 

ACA, both through administrative and legislative authority. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. I agree. 

Dr. NAHVI. I think that is a false choice. I think we could do 

both. 

Mr. COLE. It is really not a false choice. There is only so much 

time up here, and there is only so much bandwidth to actually 

move something that become law. We can have—we have debated 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
168 

a lot of legislation this year that is not going to become law. We 

have a chance, I think, to make some fixes that we probably all 

agree on in a bipartisan sense. So should they continue to prioritize 

working on that? 

Dr. NAHVI. If you need more bandwidth, I am happy to help. I 

know a lot of citizens that would sign up for this. 

Mr. COLE. I appreciate that, but I don’t think that is quite within 

your power legislatively. 

Dr. BROWNE. Universal health coverage is one way to fix it. 

Ms. COLLINS. I think that there are a lot of good ideas on the 

table and many bills that would move the system towards universal coverage, and even small little fixes could help millions of 

people. 

Mr. COLE. Mr. Barkan. 

Mr. BARKAN. Both, please. Thanks very much. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. 

Mr. BAKER. Yeah, if you could do fixes that would move the situation forward, do them, but I just don’t see this coming at the expense of a comprehensive solution. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I am out of time. Could I ask one quick question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blahous, let me ask you this, is Medicare going broke now? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is 

projected to be insolvent in 2026. That is actually less than half of 

Medicare. The other half of Medicare, by definition, cannot go insolvent because it is statutorily constructed so that you always give 

it enough money, but it also has financial strains going forward. So 

both sides of Medicare are in trouble. 

Mr. COLE. Let’s fix what we have got first before we launch into 

a new system. I mean, I think there is a lot of risk involved in this 

when we have a system that millions of Americans depend on that 

is going broke right now under the current financing mechanism 

we have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BAKER. Before the Affordable Care Act it was projected to go 

broke in 2019, this year. 

Mr. COLE. It suggests to me that we should be working on that, 

not Medicare for All. 

The CHAIRMAN. I yield another 2 minutes for Mr. Woodall. 

Mr. WOODALL. If you are offering, Mr. Chairman, I accept. Thank 

you. And if I could ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I have 

got a letter from the Partnership for Employer-Sponsored Coverage 

that I would like to have entered into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The document is printed at page 261] 

Mr. WOODALL. As you would imagine, they support employersponsored coverage. 

And, Dr. Collins, I just wanted to clarify. I think in response to 

a question the chairman asked you about plans going away, your 

response was it is not true that anyone would lose their insurance 

coverage. I think we so often conflate insurance coverage and 

healthcare access. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
169 

I think what is actually true is everyone would lose their insurance coverage because health insurance would no longer exist in 

America. Healthcare would exist in America. Am I misunderstanding the dynamic? 

Ms. COLLINS. Well, this is a single-payer insurance plan so people would have access to a set of benefits, and that would give 

them access to healthcare. I guess maybe I am not understanding 

your question. 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, let me go to one of our actuaries. The reason 

the trust fund is going to be insolvent isn’t that we are planning 

to stop providing care to people. It is that we have prefunded it 

through payroll taxes. There is no insurance out there. We just 

have a pot of money, and we are using that pot of money to pay 

for every claim that comes through the door. We are no longer insuring against risk; we are indemnifying folks with first dollar coverage. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. You are talking about under Medicare for All? 

Mr. WOODALL. Under Medicare today. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Right. I mean, you are basically providing first 

dollar provision of the entirety of people’s healthcare. So, right, in 

a sense you are not insuring them against the risk of a large future 

health expense or an unforeseen event. You are basically providing 

payment for every service, routine and large. 

Mr. WOODALL. And I wasn’t trying to wordsmith. I am just saying there is a different set of challenges to fix the insurance system 

than to fix ‘‘I am sick and I can’t get access to care’’ system. I have 

not heard Mr. Nahvi care two hoots about solving problems for insurers. He wants to solve problems for patients, a different challenge. 

Tell me, from a financing perspective—I appreciated Mr. 

Morelle’s questions. We serve on the Budget Committee together. 

We are not paying for the promises we make today. We are not 

paying for the wars we are in. We are not paying for the healthcare 

promises we make. I have got $3 trillion in revenue, $4.5 trillion 

in expenditures. I am happy to spend my children’s money, but apparently it is not important enough to me. I do think it should be 

important enough to us. This is an issue that is important to all 

of us. 

What is the order of magnitude that your numbers suggest we 

would have to increase our individual citizen contribution to pay 

for Medicare for All? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, again, on the national level, we are talking 

somewhere between $32 trillion, $38 trillion in additional funds 

provided to the Federal Government. On a per-capita basis, that is 

about $10,000 per head. 

Now, to your other point, we have a very substantial financing 

shortfall in our current Medicare system, and we have not figured 

out how we are going to finance that yet. That is a much more 

manageable problem than trying to finance what is called Medicare 

for All. It is actually sort of a national single-payer system that differs from Medicare in many ways. But that is several orders of 

magnitude more difficult than financing current Medicare, which 

we have not yet figured out how we are going to do. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
170 

Mr. WOODALL. And that shortfall is not a Republican or Democratic shortfall. That is just an American shortfall. When you are 

talking about your numbers, these aren’t Republican or Democratic 

numbers. There are conservative groups who are computing those 

scores and liberal groups computing the same order of magnitude? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. The estimates are remarkably consistent, regardless of who makes them. I provided a table with my written testimony that shows if you adjust for the years being estimated and 

particular assumptions for administrative costs or drug costs or 

provider payments, you can basically get a lot of these different estimates to line up. And they are pretty much all in the same ballpark. 

Mr. WOODALL. I am afraid I am out of time. I would welcome my 

chairman’s indulgence, but in the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But we let you go on for 2 minutes. 

Mr. WOODALL. I thought I had abused it already. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I yield to Ms. Shalala, let me just say one 

thing, two things. First of all, Dr. Baker is going to have to leave 

at 3:10, so I don’t know if there is anybody who has an urgent 

question for Dr. Baker. He is going to have to leave. He has got 

a hard stop. Thank you. 

Let me just say one other thing. You know, the question, should 

we fix the Affordable Care Act, or should we do Medicare for All 

or single comprehensive; I believe we can do great things here if 

we want to, right? We can walk and we can chew gum at the same 

time. When we have an ACA fix ready to go that will help more 

people, we should pass it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do more. 

We ought to be able to go on both tracks. I refuse to believe that 

we are incapable of doing great things. Look at our history, at what 

we have done. Medicare is a great thing, right? Social Security is 

a great thing. We don’t have to be picking and choosing. We can 

be doing both. 

And to my colleague, Mr. Woodall, I think I know what he is trying to do. He is trying to get a sound bite out here to say that people are going to lose their health insurance, you know, to add to 

the—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe you are suggesting 

that my goal here is to get a sound bite on an issue as important 

as this one. I mean, I hope that is not your goal. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hope I am wrong. I am simply saying that I 

think what is motivating us here is the fact that the system we 

have right now is deeply flawed and that we have 29 million Americans without insurance, over 40 million Americans underinsured. 

People are afraid to get sick. They are afraid to take their doctor’s 

advice. There is something terribly wrong, and we need to fix it. 

I know this is politically a hazardous topic to go down the road 

on, but we have to do it. I believe that this is a political condition, 

what we are faced with right now, because we can fix this. We 

have the resources to fix it. We have everything we need to fix it. 

It is whether we have the political will to fix it. And we will see 

whether we do or not. I hope we do, and that is why I think we 

can do small fixes, and we can do a larger piece here. Let me yield 

to Ms. Shalala. 

Ms. SHALALA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
171 

I actually think this has been a very smart hearing with very 

smart people and very good questions. So I want to thank all of my 

colleagues. The truth is if any of us had a chance to sit down and 

establish a healthcare system from scratch, none of us would have 

designed the system that we have. 

It is a system in which we have cobbled together over the last 

half century or so a number of programs to fill gaps. Some people 

may call them incremental, but I don’t consider Medicare and Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Plan or the passage of 

Medicare part D in the mid-2000s or the passage of the Affordable 

Care Act small steps. 

We Americans are not afraid of giant steps. And certainly, Congress has demonstrated over and over again that they have the 

backbone to take on big problems, put their arms around it and try 

to find a solution. In fact, that Affordable Care Act actually extended the Medicare, the HI fund by 8 years once we established 

it because it offset a lot of costs that would have otherwise been 

there. 

I want to see more changes in the healthcare system. I want to get to the place where Ady’s family does not have to pay $9,000 a 

month to allow him to live at home with his wife and child and 

where patients are not walking out of Dr. Nahvi’s emergency room 

with treatable conditions. We need that kind of healthcare system. 

I am for universal care. We have spent a lifetime filling in the 

blanks where the private sector couldn’t fill in the blanks. Government has stepped up for the working, for working folks, for the 

poor, for senior citizens time and time again. But now what we 

have got is a system in which we thought the employer-based system was going to be the core of healthcare forever in this country. 

We adopted it after World War II. The unions bought into it. But 

it is deteriorating. 

And anyone that has talked to employers or has looked at the 

statistics sees a deterioration of the employer-based system. I know 

that. I have been an employer. I have sat on corporate boards. 

CEOs are struggling with trying to predict their healthcare costs 

for the future. And what have they done? Most of us have shifted 

more cost to our employees, increased the deductibles. In fact, high 

deductibles have become the norm here in this country as we have 

tried to contain healthcare costs with very crude instruments. 

Throughout all of that, Medicare in many places in many ways 

has been a star, because it has been better at reforming costs, at 

trying different kinds of reforms, but more importantly, from my 

point of view, at containing cost. But I am perfectly willing to debate the cost issue and how we are going to pay for it. 

But we are here because the employee system is deteriorating in 

front of our eyes, as our companies have changed and as we have 

moved to a gig economy, as we have gotten smaller and smaller 

companies, as they have lost their leverage, and because we want 

better outcomes, because we pay twice as much as anyone else in 

the world for our healthcare. 

I am far more interested in focusing on outcomes and how we get 

to outcomes and how we get an integrated health system. But I am 

for universal care. I think Medicare for All is one way of getting 

there. And looking at the VA and its integrated care system, at 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
172 

TRICARE, at the military healthcare system, we got lots of experience. 

And I am not afraid of transferring our system if that is what 

we decide to do because we have got platforms. We have got lots 

of experience in taking large-scale problems and integrating them, 

and we have got lots of platforms. Medicare happens to be one of 

the platforms that we could do it. I could build the system. I don’t 

think I could do it in 2 years, but certainly our experience in the 

public system of taking advantage of platforms and extending it to 

more and more people is certainly possible. 

Dr. Collins, I would really like to start with you, though. I have 

some questions. Private insurers have been less effective at controlling costs than Medicare itself. In fact, private sector costs have 

gone up faster. You have talked about that a little bit, but you 

haven’t explained the reasons for it. Is it because they are a smaller part of the market than Medicare is? Could you talk us through 

the reasons why the private sector—before we laud the private sector, let’s talk a little about the deterioration as well as the failure 

of the private sector to be able to control costs themselves. 

Ms. COLLINS. Great question. One of the main reasons that we 

are seeing the price increases that we are seeing across the country 

in private insurance is the fact that prices are set through private 

negotiations between providers, hospitals, and insurers. And so 

providers, particularly in concentrated markets, have a lot of leverage to increase prices. 

Ms. SHALALA. This is the complaints that hospitals have that 

they don’t have enough docs to negotiate with, right? They don’t 

have options? 

Ms. COLLINS. Right. So insurers want a hospital in their networks because it makes their networks more valuable. So then that 

cost then gets shifted to the employers. So the employers have a 

higher premium than they might otherwise have, and they share 

those costs. They try to lower those costs, those premium costs, by 

increasing deductibles for employees. 

Employees are already making wage concessions, but they are 

having to have benefits with higher deductibles that actually give 

them less coverage. That is really kind of a simple way of looking 

at how prices are determined and how that kind of filters through 

the system and hurts employees, particularly employees at the 

midrange of the income distribution. 

Ms. SHALALA. Dr. Blahous, do you have anything to add to that, 

in terms of why the private sector has more trouble negotiating 

cost containment? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. I really don’t. I will be brutally honest, perhaps 

not that informative, but when I was doing the research for my 

paper, I found this area bewildering. I think Dr. Collins has a 

clearer view of the literature than I do. But obviously, I became informed in the course of the research of the paper about the discrepancies in payment rates between what Medicare pays and what the 

private sector pays, and I ran into a lot of conflicting explanations 

as to what was going on and why it was going on and what would 

be the consequences of making various changes. 

I ultimately concluded that it would be a fool’s errand on my part 

to venture too far into there and try to explain what was going on. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
173 

So, instead, I simply just flagged the issue. I noted where the payment rates are for private insurance relative to reported hospital 

costs, where Medicare’s are. I flagged the issue, identified it, and 

noted some of the conflicting interpretations out there, but I fell 

well short of being able to explain it. 

Ms. SHALALA. Do you, any of you, do you know very much 

about—I sat on the corporate boards, and one of the things that 

was apparent to me, particularly on healthcare boards, is that they 

are following the Medicare decisions on payment, that it is not the 

private sector setting up their own group to decide how much to 

pay; they are actually watching Medicare very carefully, and in 

many ways, Medicare is driving that cost. Is that your experience 

as well? 

Ms. COLLINS. I will just jump in really quickly, but I think it 

goes to Congressman Morelle’s question about Medicare and how it 

could lead in innovation in payment, bundled payment, all kinds of 

different ways of lowering healthcare costs. So it has been a leader. 

The Medicaid program has been a leader in lowering healthcare 

costs. There is not a lot of fat in the Medicaid program or the Medicare program. In fact, what is really driving cost in both those programs is enrollment rather than prices in the private—in the commercial market. 

Ms. SHALALA. Do you know a way in which, without an integrated system, we can get better outcomes? Is there any experience 

in this country in getting better outcomes without an integrated 

system? It seems to me that the VA has better outcomes. TRICARE 

has struggled with outcomes, but have done a pretty good job, as 

has the military healthcare system. 

Dr. BROWNE. But both of those are sort of integrated systems. So 

I don’t think there is one that is not an integrated system. And I 

do want to add the comment, in terms of the Medicare costs, particularly for Mr. Cole, when you set—and I will just use the driveby mastectomies that they had for a while, where patients had to 

stay in the hospital for a short time, get this procedure and go, so 

that you could lower the cost for those hospitals. The outcomes 

have been very different. They send patients home when they have 

congestive heart failure and some of those issues, and then the 

plans are penalized because, within a certain time period, those patients are coming back to the hospital. It is really not a cost savings under that program. 

You have to, again, practice better healthcare if you are going to 

lower those costs, and that is an integrated system. 

Ms. SHALALA. There is no question that Medicare Advantage has 

provided some integration, depending on the plan. And certainly in 

Florida, in my district, over 60 percent are in Medicare Advantage 

plans. They feel like it. But we are paying more for it. We are 

walking and we are paying at least 13 percent more for Medicare 

Advantage to get some integration, but it is still pretty fragmented 

when it comes to referrals for specialists. 

And that is, it seems to me, where the system breaks down because Medicare Advantage, often the HMOs come together, but 

they are mostly providing primary care and then contracting for 

the specialty care and contracting with as low cost as they possibly 

can for the specialty care. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
174 

But I haven’t seen the outcomes research on Medicare Advantage. Have any of you seen that outcomes research on Medicare Advantage? As far as I know, the research has not—even though we 

are paying more and people may be happier because they are going 

to one place, I would argue that Medicare Advantage is as close to 

Medicare as we are going to see—Medicare for All as we are going 

to see, but we don’t know very much about the outcomes yet. And 

I assume that that is your experience as well. 

And. Finally, let me give Mr. Barkan a chance to talk a little, 

again, about this fragmented healthcare system. How many interactions have you had to have with your private health insurance 

system in a month? Can you give us a feel for that? 

Mr. BARKAN. Maybe 5 or 10. 

Ms. SHALALA. You must be the best friend of your insurance company. These are all appeals, I assume, for them to cover more 

quickly? 

Mr. BARKAN. I cost too much. 

Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Barkan, of all of the people I have met on this 

Earth, you are the last person I would use that for. Thank you. 

Mr. BARKAN. Congresswoman, I want to say how important your 

voice is in this debate. As Chairman McGovern said, this is a question of political will. Many Democrats are going to follow your lead 

on this, so I just want to plead with you to summon all the courage 

you can and help lead our country to a more rational, just, and humane system. 

Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Barkan, I will try. I will try. 

Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I yield back to Mr. Cole. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One second, please. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, as I was thinking about this, I thought 

of the different, like fire, police, teacher unions and associations 

that negotiate their health plans, and sometimes it takes them 

years to get what they want. And they often trade better health 

plans in lieu of higher wages or salaries and other things. 

And so, Ms. Turner, would this bill take away the current 

healthcare plans negotiated by let’s say the teachers’ unions? 

Ms. TURNER. Yes, it would. And I think one of the concerns that 

would be raised is the compensation that workers have forgone in 

order to get those benefits. Many believe that could be very, very 

disruptive, and it is something that would be of particular concern 

because union members make considerable sacrifices in their takehome pay in order to get their generous health benefits. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you, Ms. Turner. 

And, members, I am just actually a little surprised that some of 

my colleagues would—you know, understanding that these different unions—fire, police, teachers—negotiate a lot, and I know 

they do because they came to me when I was in the State legislature, and take away that and replace it with a one-size-fits-all government-run plan. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I acknowledge Congressman Chuy Garcı ́a from 

Illinois who is here, and we want to thank him for coming by. 

I yield to Dr. Burgess. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
175 

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s talk just a little 

bit about global budgeting and what it means. So, if you have a 

budget and you have more expenditures than your budget, what 

happens? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, then you are going to have to cut something. 

You are going to have to—you have to cut the excess or restrict 

what you are paying. 

Dr. BURGESS. So can you envision a system where that would 

perhaps result in the rationing of care? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Well, yes. And if I might elaborate a little bit—— 

Dr. BURGESS. Please. 

Mr. BLAHOUS. There has been some discussion here about the effects of Medicare for All upon the demand for services. The economic literature is actually very, very clear and unanimous on this 

point. People do use or demand more health services when their insurance covers more. 

There was a very famous Rand insurance study several decades 

ago that demonstrated that when there is no cost-sharing, people 

utilize more services. There was a more recent study by Cabral and 

Mahoney about what happens when Medicare beneficiaries carry 

Medigap insurance that has first dollar coverage. Costs of the benefits that they claim goes up by about 22 percent. 

So these are very real, very well-documented effects. So we would 

expect to see a very significant increase above and beyond currently projected health services under Medicare for All. So I am 

sorry, but just to quickly wrap up, when at the same time we are 

going to have various constraints upon supply because of the provider payment reductions. We don’t know how those things will be 

balanced. The Urban Institute found there would be some insufficiency of supply to meet demand. I didn’t have the ability to model 

that, but clearly something would have to give. 

Dr. BURGESS. Something would have to give. I agree. And I am 

going to assume that the supplemental, Medicare supplementals 

have to go away under this bill that we are discussing today, I 

mean, because they would be duplicative and, by law, they would 

be unavailable to people, though it is not clear what the punishment would be for violating the law. I get that. 

So, Ms. Turner, let me just ask you, on the innovation side, new 

products, new drugs, new treatments, new devices come to market. 

I got to tell you, I mean, I deal a lot with people who are affected 

by coverage determinations by CMS. So what happens to a patient? 

Do they have to just wait until the next budget cycle if there is one 

of these new CAR-T therapies or new sickle cell therapy? They just 

have to wait until the next budget? 

Ms. TURNER. That is certainly what we see in Europe. We see 

that access to the most innovative and oftentimes the most effective medicines absolutely are restricted. As I said earlier, we have 

access to about 96 percent of new medicines over the last 11 years 

in the United States. In France, they only have access to about half 

as many new drugs. In Singapore, only 18 percent. 

So other systems do provide chemotherapy, for example, but it is 

less likely to be with the newest and best chemotherapy drugs. And 

then innovation is crippled. We see in Europe that their formerly 

robust pharmaceutical, medical development, medical device indusVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:10 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 036400 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A400.XXX A400

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
176 

tries have shrunk because of highly-restrictive payment policies in 

Europe. 

The U.S. now is the medicine chest for the world. Most new 

drugs come from the United States because we continue to pay for 

them. We pay for research for the planet, and people object to that. 

But those new medicines are available because of the incentives 

that the companies have to continue to produce those new medicines. And without that, I think we would find that we have older 

drugs and leaky hospitals. 

Dr. BURGESS. Right. And, of course, Cures for the 21st Century, 

an Energy and Commerce product, really moved the needle on that 

and Congress should be proud of that work. 

So, Ms. Turner, if current medical care and hospital provider 

rates are mandatory rates set for all health services, that is going 

to have an impact on patient access, correct? 

Ms. TURNER. Actually, the CMS actuary said that under cuts 

similar to those propose in Medicare for All, many hospitals would 

be forced to cut back dramatically on services, on operations, and 

some would have to close. Many physicians’ offices would be operating in the red. So yes, and this is not us issuing this warning. 

This is the CMS actuary looking at the potential impact. Many 

medical facilities simply wouldn’t be able to keep their doors open 

under the dramatic payment cuts required under Medicare for All. 

Dr. BURGESS. True story, personal experience. If you are losing 

money on every patient, you can’t make it up in volume. I learned 

that in the 1980s. 

So, Dr. Blahous, you have made some assumptions regarding 

provider cuts. Is that correct? 

Mr. BLAHOUS. Yes. Well, I have examined what was in the text 

of the bill, yes. 

Dr. BURGESS. So someone asked a question about provider rates 

in other countries. Here is an op-ed from The New York Post, and 

I am going to ask unanimous consent to put it in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The document is printed at page 264] 

Dr. BURGESS. Enrique Padron. In Cuba, doctors make the equivalent of 25 cents an hour, teachers 21 cents an hour, and pharmacists 8 cents an hour just for your reading pleasure. 

So, Ms. Turner, in the first quarter of last year alone, Britain’s 

National Health Service canceled 25,000 surgeries. Is this a problem for a one-size-fits-all system? 

Ms. TURNER. It is a problem when you have a strict global budget, forcing hospitals to make decisions about canceling or delaying 

surgeries, and people are seriously impacted. And once again, patients in other countries with government-run systems have access 

to fewer of the new treatments. If you are in a private system, you 

do have access to more of the new treatments, better surgeons. If 

you are in a public system, you may not even know it, but you will 

have fewer options. 

Dr. BURGESS. And, I mean, I do have to bring up the issue—and 

we talked about this offline a little bit—of patient autonomy. I 

have got a paper, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to put in the record—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
177 

[The document is printed at page 268] 

Dr. BURGESS [continuing]. From the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 

‘‘When Doctors and Parents Don’t Agree: The story of Charlie 

Gard,’’ the very sad story from the National Health Service, where 

the determination was made by the hospital not to acquiesce to the 

parents’ request to bring that child to the United States, where 

they thought they had a treatment for his mitochondrial disorder. 

And I would ask that be made part of the record. 

So the 25,000 surgeries, is that isolated in government-run systems, or does that seem to be pervasive in government-run systems? 

Ms. TURNER. Well, there is no one government-run system, obviously. And some do better than others in being able to reduce wait 

times. 

Dr. BURGESS. That is a great point. I am going to interrupt you 

there. 

Ms. TURNER. Yes. 

Dr. BURGESS. With no thought for my personal safety, I attended 

the Commonwealth Fund’s healthcare weekend. Thank you, Commonwealth Fund, for putting that on. I was the only Republican 

there. The director of the National Health Service was there. And 

he did point out to me that there is no single European health 

service. There is England. There is France. There is Germany. Canada, I believe, is structured provincially. The provinces run. 

So this thing that we are building and with no cost-benefit analysis, with no double-blind controlled randomized study, no toxicity 

study, this thing that we are building, no one has ever seen a system that is this big. Our Medicaid system currently is larger than 

the National Health Service. I believe that is correct. But this 

Medicare for All bill that we have under consideration in the 

Speaker’s committee, the Speaker’s desire to have this bill heard 

today, that is going to be gargantuan. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. TURNER. It is a fair statement. And I do think you have to 

worry about centralized decisions over access to care. In the U.K., 

just recently, a commission that helps determine what benefits will 

be available decided that cataract surgery was not a high priority, 

and so cataract surgeries have been significantly curtailed. 

If you have cataracts and you can’t see, cataract surgery is not 

optional. But when you have centralized government bureaucracies 

deciding what services are available, that’s what happens. I just 

don’t think that is something that Americans are going to tolerate. 

Dr. BURGESS. So, as a practical matter—and I don’t understand 

from my reading of the bill, and I have read through it a couple 

times, and it is a frightening bill to read for me, but if you can’t 

get your cataract surgery and there is an ophthalmologist down the 

street says, you know, I am doing these in my kitchen, what is to 

prevent that from happening? And what is to prevent a cottage industry of healthcare that then develops a black market of 

healthcare, if you will? 

Ms. TURNER. Or offshore floating hospitals or Indian reservations 

could wind up being enclaves where you could actually be able to 

get private care. 

Dr. BURGESS. And the cataracts are an interesting case study because during the Bush administration, the variable lens that could 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
178 

be replaced during cataract surgery and do away with bifocals, 

Medicare said, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute, we don’t pay for refractive 

services, so you only get a one-size lens,’’ so Medicare patients were 

then—it was a pretty uncomfortable position for the Bush administration. We are going to deny the best treatment available to Medicare patients. And so they had to actually make a—and I remember when Dr. McClellan did it. And I was jubilant. I thought, oh, 

man, here is a balanced billing example that we can use. Patients 

were allowed to bring their own money to the transaction to get the 

state-of-the-art lens so they could read their Sunday paper without 

their readers. I mean, was I thought going to herald a new era of 

insight in the Medicare system, but I was wrong. But I did repeal 

the SGR. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I want to—just some other people had 

wanted to say, so I will use the remaining time. 

Let me just say one thing, a couple things before I yield to Dr. 

Nahvi and I think—who else wanted to? Dr. Collins. Dr. Browne. 

I know, Dr. Burgess, you said you read the bill many times, and 

then you referred to the global budget. But the bill says, the reading that I read, that there will be a quarterly review of the global 

budget so we can choose to make sure that there are enough funds 

if there is any problem. So, I mean, that is actually written into 

the bill. 

And, you know, I know, I mean, people like to speak in alarmist 

terms. And we talked about the Affordable Care Act. We talked, 

my friends will tell you, about death panels. Well, that wasn’t true. 

It wasn’t true then; it is not true now. 

Dr. BURGESS. Well, Mr. Chairman, if we don’t have a budget for 

this year, where are we going to get this budget? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And then you also raised the issue 

of the U.K. and Canada and said that they can’t get the latest, 

greatest services. I am not saying that we should be like the U.K. 

or Canada. I would like to think we can do even better. 

But let me ask Dr. Collins just on this point. I mean, does that 

mean that the U.K. and Canada have worse outcomes than we do? 

Ms. COLLINS. That is a really good point, and I was actually 

going to raise that. I mean, why is it then, such a gloomy picture 

was painted of the U.K., where, in fact, their outcomes and those 

in other industrialized countries with universal health systems are 

actually better than ours with less money spent. 

I also think, Congressman Burgess, that at the conference, the 

director of the National Health Service did say that they were covering CAR-T service, CAR-T therapy. They made a determination 

that it was highly effective as a curative therapy, and so they made 

a decision to cover it. So there is a different metric that is applied 

I think than we often do. 

Dr. BURGESS. I did relate to him that at MD Anderson Hospital 

in Houston, they have actually come up with a therapy that is as 

effective but much less expensive and can be administered as an 

outpatient without having to spend time in the ICU. I will be 

happy to provide a paper for you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Nahvi. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
179 

Dr. NAHVI. Dr. Burgess, I did just want to respectfully point out 

that if we are going to be talking about a hypothetical future where 

there might be rationing, we need to make sure we don’t forget 

that we have rationing right here today. And it is not for the most 

expensive and the newest drugs or not only for the most expensive 

and newest drugs, but patients that can’t get antibiotics or 

antiplatelet medications. We have that rationing right here today. 

And in regards to we would be the first country doing something 

like this, that is kind of what America is good at, to do things that 

no one else has done before. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Browne. 

Dr. BROWNE. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Burgess, just wanting to add to the point that we are 

really not talking about one size fits all, because we are talking 

about a universal coverage, but we have moved into precision medicine, where we are trying to give the therapy that is specific for 

those individuals. And when we take in the social determinants 

that are very important for those individuals, we know the kind of 

care. And so it is equity that we are talking about, not equality. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I note Mrs. Lesko left, but someone just 

showed me a report that appeared in The Hill magazine, because 

she was curious about whether other committees would be doing 

hearings. And it says in that report that the Ways and Means 

Committee will do a hearing on this very bill. So she doesn’t have 

to worry that we will be the only one. 

I now yield to Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are almost 

done if you are down this end of the podium—the panel, I should 

say, you are almost done. 

But I want to thank you all for your patience, your ability to articulate your thoughts and your professional experience. And I obviously want to thank Mr. Barkan for your tenacity and your being 

here and your good demeanor in spite of difficult personal lots. So 

thank you all for being here. 

I am a little bit flummoxed, not unlike the hearing yesterday, 

with all due respect to my colleagues. The United States is number 

one in cost as a percentage GDP and as a cost per capita, almost 

twice other developed countries per capita for cost of healthcare. 

But our outcomes are the opposite of what you would expect, 28th 

in life and mortality, I think close to 30th in infant mortality. 

So, for me, it just strikes me, not unlike the conversation yesterday about the energy economy and the environment, is that we are 

arguing about status quo versus a world that is already changing 

and how are we going to adjust to that. I am a co-author of the 

bill. I appreciate the author. And I think this is a discussion we 

have to have. 

As a former small business person, I remember owning restaurants. And, fortunately, where I live in the bay area, Kaiser in 

the East Bay is very dominant. It started in the East Bay. So the 

closed system in Kaiser is over half the population of the two counties where I live. That is about 3 and a half million people. And 

they have been able in that closed system to provide a pretty good 

quality of care versus cost. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
180 

But when I started in the restaurant business 30 years ago, I 

could pay easily for Kaiser and pay a portion and, then after someone worked for me for 6 months, in full. But then towards the end, 

I had employees coming to me in tears, one manager in particular, 

where she couldn’t pay the copay. So I came out of pocket as an 

employer, which goes to the statistics which Ms. Shalala talked 

about a little bit, is about the number of employees—employers I 

should say paying 100 percent or any portion. And I don’t know 

what the numbers are for small businesses, but I think—I would 

imagine it is pretty staggering with small businesses and the cost 

of staying in business, just not being able to pay at all. 

My memory from reading is in 2000 or 2001, almost 30 percent 

of employers paid 100 percent of their healthcare cost. Four years 

later, it had dropped by 10 percent. It has kept going down. So this 

model to me clearly doesn’t work. So it is a question of what we 

are going to do about it. 

Like Mr. Raskin, I am a survivor of cancer. Four years ago, I was 

diagnosed with stage IV chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I took a pill 

35 minutes ago that keeps me alive that costs $400. Senator Durbin said to me recently, because he knows of my health challenge, 

he says, ‘‘How is your health?’’ I said, ‘‘Fine, Dick, I have a pill in 

my pocket that I take every day that keeps me alive.’’ And he goes, 

‘‘How much does it cost?’’ And I said, ‘‘$400.’’ He said, ‘‘That is outrageous.’’ I said, ‘‘Not to me; it keeps me alive.’’ My oncologist said, 

‘‘15 years ago, Mark, somebody would come in with the same diagnosis, and we would sprinkle some water on your forehead and say 

good luck.’’ Now the life expectancy is 85 percent if you can get 

through the first 5 years, and I am almost there. 

And a lot of this, as I have become familiar with it and gone out 

to NIH, actually was developed with taxpayer dollars. A doctor who 

worked for the Army for years and is now at Ohio State, Dr. Moynihan was nice enough, was the key person. And most of his research was taxpayer funded, much of the deployment. I went over 

to NIH and met with these young people making $60,000, $65,000 

a year that went to Hopkins and Stanford and Harvard, and they 

are working at NIH because that is what they want to do. 

So one of the things to me is apples and oranges, counting this 

right. And I am sorry that one of the panelists had to leave because 

this was directed at him, but I want to direct it at Dr. Nahvi, because I will lead into this, is, what are the real costs to the average 

consumer and then accurately. So, if we know those numbers about 

individual costs and outcomes in the GDP, see, it is a huge disadvantage to us, because if we weren’t at 18 percent and if we were 

like the Japanese at 12 percent, with better outcomes, all that 

money could be going to more productive uses. Not that healthcare 

and keeping people alive, coming from me, isn’t important, but we 

could be prioritizing. 

So the reason why I have been able to afford this, there was an 

interesting story in The Wall Street Journal that I would ask everyone to read about people who are wealthy with my condition 

and having a challenge paying for what they are paying for on private care health insurance. 

I was lucky enough to get elected to be a county supervisor. I 

chose to take my healthcare through what was the first county 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
181 

public option of the United States when the Contra Costa Health 

Plan was approved, the HMO. And they paid—I am here alive 

today because of that. If not, if I had stayed a restaurant owner, 

I would have made a lot more money, but now when I look back 

in hindsight, if I was paying for Kaiser, Blue Cross Blue Shield, I 

wouldn’t have nearly the service versus what the out-of-pocket cost 

would be. 

So, Dr. Nahvi, I have an example from my experience as an 

elected official. In California, we delegate public health and delivery of services to the urban counties. Contra Costa, where I governed, was our biggest challenge, whether it is Los Angeles or all 

the urban counties, is the cost of the clinics and hospitals who do 

most of the indigent care. So one of the things we did when we rebuilt our county hospital—I was the swing vote—in L.A. at the 

time, their general fund contributions, with five hospitals and with 

an increasing indigent care population, was up to 23, 24 percent. 

Ours was going in the same direction. So we have tried in California to help the counties and say: You have got to cap your costs, 

be more efficient. 

My point is, when we get down to 10 percent, that extra 15 percent we spent on libraries, the sheriff’s department, economic development. So that is sort of the color of money. In your experience 

as a point-of-sale person, in different emergency rooms, you see 

people coming in the door, but their costs are all absorbed differently, but the consequences for who pays and subsidizes those 

costs are also different. 

Could you speak to that on a personal level? And then I would 

ask Ms. Collins to also talk to that. 

Dr. NAHVI. Sure. I think that if you go to different hospitals, people will be paying differently. And the interesting thing about New 

York is that we have a lot of hospitals that are right next door to 

each other that accept different types of insurance and different 

types of payments. 

So there are two hospitals that I work at that are right next door 

to each other. If someone comes in and they have insurance, they 

will be taken care of, and if they don’t, they often get referred next 

door to the public hospital, where they wind up receiving care and 

then that hospital does not get reimbursed for it. And then that 

contributes to the challenges of that hospital not having enough 

money, and it creates the cycle. 

I think one of the good things about Medicare for All is that, in 

those hospitals that primarily serve the indigent population, they 

will be able to make more money because they will be reimbursed 

higher than Medicaid payments, and no one effectively will be uninsured. Every patient will be a paying patient. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Before we leave you, just another, some of the 

behavioral health costs. In Los Angeles, we see where they have 

been pushed out of the hospital. I know in my county, we always 

looked at—I was on Joint Conference Committee. We would look at 

indigent care in the psych ward. And we were stabilizing them and 

pushing them out, but they would go into the emergency room first. 

I think the statistic on people who commit suicide, 60 percent of 

them go to see a primary care physician within 60 days. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
182 

So that is another aspect I don’t think we are talking about is 

we understand the neuroscience and the amazing research we are 

having on helping on behavioral health, but then the acuity of people who are going through the current system for medical conditions and then accruing greater liabilities, both real and financial 

on that side. And you saw that, I assume, in your experience. 

Dr. NAHVI. Yes, I do. And the people that end up in the ER that 

can’t be reimbursed, we end up all paying for that. I am not sure 

if that answers your question. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Yes, it does. 

Ms. Collins. 

Ms. COLLINS. Yeah. I just think on the benefits, the way we are 

designing benefits and the way employers are being forced to grapple with their higher costs are giving patients incentives or people 

incentives that goes against their own health interests. 

So people are making decisions, based on their deductibles, about 

whether or not to fill a prescription, whether or not to skip doses 

of the prescriptions, because they are afraid of the cost. And it just 

really does run counter to how we would like people to think about 

their healthcare and getting better. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I don’t know if others have had this experience, 

but I know the Rotary Clubs in my area take me out to their clinics 

where they have pro bono physicians and others who come. And especially in the disadvantaged communities, most of them who come 

to those Rotary clinics once a month, they won’t go to the county 

hospital. They won’t go because they are afraid of the cost. And 

some of it I am sure is part of white smock disease. Dr. Burgess 

would remember that. I have that. My blood pressure is usually off. 

I don’t know why I don’t trust doctors, Doctor, but I do now, because they have kept me alive. But the Rotary care stuff is really 

fascinating, because people will go to the Rotary clinics. And it is 

the same doctor, but the environment is different. 

Just I guess I am really appreciative. I didn’t fully anticipate this 

hearing. I think it was good and constructive and largely positive. 

I hope that we go on from here. And I think the genesis of this in 

the bill. I remember it was Madison—not that this is going to happen—who said: Just because a Member of Congress doesn’t think 

their bill will happen immediately shouldn’t inhibit them from introducing it. And I think this has, at the very least, restarted an 

important conversation in this country. 

So, with that, Mr. Barkan, do you have anything to add to whatever is left of my 15 minutes, or is Mr. McGovern going to take it 

all? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, no. You have your time. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. As long as it is not Ed. 

Mr. BARKAN. Thank you so much to members of this committee 

for having me. This has not been an easy trip to make, and it is 

a big risk for me, but I came here today because this is one of the 

most pressing crises facing our society. Every day I feel the weight 

of the moment. Every moment feels urgent, and I feel acutely my 

time running out. 

I hope that sense of urgency is pressed on everyone here as we 

think about how to build a more fair and just society for all. We 

are at a crossroads as a Nation. We can either become a society 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
183 

where care is rationed to those only with immense means to pay 

the most exorbitant, exploitative healthcare bills imaginable, or we 

can transform our society, alleviate families of the enormous financial burdens that come with a for-profit healthcare system, and live 

with more dignity and joy. 

I sit before you today hopeful because I believe we will make the 

right choice. I believe the number of people demanding justice 

across the country will only grow, and I believe that we will win. 

Thank you again for having me. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. It is all our pleasure. Thank you for being 

here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Everybody has asked their questions. At this 

point, I will yield to Mr. Cole for his closing remarks, and then I 

will make closing remarks, and then we will let you all go home. 

Mr. COLE. I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you. I 

want to thank you for the manner in which you have conducted the 

hearing. You have been exceptionally generous with the time and 

kept us focused and very civil. So you can be very proud of your 

performance here, and we are all very proud of you. 

And I want to thank all of our witnesses as well. Each of you 

have brought insight, knowledge, professionalism. You have all 

contributed to helping us grapple with what is, you know, a challenge at a societal level. And obviously, we heard a great deal 

today about the majority’s highest priority in Congress, which is, 

in my view, putting everyone in a one-size-fits-all government-run 

health plan that will double everybody’s taxes, eliminate choice, 

and put Medicare at risk. 

It will take plans away from 173 million Americans and give 

them something they may or may not want and something they 

may or may not be willing to pay for. As we heard from Dr. 

Blahous, Medicare for All would cost a staggering amount, more 

than $32 trillion over 10 years. Worth thinking about that. 

The current Federal budget annually is about $4.5 trillion. This would make it immediately $7.7 trillion. The legislation has not 

proposed any way to pay for that. But Dr. Blahous told us that 

even if you doubled everybody’s taxes and doubled the corporate 

tax rate, it still wouldn’t cover these costs. And as my friend Mr. 

Woodall pointed out, we are not paying for all the healthcare we 

are getting now. We are putting an awful lot of it on the national 

credit card. 

Dr. Baker offered up several ways to pay for this in his testimony. But many of those involve what euphemistically are called 

input costs or what everybody in the healthcare industry would call 

more than a 40 percent cut in their compensation. I can’t imagine 

that an entire industry would accept that level of reduction. 

And I would also note that such cuts would put everybody’s 

healthcare at risk. Indeed, Ms. Turner testified that many hospitals would simply close if they had to take 40-percent pay cuts, 

as envisioned in this bill. If such cuts become law, the Medicare for 

All truly would become nothing more than a program that provided 

minimal care in exchange for astronomically high taxes and much 

longer wait times. 

Most disturbingly to me, I think today’s hearing made clear that 

Medicare for All would put the current Medicare system at risk. If 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
184 

we force doctors and hospitals to take lower payments, we run the 

risk of pushing them out of the industry entirely, thus making it 

impossible for current Medicare beneficiaries who have paid into 

this program for a lifetime to receive healthcare. 

In my home district, rural hospitals rely on higher reimbursement rates from private insurance to offset the lower reimbursement rates from Medicare patients. If these hospitals were to only 

be reimbursed at Medicare rates, most of them, quite frankly, 

would close. 

If nothing else, today’s hearing shows that the committees of jurisdiction need to consider this bill as well. And I am proud that 

you have both called on that, Mr. Chairman, and announced that 

at least one of those are going to take it up. I particularly hope my 

friend Mr. Burgess gets another crack at this in the Energy and 

Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee and 

the Education and Labor Committee as well. All of them, frankly, 

have significantly more jurisdiction in this area than we have here. 

And to be uncharacteristically humble for our committee and ourselves, they probably have more expertise than we have here because they have both the staff and—I will let you argue that with 

Mr. Neal and his counterparts and Mr. Pallone, because, frankly, 

they do. I mean, they just focus on these things. 

And guess what, I probably know more on Indian health than 

some of these things because I focus more on it. We don’t have 

hearings up here. This is an unusual moment for us and a good 

one. I am not complaining about that, but I am glad you are going 

to have the opportunity for these issues to be discussed in front of 

the committees of jurisdiction. 

Though I think the Democratic Medicare for All proposal is an 

extreme one, I would remind the majority that Republicans are, as 

Mrs. Lesko said, committed to working together to improve the system we currently have and to build on and improve what works 

and ensure that every American gets the quality of care that they 

deserve. And while it is always fashionable to want to do a onceand-for-all total comprehensive bill, we went through that with the 

ACA. And with all due respect to my friends, I heard phrases like 

‘‘you can keep the doctor’’—‘‘if you like the doctor, you have you can 

keep him.’’ ‘‘If you like the plan you have, you can keep it.’’ And, 

you know, finally, ‘‘your insurance payments are going to decline 

by $2,500.’’ None of those things happened. 

So count me as skeptical that a new one-size-fits-all system will 

achieve the objectives that its advocates have laid out with such 

optimism and such hope. And, you know, again, it is worth discussing for sure. 

I would hope in the meantime, though, we do what everybody 

here agreed we ought to do in addition to looking at this, which I 

have no objection to, that we actually focus on smaller steps that 

we know can become law, that we know can actually happen. I look 

forward to working with my good friends on the other side of the 

aisle, certainly with you, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that we can 

do something that matters in the weeks and months ahead that 

makes a big difference. 

And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the hearing, thank you for the manner in which it has been conducted. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
185 

I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And let me also thank our ranking 

member, Mr. Cole, for his participation in this hearing and for his 

courtesies and for his questions, quite frankly. I want to thank all 

my Republican colleagues as well. I don’t agree with you on a lot 

of what you said, but I appreciate that this hearing, which is on 

a serious topic and was treated in a very serious manner. 

And I was recounting to some of you that some members of the 

press and some colleagues who have been watching this on CSPAN are kind of surprised that this has been such a civilized and 

in-depth hearing, and some of those people are on the committees 

of jurisdiction. I will tell Mr. Neal, who is the chair of the Ways 

and Means Committee, the second oldest committee in the Congress—we are the oldest—that he should follow our example. 

I want to thank the staff on the majority and the minority side 

as well for all their work in this. I want to thank Congresswoman 

Jayapal’s staff and Congresswoman Dingell’s staff and Senator 

Sanders’ staff and others who have been very helpful in working 

with us on what this hearing should look like. 

I want to thank the panelists. You have been here since 10 

o’clock this morning, nonstop with a short break. And I think everybody here was excellent. We may have some differences of opinion, but I think everybody did an excellent job. So I want to thank, 

again, all of our witnesses for their time today. 

As this hearing comes to a close, let’s remember why we are all 

here. We are here because 29 million Americans are still without 

health coverage; 44 million people are underinsured; and many 

more are paying ridiculous out-of-pocket costs for healthcare that 

just isn’t there when they need it the most. 

You know, there is no healthcare system like what we have in 

America, and I don’t mean that necessarily positively. People are 

forced to go without care. Those with coverage have to wonder 

whether their insurance provider will play games with their coverage when they need it most. And all of us up here know exactly 

what I am talking about because that is the kind of casework we 

do each and every day. 

What we have shown today, I believe, is that Medicare for All is 

possible, that we can build on the principles of the Affordable Care 

Act to make even bolder reforms, reforms that would give doctors 

like Dr. Browne and Dr. Nahvi the ability to treat patients and 

give them the best care every time without letting cost dictate medical decisions. That we can treat patients like Ady Barkan with the 

dignity that they deserve without forcing them to battle with insurance companies. If you walk away with nothing else today, know 

that we have the ability to do that. 

Medicare for All is possible. It is reasonable. It can move forward, and I think it should, and I am proud to support this bill and 

to work with Congresswomen Jayapal and Dingell and many others 

who have been championing it. And by the way, that includes not 

just its supporters here in Congress but many advocates, the doctors, the nurses, the patient advocates, consumers and more all 

across the country who have worked tirelessly to make this historic 

day a reality. It has been a long time coming, and it is the result 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
186 

of all the letters and the calls and the emails and advocating that 

has been going on for a very, very long, long time. 

I believe in people power. I got to be honest with you. I don’t 

think we would be talking about any of this if our constituents 

weren’t raising their voices. I am proud to stand with you, alongside of you, for Medicare for All. And this is just the first phase 

of the conversation, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue 

with all of you. 

Again, I want to say to Ady, I love this picture. And I look at 

your wife, Rachel, and your son, Carl, and I can’t help but think 

how proud they all are of you. And I have been watching your dad, 

who is sitting behind you, and I could see how proud he is of your 

courage and your commitment to being here. This is a big deal, and 

your presence here is making a huge difference. I just want you to 

know that. We can do great things. We really can. But it means 

we have to stand up to the naysayers who tell us: No, you got to 

think small. 

You know, we need to think bigger than tweets, right? We need 

to think about how we impact the lives of millions of people in this 

country, who are struggling every day, wondering whether or not 

they are going to go bankrupt because they are sick or their kids 

are sick. It just shouldn’t be. As everybody has said on all sides, 

we can do better and we have to do better. So I again want to 

thank everybody for being here today. This is the first step. It is 

a big step, but we are on our way. 

Thank you, and the Rules Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
187 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 36400A.090
188 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 36400A.091
189 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 36400A.092
190 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 36400A.093
191 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 36400A.094
192 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 36400A.095
193 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 36400A.096
194 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 36400A.097
195 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 36400A.098
196 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 36400A.099
197 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 36400A.100
198 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 36400A.101
199 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 36400A.102
200 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 36400A.103
201 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 36400A.104
202 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 36400A.105
203 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 36400A.106
204 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 36400A.107
205 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 36400A.108
206 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 36400A.109
207 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 36400A.110
208 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 36400A.111
209 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 36400A.112
210 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 36400A.113
211 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 36400A.114
212 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 36400A.115
213 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 36400A.116
214 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 36400A.117
215 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 36400A.118
216 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 36400A.119
217 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 36400A.120
218 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 36400A.121
219 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 36400A.122
220 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 36400A.123
221 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 36400A.124
222 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 36400A.125
223 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 36400A.126
224 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 36400A.127
225 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 36400A.128
226 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 36400A.129
227 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 36400A.130
228 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 36400A.131
229 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 36400A.132
230 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 36400A.133
231 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 36400A.134
232 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 36400A.135
233 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 36400A.136
234 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 36400A.137
235 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 36400A.138
236 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 36400A.139
237 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 36400A.140
238 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 36400A.141
239 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 36400A.142
240 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 36400A.143
241 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 36400A.144
242 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 36400A.145
243 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 36400A.146
244 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 36400A.147
245 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 36400A.148
246 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 36400A.149
247 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 36400A.150
248 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 36400A.151
249 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 36400A.152
250 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 36400A.153
251 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 36400A.154
252 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 36400A.155
253 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 36400A.156
254 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 36400A.157
255 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 36400A.158
256 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 36400A.159
257 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 36400A.160
258 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 36400A.161
259 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 36400A.162
260 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 36400A.163
261 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 36400A.164
262 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 36400A.165
263 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 36400A.166
264 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 36400A.167
265 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 36400A.168
266 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 36400A.169
267 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 36400A.170
268 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 36400A.171
269 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 36400A.172
270 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 36400A.173
271 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 36400A.174
272 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 36400A.175
273 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 36400A.176
274 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 36400A.177
275 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 36400A.178
276 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 36400A.179
277 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 36400A.180
278 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 36400A.181
279 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 36400A.182
280 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 36400A.183
281 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 36400A.184
282 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 36400A.185
283 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 36400A.186
284 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 36400A.187
285 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 36400A.188
286 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 36400A.189
287 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 36400A.190
288 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 36400A.191
289 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 36400A.192
290 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 36400A.193
291 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 36400A.194
292 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 36400A.195
293 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 36400A.196
294 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 36400A.197
295 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 36400A.198
296 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 36400A.199
297 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 36400A.200
298 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 36400A.201
299 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 36400A.202
300 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 36400A.203
301 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 36400A.204
302 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 36400A.205
303 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 36400A.206
304 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 36400A.207
305 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 392 here 36400A.208
H.R. 1384, MEDICARE FOR ALL ACT OF 2019 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES—H.R. 1384, MEDICARE FOR ALL ACT OF 2019 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING