A stellar group of presenters with impressive credentials gave testimony on behalf of the Pennsylvania Family and Business Health Care Security Act (HB1660) on Wednesday, March 19, in the majority caucus room in the PA Capitol. Endorsements by the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO and the PA League of Women Voters, the promise of more hearings on the bill, and the strong possibility that the legislature will fund a much-needed economic impact study buoyed the spirits of HB1660 supporters who left the three hour proceedings feeling decidedly positive. According to Chuck Pennacchio, Executive Director of Health Care for All PA (www.HealthCare4AllPA.org ), “We’re grateful for the testimony and support of the AFL-CIO and the League of Women Voters, which do not come lightly. Only a bill as sensible, pragmatic, and economically sound as HB1660 could bring such a diverse group together in support of it.”

Scores of supporters of HB1660 filled the majority caucus room to attend the House Health and Human Services Committee’s first hearing on the bill. Representative Kathy Manderino (D-Philadelphia), prime sponsor of the bill, described it as a comprehensive, single-payer plan, publicly administered and privately delivered, and gave an overview of the plan’s funding.

Dr. Walter Tsou, a representative of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.PNHP.org ) and a renowned expert on single-payer health care reform, opened with a Power-Point presentation illustrating that a single-payer plan is the only way to achieve universal health care. Our current market-based health insurance system is unsustainable, he asserted. Dr. Tsou pointed out that HB1660 would help businesses, cut property taxes, and provide comprehensive health care benefits for Pennsylvania’s residents.

Chuck Pennacchio, PhD, Executive Director of Health Care for All PA, offered HB1660 as an economic, moral, and democratic “gift” to the legislators and to all Pennsylvanians. He promised to rise above the naysayers and vowed to remain steadfast in seeing this legislative process through to a successful conclusion. Dr. Pennacchio had two requests for legislators: fund an economic impact study to prove the viability of the plan and hold further hearings on HB1660 in their districts across the state.

The always entertaining, rhetorically adept William George, President of the PA AFL-CIO argued that our current competitive health insurance system is a failure in terms of quality, cost, and access. He advocated for a non-competitive single-payer system. “This is the time!” he urged.

Cardiologist Dr. William Davidson insisted that our current dysfunctional health care system has contributed to “a steady deterioration in the patient/physician relationship.” With 30% of every health care dollar presently going for administrative costs, he maintained that a single-payer system would result in the savings of billions of dollars. Dr. Davidson closed with a plea to the legislators to “honestly examine the facts and bravely confront the powerful insurance and drug lobbies that would have us maintain the status quo. That status quo allows them to record incredible profits while millions of Pennsylvanians risk bankruptcy and death in a system that has no conscience.”

Economist Sean Flaherty, PhD, a professor at Franklin and Marshall College, explaining the concept of a single-payer system, said, “…all members of a commonwealth are eligible to receive full and equitable medical services by virtue of their membership in that commonwealth and because that commonwealth has secured sufficient revenues to pay for the provision of those services.” The current system is failing , in part because of competition and the dynamics of profit maximization, according to Dr. Flaherty. He insisted that only a single-payer approach increases access to and utilization of preventative care and reduces administrative costs.

Martin Schor, retired pharmaceutical company executive and currently Research Director for Health Care for All PA, discussed the value and use of prescription medication and how the high cost of drugs leads to non-compliance by patients. He recommended negotiated bulk pricing as is provided for in HB1660.

The Rev. Sandra L. Strauss, Director of Public Advocacy for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, spoke to the moral responsibility of caring for all Pennsylvanians. HB1660, she said, provides for shared responsibility among all members of society. Rev. Strauss stated, “In a healthy society, the well-being of all is a priority.”

Speaking on behalf of the PA League of Women Voters, Janice Horn, the group’s Off-board Health Care Specialist, announced the League’s endorsement of HB1660. It is the opinion of the League of Women Voters that this bill meets identified goals such as quality care, prevention of diseases, health promotion and education, primary care, prenatal and reproductive health care, acute care, long-term care, and mental health care as well as dental, vision, and hearing care.

The two people who offered testimony opposing HB1660 represented the concerns of those interests which would stand to lose money if the bill is enacted. Stewart Anmuth, President of the PA Association of Health Underwriters, blamed the large number of uninsured who have “fallen through the cracks” on health care costs “rather than by inefficiencies in the system itself.” The objections he presented were positively Orwellian, such as the claim that, “Single-payer does not increase access. It limits access.” I’m not kidding. He really said that. I have to think he must know how patently absurd that statement is.

Michell Young, Vice-President of Public Policy for the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce, seemed ill-prepared. She parroted much of what one finds in a Republican approach to the issue: health savings accounts, greater competition among private insurers, and letting the marketplace dictate policy. Her organization offers health insurance to member businesses. When asked if the Chamber reaps financial gains from the practice, Ms. Young replied, “I don’t know.”

Members of the House Health and Human Services Committee questioned presenters throughout the hearing. Proponents of HB1660 fielded the questions much more capably than did opponents of the bill. That’s probably because it is impossible to defend our current broken system. In addition, those speaking in favor of the bill were well-prepared and better informed.

Future hearings and legislative action on HB1660 will be chronicled here. Stay tuned.

Print This Article