Government Relations Action Alert

Phone Calls, Faxes & E-mails Needed NOW to all House Members Opposing the Small Business Health Fairness Act (H.R. 660)

May 7, 2003

THE ISSUE AT HAND

Within the next week or two, the full House Committee on Education and the Workforce is expected to approve the Small Business Health Fairness Act, H.R. 660, largely along a party-line vote. The bill is scheduled to go rapidly to the House floor for consideration, likely within a week of Committee passage. H.R. 660 aims to provide small businesses, including associations, with a better opportunity to purchase health insurance for their employees through association health plans (AHPs). NASW is highly supportive of increasing access to health care coverage for working people. We oppose H.R. 660, however, because it would exempt AHPs from state laws and regulations, eviscerating existing consumer protections, and increasing health insurance costs for many individuals left out of the new plans.

ACTION NEEDED

All members of the House must be contacted immediately to hear opposition to this bill. Please call, fax, or e-mail your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to oppose the Small Business Health Fairness Act HR 660, which is expected to be approved by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 7, and be on the House floor by mid-May.

A sample letter opposing the bill has been posted on NASW's Congress Web to e-mail or fax to Members of Congress. A sample phone message follows. All Members can be reached through the Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121. Individual telephone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses are available through NASW's Congress Web: www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/grassroots/congressweb.asp If you make a phone call, please let us know via e-mail at advocacy@naswdc.org

Sample Phone Message

My name is ________________ from _________________ (city, state). As a constituent, professional social worker, and member of the National Association of Social Workers, I am calling to ask Representative ____________ (last name) to oppose the Small Business Health Fairness Act, H. 660, awaiting final action by the full House following expected approval by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 7. H.R. 660 would exempt association health plans from state laws and regulations, thereby eviscerating existing consumer protections and coverage requirements and increasing insurance premiums for those left behind. I would appreciate the Representative’s strong opposition. Thank you.

TIMING

It is critical for opposition to be heard by May 9, since H.R. 660 is scheduled for rapid floor consideration and has strong support from small business advocates and the House Republican majority.

BACKGROUND

AHPs aim to provide small businesses the opportunity to join together through trade and professional associations to collectively purchase health benefits at more reasonable rates than they are typically offered individually. Current law requires AHPs to be regulated under both federal and state law. The Small Business Fairness Act would exempt AHPs from state laws, consumer protections, mandated benefit laws, and other safeguards­ significantly increasing the risk for fraud and abuse. Recently, failures of association-type health plans have left more than 100,000 participants nationwide with over $30 million in unpaid medical bills.

The National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, many large health insurers, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and NASW have strongly opposed AHPs before Congress. Our reasoning is that, although AHPs could reduce insurance costs for some companies with young, healthy workers, many small businesses with older and sicker employees would be left behind in the regular insurance market, facing significantly higher rates. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that AHPs would result in higher premiums for 80 percent of small businesses and their workers, ultimately resulting in more uninsured Americans. The National Association of Attorneys General warns that a mid-1970s experiment with a similar type of plan left at least 398,000 consumers stuck with a total of more than $123 million in unpaid claims. "Elimination of the state role and replacement with weak federal oversight is a bad deal for small businesses and for consumers," they warn.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

THANKS FOR YOUR ADVOCACY!