Oklahoman

Law needs to focus on neediest children
POINT OF VIEW: ‘SCHIP' legislation

BY U.S. SEN. JIM INHOFE

Published: February 1, 2009

Link to Column

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed legislation to reauthorize current law that provides health care to children from families with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,000 for a family of four in 2009). Unfortunately, the bill that passed the Senate has veered beyond the original intent of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Originally signed into law in 1997, SCHIP enjoys tremendous success and I believe the program must be reauthorized, but we need to do so responsibly.

To do so, SCHIP should remain squarely focused on the children who need it the most. I believe Congress should look to Oklahoma's success as an example before passing final legislation.

Oklahoma has been able to expand the insurance rolls to cover more children in a manner that is reasonable and fiscally responsible by designing its SCHIP program as an expansion of its Medicaid program. Oklahoma, under SoonerCare, currently covers children up to age 18 who have an income eligibility of up to 185 percent of FPL. As a result, we have decreased the number of uninsured children in Oklahoma.

Further, in considering this bill we simply must ask what kind of health coverage we want to incentivize. Specifically, I am concerned with more than $56 billion of spending in the bill to expand coverage for families of four with incomes up to $66,000 with government-sponsored health care. One of the main concerns with this expansion is the crowd-out effect when public subsidies encourage people to give up their private insurance.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the new SCHIP legislation demonstrates that nearly half a million families would be able to drop existing private coverage as a result of the expansion of the SCHIP program. In fact, the bill includes a loophole for New Jersey to expand coverage up to 350 percent of FPL and New York to expand coverage up to 400 percent of FPL ($88,000 a year for family of four). Why not focus the legislation to target funds at children without insurance, not those who already have private health care?

I am also working on an alternative approach, called the Kids First Act. My bill has a more fiscally responsible approach that would reauthorize SCHIP, as it was originally written, to cover targeted low-income children up to 200 percent of FPL. Importantly, our bill also included language allowing states to provide SCHIP coverage for unborn children.

I have long been dedicated to quality health care and desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care with the most choices. Now more than ever, we must be cautious of small steps that lead to universal government-run health care rather than a consumer-driven health care market, which would provide Americans with a wide array of choices and the opportunity to make their own decisions about their health care. Providing reasonable health insurance for America's low-income children is something we must get right.