Bill Cassidy

So let us be clear: When we speak about using services more widely, it is not only monetary but most importantly it is about making sure that patients' health is not harmed.

I oppose this amendment. We advocates for American farmers know that we need free world markets. The proponents of this amendment ignore that other countries, such as Brazil, subsidize their sugar industry as much as $3 billion per year…

What percent of docs write what percent of narcotics?

It is unclear how well you can translate rate data to human data.

My wife would say that the primary risk factor for breast cancer is being a woman.

As a doctor, I will acknowledge that aflatoxin is something we are all exposed to.

You are not also suggesting that when you say that even minimal exposure can cause cancer that there isn't a threshold effect?

I will just say, your testimony kind of gave way to that.

I have read about this 3 years ago so I am a little rusty but the Army takes some issue with that epidemiology, as I recall.

The very last one, because all the studies I have read were all on rat data, so unless the rat data is----

My hope is that this morning's hearing is the next step in discussing the need for reform so that we can come together in finalizing policies that improve care for our most vulnerable citizens.

For 20 years, I have seen politicians over-promise and underfund, and as I do so, it is the patient that suffers.

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. 5__. None of the funds made…

I think if you look at Medical Advantage's special needs programs, most of those folks are probably not managed by primary care in an urban setting.

We should see this and provide reform that puts us on a financially sustainable path, incentivizing quality health care.

In the end, the best chance for SGR reform to work its way to the President's desk is bipartisanship.

Why out of 288 programs will we only have four that seem to directly pertain to what we could all agree would be severe mental illness?

I am a doc, too, not a psychiatrist--but one of my concerns is that some of the SAMHSA money is going for folks who advocate doing without medications.

It seems a luxury to be unfocused in how we are implementing programs.

Clearly, we are in a time of budgetary constraints. You referred to it multiple times, but on the other hand, that is the new reality.

It seems like if this is being done with an EPA grant, we should be able to see those data as should anybody who would want to look at that methodology.

True compliance costs, and if there is a reluctance to form that advisory committee or at least have some ad hoc committee which comes to agreement.

Why can't EPA beginning tomorrow to write documents that have clear methodology and have the same sort of standard that a peer-reviewed journal would require for such a thing?

Indeed, it has great reason to fear, and so people act cautiously.

Physicians fear the Federal Government. They understand that if the Federal Government comes after them and grabs them in their long legal arm, the physician may ultimately win, but she is destroyed in the process.