LOBBYING EFFORTS FALL SHORT ON HEALTH-CARE REFORM BILL

JEFFERSON CITY -- Despite intense lobbying efforts by Gov. Mel Carnahan, several department directors and the governor's top aides, a major health insurance reform bill was not voted on during the last day of the General Assembly Friday.

Carnahan and his staff were seen on the side galleries of the House and Senate frequently the last two weeks of the session, and the governor was a regular visitor to legislative offices trying to drum up support for the plan.

Many parts of the health plan were controversial and drew strong opposition from a variety of interest groups, particularly insurance companies. Concepts like community ratings for insurance premiums, standardized benefit plans, and an increased role for state government in administering health insurance were among the controversial points in the legislation.

On Tuesday the Missouri House passed a conference committee report, which represented a compromise between Carnahan's original HB-1622 approach to health care and SB-722, considered a more moderate approach, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader J.B. "Jet" Banks, D-St. Louis.

The bill came out of the House with 83 votes, one more than was necessary for passage on Tuesday, and was sent to the Senate. The bill was not taken up until Thursday afternoon, when Banks asked that it go to a conference committee to try and resolve some issues of conflict.

The conference committee met from about 9 p.m. Thursday until after 1:30 a.m. Friday to reach a compromise, but made few changes in the bill.

Despite heavy lobbying efforts, the bill was not brought back up in the Senate until late Friday, and when it was apparent the votes weren't there, the bill was taken off the floor.

Carnahan's deputy chief of staff, Roy Temple, warned some lawmakers that if the health care issue was not addressed in this session, they might have to address the issue in a special session. He said a special session could be ordered as soon as Monday.

"They can take the bill up on Friday or come back Monday to deal with it," said Temple at one point during Friday's lobbying efforts.

Carnahan's lobbying tactics, reminiscent of last year's successful effort to win approval of Senate Bill 380, a school finance reform bill, began to wear thin on many legislators of both parties.

As usual, rumors were circulating about what the governor offered members of the legislature in exchange for votes on his health bill.

One legislator many speculated about was Banks. His SB-722, which passed the Senate on a 30-3 vote several weeks ago, was eyed by the governor as the vehicle to resurrect his plan after the House had soundly rejected HB-1622 earlier.

Last Thursday, after meeting with the governor on the side gallery of the Senate, Banks emerged by warning he would not accept intrusions by Carnahan on his bill

"I am not going to accept 1622 on 722. I have made that very clear. If 722 comes back from the House as 1622, I will simply kill my bill," said Banks on May 5. Banks did make it clear he was willing to talk about a compromise that would lead to a good health care bill.

Last Saturday, Carnahan flew to St. Louis to meet with Banks and on Sunday, the governor began calling Democratic representatives at their homes advising them they had come to a consensus.

The agreement was enough to get the bill through the House on Tuesday, but many lawmakers complained that while they had liked Banks' original bill, the final bill contained too many of the controversial parts of the governor's plan.

Carnahan further riled legislators on Friday afternoon when he signed a state employees' retirement bill in his capitol office, but commented that he signed it reluctantly because it included an increase in retirement benefits for legislators.

Those comments outraged some lawmakers, who felt at the same time the governor was trying to lobby them for passage of his legislation he was criticizing them for their vote on a retirement bill.

Rep. Gene Copeland, D-New Madrid, the senior member of the General Assembly, was especially upset. "That really offends me because just a fraction of 1 percent of the retirement benefits in that bill are for legislators. He could have left well enough alone," complained Copeland.

"He was saying what the people wanted to hear, I guess. But it did not add to his popularity out here on the floor."

Copeland, who opposed Carnahan's original health bill, but voted for the revised version Tuesday, said the governor's comments could cause him and other legislators to back off from their support on the health bill if it came back from the Senate Friday afternoon. Copeland also predicted the comments would help doom the chances of the bill ever getting out of the Senate.

Rep. Mark Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, said he was pleased the bill did not go anywhere this session.

"We resisted the temptation to pass something that was thrown together into an ill-conceived, mis-directed piece of legislation," said Richardson. "But the good thing about this is it provided an opportunity to begin debate.

"I think what we need to do is see what legislation is passed at the federal level this year and continue the work of interim committees on health care and then re-visit this issue next year. Some of the things called for in this bill represents a drastic change in the lives of Missourians and this bill is just too important to take up this late in the session."

Had the bill come up for a vote Friday in the Senate, Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, said he would have voted no, while Sens. Jerry Howard, D-Dexter, and Danny Staples, D-Eminence, were undecided.

Howard said he wanted basic plans that were proposed in the bill "to be competitive and standardized to anything you could buy on the open market."

Howard, earlier in the week, said he wanted to see substantiative changes in the plan, changes that probably were not in the conference bill.

While being lobbied on the side gallery of the Senate by Insurance Director Jay Angoff, Howard told him he was "tired of the rhetoric" and ready to see substantiative changes.

Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, voted for the bill in the House because he felt provisions like portability and coverage for pre-existing conditions were way past due.

Thomason said his decision to vote for the bill was based on a single point: "There is certainly a problem that exists with health care and health insurance. I would rather have done something as do nothing, even though I am not convinced all of it will work."

Rep. Marilyn Williams, D-Dudley, said she voted against the bill because there were repeated changes in versions they did not have time to study properly.