we want cdc out there to find out about those, evaluate them and then turn around and make those available, the information available to other employers who don't have that information. so if you would just gear it toward the publicly developed programs, you probably ought to be using a different word than evaluate. >> because that sounds like we are going to say which are the bad ones out there, and if we are going to do that we need to say which are the inadequate programs in the federal government as well. all we are doing is to collecting good ideas and transmitting them, that is different. >> yeah. >> but when we are evaluating, and evaluating says that we are looking at each of the private people out there and saying your program is not worth a darn and yours may be pretty good, and people are not going to think that is a good use of the federal funds to be -- and it sounds like another government takeover that could be a wrong wor

word. >> identify best practices. >> that works a lot táe)n@@@@>@g to feel like this is a new osha public wellness idea. >> that is not the idea at all. >> i know. i just wanted to clarify that. >> okay. >> and enzi 51. >> i had that one a minute ago. >> i have it now. >> this is similar in that it ensures that the information under the workplace wellness provisions are not used to

establish federal requirements. again, we can identify good programs, disseminate the information, but we shouldn't be coming up with the requirements for public, the private sector saying that, you know, this worked here so you have to do it, too. because it may not work for another business. the flexibility in the private sector is very important, and that is where we have come up with a lot of to good ideas, and so we shouldn't just arbitrarily study the wellness programs and establish requirements based on the study that evaluates the few. again, you know, where we change the wording on the other one where we are identifying good programs makes a big difference, but that brings alarm bells when we are talking about how good somebody's program is and whether we are going to put requirements against it. >> i think i understand what you are going to do, but what if cdc goes out, and i have to add the p, but what if cdcp goes out and

they evaluate the workplace wellness programs and they find some that are working really well. well, maybe, maybe the hipaa, and they want to change some of the hipaa, and health and human services or the who runs hipaa? >> health and human services. >> health and human services may say, gee, we have looked at that and it is a good thing we are doing, and we may want to change the hipaa practices and laws to conform to that. but then they would say, no we can't because cdc gave it a good evaluation? i mean -- >> well, actually, if hipaa prohibits it already, they cannot even try it. >> huh? >> if hipaa prohibits it, they cannot try it. >> well, say it is not prohibited, but they are doing it. say they are doing something that is not prohibited.

>> how about does not mandate? >> mr. chairman, mandate. >> how is this bearing on the earlier discussion about the 20% limitation on the variance, premium differential for a wellness program? one of the concerns that i think we had about expanding the 20% was that it be limited before it is allowed to be expanded to programs that the secretary has approved so that we know that it is not a phony effort to just run up the score so that there is some quality control before we allow that boundary to go from 20% to 50%. one would think that in that calculation, one would want the benefit of this, and that would be an appropriate place for it, and i think that one of the places that we might end up is that you get the hipaa 20% irrespective, because it is the

state of the law, but if you want to expand it, then it has to be an approved program, and you would think that you would want this information and in determining what would be an approved program for purposes of going from the 40% bandwith to the 50% bandwith. >> well, actually, i wouldn't be interested in it at all, but if somebody is prohibited, they would be interested in that. >> i just think that that -- >> would not mandate? >> would not mandate what? >> well, i am thinking aloud here. you are saying, not withstanding any provisions of this part would not mandate any federal wellness workplace requirements. you don't mandate it, but it will be fine. you will not force them to. >> is that okay? >> is that better, mike? >> would not mandate. >> i think so. >> if that is your concern. >> would not mandate, would only

recommend. so, we are not mandating -- >> well, it is sort of redundant, but. >> i would be willing to work the language out on that overnight. >> i think we are close. >> to see if we can get something. >> this has been a very productive day. >> that's it? >> yep. >> so we have a couple of things to work out, the last two amendments to work out here. there was something that tom coburn wanted to work on earlier provision, something about transparency, accountability -- something? >> what was that one? >> the one with the council. >> oh, you have to work on that one. and try to get that cleaned up. we have the thing cleaned up with richard burr. i think that those were the only items, unless there is something else? staff will remind us. we will begin tomorrow at what time? 10:00 a.m.? we are back in the senate caucus room tomorrow with the mark-up.

i want to publicly thank mike enzi, and senator enzi and all members. it is a long day again today, but we covered a lot of ground. i appreciate tom harkin's efforts and the staff's efforts over the weekend to get to over 50 of those amendments. it certainly made today a lot easier and i think that the workplace issues, there is a lot of agreement in that area, anyway, but a few differences to work on, and we will try to finish up the fraud and abuse potentially tomorrow as well, and the long-term care, the two other remaining issues to try to get done. my goal is that i would love to get this done by tomorrow or thursday and then we will still have when we come back from the break, and i presume i will have these numbers and i'm not about to bring up language without numbers, so on the issues of the coverage, and including the pay gea go, we will have to have

numbers. we have worked hard for this for two weeks and making progress. i am grateful to the members and particularly to staff. the staff has worked hard on this over weekendts and nights and when we quit to this table, a lot of people go back to their respective tables and plug away at this. so i am grateful to them about the time and effort. this is is a tough job, no question about it, but we are making progress, and we have a long way to go before this is done. i am grateful to everyone. >> mr. chairman? >> senator harkin. thank you, mr. chairman, for the leadership, especially on this issue that i think really is the heart and soul of what we are going to do on health reform. if we don't, if we don't move aggressively, comprehensively on prevention and wellness, everything else we do is not really going to matter very much. we are just going to be spending a lot of money on sick care. so i think that what we have done today is taken a great step forward in shifting, and it is not going to happen overnight,

and we all know that. it is not going to happen over night, and we have had good amendments from the republican side that came into focus, and that is what is good about the open mark-ups that we were able to resolve some of the issues and as you said move ahead. i thank you for your leadership on this and cracking the whip on us and keeping us here at the table all day. i thank all of my colleagues for all of their help on this, and i, too, join in thanking the staff on the great work on this. i think that this prevention and wellness section, again, is something that if we can hold this, keep it in the final bill as we go all of the way through is going to make a huge difference in how we practice medicine in america. i thank you very much for your leadership. >> thank you, tom, very much. the meeting will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. in the caucus room. thanks, again, everybody.x/x/x?

>> this is the first to be presided over the new house of commons who was elected after the forced resignation of the last speaker following a controversy involving parliamentary expense accounts. you're watching live coverage from the british parliament in london on c-span2. >> the boy has worked to hard to make sure that it is indeed a fair trade city now. i look forward to him continuing to raise these issues