[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S9469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss for a few moments 
what will, hopefully, be before the Senate before too long. Also, I 
will make some comments with respect to the antiarthritic drug, Lodine.
  I am particularly pleased that the Senate will have a chance to vote 
shortly on the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, because breaking this 
political logjam on health care reform means that millions of Americans 
who are stuck in jobs because they have a preexisting health problem 
will have a new margin of health security and economic freedom.
  This legislation is good for American families. It is good for our 
workers and our business. What it means is that fear of losing critical 
health insurance coverage no longer would be a roadblock on the road to 
a better job and a better life. I want to applaud the bipartisan 
efforts of the Senate conferees, particularly Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Kassebaum, and Senator Breaux, who put long and hard service into this 
legislation, and it will be an important step forward when adopted.
  Besides guaranteeing portability of health insurance coverage, this 
legislation contains little-noticed provisions that I think are going 
to make a great difference with respect to expanding health insurance 
coverage. This legislation, to the bipartisan credit of those Senate 
leaders, protects State flexibility with respect to State health 
insurance reforms. States like mine are laboratories for health care 
reform, and it is essential that we not turn out the laboratories at 
the State level with unnecessary Federal restrictions.
  Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy worked very closely with me so that 
the exemption language in this legislation will allow Oregon's humane, 
rational, and far-reaching health insurance reform program to go into 
effect later this year. It would provide extensive group to individual 
policy reform in much the same way our Federal legislation envisages, 
but the approach that Oregon is taking is one that I think other States 
and possibly the Federal Government will want to emulate in the days 
ahead.
  Mr. President, there are features of this bill and provisions that 
were not included that I think are unfortunate.
  During this debate, I have expressed concern about the possibility of 
some vulnerable Americans being left behind if medical savings accounts 
become widespread. Every Senator should want to oppose the 
balkanization of medicine, where the young, the healthy, and the 
wealthy get good affordable health coverage at the expense of the 
sickest, the neediest, and the elderly. It is appropriate to test out 
the MSA concept, however, and I do believe this conference report 
offers a reasonable compromise in the form of a limited MSA 
demonstration project.
  I join Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone and many of my 
colleagues in mourning the loss of mental health parity in this 
legislation. Parity, in my view, is not just fair, it is good health 
care policy that saves health care dollars in the long run by assuring 
quality mental health coverage and particularly early intervention. I 
do not intend to vote against a good, bipartisan bill because of the 
loss of one provision, but I intend to join with colleagues of both 
parties to make sure that mental health parity is an issue revisited 
early in the next Congress.
  Finally, as happens often in large conference reports, a few stray 
cats and dogs find some homes. This bill is no exception. I am going to 
talk for a moment about a mongrel in this bill that seems to have a 
pretty bad case of fleas. There is a provision in this legislation that 
would give the antiarthritic prescription drug Lodine a 2-year patent 
extension. Supporters of this idea first tried to maneuver it into the 
1997 agriculture appropriations bill in the House. It is now in this 
legislation, page 76, subtitle H.
  This is a bad idea, in my view, and it certainly should not be a part 
of an important bipartisan health reform bill. Lodine has already 
received one extension under the terms of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman 
amendments allowing for additional patent life on drugs which become 
involved in long regulatory approval delays. With that extension, the 
drug's manufacturers have built sales of $274 million. Many of these 
purchasers are seniors. Many of those who buy this anti-inflammatory 
drug are older people, walking on an economic tightrope, balancing 
their food costs against their fuel costs, their fuel costs against 
their medical bills, and they are paying for this drug, many of them, 
out of their pocket.
  Mr. President, if Lodine's current extension is allowed to run out in 
1997, this drug likely would get a generic competitor, and those 
consumers, those vulnerable older people would get a price break as a 
result of the competition. They are not going to get that break with 
this extension. I think it is unwise for the Senate to take more money 
out of the pockets of older people in this fashion. There have not been 
any congressional hearings, have not been any deliberations to look at 
any public purpose served by another 2-year extension of the Lodine 
patent. I think granting this extension creates a poor precedent. I am 
sorry to see this provision in this bill. It is a good bill, a 
bipartisan bill that needs to be enacted, but it is wrong to have this 
special-interest provision in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________