[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S247-S248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES FREEDOM TO CONTRACT ACT
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to provide a brief update for my
colleagues this morning on the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom To
Contract Act.
This is the bill which has 46 cosponsors in the Senate, 150-some
cosponsors in the House, led by the chairman of the House Ways and
Means committee, Bill Archer, to restore the freedom to America's
senior citizens to seek the medical care they desire rather than to be
dictated to by the Medicare Program to only receive that care under
Medicare that they may desire.
Here is the situation as it evolved. Mr. President, up until January
1st of this year, senior citizens in this country had always had the
right under Medicare to go to the doctor of their choice, and if they
wanted to be treated outside of Medicare they could do that. Of course,
Medicare couldn't pay the bill. But that freedom always existed. As of
a couple of years ago, the administration began to threaten physicians
saying that they had to submit all bills for senior citizens to
Medicare. The rationale was that anybody over 65 was ``Medicare
eligible'' because they were 65, and if they were ``Medicare eligible''
then a doctor had to submit the bill to Medicare. So physicians began
being concerned that they couldn't treat people outside of Medicare
even though that had always been the patient's right and the
physician's right.
To ensure that situation wouldn't continue, I introduced an amendment
last year during the negotiations--during the time we were negotiating
the balanced budget amendment--and it passed here under a vote of 64 to
35 to ensure that patients had the right to ``privately contract,'' as
it is called, and go to the doctor of their choice; not necessarily to
go to Medicare, if they didn't want to. That amendment passed. It
became part of the Medicare portion of the balanced budget amendment.
But in the middle of the night some negotiators from the House and
Senate caved in to the President's demands that if the Kyl amendment
stayed in then the entire balanced budget amendment would be vetoed
and, therefore, caved into his demands that a special limitation be
placed on any physician providing this care; namely, that the physician
had to get rid of all of his or her Medicare patients for a 2-year
period in advance or you couldn't treat the person outside of Medicare.
That is what went into effect January 1st.
This legislation that I just reported on will remove that 2-year
requirement so that the patient has the freedom to go to the doctor of
his or her choice. Even though you are over 65 years old, you don't
have to be treated under the Medicare system if you do not want to be,
and the physician has the right to take care of you without getting rid
of his or her other Medicare patients.
When did this situation arise? There are a lot of different
situations. Take for example the psychiatric patient who doesn't want
the records in Medicare to reveal the kind of treatment that patient
has been receiving. Under the current administration plan--Medicare or
no care--you either do it under Medicare or you don't get the
treatment. No doctor can take care of you. Our bill would say no. You
can go outside of Medicare and be treated. Again, you have to pay the
bill--not the taxpayer. But you can do it.
Another case: You are in a small town. There are not that many
specialists. You need specialty care. You go to a doctor who says, ``I
am not taking any more Medicare patients. The President and the
Congress have cut our payments so much that it don't pay me anymore. In
fact, I lose money on every one. I will take care of the ones that I
have, but I am not going to see any more new Medicare patients.'' This
enables the patient to say, ``Fine. Just bill me. I will pay you. We
will save Medicare the money.'' And that will be the end of it.
Another situation: You want to go to that specialist. Maybe it is a
person who is on a university faculty who is not taking Medicare
patients, and you want to be treated by that person because it is the
one person that can save your life or your spouse's life. You ought to
have the right to do that in this country. Under the current law that
wouldn't be possible.
So our legislation restores the right of senior citizens--and all the
rest of us have this right--to go to the doctor of their choice, and if
they want to be treated outside of the Medicare system have the right
to do that. It does not enable the doctor to charge more money to
Medicare. Whatever the doctor charges they have to pay outside of the
Medicare Program.
So this is not going to be used very often, I suspect. But in those
situations where people really want to take advantage of their freedom
in contract they ought to have the right to so.
Mr. President, in conclusion, this is not something that is just of
concern for America's senior citizens, because all of us should be
concerned about a fundamental right being taken away from us--the right
to provide the health care that we want for ourselves or our families.
As the President is talking about making Medicare available to more
and more people at younger and younger ages, I would have to ask them:
Is it such a good deal to buy into Medicare when the first thing that
happens when you do that is you give up a basic right that you have
today--that every one of
[[Page S248]]
us has today--but doesn't exist for somebody who is 65 years old or
older because they are Medicare eligible? It is not a good bargain.
So what I am hoping is that the Finance Committee will hold hearings
later this month--those hearings have already been set, I understand,
by Senator Roth--and that there will be legislation coming to the
floor, and our bill coming to the Senate floor very soon thereafter.
And sometime in the early spring we can pass on to the President a bill
which will restore the right of all seniors in this country to go to
the doctor of their choice without being told by Medicare that they
can't do that; that, in effect, it is either Medicare or no care. That
is un-American. It is wrong. It denies the basic right of all
Americans. And we need to ensure that we can correct that problem
through the passage of the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom Contract Act.
In closing, if any one of my colleagues who have not done so already
would like to sponsor the legislation, please see me because we will be
moving forward on this very quickly.
Thank you.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I might say that under the order the Senator
from Oklahoma reserved time at 12:30.
Mr. GRAMM. I think I have sufficient time between now and then, Mr.
President. Thank you.
____________________