[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13585-S13587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is the ninth time I have come to the
floor of the Senate to talk about the issue of Medicare coverage for
prescription drugs. As the Senate can see, I am urging seniors to send
in copies of their prescription drug bills, as this poster instructs,
to your Senator, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.
I am doing this because it is critically important that Congress move
on this issue and address it in a bipartisan way. With the counsel and
input of Senator Snowe of Maine, there is one bipartisan bill now
before the Senate to cover the issue of prescription drugs for the
Nation's elderly.
I am sure other Members of the Senate are getting the kind of mail I
am. What I will do this morning, as I have done on eight previous
occasions, is talk specifically about some of the bills I am getting
from senior citizens in Oregon in an effort to pull together a
bipartisan coalition for action in this session.
We have heard, again and again, experts on the health care issue say
the prescription drug question is too complicated for the Senate to act
on at this time. That is a view I do not share. It is not shared by
Senator Snowe. In fact, 54 Members of the Senate have already voted for
the funding plan the two of us have developed. We have already laid the
foundation for the Senate to move on this issue in a bipartisan way.
I will talk for a few minutes this afternoon about our legislation
and about some copies of bills I have received from senior citizens. I
have a whole sheaf of them to go through.
What our bill is all about is trying to give senior citizens who are
on Medicare the same kind of bargaining power in the marketplace that a
health maintenance organization has. The sad part about this issue is
that the senior citizens get shellacked on their prescription bills
twice. Medicare doesn't cover prescription drugs. When the program
began in 1965, it didn't cover prescriptions. Maybe back then there was
a
[[Page S13586]]
feeling they weren't that important. If anybody thought that then, they
certainly would not believe that now, because we have more than 20
percent of the Nation's senior citizens spending over $1,000 a year out
of pocket for their prescription medicine. They can't afford these
prescriptions. The doctors tell them to take three prescriptions. They
start off taking two, and then they take one, and eventually they can't
afford their medicine, and they get sicker and they need perhaps
institutional care, which is far more expensive. What is so sad is that
the seniors, of course, with Medicare not covering prescriptions, have
to pay out of pocket. On top of that, they have to subsidize the big
buyers, the health maintenance organizations, the health plans, and
other big buyers that are in a position to get a discount on their
prescription medicine.
So Senator Snowe and I, in support of the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden
bill, are urging seniors to send copies of their prescription drug
bills to the Senate, to your Senators, in Washington, DC, in the hopes
that we can deal with this in this session of the Senate.
I have been concerned about this issue since back in the days when I
was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I ran the legal aid office
for senior citizens then, and prescriptions were awfully important even
then. But the fact is they are much more important to the Nation's
older people today than they were then because, today, so many of these
prescriptions can, in effect, help to keep seniors well and healthy and
physically fit. So many of the drugs today can help to lower blood
pressure, or deal with cholesterol problems, or a wide variety of
conditions, and can keep our seniors healthy. The savings associated
with these kinds of drugs are absolutely staggering.
I reported last week, when we talked about the question of
prescriptions for seniors on the floor of the Senate, about one
anticoagulant drug seniors often take today. It costs a little over
$1,000 a year for a senior citizen to take that anticoagulant drug. By
taking that drug, very often it is possible to prevent a debilitating
stroke that can cost a senior more than $100,000, in terms of expenses.
Just think of that. An anticoagulant drug helps our seniors stay
healthy for about $1,000 a year. As a result of spending $1,000 a year
on this particular medicine, we can keep that person from having a
debilitating stroke, which could cost more than $100,000 a year.
So, very often, I am asked by colleagues and others in the Congress
whether our Nation can afford to cover prescription drugs for the
elderly. My answer is that our Nation cannot afford not to cover
prescription drugs, when you look at the kind of savings that would be
associated with this coverage.
Now, in the Snowe-Wyden bill, we seek to do a number of things beyond
giving senior citizens the same kind of bargaining power that a health
maintenance organization does. We focus on the principles of the
private marketplace, trying to create choices and options and a wide
variety of alternatives for the Nation's seniors, and we do it through
a concept the President of the Senate and all of us understand very
well, and that is, we use the model of the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Plan. We don't go out and set up a whole new bureaucracy. We
don't set up a lot of price controls and get the Government intervening
in the marketplace.
I have great reservations about that kind of approach because, if you
go with price controls, say, on Medicare, the only thing that will
happen is you will shift all the costs onto the backs of other
vulnerable people. I don't think there is a Member of the Senate who
would like to see us take action with respect to prescription drugs for
the Nation's senior citizens, and then have a lot of costs shifted
onto, say, a 27-year-old woman who is divorced and has two kids and is
working hard and playing by the rules and suddenly is seeing the
prescription drug costs for her children go up very dramatically. So we
ought to unleash the forces of the marketplace. That is what is in the
bipartisan Snowe-Wyden prescription drug bill.
What I am going to do for a few moments is talk about some of the
bills and documents that I have been sent by seniors since we came to
the floor and began to urge them, as this poster says, to send in
copies of their prescription drug bills to us in the Senate.
The first case I want to talk about this morning involves a senior
citizen who is 73 years old and lives in my home State, in Hillsboro.
She has a monthly income of $1,000, and she is spending 25 percent of
it on her prescription drugs. She doesn't have any of these bills
covered by her health insurance--not any of them. She has to take a
wide variety of drugs, such as Relafen and Prilosec--a whole host of
prescription drugs--primarily due to hypertension and a variety of
problems. Her Prilosec alone is one she has to take on a regular basis;
yet, as a result of the expenses associated with her prescription
medicine, this senior citizen at home in Hillsboro, OR, is not able to
take all of the medication she needs. She reports that when she does
take her Prilosec as her doctor tells her, she has had to give up other
kinds of necessities. She is eating cheaper foods and is particularly
concerned that if something isn't done about prescription drugs in the
Senate, she is going to have a whole host of other problems. She is not
able to afford other essentials, such as being able to take care of
expenses for her house.
This is a real case, not some government report from some think tank
in Washington, DC, hypothesizing about what the senior citizens need.
This is a real, live case from my home State, in Hillsboro, OR. She
heard I am urging senior citizens, as this poster says, to send in
copies of their prescription drug bills to their Senators.
She sent me her case. Very clearly, these are heartrending cases--to
think people with a $1,000-a-month income trying to get by on that
alone is hard enough. Having to spend 25 percent of her income on
prescription drugs, having to be part of a drug regime where she can't
even take all that her doctor is telling her to take--this is what is
going on in the United States of America. A country as rich and
powerful and as good as ours has not yet figured out a way to help
people such as this. It is a tragedy that we cannot come together on a
bipartisan basis, the way the Snowe-Wyden bill envisages. There are
other approaches that certainly would be appealing as well. But we need
to get this done. What everybody says is that this Congress is so
polarized, they can't deal with big issues.
Well, I believe the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden bill, which has gotten 54
votes in terms of a funding plan and is based on models that every
Member of the Senate knows about, is a very appealing kind of concept.
But if our colleagues have different approaches--and certainly in this
body we have strong views, and there are a variety of different ideas
on this--have them come forward.
But let's not duck this issue. Let us not duck it and say, oh, this
is a matter for the 2000 campaign, and we don't need to deal with it
today. We need to deal with it now.
I am going to go through a couple of other cases.
Here is another one from a couple in Cornelius, OR, a home in my
State. They have a monthly income of about $1,000. They are spending
between $200 and $400 every month on their prescription drugs. They
have to take drugs for arthritis, for cholesterol problems, and
antibiotics on a fixed income.
Clearly, this kind of case where month after month they are seeing
between 20 percent and 40 percent of their monthly income going for
prescription drugs ought to make it clear to Members of this body that
we have to move and move on a bipartisan basis.
There isn't anything that is important in Washington, DC, that isn't
bipartisan. I don't know of a single issue that can be addressed in a
significant way without Democrats and Republicans coming together. The
Snowe-Wyden bipartisan approach is one way. There may be others. But
the important thing is we ought to move and we ought to move in this
session of Congress.
A third case I would like to go through involves an elderly woman in
Forest Grove, OR. Recently, in effect, in the last few weeks, she spent
$294 on her prescription medicine. She has had to take a variety of
different medicines. That is one example of what we are getting now
from the seniors across this country. This particular senior is in
Forest Grove, OR, taking a whole host of medications.
[[Page S13587]]
A lot of our seniors average 15 prescriptions a year. The third case
I have gone through this morning with seniors spending $294 in just a
few weeks on her prescription medicines in Forest Grove is pretty
representative of what we are hearing.
I hope that as a result of my coming to the floor over these last
days before we wrap up for the year that we can see Democrats and
Republicans in the Senate coming together to try to deal with this
question.
I want to bring up one last case. It is a particularly poignant one.
It is from an older person who is now taking 15 prescription drugs. She
is on a fixed income with nothing but her Social Security. She is
spending $600 a month--$600 a month--on her prescription medicine. None
of it is covered by her health insurance. She writes to tell me that
she is spending almost her entire monthly income on prescription drugs.
Think of that. A senior citizen, again, at home in Oregon spending
almost her entire monthly income on prescription drugs. We asked: What
happens when you can't afford the prescription drugs you need? She said
borrow. That is what she tries to do. A senior citizen with only Social
Security spending virtually all of her monthly income on prescription
drugs is now having to borrow from friends and family.
I have a list of these prescriptions. Again, the list goes on and on.
This is an example of the kind of bills that senior citizens are now
sending in as a result of our efforts to try to get bipartisan action
on this issue.
I hope as a result of my remarks other seniors will, as this poster
says, send in copies of their prescription drug bills. I hope they will
be interested in the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden prescription drug bill.
But, frankly, I would like to make sure they are in contact with all of
us in the Senate because this is not an issue that should be allowed to
be put off until after the 2000 election.
We are given an election certificate. Mr. President, I know you feel
very strongly about important issues such as campaign finance reform
where it is important to come together. We are giving election
certificates to deal with these issues. I have not been given an
election certificate to put this off until after another election. We
are all sent here to deal with these important issues such as campaign
finance reform and prescription drugs because these are important to
the American people.
I am very proud to have been able to work with Senator Olympia Snowe
on this issue.
I think when you are dealing with important questions such as
prescription drugs and campaign finance reform it has to be bipartisan.
My plan is to keep coming to the floor of the Senate day, after day,
after day, bringing up these examples of what I am hearing from the
Nation's senior citizens and hope that we can come together. Senator
Snowe and I got 54 votes on the floor of the Senate for the funding
approach we are taking. More than $10 billion goes from the Medicare
program each year to cover tobacco-related illnesses. We know we have
to act. We have to act responsibly to address these concerns of
seniors.
There is a marketplace-oriented approach to this problem. We don't
need a lot of price controls. We don't need a ``one-size-fits-all'' run
from a Washington, DC, program. The Snowe-Wyden bill will give seniors
the same kind of bargaining power that a health maintenance
organization has to negotiate prices, not through a government regime
but through the power of marketplace forces.
I am going to keep coming back to the floor of the Senate until we
get action on this issue. I will keep reading from these letters. I
hope seniors will continue, as this poster says, to send in copies of
their prescription drug bills. I know that seniors at home have made it
clear they are going to keep sending them to me, and I am very hopeful
that we can get action on this issue in this session.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 1837
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. What is the order of business, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of business is, under the previous
order, the time until 2 p.m. shall be under the control of the
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, or his designee. The
Senator is recognized.
____________________