[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14765-S14766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR THE ELDERLY

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate on a 
number of occasions recently to talk about the issue of prescription 
drugs for the elderly.
  I think there is a particularly relevant point to make this afternoon 
given the very extensive press coverage we have seen on this issue in 
recent days.
  Over the weekend, David Rosenbaum in the New York Times had an 
excellent article on the issue. In the last couple of days, Time 
magazine had another very lengthy piece on the question of prescription 
drugs for seniors. And both of these articles ultimately make the point 
that Congress probably is not going to be able to agree on legislation 
during this session. The authors offer considerable skepticism about 
the ability of Congress to come together on a very difficult issue. 
Both of them, to some extent, go off into what I think are secondary 
questions--the questions of the role of the Internet, and the question 
of patents on drugs. Those are important matters.
  But what is central and what the Congress needs to do on a bipartisan 
basis is pass legislation that would make it possible for frail and 
vulnerable older people to get insurance coverage that would provide 
for their medicine.
  For example, if you are an elderly widow who is 78, maybe having 
early signs of Alzheimer's, and you spend more than half of your 
combined monthly income of Social Security and pension on prescription 
medicine--those are the kinds of letters that seniors are sending to 
me--it is not going to help you a whole lot to get a 10- or 15-percent 
discount because you shop over the Internet. Certainly, the role of the 
Internet in prescription drugs is going to be important. There will be 
a lot of issues. But to provide relief for the Nation's older people, 
what Congress needs to do on a bipartisan basis is pass legislation 
that provides insurance coverage making it possible for older people to 
pay these big bills. Patent issues and the question of the Internet are 
matters that are important, but what is needed is legislation that 
provides real relief.

  Part of the effort to win bipartisan support for prescription drug 
legislation is coming to this floor and, as the poster says, urging 
seniors to send in copies of their prescription drug bills. Send them 
to each of us here in the Senate in Washington, DC.
  I intend to keep coming to the floor of the Senate and actually 
reading from these letters. I have three today that I think tell an 
important story.
  One is from a senior citizen in Medford, OR, in my home State. 
Another is from a senior citizen from Grants Pass, OR, and a third is 
from a senior citizen in O'Brien, OR, all of which reflect the kind of 
concerns I know are out there. Hopefully, as seniors learn about our 
campaign and see that we are urging them to send us copies of their 
prescription drug bills, it can help bring about bipartisan support for 
legislation in the Senate.
  I am very proud that I have been able to team up in recent months 
with Senator Olympia Snowe on bipartisan legislation. I have been of 
the view that nothing more can happen in Washington, DC, unless it is 
bipartisan. The Snowe-Wyden legislation is a bill that uses marketplace 
forces and unleashes the forces of the private sector in an effort to 
make medicine more affordable for the Nation's older people.
  What is sad is that our elderly are in effect hit by a double whammy. 
Millions of them can't afford their prescriptions. Medicare doesn't 
cover medicine. It hasn't since the program began in 1965.
  On top of the fact that seniors don't have Medicare coverage, when 
they walk into a pharmacy--I see our friend from New Hampshire, our 
colleague who has a great interest in health care. As he knows, when a 
senior walks into a drugstore in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Kentucky, 
and can't pay for their prescription medicine, in addition they are 
subsidizing the big buyers of prescription drugs. The HMOs and the 
health care plans are in a position to negotiate a discount. They get a 
break on their prices. The seniors, people who are spending half their 
monthly income on prescriptions, are, in effect, subsidizing those big 
buyers.
  The bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation, fortunately, has been able to 
generate a lot of interest in the Senate. Senator Snowe and I are proud 
to have the support.
  For example, more than 54 Members of the Senate--more than half the 
Senate--are now on record saying they would support a tobacco tax to 
pay for prescription drug benefits for older people. That strikes me as 
appropriate.

  Medicare spent more than $12 billion last year picking up the costs 
of tobacco-related illnesses, and more than 50 Members of the Senate 
are now on record as saying they would be willing to support additional 
funding to help the vulnerable seniors from whom we are hearing.
  Let me read a little bit from some of these letters because I think 
they sum it up. One I received in the last couple of days from Grants 
Pass says:

       No way can I afford to pay for my medicine. I did get a 
     refill on Pepcid.

  That is an important medication this elderly woman is taking now in 
Grants Pass, OR.


[[Page S14766]]


       I do hope you can do something to help us seniors.

  When she writes, ``No way can I afford to pay for my medicine,'' that 
essentially sums it up.
  We can talk about people buying prescription drugs over the Internet; 
we can talk about the patent issue, both involving substantial sums of 
money. Whatever that person needs in Grants Pass--and the letter goes 
on to say she has no insurance coverage for her medicine--seniors need 
legislation that actually provides coverage through the insurance 
system to help pay for prescription drugs.
  Another letter comes from Medford, OR. We can see the stack of bills 
going to a pharmacy in Medford, Southern Oregon Health Trust Pharmacy. 
This individual has spent $1,664 recently on prescription drugs in 
Medicare. She is sending bills to our office. Unfortunately, she 
doesn't get any help through the various insurance coverages she has. 
This is representative of what we have been hearing. She also goes on 
to point out that this large stack of bills she sent me does not even 
include some of the over-the-counter drugs she is taking such as 
ibuprofen.
  These cases illustrate very well why our country cannot afford not to 
cover prescription medicine. All of these articles, including Time 
magazine, are always questioning whether the Nation can afford to cover 
prescription medicine. I have contended for some time now we cannot 
afford not to cover prescription medicine. These bills I have been 
reading from on the floor of the Senate show seniors can't afford drugs 
that help to lower cholesterol, help to lower their blood pressure. 
These are drugs that help older people to stay well.
  Prescription drug coverage for seniors has been a priority ever since 
my days with the Gray Panthers before I was elected to Congress. 
Frankly, it is much more important today than ever because these drugs 
that so many seniors write that they cannot afford today help seniors 
to stay well. The variety of anticoagulant drugs that help to prevent 
strokes, as I have commented on the floor of the Senate in the past, 
might cost $1,000 a year for an older person to buy them to stay 
healthy. Compare that to the costs incurred if a senior suffers a 
stroke. If a senior cannot get an anticoagulant drug to help stay 
healthy and avoid a stroke, that senior might incur expenses of more 
than $100,000.
  The question for the Senate is, Are we going to help frail and 
vulnerable seniors with prescription drug coverage that will cost just 
a fraction of the expenses that will be incurred through Medicare Part 
A, the hospital portion, and Medicare Part B, the outpatient portion, 
if the senior cannot get help and ends up getting sick and, very often, 
incurring extraordinary expenses?

  The third letter I read comes from a woman in O'Brien, OR. She has 
spent more than $2,000 through November of 1999 on her prescription 
drugs, and just in recent days she has taken on a job in hopes she will 
be able to pay for her prescriptions. She is 78 years old. At present, 
she has her Social Security and Medicare. She now has taken on a small 
job in hopes she will have the funds to pay for her prescription 
medicine. She writes that she hopes the Snowe-Wyden legislation becomes 
law.
  Other colleagues have different approaches. We appreciate that. What 
is important is we move forward together. Let's show the authors of all 
these recent articles in Time magazine, in the New York Times, and 
various other publications that are skeptical about whether the 
Congress can tackle a big issue such as this; let's prove them wrong. 
Let's show, in spite of a fairly polarized political climate in America 
today, when there is an important program, this Congress can come 
together.
  I will keep coming to the floor and urging seniors to send in copies 
of their prescription drug bills. The poster lays it out: Send their 
bills to their Senator in Washington, DC. The Snowe-Wyden legislation, 
SPICE, for the Senior Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act, is a 
bill that, on a bipartisan basis, can be supported in the Senate. If 
other colleagues have different ideas, let's get them out on the table. 
Let's come up with a marketplace approach to holding down the costs of 
medicine.
  These bills show access to coverage is very key, but holding down the 
costs of medicine is very key as well. There is a right way and a wrong 
way to hold down those costs. The right way is to use a model such as 
the health care system for Members of Congress. That is what is behind 
the Snowe-Wyden legislation that provides choice, competition, and 
marketplace forces for holding down medicine.
  There is a wrong way--the various approaches that call for price 
controls. The real danger behind price controls is that the costs for 
anybody who is not in the price control group will be shifted on to 
other Americans who are having difficulty paying for medicines as well. 
It would not be a particularly useful thing for the Senate to come up 
with a price control regime for folks on Medicare and then have the 
costs shifted over to a divorced woman who is 27 years old with two 
children who is working her head off to try to help her family and help 
them pay for expenses and then her bills would go up because costs 
would be shifted to her.
  I intend to keep coming back to the floor of the Senate and reading 
from these bills. Today I have read accounts from Medford, from Grants 
Pass, and from O'Brien. Seniors cannot afford today to cover 
prescription drugs.
  When public opinion polls are taken, coverage of prescription drugs 
for older people is now one of the top two or three concerns in 
America--not just for seniors but for all Americans; certainly for the 
sandwich generation. Perhaps a young couple in their forties who have 
to try to provide some assistance to a parent who could not afford 
prescription medicine is following this issue. It is not just a 
seniors' issue; it is an issue for families; it is an issue for the 
quality of life of our country.
  The Snowe-Wyden legislation is a bipartisan bill where more than 50 
Senators have already indicated they will support the funding mechanism 
in prescription drug coverage as one way to proceed.
  I am sure our colleagues have other ways to go. But what is important 
is to show the skeptics across this country who are writing in 
magazines and saying in news reports that nothing can be done that we 
can come together on a bipartisan basis and provide real relief for the 
Nation's older people.
  I hope seniors will, as this poster indicates, continue to send 
copies of their prescription drug bills to us in the Senate, each of us 
in Washington, DC, because I intend to keep coming back to this floor 
again and again until we can secure passage of this legislation.
  I do not want to see the attention of the Senate diverted to 
questions of the role of the Internet and patents and the variety of 
matters because, while they are important, they do not go to the heart 
of what is needed in this country. What is needed in America for the 
millions of seniors who are spending half of their income on 
prescription drugs--and that is what I have been describing on the 
floor of the Senate--is insurance coverage. They need coverage which 
will pick up that part of their insurance bill that goes for 
prescription drugs. That is what the Snowe-Wyden legislation does on a 
bipartisan basis.
  We are going to keep coming back to the floor of this body to talk 
about the need for prescription drug coverage for the elderly. There 
are bipartisan proposals to do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is conducting morning business 
until 2 o'clock.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls 5 more minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
continue for not over 10 minutes in defense of the distinguished 
majority leader following an editorial in one of our papers today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________