[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 108 (Thursday, September 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8569-S8570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on an issue which
has been talked about on the floor of the Senate this morning, and that
is prescription drugs.
We all hear the critical cry--I say ``cry'' because it is almost
that--as we talk to seniors across this country who say: We need some
help; these drugs cost too much; they are out of our reach; we need
help.
What is interesting is this is not heard from everybody. It is
principally from a group of people who don't have access to affordable
prescription drugs, and now we are charged as a body to develop a
policy to ensure, to guarantee that coverage and getting it as quickly
as we can to those people who need it, who are crying out now.
This past year I received over 3,000 letters or e-mails from seniors
in Tennessee on this very topic. What did I hear? One elderly couple
from Kingsport, TN, wrote:
We are requesting that you do not support any big
government drug scheme. Government does not do things better
than individuals. Please protect seniors' choice of private
coverage. One size does not fit all. We do not want the
bureaucrats interfering with our doctor-patient prescription
drug choices.
A widow from Tennessee who had a liver transplant writes:
I'm against the big government plan. I have certain
medications I must take and want to be able to get whatever
medicines I need.
These letters speak volumes. They, first of all, point out the
importance of health care security for our seniors that prescription
drugs do provide but also the importance of having a right to choose
what is best for one's individual needs.
I mention these letters because I do believe this body should respond
as government should, in the broader sense, with a health care
proposal, prescription drug plan, that gives affordable access to all
seniors, making it a part of health care security. The plans we have
heard talked about in the press today are the Bush Medicare plan and
the Gore prescription drug plan that have been contrasted on the floor
earlier today by a colleague from the other side of the aisle.
I want to comment on those. It is useful for this body because, in
essence, Governor Bush's proposal looks at two bills on this floor. One
is Chairman Roth's bill, which gives an immediate helping hand to those
seniors who need it today, working predominantly through the States;
the second component of the Bush proposal is modeled on the same
concept as Breaux-Frist, the bipartisan plan that is based on the way
we get our health care as Senators today.
On the Gore side--and that is why this contrast is useful --is the
Clinton-Gore proposal, which is also on this floor in terms of
prescription drugs. Although we use Governor Bush and Vice President
Gore, they both represent bills that are currently on the floor of the
Senate.
Looking at Governor Bush's Medicare plan, it has two parts. One is
overall modernization, long-term strengthening of the overall Medicare
plan, the health care plan for our seniors and individuals with
disabilities. The second part offers immediately, right now, the help
that seniors are crying out for today. You simply cannot ignore those
low-income and middle-income individuals who can't afford the drugs,
who really are choosing between putting food on the table and buying
those prescription drugs.
The two-part plan has its overall goal to strengthen Medicare and to
get that prescription drug coverage to all seniors. It is based on this
bipartisan plan, this Breaux-Frist type principle.
The primary focus of Governor Bush's proposal is a universal
prescription drug proposal that includes this comprehensive
modernization. It does several things. No. 1, it lets seniors choose.
Beneficiaries can stay in traditional Medicare, what they have today,
or they can choose a plan such as Senator Bill Frist or Senator Roth or
President Clinton has, a model called the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Plan. Under Governor Bush's proposal and under the Breaux-
Frist proposal, all current Medicare benefits are preserved.
The real advantage is that seniors for the first time are given a
real option to choose among plans that might better be able to meet
their individual needs. One plan might have more preventive care.
Another plan might have vision care--not in Medicare today. Another
plan might have dental care--not in Medicare today.
No. 2, Governor Bush's proposal, and the Breaux-Frist proposal in the
Senate, provides all seniors some prescription drug coverage access.
Yes, there is a 25-percent subsidy of the cost of those premiums for
everybody with a 100-percent subsidy for those people under 150 percent
of poverty.
[[Page S8570]]
All seniors under Governor Bush's proposal have a limit, a cap on how
much is spent out of pocket, not only for prescription drugs but for
all health care--visits to the physician, visits to the hospital,
prescription drug coverage. Once your out-of-pocket expenditures get
above $6,000, it is covered by the Government
Fourth, this proposal is based on the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Plan. I think that is very important because seniors
understand if that care is really good enough for President Clinton or
Senator Frist, health care will be good enough for me.
No. 5, Governor Bush has said yes, this is going to take more money.
It is going to take about $110 billion in more money. Why? Because that
modernization in bringing things up to date, that better coordination
of services, is going to require an investment. That is in real
contrast to the Clinton-Gore proposal which, when we first heard about
it, was going to cost $167 billion; that is when it was introduced last
year. Right now, the figure touted by the Gore campaign is $250
billion. The Congressional Budget Office says no, it is not $167, it is
not $250 billion, but in truth it is about a $337 billion plan.
So, taxpayers, watch out. Seniors, watch out. This plan has already
doubled in size, in how much it costs, in the last 12 months, the plan
of the Clinton-Gore team. No. 6, and most important, I think, in the
short term, is seniors deserve this coverage now, not 2 years from now,
not under the Clinton-Gore plan which phases in over another 8 years--
actually they don't fully implement it until the year 2010. Our seniors
need health care now.
I would like to briefly turn at this point to S. 3016 and S. 3017,
introduced by Senator Roth. What this bill says--which complements,
supplements, and parallels very much what Governor Bush has said, and
Governor Bush did it through his helping hand--since we have a problem
now, let's reach out right now and get the money to the neediest
people, the low- and moderate-income people who need it right now; not
to be phased in later.
What this Roth bill does is it makes grants immediately available to
those people who need it the most. It will extend prescription drug
coverage immediately, recognizing it is a transition program, until we
modernize Medicare through the Breaux-Frist or Governor Bush approach.
It immediately extends prescription drug coverage to about 85 percent
of Medicare beneficiaries.
It serves as a bridge to overall Medicare modernization, overall
reform.
This is not the answer. This is the short-term answer to plug that
hole that everybody agrees is there, whether Democrat or Republican.
That hole is created because true modernization is going to take 12
months or 24 months or 36 months. So let's start that modernization
program now, but, in the meantime, let's get help to the people who
need it, who are out there making that choice between putting food on
the table, buying those groceries, or buying prescription drugs. Let's
help them in 6 months, not 10 years from now, not 5 years from now.
That is where the Roth bill moves right in.
Let me point out that 22 States already have taken action. Remember,
all 50 States right now are administering prescription drug programs.
That mechanism is there right now. It is not in HCFA, it is not in the
Federal Government now, and that is why, under Chairman Roth's
leadership, we can get that aid to the people who need it most.
I will talk more about the Clinton-Gore plan later, but let me just
close by saying all I said sharply contrasts it.
No. 1, the Gore plan forces seniors to wait 10 years before it is
fully implemented. It doesn't even start offering any drugs or drug
coverage for at least 2 years.
No. 2, it doesn't give seniors any choice. They can choose one time,
at 64\1/2\ years. They choose one time, and that is it. Contrast that
with the Breaux-Frist plan or Governor Bush's plan, which allows choice
at any point in time.
No. 3, the Clinton-Gore plan does nothing to strengthen Medicare. It
is a 50-percent copayments for drugs. It does nothing to modernize or
strengthen Medicare long term.
No. 4, it does nothing to benefit, to improve that underlying benefit
package in terms of preventive drugs, preventive care, in terms of
vision care, in terms of dental care. The flexibility is simply not
there in the Gore plan.
I close by saying our debate about the various plans is an exciting
one for me. Our goal must be health care security for seniors. Governor
Bush and our plans, through Breaux-Frist and the Roth proposal, do just
that.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
____________________