[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 105 (Monday, July 29, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S7464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       21ST CENTURY MEDICARE ACT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our health care system has increased the 
lifespan and quality of life of our citizens. Our population is aging; 
people with chronic conditions are living longer. The number of 
Medicare beneficiaries is increasing and will continue to increase as 
baby boomers retire.
  As I have listened to the debate over the last two weeks, I think we 
can all agree on one thing, the seniors in this Nation deserve the best 
possible health care, of which prescription drug coverage is a vital 
component. All of us want to provide Medicare beneficiaries with 
prescription drug coverage this year. Unfortunately we do not agree on 
how this coverage should be provided.
  I support the Tripartisan bill for several simple reasons. The 
Tripartisan bill operates on the fundamental principles of efficiency, 
quality, and choice. It balances all of the issues and provides a 
permanent solution--all of which result in cost savings and 
affordability. Balance is a key point here.
  We do not offer a plan that cannot be sustained, resulting in bigger 
problems down the road. We do not offer a plan that ends abruptly. We 
do not offer a plan offering everything to everyone, knowing full well 
that it cannot work, as the Graham-Kennedy bill does. We provide 
Medicare beneficiaries with four key elements: First; Choice. Giving 
seniors the right to choose a plan and the right to choose a particular 
medication is the greatest benefit we can offer Medicare beneficiaries. 
Under the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, seniors can only get a government 
run prescription drug plan. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill forces 
seniors and their physicians into government run formularies. This is 
not what we want for our seniors and their doctors; Second; Quality. I 
do not believe that the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill has any incentive to 
improve quality--over and over, we have seen how government run 
programs have failed our health care system. Our Tripartisan bill makes 
a concerted effort to improve and modernize Medicare, by offering 
seniors choice not only in prescription drug coverage but for overall 
medical coverage as well; Third; Efficiency and Cost containment. The 
Tripartisan bill fosters competition, based on quality and cost. The 
Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill does not. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill 
cannot deliver drugs efficiently by making the government the sole 
regulator of Medicare drug coverage. The Tripartisan bill guarantees 
that at least two plans will compete in each region, giving seniors the 
right and choice to pick the plans that best suit their needs; and 
Fourth; Balance. The Tripartisan bill balances the needs of seniors 
with benefits. We improve coverage for the sickest, poorest seniors by 
helping needy seniors meet their health care costs through generous 
subsidies. We use an assets test to determine who needs assistance. 
What is so wrong with this? All we are doing is applying asset testing 
criteria for prescription drug coverage. I do want to make a correction 
to my statement from 7/22/02, The Family Opportunity Act does not have 
an assets test as I indicated. Rather it has an income and disability 
test.
  In conclusion, I believe the model of the Tripartisan bill is the 
only workable, long lasting, and fair plan for our seniors and 
taxpayers. The Tripartisan bill model is the only way to achieve a 
long-term solution to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare 
beneficiaries and, at the same time, give seniors, their families, and 
doctors choice. It is not a quick fix to get immediate support for 
something that is not going to last, like the Graham-Miller-Kennedy 
bill. I am hopeful that more of my colleagues will recognize this, and 
help us reach an acceptable agreement.

                          ____________________