[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5912-H5913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2145
MEDICARE MODERNIZATION LEGISLATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, here it is in Washington, nearly 10 o'clock
at night and the Republican leadership of this institution does not
even have a prescription drug bill ready for us to read as homework
tonight. They tell us that we are going to debate this tomorrow, maybe
2 hours at the most, one of the most important changes in our country's
history in terms of health care for our seniors. They tell us maybe
after midnight tonight we might be able to go up to the Rules Committee
to offer our amendments and to have them considered. They will deny
most of those amendments, but the interesting thing about going to the
Rules Committee after midnight, no press is there. Nobody will know, in
one of the most significant pieces of legislation that will be
considered in this 21st century. So the American people will not know.
The press will not know.
I am here tonight to say I intend to offer an amendment before the
Rules Committee that is likely to be rejected, but it is a very
important amendment. This amendment says that whatever prescription
drug plan is considered here tomorrow, under their very restrictive
rules, should do exactly what we do in the Department of Veterans
Affairs and exactly what we do at the Department of Defense and that is
have negotiated pricing for the drugs that our seniors will buy. Why?
You get the best price. Everybody knows when you buy in quantity, you
get a cheaper price. It is a very simple concept. But what has the
Republican majority in this House, the radical right, done? They have
actually put a provision in the bill and here it is. This is the bill
that was before the committee and we know this provision will be
retained in whatever the Rules Committee considers tonight, but it
basically says that it prohibits our government, our Secretary of
Health and Human Services from negotiating with the biggest drug
companies in the world to get the best price for prescription drugs for
our seniors. So what they are going to do, imagine they have got a
provision that prohibits what we do at the Department of Veterans
Affairs already and it prohibits what we do at the Department of
Defense already in our financial purchasing system which gets our
people the best prices. That is in the base bill. My amendment would
get rid of that and it would say, hey, if you are going to do it and we
have success across our government, just like Canada has success in
their country by negotiating with the most powerful pharmaceutical
companies in the world, why should we treat seniors any differently?
Why should we make them pay higher prices? Indeed, in the Republican
bill they make seniors pay any cost of drugs over $2,000 a year up to a
level of perhaps $3,500 and it might be more because they are drafting
the bill somewhere here in the Capitol. I do not know where they are. I
went up to the Rules Committee to find the bill and the doors were all
locked to the chairman's office.
But in any case here is what is currently being paid, for example, in
the United States. Let us just take one of these drugs here, Norvasc,
which is for high blood pressure. Normally it sells in one of our
pharmacies for about $182.99, the Canadian price is $152.82, and the
price at the Department of Veterans Affairs is $102. It is a definite
savings. That is true with a whole series of pharmaceutical products
that could be available to our seniors. So what the Republicans are
basically saying in their bill to our seniors is, you have to pay the
higher price because we won't permit you to negotiate price, we won't
negotiate it for you, because our bill fundamentally denies it. This
provision was written by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Gee,
does that surprise anybody?
I am only one Member of Congress representing 660,000 beautiful
people in the northern part of Ohio. I am only one. Do you know there
are six lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies in this town for
every one of me that there is? So basically many times I go home at
night and I say to myself, folks back home, I am all you got and I am
sticking with you. And I say to the pharmaceutical companies, I don't
take your money, I don't want your money, but I'll show the public
where your money goes. Is it any wonder why they put the provision in
the base bill that went through the Committee on Energy and Commerce
like lightning the other day?
Let us take a look at PhRMA. This group is so powerful that just in
the last election cycle, just in one year, 2002, they contributed over
$3 million. Ninety-five percent of it went to, guess, which party? The
Republican Party. I happen to be a Democrat. Too bad for the Democrats.
They only get 5 percent of the $3,100,000 that was donated just in the
fiscal year 2002. Why do you think they gave all that money to the
leadership of this institution? Take a look at Pfizer. They gave 80
percent of the $1.8 million they just contributed in 2002 to one party,
the Republican Party. You can go down the list. Almost all the money
goes to one party. So is it any surprise to us why the bill that we
cannot find here in the Capitol and we will not even be allowed to talk
about until after midnight and we are all staying up late to do that
for our constituents, do you really wonder whether this government is
on the level?
I urge my colleagues tomorrow to vote ``no'' on this bill and to vote
``no'' on these pharmaceutical companies until we can get negotiated
pricing in this bill.
TITLE VIII--SECTION 1809(c)(1)(D)
Noninterference--In carrying out its duties with respect to
the provision of qualified prescription drug coverage to
beneficiaries under this title. The Administrator may not:
(i) require a particular formulary or institute a price
structure for the reimbursement of covered outpatient drugs;
(ii) interfere in any way with negotiations between PDP
sponsors and Medicare Advantage organizations and drug
manufacturers, wholesalers, or other suppliers of covered
outpatients drugs; and
(iii) other wise interfere with the competitive nature of
providing such coverage through such sponsors and
organizations.
____
U.S., CANADIAN, NEGOTIATED VA/DOD PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSS
U.S. Canadian negotiated
Drug name/prescribed for retail retail price (VA
price price & DoD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glucophage/Diabetes Millitus.......... $69.99 $30.16 $60.95
K-Dur 20/Low potassium levels......... 55.99 29.01 25.58
Norvasc/High blood pressure........... 182.99 152.82 102.11
Prilosec/Heartburn.................... 134.99 67.71 63.32
Prozac/Depression..................... 302.97 140.69 186.98
Synthroid/Hypothyroidism.............. 39.09 17.82 29.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison is drawn between drugs of equal dosage and quantity.
Sources: Data Compiled from Veterans' Affairs Commission and Alliance
for Retired Americans.
2002 PHARMACEUTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, BY PARTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats Republicans
Rank Organization Amount (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pharmaceutical Research & $3,180,552 5 95
Manufacturers of America..
2 Pfizer Inc................. 1,804,522 20 80
3 Bristol-Myers Squibb....... 1,590,813 16 83
4 Eli Lilly & Co............. 1,581,531 25 75
[[Page H5913]]
5 Pharmacia Corp............. 1,480,241 22 78
6 GlaxoSmithKline............ 1,301,438 22 78
7 Wyeth...................... 1,188,919 17 83
8 Johnson & Johnson.......... 1,075,371 39 61
9 Schering-Plough Corp....... 1,057,978 21 79
10 Aventis.................... 954,349 22 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
____________________