[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Page H7234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 1 minute.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record an 
editorial that was in my local newspaper, the Asbury Park Press, on 
Sunday relative to the Medicare prescription drug issue; and I want to 
highlight a couple of statements that were made by that editorial.
  It says, ``Both Houses of Congress have passed what they describe as 
historic plans to extend prescription coverage to Medicare recipients. 
They are historic all right. They begin to chip away at one of 
government's most successful programs. Medicare has worked well for 
millions of seniors since its inception in 1966. Its administrative 
costs of 2 percent are far lower than those of private insurers. The 
notion that competition in the private marketplace will provide 
consumers with more choices, driving down the cost of drugs is a tired 
philosophy that has failed to deliver promised benefits in the areas of 
health care, transportation, energy and telecommunications. Providing 
extended coverage to their existing Medicare program would offer better 
benefits for less cost, be far more efficient and easier for recipients 
to use and be less prone to the vagaries of the marketplace, quick to 
abandon those that they cannot make a profit from.''

              [From the Asbury Park Press, July 13, 2003]

                          Drug Plan a Placebo

       Both Houses of Congress have passed what they describe as 
     historic plans to extend prescription coverage to Medicare 
     recipients. They're historic all right; they begin to chip 
     away at one of government's most successful programs.
       Rather than turning it over to HMOs and private insurers as 
     the Republicans in Congress want to do, Medicare should be 
     expanded to include an affordable, guaranteed prescription 
     drug component, as Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and others 
     prefer.
       Both the Senate and House versions of the bill are fatally 
     flawed. Even the most vocal supporters of a prescription drug 
     benefit have expressed severe reservations about the 
     legislation, including the American Association of Retired 
     Persons.
       Among our many concerns:
       Both bills fail to adequately address the problem of 
     skyrocketing drug prices. A study released last week found 
     that the price of drugs most commonly used by the elderly 
     rose more than three times the rate of inflation last year. 
     Because co-pays and deductibles under the proposed plans are 
     pegged to the cost of drugs, coverage will become 
     unaffordable unless spiraling prices can be brought under 
     control.
       The co-pays and deductibles are too high and the benefits 
     too meager. The two versions would cover an estimated one-
     third of the annual cost of drugs up to $4,500 and up to two-
     thirds of drug bills exceeding $12,000. The version supported 
     by Pallone would cover 80 percent of the costs.
       The House version could dismantle New Jersey's Senior Gold 
     and Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled 
     programs and force seniors to enroll in far less generous 
     plans run by HMOs and other private insurers. The Senate 
     version, the lesser of two evils, would allow for the 
     continuation of Senior Gold and PAAD.
       The House bill does not guarantee coverage in areas where 
     private firms are unwilling to write policies.
       Employers are likely to reduce retiree benefits, leaving 
     millions with less coverage than they have today. According 
     to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, 37 percent of 
     retirees with employer prescription drug coverage would lose 
     it.
       The substantial coverage gaps are confusing and are likely 
     to discourage enrollment in the program.
       By allowing highly subsidized private insurers to offer 
     supplemental benefits, relatively healthy people will be 
     drawn to private coverage, losing their choice of doctors and 
     increasing costs to taxpayers.
       Medicare has worked well for millions of seniors since its 
     inception in 1966. Its administrative costs of 2 percent are 
     far lower than those of private insurers. The notion that 
     competition in the private marketplace will provide consumers 
     with more choices, driving down the cost of drugs, is a tired 
     philosophy that has failed to deliver promised benefits in 
     the areas of health care, transportation, energy and 
     telecommunications.
       Providing extended coverage through the existing Medicare 
     program would offer better benefits for less cost, be far 
     more efficient and easier for recipients to use, and be less 
     prone to the vagaries of a marketplace quick to abandon those 
     it can't make a profit from.
       The two bills on the table are driven more by politics than 
     a sincere desire to give seniors the affordable, life-saving 
     and life-enhancing drugs they deserve. Seniors and senior 
     organizations should insist that their elected 
     representatives hold out for a comprehensive program that 
     offers real relief, not just a placebo.

                          ____________________