[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 156 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H11184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2003, President Bush signed 
the Medicare drug benefit act into law. At the signing, the President 
hailed the law as the greatest advance in health care coverage for 
America's seniors since the founding of Medicare. Here we are 2 years 
later, less than a month before the program begins, and so far the 
benefit as it relates to the consumer, i.e. the senior citizens, the 42 
million senior citizens across this country, is an absolute failure.
  It has failed because my colleagues on the other side who wrote this 
bill refuse to adhere to the number one rule of any business, which is 
that the customer comes first. And that customer in this case is senior 
citizens.
  This bill was never designed with senior citizens in mind. It was 
designed with the pharmaceutical industry and the private insurers in 
mind, who are making on average $130 billion to $132 billion over the 
next 10 years in more profits than they would have made had this bill 
not been in place.
  Senior citizens all over this country, regardless of district, 
regardless of region, regardless of income, regardless of education are 
all saying the same thing, that the bill is too complex. Part D, as it 
relates to prescription drugs, is way too complex. This is a case where 
simplicity trumped choice. We have given them so much choice, it is so 
complicated that nobody can figure out how to get the ``benefit'' of 
the prescription drug.
  In fact, the drug manufacturers will see an extra $130 billion in 
profits over the next 10 years. Private insurers, we actually have an 
HMO slush fund where private insurers are rewarded with up to $130 
billion in additional profits over the next 10 years because of 
overpayments.

                              {time}  1800

  So it is not just bad for our senior citizens, but because we are 
paying more, it is bad for our taxpayers. We could be doing better.
  There are also three other provisions in this bill that left the 
basic principles of the private sector out.
  First, competition. We should have allowed the reimportation of 
pharmaceutical products from Canada and Europe. That competition of 
pricing that goes on in Canada, France, Germany, England, Ireland, with 
what happens here in the United States, we would have had prices that 
are 50 percent cheaper. That is good for our senior citizens and good 
for our taxpayers who are being asked to pay for a pharmaceutical bill 
that is $800 billion over 10 years, not the $400 billion as advertised.
  Second, the legislation designed by the Republicans specifically 
prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating lower prices. Just 
like Sam's Club does, just like Target does, just like any business 
that negotiations with their services, they get the best price because 
of competition, this legislation left the number one principle of 
private sector, negotiate for the best price.
  So what has happened? According to the Government Reform Committee, 
they found that the new Medicaid drug benefit has done nothing to hold 
prices down. In fact, today, Medicare prices are 61 percent higher than 
the average price in Canada for the same medication, and 84 percent 
higher than the federally-negotiated prices that we do under the 
Veterans Administration. There is no price system, no competition in 
this bill as it relates to reimportation and as it relates to 
negotiation of price.
  Third, it puts more barriers in place to getting generics into the 
market to compete against name-brand drugs. If we followed those three 
principles: Reimportation to allow competition and choice; negotiation 
between the government and the prescription drug companies just like 
the VA does, just like Sam's Club does, just like Target does, just 
like any company that negotiates with its sources and suppliers to get 
the best price; and third, allow generics into the market quicker, the 
taxpayers would have saved money and we would have delivered a better 
product to our senior citizens, and we would have had price control.
  Right now, the only beneficiary out of this are the pharmaceutical 
companies and the insurance companies. The senior citizens and the 
taxpayers are being left behind. This bill never had the number one 
person in mind, the customer, the taxpayer and the senior citizen in 
mind, when drafting this bill.
  It also failed at having a discount card. So few seniors signed up 
because there was no discount. In the greatest expansion of Medicare in 
terms of an entitlement, we were originally told this bill was going to 
cost $400 billion. It is going to cost $800 billion, and it is mounting 
and there has been nothing done to control the prices.
  Once the errors were discovered, CMS directed seniors to Medicare's 
Web site, even though over 75 percent of the seniors have never used 
the Internet. There are serious and widespread problems, according to 
the Government Accountability Office.
  Mr. Speaker, the Medicare prescription drug benefit is a failure 
because it was never designed with a customer in mind.

                          ____________________