[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. STEVAN PEARCE

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 12, 2007

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, over 90% of people with Medicare, that's 38 
million Americans, get their prescription drugs through Medicare Part 
D. These seniors are satisfied with their coverage and are finally 
receiving the drugs they need at costs they can afford.
  Consistently, 80% of beneficiaries report they are satisfied with 
their current coverage and drug plans. Those include seniors known as 
dual-eligibles, the poorest seniors eligible for both Medicare and 
Medicaid, because they are seeing more choices and paying less money 
for quality care.
  My constituent, Nancy Santheson of Roswell, New Mexico, was spending 
almost $800/month on one drug to treat osteoporosis. She had zero 
coverage the first year her doctor prescribed it. Once she signed up 
for her Medicare Part D plan, it went down to only $60/month. This drug 
is not listed on the Veterans' Administration's national formulary. Had 
Nancy been dependent on the price negotiations the VA administers and 
the Democrats have proposed, she would not have had coverage of this 
drug, a new treatment that has shown great promise in reversing bone 
loss.
  Democrats say they will fill in the donut-hole, a cost estimated to 
be $450 billion over 10 years, with the savings they claim will incur 
through government interference in price negotiations. Yet the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office and Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services have stated that they predict government involvement 
in price negotiations will not lead to lower costs for taxpayers or 
seniors.
  Seniors want choice, not government controlled access to their vital 
prescriptions. The leverage needed to negotiate low prices is volume 
buying and the ability to walk away from a deal the government decides 
is too expensive. This means the government will have to walk away from 
a deal with a drug company, and seniors would not have access to those 
drugs. Negotiating low prices will take priority over getting the most 
quality, effective drugs in our seniors' medicine cabinets.
  But seniors are already getting negotiated discounts. Private 
insurance plans already have a strong incentive to negotiate low prices 
for seniors: they want to control their own costs and compete for new 
enrollees to choose their plan. Premiums for the drug basic benefit are 
offered at an average of $22/month for seniors in 2007, down from $23 
in 2006. This is $15 less than the $37/month coverage premiums were 
originally projected to cost. In fact, Democrats wanted to set premiums 
on seniors at a static $35/month, $13 more than average beneficiaries 
will pay next year. This proves that competition is working and our 
seniors are receiving benefits cheaper than ever imagined.
  Democrats point to the Veterans' Administration as a model for this 
government price controlled plan. But the latest information from the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggests that almost 40% of 
veterans eligible for both VA and Medicare benefits choose to get their 
prescriptions through Medicare Part D, the plan with more choices.

  Time and again, veterans in my district have been frustrated that in 
order to receive the best benefits, they must get their drugs through 
an impersonal mail order program. In fact, 76% of veterans' 
prescriptions are distributed through mail order. And year after year 
efforts are made to encourage more veterans to get their prescriptions 
through mail order. Why put seniors in this position when we do not 
have to? Our seniors will face threats to their ability to purchase 
drugs from local pharmacies, just as veterans face, and may have to 
retrieve their drugs through an impersonal mail-order program, not 
their trusted pharmacist.
  Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve to have access to the drugs they 
need at the lowest costs possible. They are getting both now, and 
Democrats want to take that away. We must continue to fight for our 
seniors and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

                          ____________________