[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 11 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E162-E163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. GARY G. MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 12, 2007

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to vote 
on H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 
because I had to travel back to California due to a death in the 
family. I would like the record to reflect that had I been here, I 
would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 4 and ``aye'' on the Motion to Commit. 
H.R. 4 will not, as some claim, save Medicare beneficiaries money on 
their prescription drugs. All that this ill-conceived bill will do is 
to restrict beneficiary access to necessary drugs, stifle medical 
advancements, and limit the pharmacies that seniors can utilize.
  In the last year, seniors have been able to enjoy outpatient 
prescription drug coverage under Medicare for the first time in the 
program's history. Every Medicare-eligible senior now has access to a 
voluntary, affordable prescription drug benefit, with extra help 
available for low income seniors. Consumers in my state of California 
can choose from over fifty national, state and regional plans, which 
cover brand name and generic drugs. The hallmark of this program is 
choice. Under the current system, covered seniors can continue to visit 
their neighborhood pharmacies and have access to the medications that 
have been prescribed to them by their doctors.
  Recent data indicates that the current system of incorporating 
private sector principles into the prescription drug plan is working to 
control costs, while providing prescription drug coverage to millions 
of seniors who did not have it previously. Independent estimates for 
the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit for Fiscal Year 2008 show 
that net costs are thirty percent less than were originally predicted 
when the benefit was created four

[[Page E163]]

years ago. In addition, based on strong, competitive bids by health 
care plans for 2007, average monthly premiums will be approximately $22 
for beneficiaries, a drop from last year's average premium and well 
below initial premium estimates.
  The bottom line is that consumer choice is working. There are 
currently many different drug plans available to seniors. These plans 
compete with each other and negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical 
companies. As we have seen, this competition has resulted in lower 
costs for the program than originally expected. Such cost savings have 
been achieved while preserving the ability of seniors to obtain the 
drugs their doctor has prescribed from a local pharmacist of choice.
  The misguided proposal before us today to put the government in 
charge of negotiating prescription drug prices does not serve the 
interests of seniors. Government controls will lead to restrictive 
formularies, denying seniors coverage for the drugs their doctors 
prescribe. While seniors will have fewer prescriptions to choose from, 
they will not realize savings from this reduction in prescription 
options. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) affirmed 
that government negotiation will only yield savings if access to 
medicines is restricted.
  H.R. 4 will limit seniors' choice of plans and access to necessary 
treatments; what's more, it will stifle innovation. In examining ways 
to control the costs of prescription drugs, we must not forget that 
innovations by pharmaceutical companies lead to the development of 
newer and better treatments. Price controls create barriers to 
pharmaceutical innovation that can hurt patients and slow the potential 
for innovative therapy discovery. Some estimates find that almost 200 
new drugs would go undiscovered over the next two decades as an 
indirect result of federal price negotiations.
  We all want to ensure our seniors can get the prescriptions they need 
at the lowest cost. The debate before us today is about who we think is 
most effective in negotiating with the drug companies to achieve this 
low cost. We do not need to speculate on the answer to this question. 
The current program of senior choice and market competition has already 
lowered costs by forty percent in one year. In contrast, the CBO has 
said that the proposal to move toward socialized medicine will not save 
seniors any money unless access to needed medications is limited. I 
cannot support limiting access and choice for the 66,000 Medicare Part 
D beneficiaries in my district and as such strongly oppose H.R. 4.

                          ____________________