[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4587-S4588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Americans as much as any people on Earth
have a sense of fair play. That is why I believe 3 or 4 years ago, when
the Medicare law was passed literally in the middle of the night in the
House of Representatives, where the Presiding Officer and I served at
that time, by one vote--the rollcall vote was kept open for 3 hours,
arms were twisted, calls from the President and pleas and all kinds of
begging on the House floor, and who knows what else--that is why people
were angry with the way the Medicare law passed. They were also angry
especially because of the sense of betrayal they felt with the Medicare
law that clearly was written by the drug companies and for the drug
companies and by the insurance companies and for the insurance
companies.
In fact, that Medicare law meant as much as $200 billion in extra
profits for the drug industry and meant as much as $70 or $80 billion
in directed subsidies for insurance companies to entice--the word our
friends used--entice those insurance companies to write standalone
Medicare prescription drug coverage.
Americans know the score. Americans understand much about this whole
Medicare law. We all understand the major employee groups typically in
our system negotiate bulk discounts on prescription drugs. Americans
also understand that the VA negotiates bulk discounts on prescription
drugs. The VA, which ensures millions of our Nation's veterans, will go
to the drug industry, company by company, and negotiate on a drug
formulary, negotiate a price that gives the Government paying for these
prescription drugs for our Nation's veterans a discount of about 50
percent on average, the same kind of thing that large insurance
companies will do. But under this Medicare law--again, written by the
drug companies, written by the insurance companies, pushed through
because of the lobbying force and the advertisements and all that the
drug industry did and the insurance industry did--Medicare is
prohibited under law from negotiating bulk discounts on prescription
drugs. That is a prohibition only the drug industry and their friends
in Congress--and they number many--could love.
When Medicare has to pay higher prices for medicines, dollars are
taken from taxpayers' pockets and placed directly into the pockets of
the multinational drug industry. For many years, I have taken bus trips
with senior citizens to Canada, when I was in the House of
Representatives, from my northern Ohio congressional district. We drove
up through Detroit to Windsor to allow senior citizens to buy
prescription drugs at a discount of 50, 60, 70 percent because the
Canadians have a system where they negotiate drug prices directly with
the manufacturer. It is the same drugs, the same manufacturer, the same
packaging. The only difference between the medicine sold here and the
medicine sold in Canada is the price.
That is the same in country after country after country. We pay two
and three and four times more for prescription drugs than people in any
other country given the same drug, the same dosage, the same
manufacturer. It is a great deal for the drug industry and a bum deal
for consumers, especially for senior citizens and for taxpayers in our
country.
Medicare is the single largest prescription drug consumer in the
country, and jacked-up prices jeopardize Medicare's future.
The legislation we will consider tomorrow ends the prohibition on
price negotiations. It takes the handcuffs off Medicare and enables
Medicare to negotiate price discounts--the kind of discounts Medicare
should receive, given the huge volume of medicines it purchases.
Medicare is a system with more than 40 million Americans in that
system. That kind of bulk discount buying will save billions--tens of
billions--of dollars for American taxpayers and for senior citizens.
The drug industry, however, has taken to the airwaves, as it always
does, and gone to Nation's newspapers to fight this legislation. In the
Washington Post today is an example of an outrageous kind of ad the
drug industry has written: ``89% of Voters Oppose Government
Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.'' That is what it says: ``89
percent of Voters Oppose Government Negotiation of Medicare Drug
Prices.'' That does not even pass the straight-face test. I hardly know
anyone in Ohio--a Democrat, a Republican, an independent--I hardly know
anyone who does not think the Government should use the bulk discount
process of negotiating directly with the drug industry on behalf of 40
million Medicare beneficiaries. Yet, they claim, in bold print, in a
full-page ad that costs tens of thousands of dollars--not much for the
drug industry, to be sure--that ``89% of Voters Oppose Government
Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.''
If you read the small print, it says:
Majorities of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters
do not want the government negotiating prescription drug
prices under Medicare. In fact, 89 percent oppose government
negotiation if it could limit access to new prescription
medications.
Well, no kidding, if it limits access, then they say they do not like
it. But, of course, they do not. And, of course, because of high drug
company prices, we are seeing limited access to prescription drugs.
How many times, I say to the Presiding Officer, in New Jersey or in
Ohio or in Nevada or in Iowa do we hear stories from our constituents
who have decided, because they cannot quite afford the drugs, they are
going to cut a pill in half so their prescription will last twice as
long, or they are only going to take a tablet every other day, even
though they are prescribed to take it every day, so their prescription
lasts longer? How often do we have to hear that?
That is the issue of access, that too many seniors, too many middle-
class Americans, too many low-income Americans simply cannot afford to
pay for their prescription drugs because the price is so high because
of the drug companies, with their billions of dollars in advertising,
with their hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on 600 lobbyists
in this institution. There are, at last count, over 600 people paid by
the drug industry to lobby this Congress. There are only 535 of us here
in Congress; 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. They have more than
600 lobbyists to talk to us. These most recent ads are particularly
offensive.
Allowing Medicare to negotiate lower priced medicines will not reduce
access to medicines, it will increase access. If we get lower priced
drugs, more people who have these prescriptions will be able to fully
fill their prescriptions so, in fact, they will get access to drugs.
That is why lower prices for Medicare mean lower copayments for
seniors, and that means increased access to medicines.
That is why AARP supports allowing price negotiations. That is why
the Alliance for Retired Americans supports allowing price
negotiations. That is why the Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare supports allowing price negotiations.
The drug industry, again, stooped pretty low with this misleading
poll, and then with this very expensive--tens of thousands of dollars
for this one ad in one newspaper in the country. I wonder if there is
any line the drug industry would not cross when it comes
[[Page S4588]]
to preserving the sweetheart deal they have in this country, where they
have far too many politicians in the Senate and in the House, far too
many of our colleagues, who simply, again, over and over and over, do
the drug companies' bidding.
Every other developed country in the world, as I said earlier, gets
better priced prescription drugs than we do. Every other developed
country in the world gets better prices than we do. That is because
these countries do not put up with the grossly inflated drug prices our
Nation does. It is because their drug company lobbyists or their drug
company media campaigns simply may not be as effective in France and
Canada and Germany and Israel and Japan and Mexico, and all over the
world, where drug prices are a half or a third or a fourth of what they
are here.
We will put up with most anything, it seems, if an industry has deep
enough pockets and an army of lobbyists. Prohibiting the Government
from negotiating volume discounts on prescription drugs simply makes no
sense. The Government negotiates the price of everything else it buys.
When the Architect of the Capitol buys carpeting for the Senate
floor--as we look around at this very nice blue carpet here--they do
not take the manufacturer's word that a fair price would impair fiber
research. We do not say whatever the carpet makers want, we will pay
because it costs a lot to do this research to make these rugs beautiful
and make this carpet last, when so many feet walk over it.
When the Park Service buys ranger uniforms, it does not take the
first bid that comes in. It gets good quality at the lowest price
possible.
But with drugs, the President and his allies here in Congress--and we
know how much money the drug industry gave to President Bush; and we
know the kinds of effective lobbying the drug industry employs in the
Senate--the President and his allies here in Congress say the
Government must pay any price the drug industry wants to charge.
That policy is more than a mistake; it is a joke on the American
people. It is a betrayal of our constituents. The drug companies are
laughing all the way to the bank.
We need to pass this legislation tomorrow and let Medicare bargain
for the prices that Medicare beneficiaries deserve.
____________________