[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 28101-28102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the issue of prescription drugs for the 
Nation's senior citizens is back in the headlines this morning with yet 
another study having been published that millions of senior citizens in 
America cannot afford their prescriptions.
  This is the 12th time I have come to the floor in recent days to talk 
about this issue because I think it is so critical that the Senate act 
in a bipartisan way to deal with what are clearly the great out-of-
pocket costs for the Nation's older people. Specifically, as this 
poster next to me says, I have been urging senior citizens to send in 
copies of their prescription drug bills to each of us in the Senate in 
Washington, DC.
  The reason I hope we will hear from seniors around the country is 
there is one bipartisan bill, one that is before the Senate now, to 
deal with this question of prescription needs for seniors. It is the 
bill on which Senator Olympia Snowe and I have teamed up in recent 
months, and 54 Members of this body, the majority, have already voted 
for the funding plan that is laid out in the Snowe-Wyden legislation. 
So we have 54 Members of the Senate on record as supporting a specific 
plan to cover prescription drugs for the Nation's older people.
  The model in the Snowe-Wyden legislation is something that every 
Member of the Senate is familiar with because it is the model we have 
for health care for ourselves and our families. The Snowe-Wyden 
legislation is called SPICE, the Senior Prescription Insurance Coverage 
Equity Act. It would ensure that seniors would get their medicine at an 
affordable rate because our bill would allow them the bargaining power 
that big organizations, big purchasers such as the health maintenance 
organizations would have.
  The tragedy today with respect to our Nation's seniors and 
prescriptions is they get shellacked twice; first, because Medicare 
does not cover prescriptions. When the program began in 1965, it did 
not cover prescriptions initially. Second, because the big buyers, the 
health maintenance organizations and the other big purchasers, are able 
to use their clout in the marketplace, those folks can get a discount 
and a senior citizen in rural Oregon or rural New Mexico or another 
part of this country in effect has to subsidize with their dollars the 
break the large organizations are getting.
  Frankly, there are other ideas for dealing with this issue. 
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have them. What I am trying to do 
to support the Snowe-Wyden bipartisan legislation is to come to the 
floor and, as this poster says, ask our seniors to send copies of their 
prescription drug bills directly to us in the Senate in Washington. I 
am going to, as I have done on 11 previous occasions recently, actually 
read from some of these bills so we can make the case for how urgent 
this need is.
  For example, I recently received a letter from a woman in Portland 
who described to me what she and her husband are facing with respect to 
their prescription drug costs. This couple in Portland has a combined 
income of about $1,500 a month. She spends, from that $1,500-a-month 
income, $230 on prescription drugs and he spends about $180 a month. So 
the two of them, an elderly couple in Portland, are spending more than 
$400 a month on prescription drugs. They are spending upwards of $4,000 
a year on their prescription medicine and, as they reported to me, they 
have no insurance to cover these costs.
  This morning in Washington we saw, again, more press conferences on 
this issue. I guess we can go day after day having dueling press 
conferences with respect to this issue of prescription drugs. We can 
have a lot of finger pointing, we can have a lot of bickering, a lot of 
quarreling about how serious the problem is and what to do about it, 
but there is one bipartisan bill that uses marketplace forces to try to 
deal with this issue. The Snowe-Wyden legislation steers clear of price 
controls. We do not have a Federal regime for handling this benefit. It 
is not one-size-fits-all Federal policy. It uses marketplace forces to 
make sure seniors have choices and options and alternatives for their 
prescription medicines. It is based on a model that all of us are 
pretty familiar with because we utilize the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan.
  I want to go through a couple more of these cases. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana is here to speak on an important 
matter, as are other colleagues. But I do, as part of this effort, want 
to highlight with these specific cases some of what we are seeing all 
across this country as seniors walk this economic tightrope, balancing 
their food costs against their fuel costs, and their fuel costs against 
their medical bills and find themselves, again and again, not in a 
position to pay for their prescriptions.
  I received another letter in the last few days from a senior citizen 
in Oregon. She is on seven prescriptions. She has heart disease; she 
has high blood pressure and diabetes. She and her husband exist on 
Social Security and a tiny disability check. They get a couple of 
thousand dollars a month maximum in their income. Every month, they 
spend at least $300 of it on prescription drugs. That is just the wife 
in the household. Her husband has to spend additionally on prescription 
drugs. This particular elderly person wrote and said if it were not for 
the free samples that she was getting from her physician, she simply 
could not meet her expenses.
  Another letter I received described a senior taking five prescription 
drugs. She has high blood pressure and high thyroid. She has an income 
of a little under $1,000 a month. She spends about $100 a month on 
prescription drugs. And she wrote me:

       I am lucky that my kids will give me a hand when I have 
     difficulty in affording my prescriptions.

  As part of this effort to have the Senate deal with this urgent need 
for older people in a bipartisan way, I would like to see the Senate 
consider the one bipartisan bill before us now, the Snowe-Wyden 
legislation. But I am sure colleagues have other ideas, and I think if 
we will listen to the senior citizens of this country who are sending 
me and our colleagues copies of these bills--as the poster says, ``Send 
in copies of prescription drug bills directly to us here in the 
Senate''--we can help the Senate deal with this issue on a bipartisan 
basis.
  I am going to wrap up this afternoon with a question I hope a lot of 
colleagues are asking with respect to prescription drug coverage: Can 
our Nation afford to cover prescription drug costs of older people? My 
answer to that is: I believe we cannot afford not to ensure that our 
seniors get this coverage. I want to cite an example before I wrap up.
  Last week, I talked about the evidence we are seeing with the new 
anticoagulant drugs. These are important drugs that can help seniors 
prevent strokes and debilitating illnesses. As a result of seniors 
taking these medicines, which cost about $1,000 a year, there is 
documented medical evidence now that these drugs can help prevent 
strokes, which cost upwards of $100,000 a year. So think about the 
investment, the wise investment--not just from a health standpoint, not 
just from the standpoint of trying to make sure our seniors get a fair 
shake but purely from a financial standpoint--the benefit of having 
seniors get prescription

[[Page 28102]]

drug coverage, getting, for example, these anticoagulant drugs that 
cost about $1,000 a year, and seeing a savings as a result of the older 
person not having a stroke, of that person not incurring $100,000 in 
expenses that would be involved in treating the stroke.
  I was director of the Gray Panthers at home for about 7 years before 
I was elected to the Congress. Prescription drugs were important then. 
You would always hear from seniors that they want this coverage. But 
the prescriptions today are even more important because they can help 
keep seniors well. Prescriptions today, helping to lower blood 
pressure, helping lower cholesterol, are drugs that are going to help 
us hold costs down for the Medicare program.
  As we all know, Medicare Part A, the hospital portion, the 
institutional portion of the program is particularly expensive, and 
these drugs today, if we can get decent Medicare coverage for the 
Nation's older people, will help us save some of the money that would 
otherwise be spent under Part A of the program when seniors incur these 
debilitating illnesses.
  I intend, as I have done now on 12 occasions, to keep coming to the 
floor to urge seniors to send in copies of their prescription drug 
bills directly to us in the Senate in hopes we can get bipartisan 
action. I am very proud that the Snowe-Wyden funding plan got 54 votes, 
a majority of votes in the Senate already for going forward with a 
specific plan to fund this program, but I am sure colleagues have other 
ideas.
  The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here. He has 
been very involved in the question of Medicare. I was very honored when 
Senator Moynihan, last week, spoke favorably about the SPICE 
legislation we have introduced. Colleagues have plenty of ideas on how 
to deal with it, but what is important is we go forward in a bipartisan 
way and not wait until after another election which is literally a year 
away.
  In the hope the Senate will act in a bipartisan way, I intend to keep 
coming back to the floor to discuss this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
terrific statement and his terrific work with our colleague from Maine 
on a very important piece of legislation. The President has said time 
and again, as have most of us, as the Senator from Oregon has pointed 
out, that we would never even think of designing a Medicare program 
today without having prescription drug coverage. It would be 
unthinkable, particularly because of the advances in science and 
technology which, at a minimal cost, help keep people well and out of 
hospitals and out of difficulty and pain and suffering. It would be 
cost-effective to the taxpayer.
  I thank him and commit to him my intention to continue to work with 
him and with many Members on both sides of the aisle until we can 
resolve this problem and answer the legitimate needs and requests of 
our seniors in America.

                          ____________________