[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          MEDICARE RX 2000 ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. DAVE WELDON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 28, 2000

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Prescription Drug Package, H.R. 4680, The Medicare Rx 2000 Act. 2.7 
million Floridians depend on Medicare for their health-care coverage. 
Currently, we are taking tremendous steps to provide American seniors 
with comprehensive prescription drug coverage, because no seniors 
should have to choose between life saving prescription drugs and food 
for their table. This program will be flexible and voluntary and will 
give every senior citizen a choice between at least two different 
plans.
  Our plan recognizes that two-thirds of American senior citizens have 
their own prescription drug coverage from their retirement, or they 
have little need for prescription drugs throughout the course of the 
year. These are the lucky ones and we do not want to force them into a 
plan they do not want nor need. However, some seniors have a tremendous 
prescription drug burden. Estimates indicate that the average senior 
citizen will have an annual prescription drug cost of over $2,300 by 
the year 2003. Some would argue that this is because of inflated drug 
prices. That may be good rhetoric, but the truth is not that simple.
  As a physician, I understand the importance of prescription drugs to 
seniors. I also understand the great amount of time and effort and 
expense that goes into manufacturing a drug. These miracle pills take 
years to craft, test, and finally pass Federal Drug Administration 
(FDA) muster. It's been said that it costs upwards of one-half billion 
dollars to get a drug from original conception to the shelf in your 
local pharmacy. True, prices are higher, but that is due to the 
increased research and development in our pharmaceutical labs that 
offer Americans vast improvements over drugs that are currently on the 
market. With nearly every drug there are side effects. Advances in new 
drugs offer Americans more precise drugs with fewer side effects and 
greater conveniences. These advanced drugs are, because of their 
complexities, more expensive to develop and produce.
  According to studies on the impact of our plan, the costs of 
prescription drugs would quickly fall by 25%, by giving seniors the 
same collective bargaining powers as members of other prescription drug 
plans and by forcing pharmacies to compete for seniors' business. Under 
our plan, the federal government would assume 50% of a senior's drug 
cost up to $2,350. In addition to this coverage, the plan would 
guarantee catastrophic coverage so that no senior will ever have to pay 
over $6,000 a year for life saving prescription drugs.
  Another facet of this bipartisan Medicare Rx plan is that it provides 
a 100% benefit to the poorest seniors. Under our plan, any senior whose 
annual income is 135% of the poverty level or below will have their 
full premiums, deductibles and co-payments assumed by the federal 
government.
  Some have offered an alternative plan which would be run solely by 
the federal government. It is estimated that such an alternative plan 
would not force competition and would, instead, rely on government 
mandates and price controls. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has 
said that this alternative would only reduce prices by about one-half 
of the amount of the bipartisan plan. Additionally, government price 
controls would place the government in a greater position of 
determining which research companies conduct certain types of research, 
and I believe that would ultimately reduce the availability of new, 
more precise drugs.
  I would add, that as a physician, I know how important it is that 
doctors work with their patients to find drugs that best serve the 
patients' needs and that are most affordable for the patients. For 
example, some of the more expensive drugs may be time-release drugs and 
only require that a patient take that drug once a day. On the other 
hand, there may be a considerably less expensive drug that a patient 
may have to take twice a day. It is important that doctors take the 
time to work with their patients to find the best drug treatment for 
their patient and consider that patient's physical and budgetary 
considerations. I have repeatedly done this in my practice.
  In this nation we are very blessed. And the prescription drug plan 
that we are considering is indeed a demonstration of our bounty. It 
addresses this need in a manner that focuses the most effort to serving 
those with greatest need. It ensures that market forces, not government 
price controls and mandates--which have always lead to poor quality and 
inefficiency--are the mechanisms employed to help keep costs down. It 
ensures that those who currently have coverage are not forced to pay 
for something they do not need. And, it works in such a way that will 
lower drugs costs for all seniors.
  Finally, to those who would argue that we should have a government 
run prescription drug plan, I would only point out one of the latest 
battles in Medicare. Since Medicare was established it has been 
required that a physician supervise a nurse anesthetist who may be 
administering the anesthesia to a senior. Over the past decade, the 
nurse anesthetists have put on a massive lobbying effort to urge 
Medicare to remove the physician supervision requirement and allow 
nurse anesthetists to work unsupervised. On June 27, a peer reviewed 
medical study was released showing that when administering anesthesia 
in the absence of an anesthesiologist (a physician), the loss of life 
was 2.7 per thousand greater than it would have been under the 
supervision of an anesthesiologist. The Administration, which sets the 
rules for Medicare, is in the process of removing this supervision 
requirement. Any argument that seniors are better off with a government 
mandated system is severely undercut by this recent action by Medicare 
and should give us all pause at such a prospect.
  I say let's pass this bipartisan bill. Let us move forward with a 
plan that does meets


seniors needs. It is too important to our seniors to allow politics to 
stop this legislation.

                          ____________________