[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18117-18118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on an issue which 
has been talked about on the floor of the Senate this morning, and that 
is prescription drugs.
  We all hear the critical cry--I say ``cry'' because it is almost 
that--as we talk to seniors across this country who say: We need some 
help; these drugs cost too much; they are out of our reach; we need 
help.
  What is interesting is this is not heard from everybody. It is 
principally from a group of people who don't have access to affordable 
prescription drugs, and now we are charged as a body to develop a 
policy to ensure, to guarantee that coverage and getting it as quickly 
as we can to those people who need it, who are crying out now.
  This past year I received over 3,000 letters or e-mails from seniors 
in Tennessee on this very topic. What did I hear? One elderly couple 
from Kingsport, TN, wrote:

       We are requesting that you do not support any big 
     government drug scheme. Government does not do things better 
     than individuals. Please protect seniors' choice of private 
     coverage. One size does not fit all. We do not want the 
     bureaucrats interfering with our doctor-patient prescription 
     drug choices.

  A widow from Tennessee who had a liver transplant writes:

       I'm against the big government plan. I have certain 
     medications I must take and want to be able to get whatever 
     medicines I need.

  These letters speak volumes. They, first of all, point out the 
importance of health care security for our seniors that prescription 
drugs do provide but also the importance of having a right to choose 
what is best for one's individual needs.
  I mention these letters because I do believe this body should respond 
as government should, in the broader sense, with a health care 
proposal, prescription drug plan, that gives affordable access to all 
seniors, making it a part of health care security. The plans we have 
heard talked about in the press today are the Bush Medicare plan and 
the Gore prescription drug plan that have been contrasted on the floor 
earlier today by a colleague from the other side of the aisle.
  I want to comment on those. It is useful for this body because, in 
essence, Governor Bush's proposal looks at two bills on this floor. One 
is Chairman Roth's bill, which gives an immediate helping hand to those 
seniors who need it today, working predominantly through the States; 
the second component of the Bush proposal is modeled on the same 
concept as Breaux-Frist, the bipartisan plan that is based on the way 
we get our health care as Senators today.
  On the Gore side--and that is why this contrast is useful --is the 
Clinton-Gore proposal, which is also on this floor in terms of 
prescription drugs. Although we use Governor Bush and Vice President 
Gore, they both represent bills that are currently on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Looking at Governor Bush's Medicare plan, it has two parts. One is 
overall modernization, long-term strengthening of the overall Medicare 
plan, the health care plan for our seniors and individuals with 
disabilities. The second part offers immediately, right now, the help 
that seniors are crying out for today. You simply cannot ignore those 
low-income and middle-income individuals who can't afford the drugs, 
who really are choosing between putting food on the table and buying 
those prescription drugs.
  The two-part plan has its overall goal to strengthen Medicare and to 
get that prescription drug coverage to all seniors. It is based on this 
bipartisan plan, this Breaux-Frist type principle.
  The primary focus of Governor Bush's proposal is a universal 
prescription drug proposal that includes this comprehensive 
modernization. It does

[[Page 18118]]

several things. No. 1, it lets seniors choose. Beneficiaries can stay 
in traditional Medicare, what they have today, or they can choose a 
plan such as Senator Bill Frist or Senator Roth or President Clinton 
has, a model called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Under 
Governor Bush's proposal and under the Breaux-Frist proposal, all 
current Medicare benefits are preserved.
  The real advantage is that seniors for the first time are given a 
real option to choose among plans that might better be able to meet 
their individual needs. One plan might have more preventive care. 
Another plan might have vision care--not in Medicare today. Another 
plan might have dental care--not in Medicare today.
  No. 2, Governor Bush's proposal, and the Breaux-Frist proposal in the 
Senate, provides all seniors some prescription drug coverage access. 
Yes, there is a 25-percent subsidy of the cost of those premiums for 
everybody with a 100-percent subsidy for those people under 150 percent 
of poverty.
  All seniors under Governor Bush's proposal have a limit, a cap on how 
much is spent out of pocket, not only for prescription drugs but for 
all health care--visits to the physician, visits to the hospital, 
prescription drug coverage. Once your out-of-pocket expenditures get 
above $6,000, it is covered by the Government
  Fourth, this proposal is based on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan. I think that is very important because seniors 
understand if that care is really good enough for President Clinton or 
Senator Frist, health care will be good enough for me.
  No. 5, Governor Bush has said yes, this is going to take more money. 
It is going to take about $110 billion in more money. Why? Because that 
modernization in bringing things up to date, that better coordination 
of services, is going to require an investment. That is in real 
contrast to the Clinton-Gore proposal which, when we first heard about 
it, was going to cost $167 billion; that is when it was introduced last 
year. Right now, the figure touted by the Gore campaign is $250 
billion. The Congressional Budget Office says no, it is not $167, it is 
not $250 billion, but in truth it is about a $337 billion plan.
  So, taxpayers, watch out. Seniors, watch out. This plan has already 
doubled in size, in how much it costs, in the last 12 months, the plan 
of the Clinton-Gore team. No. 6, and most important, I think, in the 
short term, is seniors deserve this coverage now, not 2 years from now, 
not under the Clinton-Gore plan which phases in over another 8 years--
actually they don't fully implement it until the year 2010. Our seniors 
need health care now.
  I would like to briefly turn at this point to S. 3016 and S. 3017, 
introduced by Senator Roth. What this bill says--which complements, 
supplements, and parallels very much what Governor Bush has said, and 
Governor Bush did it through his helping hand--since we have a problem 
now, let's reach out right now and get the money to the neediest 
people, the low- and moderate-income people who need it right now; not 
to be phased in later.
  What this Roth bill does is it makes grants immediately available to 
those people who need it the most. It will extend prescription drug 
coverage immediately, recognizing it is a transition program, until we 
modernize Medicare through the Breaux-Frist or Governor Bush approach. 
It immediately extends prescription drug coverage to about 85 percent 
of Medicare beneficiaries.
  It serves as a bridge to overall Medicare modernization, overall 
reform.
  This is not the answer. This is the short-term answer to plug that 
hole that everybody agrees is there, whether Democrat or Republican. 
That hole is created because true modernization is going to take 12 
months or 24 months or 36 months. So let's start that modernization 
program now, but, in the meantime, let's get help to the people who 
need it, who are out there making that choice between putting food on 
the table, buying those groceries, or buying prescription drugs. Let's 
help them in 6 months, not 10 years from now, not 5 years from now. 
That is where the Roth bill moves right in.
  Let me point out that 22 States already have taken action. Remember, 
all 50 States right now are administering prescription drug programs. 
That mechanism is there right now. It is not in HCFA, it is not in the 
Federal Government now, and that is why, under Chairman Roth's 
leadership, we can get that aid to the people who need it most.
  I will talk more about the Clinton-Gore plan later, but let me just 
close by saying all I said sharply contrasts it.
  No. 1, the Gore plan forces seniors to wait 10 years before it is 
fully implemented. It doesn't even start offering any drugs or drug 
coverage for at least 2 years.
  No. 2, it doesn't give seniors any choice. They can choose one time, 
at 64\1/2\ years. They choose one time, and that is it. Contrast that 
with the Breaux-Frist plan or Governor Bush's plan, which allows choice 
at any point in time.
  No. 3, the Clinton-Gore plan does nothing to strengthen Medicare. It 
is a 50-percent copayments for drugs. It does nothing to modernize or 
strengthen Medicare long term.
  No. 4, it does nothing to benefit, to improve that underlying benefit 
package in terms of preventive drugs, preventive care, in terms of 
vision care, in terms of dental care. The flexibility is simply not 
there in the Gore plan.
  I close by saying our debate about the various plans is an exciting 
one for me. Our goal must be health care security for seniors. Governor 
Bush and our plans, through Breaux-Frist and the Roth proposal, do just 
that.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________