[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Page 14459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise to express my disappointment 
about the outcome of the Senate's recent vote on Medicare prescription 
drug coverage. The Senate missed an opportunity to provide one of the 
most important expansions of Medicare benefits since the system was 
created in 1965. Senator Graham's proposal, of which I was proud to be 
an original cosponsor with a number of my Democratic colleagues, would 
have provided comprehensive, voluntary, and affordable prescription 
drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. Though the majority of 
the Senate supported this proposal, it lacked the votes necessary to 
proceed.
  We know that more than 1 in 3 Medicare beneficiaries lack 
prescription drug coverage. We know, too, many seniors struggle to pay 
for the medicine they need to keep them healthy and treat their 
diseases and illnesses. We know that doctors are now put in the 
unthinkable position of considering a patient's financial situation 
when developing a course of treatment. Doctors are conflicted by this, 
but know that it does not benefit the patient to prescribe a drug, even 
though it may be the best method of treating or curing an illness, if 
the patient cannot afford the medicine.
  More importantly, I, like most of my colleagues, continually hear 
from constituents who face this dilemma directly. They are ill, they 
are frustrated, and too many times, they are embarrassed to have made 
it this far in life and have to ask for help after years of 
independence. I have heard from those who may not have a direct need, 
but who are desperately seeking assistance for a loved one who needs 
help. They are frustrated to learn that there is nowhere for them to 
turn because Medicare provides nothing for outpatient drugs, yet they 
have too much income or too many assets to qualify for state offered 
assistance.
  The Graham proposal would provide drug coverage for all Medicare 
beneficiaries for a $25 monthly premium, no deductible, a $10 copayment 
for generic drugs, and a $40 copayment for preferred brand name drugs. 
In addition, Medicare beneficiaries would have all of their 
prescription costs covered after they spend $4,000 in out-of-pocket 
costs. Assistance would begin with the very first prescription, and 
there would be no gaps or limits on the coverage provided. Under 
Senator Graham's proposal, low-income seniors would not be required to 
pay premiums or copayments for their coverage.
  Regrettably, some of my colleagues did not support the Graham 
amendment. They voted instead for an alternative that required seniors 
to pay a $250 deductible, while only covering 50 percent of their 
prescription costs up to $3450. After a Medicare beneficiary's costs 
exceed $3450, he or she would receive no assistance whatsoever until 
his or her costs reach $3700. Above $3700, the government would then 
only pay 90 percent of drug costs. Under this proposal, those who are 
the sickest, with the highest drug costs, would be forced to pay more 
when they require assistance the most.
  Many of those who opposed the Graham proposal complained about the 
cost of this proposal. I find it perplexing that we can find money for 
other things, but not for the mothers, fathers, grandparents and other 
Americans that need our help in their older years. Opponents of the 
Graham bill found money to fund a large tax cut costing $1.35 trillion 
last year a tax cut that primarily benefit the very wealthiest 
Americans. Many of my fears about the decision to pass such a large and 
unreasonable tax cut have been realized raids on Social Security and 
Medicare, a return to budget deficits, instability in the financial 
markets. It has forced us unnecessarily to limit resources for those 
things that should be national priorities. I remain astonished that 
some believe tax cuts should be a priority over providing prescription 
drug coverage to everyday Americans who have worked hard and paid their 
taxes all their lives.
  Yesterday, we had the chance to mark the 107th Congress with the 
greatest overhaul of Medicare benefits since its inception 37 years 
ago. I supported the Graham prescription drug plan along with 51 of my 
colleagues because I believe it is the only proposal that would provide 
Medicare beneficiaries with real comprehensive prescription drug 
coverage. I only hope that we can find a way to enact a meaningful 
Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Our older Americans 
deserve no less.

                          ____________________