[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        MEDICARE MODERNIZATION AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. LYNN N. RIVERS

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 27, 2002

  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
with H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 
2002. 1 am very concerned about the burden many seniors bear in paying 
for their prescription drugs, and I support adding prescription drug 
coverage as part of the Medicare benefit. However, this sham bill will 
not help seniors, and it particularly fails senior women in Michigan.
  Too many seniors have to choose between paying for food or medicine. 
Medicare made a promise of better health to America's seniors. It's 
time to make good on that promise and provide prescription drugs as 
part of the entitlement. I know what it's like to go without health 
insurance--I did it when my children were small and our jobs didn't 
provide it. It's terrifying and it forces families to make excruciating 
choices.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4954 is no answer to the problem of seniors' lack 
of drug coverage. The bill relies on private insurance companies to 
supply the drug benefit rather than the Medicare program itself, 
despite the fact that the insurance industry has already explained that 
such policies are not viable and that it is unlikely many companies 
will offer drug benefit policies. What we have learned from the attempt 
to push Medicare patients into HMOs in order to cut down costs should 
have been instructive. Many HMOs have found the Medicare+Choice 
reimbursement rates to be too low and have stopped taking and treating 
Medicare+Choice patients. Many of my constituents have been forced to 
return to Medicare fee-for-service because their HMOs have left the 
state or now refuse Medicare+Choice patients. Private drug coverage 
seems even less likely to be successful.
  In addition, the proposal fails to provide any coverage to 
beneficiaries who spend between $2,000 and $3,700 annually on 
prescription drugs, leaving a substantial portion of seniors with no 
drug coverage. It is unfair to exclude this group of seniors from 
coverage solely because their expenditure levels lie in a particular 
range.
  In addition, the bill provides no guaranteed drug benefit, no 
guaranteed premium, no consistency for seniors in different regions of 
the country, and no measures to address rapid increases in the costs of 
prescription drugs. To propose such a benefit knowing it will be 
ineffective is highly misleading.
  I take the struggles of seniors to afford essential drugs too 
seriously to support a bill that provides rhetoric without real 
assistance. It is unfortunate that we will not have the chance to 
debate and vote on a bill that would truly address seniors' needs, such 
as the Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act. The Democratic plan 
lowers drug prices and covers ALL seniors under Medicare. This plan is 
also voluntary--if seniors have prescription coverage they can keep it. 
Under the Democratic plan, seniors will have a deductible of $25 a 
month, and their expenses are capped at $2,000 per year. There is 
absolutely no gap in coverage. This is by far the better plan for 
Michigan's seniors.
  I hope I will have the opportunity to vote for an effective and 
comprehensive Medicare drug benefit in the future. In the meantime, I 
will oppose this bill and other proposals that provide ineffective or 
inadequate drug assistance to seniors.

                          ____________________