[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17918-17919]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            INCREASE IN THE MONTHLY MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to speak on the issue 
of the 17 percent increase in the Medicare monthly premium for the part 
B of Medicare. This is an increase of $11.60 on the monthly part B 
premium, which places it from $66.60 up to $78.20 a month.
  The reason, Mr. Speaker, this was necessary is under a formula, by 
law, the part B premium has to cover at least 25 percent of the cost of 
medical providers, and in fact, with medical inflation and with an 
increase in reimbursement to medical providers that we gave last year 
in the Medicare Modernization Act, this increase in premium was 
necessary. It reflects medical inflation; and more importantly, it 
reflects that slight provider increase that was included in the act.
  There is no question that this increase is significant for some 
beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, I have done probably 60 town halls in my 
district in the 18 or 20 months I have been in Congress; and, yes, when 
I go into my district, people will complain about the cost of the 
prescription drugs and point out to me the difficulties they have in 
meeting the obligation of paying for their prescriptions. But what I 
heard at virtually every town hall, without exception, was seniors who 
had turned 65 and asked me, how come when I now turn 65, I lose my 
doctor. The reason they lose their doctor is because doctors are 
dropping out of providing for the Medicare program because they cannot 
keep up with the costs that are required to keep their offices open, 
and as a consequence, we gave a very small increase in Medicare 
provider fees during the Medicare Modernization Act.
  If those same patients who now see a slight fee increase in the 
Medicare part B premium, if the increase had not happened, in all 
likelihood there would have been fewer and fewer providers for them to 
actually see.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues quickly 
forget that the medical profession was facing another significant cut 
when we passed the Medicare Modernization Act last December, and how 
quickly they forget that it was necessary to ensure that seniors have 
access, timely access, to doctors and other Medicare providers.
  The problem is that taking this out of context, the opponents of the 
Medicare Modernization Act, and there are many, they are only seeking 
to inflame the passions of people who are perhaps uneasy about their 
medical care anyway. But, really, what do these changes mean for 
seniors? What do they represent?
  They represent a secured access to a provider network by providing a 
2-year 1\1/2\ percent reimbursement rate increase. That is a 1\1/2\ 
percent rate increase for providers, not a significant amount when we 
consider the overall cost-of-living increases and the fact that medical 
inflation itself has gone up by 2.5 percent over the past 6 months.
  Seniors also get preventive screenings to begin in 2005 for new 
beneficiaries; and in fact, these screenings will save the patients 
themselves and the Medicare program at large thousands of dollars.
  New diabetes screenings will begin that will save beneficiaries 
thousands of dollars; and to top it all off, in 2006 a prescription 
drug benefit does begin that will save seniors money and improve their 
quality of life.
  But I must point out, the rate increase that was announced last week, 
in no way is the prescription drug benefit responsible for that rate 
increase. That was purely to cover the 25 percent cost that, by law, 
our part B premium has to cover of the provider reimbursement.
  It is important for us in this body to be honest about the changes in 
the Medicare Modernization Act and not use instances like the premium 
increase to scare seniors away from Medicare; and, Mr. Speaker, I will 
even go a little bit further. It is also important to bear in mind 
that, once again, we have not done liability reform, which is one of 
the things that I really looked forward to when we began this session 
of Congress in January of 2003.
  The embedded cost of defensive medicine in our Medicare system, from 
a Stanford University study done in 1996, so these are 1996 dollars, 
$50 billion a year is spent on defensive medicine in this country 
because of the unfairness of the medical justice system. We have had an 
opportunity to fix that. In fact, we passed that twice in the House of

[[Page 17919]]

Representatives with caps on noneconomic damages. It still awaits 
activity over 400 yards on the other side of the Capitol. I would like 
to think we could get that done this year. It does not seem that it 
will happen. It is of critical importance that we tackle that and get 
that done next year.

                          ____________________