[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCING A BILL TO PROHIBIT THE COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM 
                 FROM OPERATING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 2, 2004

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will prohibit the comparative cost adjustment program, 
as included in the recently passed Medicare bill, from operating in the 
State of Florida. My bill serves as a companion to legislation 
introduced last week by Florida's two Senators Bob Graham and Bill 
Nelson. I am pleased that this legislation enjoys the full support of 
every Democrat in Florida's Congressional delegation.
  The recently passed Medicare law requires the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to establish six premium support demonstration projects. 
These demonstration projects, sometimes referred to as comparative cost 
adjustment, must be established in 2010 and run through 2015. When 
established, they will essentially allow insurance companies to set the 
cost of prescription drugs provided for under Medicare at different 
levels throughout these six areas dependent upon geographic location, 
the density of those participating in the plan, and average age of 
those living in a given region. The selection criteria of the program 
make it likely that Florida would be one of the six selected sites.
  A recent analysis done by Bush Administration actuaries last August 
confirmed that the ``premium support'' proposal originally included in 
the House Medicare bill would lead to higher fee-for-service premiums. 
That is, seniors and individuals with disabilities would have to spend 
more to remain in traditional Medicare.
  Further, according to the Administration, within Florida, if premium 
support were enacted in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Brevard, 
Flagler, Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, Pasco, Pinellas, 
Seminole, or Volusia counties, premiums would increase for seniors in 
these counties wanting to remain in traditional Medicare. Realize, not 
all Florida counties were analyzed, and premium increases would be 
possible in other counties as well.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the President's flawed Medicare bill, for 
the first time in history, Medicare beneficiaries living in different 
parts of the country and even within the same State would face 
different premiums. These wide variations in premiums do not exist in 
traditional Medicare today.
  For Medicare's almost 40-year history, seniors and individuals with 
disabilities in traditional Medicare have paid the same premium, no 
matter where they live. Premium support would end this uniformity and 
exacerbate existing concerns about geographic inequity in Medicare.
  Although premium support is possible in counties with managed care, 
seniors and individuals with disabilities in counties without managed 
care are not off the hook. That is because there are several provisions 
in the Medicare bill that are designed to encourage managed care 
companies to enter new areas. If those provisions are successful--and 
given the enormous amounts of money devoted to encouraging companies to 
enter new areas, they undoubtedly will be--even seniors in counties 
currently without managed care could be forced to pay more to remain in 
traditional Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, in its nearly 37-year history, Medicare has provided 
millions of American seniors with important health protections. With 
more than 34 percent of the people living in the district which I 
represent over the age of 55, Medicare is a critical tool in improving 
the lives of so many.
  However, under current law, seniors in my district may find 
themselves paying more for prescription drugs than those living in a 
neighboring county. This is completely unacceptable. My constituents do 
not wish to be guinea pigs for a prescription drug plan that pits their 
well being against the pocketbooks of pharmaceutical executives. My 
constituents expect to pay fair and honest prices for their 
prescription drugs. They expect to pay the same amount for their 
prescriptions as seniors in California, New York, and every other State 
in the Union. Even more, they expect to pay the same amount as other 
seniors in Florida. Current law provides no such guarantee to Florida 
seniors, and that is completely unacceptable.
  My legislation fairly addresses this shortfall and ensures that 
Florida seniors do not fall victim to vicious Republican efforts to 
privatize Medicare.
  I urge the House Leadership to bring my bill to the House floor for 
its immediate consideration, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

                          ____________________