[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                MEDICARE PART D--WASHINGTON POST'S TAKE

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the House passed a bill to 
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with 
drug companies on the prices of pharmaceuticals for the part D drug 
program, H.R. 4 was the bill.
  In my district, I have heard overwhelmingly good news about the 
existing part D program. For a striking example, there was a letter to 
the editor from one of my constituents on September 21, 2006 in the 
Gainesville Sun. Mrs. Vernell James wrote this letter. She and her 
husband, both in their seventies, married for 58 years, wrote, quote, 
``Medicare part D has been a great experience for our family. Health 
insurance is important because it helps us stay well and live a quality 
life. My husband is on three different medications, so good health 
insurance is something we need.
  ``The Medicare Web site made it simple enough to choose a plan and 
sign up. Now that the November 15th deadline is approaching, seniors 
need to be thinking about which plan is best for them. We save nearly 
$250 a month because of Medicare part D on our medications, and we are 
looking forward to continuing savings next year.''
  I have met this lady, and she impressed upon me how this benefit has 
given them healthy coverage, and more importantly, peace of mind. But 
don't take my word for it or the word of this lady; I found no more 
convincing arguments than what was recently in the two editorials in 
the Washington Post. One appeared November 2, 2006, and one the day 
after the bill, H.R. 4, passed, January 13, 2007.
  Because of the prominence of this newspaper to policymakers around 
this town, I would like to share these editorials with my colleagues.
  On what grounds does the Post disagree with the Democrat bill, H.R. 
4, which involves price fixing? First, the same point that many of us 
may have heard on the House floor during the debate, but unfortunately 
not in committee because the bill failed to go through regular 
Democratic order. On comparing Medicare to VA, Veterans Affairs, the VA 
``can do this because it is free to deny coverage for drugs whose 
makers refuse to provide discounts. Fully 3,000 of the 4,300 medicines 
covered by Medicare are unavailable under the veterans' program. 
Restricting the list of coverage drugs saves money, but it also reduces 
the quality of the benefit; 1.5 million veterans are sufficiently 
unhappy with the result that they opt to buy the more inclusive 
Medicare coverage.''
  Well, they are not the same creatures at all, these two programs. I 
have the background to know, I have been a member of the Veterans 
Committee for 15 years; I served on the Health Subcommittee on this 
Veterans Committee. In fact, I chaired the VA Health Subcommittee in 
the past.
  Next: Why do this at all when the private insurance market is keeping 
premiums costs low for beneficiaries? As the Post went on to write, 
quote, ``the Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that 
savings from direct negotiations would be negligible, the average 
monthly premium has fallen since the program began a year ago. Private 
insurers can do this precisely because they are free to establish 
formularies, but market discipline ensures that these lists are not 
unappealing narrow. The insurers need to keep customers.'' Emphasis 
added.
  Further, the Post wrote, quote, ``The Democrats' stance is troubling 
because it suggests an excessively government-led view of health care 
reform. The better approach is to let each insurer offer its own 
version of the right balance to see whether it attracts customers, and 
then adapt flexibly.''
  I have been extolling the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program as 
a model for over a decade. FEHBP works well precisely because the 
Office of Personnel Management administering it does not micromanage 
the program, does not set prices. It simply sets the terms of allowable 
plans, and then offers Federal and Legislative branch employees, 
including Members of Congress and the Executive Branch, the cafeteria 
of options, and they go forth and they choose what is best for them.
  On November 2, the Post echoed this endorsement of consumer freedom 
writing, ``Retirees have a choice of insurance plans with widely 
varying costs, and some are faced with decisions on how much to spend 
out of pocket. If they choose to pay top dollar for branded medicines, 
the incentive to invent new medicines will rise. If they prefer to save 
money, incentives for innovation will decline a bit. Either way, a 
balance will be struck that reflects broad social preferences.''
  My colleagues, the Democrat bill, H.R. 4, that was passed, not 
through the democratic process here in Congress, but put on the floor 
without amendments, will not help the part D Medicare prescription drug 
program, it will hurt it. If you don't believe it, read these 
editorials of the Washington Post.

                          ____________________