THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
And so we do not know if we are really addressing the problems satisfactorily. What we do know is we did not do anything in this Congress nor in this bill to assure the viability of the
[Page: H11618] GPO's PDF
This is both unfair and irresponsible. We are not dealing with some small program that has limited impact. What we do will affect millions of Medicare beneficiaries and virtually all health providers in this country-teaching hospitals, home health providers, rural and inner city institutions--all of them are affected.
Of course I will vote for this bill because it is the only choice before us, and because we clearly need to remedy some of the most severe problems caused by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
But this process is wrong.
The Republican majority has denied us the opportunity to provide help for Medicare beneficiaries to secure more affordable drugs. We could and should be voting today to stop the discrimination our seniors face when they are charged prices frequently more than a hundred percent greater than HMOs or favored buyers secure.
My Government Reform staff has conducted more than 140 surveys in Members' districts throughout the country, and we have found this price discrimination against seniors over and over again. They pay more than our neighbors in Canada, they pay more than the Federal government, they pay more than HMOs--and they pay much more than they can afford.
We need to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare for all beneficiaries. But until we do, we at least have to stop the price discrimination against seniors. This bill should have provided the opportunity to do so.
Why is the majority blocking the effort to offer an amendment to do that and help seniors everywhere? I ask my Republican colleagues: what are they afraid of? Are they afraid to let Medicare beneficiaries know where they stand on drug company price discrimination against seniors?
Medicare beneficiaries and providers deserve better than the hasty and limited action we take today.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. CANADY).
(Mr. CANADY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation.
In addition to making adjustments in Medicare payment policies insti tuted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, this bill addresses two issues of particular concern to me and to the 12th District of Florida.
Since 1996 I have been working to draw attention to what I believe is an arbitrary provision in the Medicare statute that provides for beneficiaries with organ transplants to receive immunosuppressive drugs for only 36 months. The policy--which was originally brought to may attention by a constituent--is amazingly short-sighted since organ recipients need these prohibitively expensive but essential anti-rejection drugs for an unlimited period of time. If transplant patients do not have access to these drugs and maintain a proper dosage regimen, they will ultimately reject their organ and potentially lose their life. Ironically, Medicare policy does cover dialysis, re-transplantation, and the hospitalization and medical costs associated with organ rejection--each of which are more costly than the average cost of immunosuppressive drugs for one year. With the strong support and assistance of my colleague from Florida, KAREN THURMAN, and interested groups such as the National Kidney Foundation, I introduced the Immunosuppressive Drug coverage Extension Act earlier this year. Since its introduction, 263 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored it. I am very grateful to see that the Medicare package before us today includes a provision that, while not identical to my legislation, is an effort to improve upon Medicare's current immunosupressive drug coverage policy. H.R. 3075 includes $200 million over the next five years to provide additional drug coverage to beneficiaries who have exhausted their original 36 months of coverage.
While I am convinced that extending beneficiary entitlement to the drugs without imposing a capped dollar amount is appropriate, I appreciate the committees' concerns that more definitive data and cost analysis is needed before taking a more permanent step. To the chairmen of the House health care committees and to the cosponsors of my bill and on behalf of thousands of organ recipients, I want to say thank you for recognizing the need to improve Medicare's existing policy in this area.
Secondly, since early 1998, I have been extremely concerned about the exodus of managed care plans from the Medicare program. In Polk County, in my district, all four operating managed care plans pulled up stakes effective in 1999, suddenly leaving approximately 6,000 beneficiaries without their managed care plan. Ninety-three other counties in the U.S. were also left with no plans. Insurers pointed to low reimbursement rates and provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--the very law Congress intended to expand beneficiary choice--as the reason for numerous departures from counties around the country. While some counties enjoy extremely high payment rates and the presence of several managed care plans, others (like Polk) have a disproportionately low payment rate and no ma naged care plans. It doesn't take much examination to see that this is patently unfair. The Congress has an obligation to answer to the over 60,000 beneficiaries nationwide who, after 1998, were left with no managed care plans to choose from; to the approximately 350,000 others whose plan choices were reduced; and to the thousands of beneficiaries in over 2,000 counties who didn't even have a managed care choice in 1998 in the first place.
I am pleased to see several provisions included in the Medicare bill before us today that are aimed at the inequity I've described. The bill is a very positive development. The provisions to case burdensome requirements and deadlines imposed on managed care plans, and particularly the language to give incentives to plans to enter counties left with no managed care choices, promise greater equity for all Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DUNN), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and someone who supplied a very important component to this bill.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to make major progress in reforming programs to make sure there is greater access in health care, we want to also make sure that nobody falls through the cracks.
So that is why I rise in enthusiastic support today for this bill to provide essential relief to seniors that are affected by unintended reductions in Medicare under the BBA.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman THOMAS) for his willingness to work with me on several provisions that are important for women's health and to the pace of medical innovation.
First, this bill doubles the reimbursement for Pap smears. This r eimbursement rate has not been increased in over a decade. It really is essential to maintain access to one of the most important preventive measures for detecting cervical cancer.
Secondly, the bill extends Pap smear reimburs ements to automated screening technologies. These are important innovations in health care that will make it possible to identify cervical cancer at an early stage and with greater accuracy.
Mr. Speaker, providing incentives to protect the health of women as they grow older is one of the most important public policy decisions we can make. This bill recognizes that fact and goes a long way toward making innovative new treatments available to women.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, noting that the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DUNN), the previous speaker, had joined with Messrs. ENGLISH, SHAW, and HAYWORTH in voting to deny seniors a free drug benefit reduction, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make certain adjustments to the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. I applaud the chairman of the subcommittee for bringing out a bill that deals with that.
We have projected Medicare savings in 1997 over 5 years of $115 billion. In reality, it is going to be closer to $200 billion. This bill contains some very important improvements in the Medicare system that will deal with the $1,500 therapy cap right now which is denying many of our seniors necessary rehabilitative care.
It will extend the municipal health demonstration project that affects thousands of seniors. It will provide help for frail elderly and those high acuity nursing home patients. It will help us deal with the Medicare Plus choice problems particularly in rural areas of getting more HMO participation.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is a very important bill that I hope
[Page: H11619] GPO's PDF
We need to take a look at high acuity patients, particularly from long-term care and the special needs of psychiatric hospitals.
I congratulate all those who are responsible for bringing forward this bill. Let us pass it, and then let us work on the other reforms that are necessary in order to provide the best possible care to our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the important Medicare bill before us today. In taking the important step of refining many of the Balanced Budget Act's Medicare provisions, Congress is acknowledging what so many seniors and health care providers have known for a long time now: that the 105th Congress made several mistakes in crafting Medicare reforms back in 1997. Some of the changes we made restructured the risk contracting program, others were designed to reduce provider reimbursement levels in several areas. In both categories, the consequences have been far different from what we in this body intended or expected.
In 1997, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Medicare reductions at $115 billion over five years. Since that time, we have seen evidence that the reductions are closer to $200 billion. The effect of this difference on the accessibility and quality of care for our seniors transcends budget numbers, however.
This bill, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, makes important restorations in several key areas that will help our seniors secure the medical care they need. It adjusts payments for skilled nursing facilities so that the most frail nursing home patients can receive additional payments for the ancillary services they require; it helps alleviate the arbitrary caps placed on outpatient therapy services, which now prevent one of six patients from receiving the care they need; it extends the Municipal Health Services Project for one year, and it provides very important relief for seniors who rely on home health services. I am also very pleased that this bill extends coverage of immunosuppresive drugs for transplant patients who are now subject to a three-year limit for these life-saving therapies.
This bill also provides incentives for Medicare+Choice plans to participate in lower-cost areas. The Medicare+Choice program was designed to expand the private health plan options available to our seniors. But two years after BBA's passage, seniors' options have diminished rather than increased as many rural areas have lost their Medicare HMOs and even in higher cost urban areas, plans are reducing benefits and raising premium charges. In some states, there has never been a managed care option for seniors. Most health plans cite low payment rates as the r eason for their lack of participation. This bill offers bonus payments to plans that are willing to enter markets where there is no Medicare HMO option today.
There are additional areas that still must be addressed. I support the creation of an all-payer graduate medical education trust fund that will save Medicare more than $1 billion annually, while providing a steady funding source for the training of our Nation's medical professionals. My proposal for BME replaces the current outdated payment structure for residents with a fair national standard based on actual resident wages. As the dire financial situation of academic medical centers worsens, I hope we can reorganize the need to stabilize their financial condition. We can act to shore up these institutions and ensure the continuation of the high-quality medical workforce we enjoy today.
I also support restoration of the cuts BBA made to hospice care, which is an essential part of our effort to provide comprehensive medical treatment to the Nation's elderly and disabled. I support providing adequate payments for all frail patients in nursing homes, including rehabilitation categories whose costs will continue to be inadequately reimbursed even after passage of this bill. And, I support the creation of a drug benefit for fee-for-service Medicare that provides all beneficiaries, not just those with access to an HMO, with coverage for outpatient prescription drugs. These are key issues that Congress will need to be addressed further next year.
Earlier this year, I urged Congress and the Administration to join in a united effort to address these matters. I am proud that Congress has taken this crucial step today and I also applaud the Administration for working with Congress and moving to take the administrative measures that are within its power. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help us move forward to restore crucial health services to America's Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, let us remember specifically why we are here. We are here because we made mistakes, but we made mistakes with the Republican majority in terms of some of the draconian cuts that they were attempting.
We still do not deal with the fundamental issues. We do not deal with the fundamental issues that literally thousands of Americans are, in fact, being permanently damaged because they have reached therapy caps in terms of stroke victims who will remain paralyzed forever because of the inaction in this Congress that remains in this bill.
But let us talk about what we are not doing. What we are not doing is we are not facing any of the real fundamental issues facing health care in America. My colleagues in the majority are afraid of those issues.
There is a procedural game that is being played today, which is a suspension vote, which rejects the ability of the minority to do a motion to recommit that would probably overwhelmingly pass in this Chamber on prescription drug coverage for Medicare. My colleagues on the other side are afraid of that vote. They are afraid of giving the American people what they need and they deserve. They are afraid of fundamental change in the Medicare system. They are afraid of the Patients' Bill of Rights bill. They are afraid of putting the sponsor of that bill on the conference committee.
[Time: 11:15]
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. MCCRERY), a member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, again without whose tireless work this bill would not be possible.
Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. A few moments ago our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN), was on the floor and said that the cuts in the BBA were irresponsible. Well, they certainly have gone further than most of us would have liked, but the fact is those cuts, that legislation, was a joint effort between Democrats and Republicans, the White House and the Congress, so we ought not be down here denigrating anybody for the good faith effort that was entered into to try to save the Medicare system.
We now know that some mistakes were made; that some of the cuts went too far. That is the purpose of this legislation on the floor today, and we have worked together again, Democrats and Republicans, to try to repair that damage in the most responsible way.
What is irresponsible, though, is to stand up and call for free drugs, free prescription drugs. Americans, senior Americans, know that drugs are not free. Prescription drugs are not free, and we ought not promise something that is impossible. We ought to be responsible about crafting a Medicare program that, yes, includes a prescription drug program but not to stand up here and say, let us vote for free prescription drugs. That is irresponsible.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. THURMAN), the author of the amendment, that would have given free or discounted prescription drugs, not free, free to the government, but a deduction or a reduction in the cost to the seniors.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the previous speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. MCCRERY), also voted to deny the seniors in his district a discount on prescription drugs at no cost to the government.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his remarks. I too want to reiterate that was a discount, not free, and it would have been just like we do with Medicaid and VA.
And I want to bring to the attention here today that just yesterday there was a report that was released that actually said that drugs have gone up 25 percent, which is two times the inflation. So many of these drugs have continued to rise for no apparent reason.
I do want to say, though, that I am pleased in some respects, would have liked to have done a little bit more, obviously, but I am somewhat happy with the IME, the DSH, we have done some
[Page: H11620] GPO's PDF
I want to take a moment to thank all the members of the committee who listened to my plea and who have helped me with the anti-rejection drug issue that is in here. My colleagues will realize, once we get some of this other report back, once we start spending this money, that this will save lives. It was good common sense. It will save money to our Medicare system. And I also want to say we did the right thing when we did the composite rate on dialysis.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents