E-mail this statement

Baucus\Graham Introduce Universal Prescription Drug
Amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution

By now, most Americans have heard a great deal about a tax cut that is the centerpiece of this budget resolution. But few have heard little about the types of programs they need - and care about - the most.

This projected tax cut should not be the centerpiece of a budget, with other, vital programs designed around it. Just the opposite. A responsible budget must consider the critical challenges that people face every day and chart a course that addresses the larger and immediate problems that lie ahead.

That is why we have introduced this amendment to set aside more than $300 billion of the President's proposed tax plan to provide real, universal prescription drug coverage for the nearly 40 million seniors and disabled Americans.

This is a plan we can afford. Priorities no longer have to take a back seat to deficits.

Today, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to begin to close the coverage gap between the haves and the have-nots by passing this amendment.

As we talk about priorities, we must never forget that Medicare was designed to serve all the nation's elderly and disabled. A modernized Medicare with a prescription drug coverage must be universal as well. We must also remember that Medicare beneficiaries without prescription drug coverage pay higher prices for pharmaceutical products than anyone else in the world and that nearly one out of every three beneficiaries have no coverage at all.

We believe that both sides of the aisle are committed to passage of a real prescription drug benefit, one that does not pick and choose among potential recipient, but ensures that coverage is truly universal, affordable and meaningful. That is why we urge our colleagues to support this amendment and do what we know is right.

What: This amendment increases the funding provided in the budget resolution for a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

How much: President Bush's budget, and the budget presented to the Senate, provide only $153 billion for a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The amendment would more than double that figure to $311 so that it can accommodate all prescription drug proposals under consideration. This would require reducing the president's proposed tax cut by less than 10 percent.

Why: "America's seniors deserve a prescription drug benefit they can count on being there - not one that might disappear when it becomes unprofitable," Graham said. "Seniors should know that the benefit is the same wherever they live in this country. They should never have to worry about whether or not they are eligible for the benefit. In short, they should have drug coverage the same way they have other health care coverage, in the time-tested, reliable and familiar Medicare program."

Facts:

• If Bush's plan limited to the low-income were extended for 10 years, that cost alone would be more than $200 billion over 10 years. Therefore, although it is suggested that $153 billion is enough to provide a benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, in truth it is not enough to cover even the lowest income.
• Bush's $153 billion doesn't come close to covering an adequate drug insurance benefit. It wouldn't even pay for a plan with a $1,750 deductible and catastrophic protection above $4,000. That plan would cost at least $170 billion over 10 years.
• Even the House Republican bill costs over $200 billion this year – and their benefit was grossly inadequate. They suggested a benefit with a 65 percent beneficiary premium -35 percent subsidy, - 50 percent coinsurance, a cap on benefits at $2,100, and catastrophic coverage above $6,000 (so there is no government contribution for expenses between $2,100 -$6,000.