Health Care

Health Care Coverage for All Americans
I am deeply concerned about the cost of health care and its accessibility to a large segment of the population. I strongly support the establishment of a national health care system. It is the best way that we can ensure that every single American has affordable, quality health care. More than 46 million Americans have no health insurance today, and millions more have inadequate insurance. Employers who have long provided quality coverage for their employees are cutting back benefits and raising workers' out-of-pocket expenses to deal with the rising cost of health premiums.

A single-payer health care system would not only be the smart and humane thing to do, it would save money in the long run. Today, almost 30 percent of the money spent on health care in America -- billions of dollars -- is spent on administration, advertising and overhead by health insurance companies. That's more than enough to cover the cost of providing insurance to people who don't have coverage now. By contrast, the administrative costs of Medicare, our universal health care system for seniors, make up only two percent of the program's spending.

Prescription Drug Benefit for Seniors
The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, written by the pharmaceutical and HMO industries and enacted by the House in a controversial vote under the cover of darkness, began implementation in January 2006. The way the benefit was designed, the way the enrollment process has been handled and the many mistakes made by Medicare and the drug companies in these first months of the program's implementation have led to mass confusion and many unnecessary expenses for beneficiaries.

I believe that all of these problems were completely predictable: the legislation that established the Part D program was designed to please the pharmaceutical industry and the HMOs, not to provide a convenient, affordable or comprehensive benefit for seniors and the disabled.

Instead of establishing one drug plan under Medicare that offers one low monthly premium, low co-payments and coverage for all prescriptions, the Republican Congress chose to privatize the program, forcing seniors to choose among sometimes dozens of different insurance packages, with different co-payments, premiums, lists of covered drugs and pharmacies. For many beneficiaries, especially those who are also qualified for Medicaid coverage, the legislation required higher out-of-pocket expenses. One of the most exasperating elements of the legislation is that it allows the drug plans to change their prices and covered drugs frequently. As a result, beneficiaries can choose a plan in December that is no longer affordable for them or covers their drugs by January.

I strongly opposed the legislation that created this confusing and inadequate program and have been doing everything I can to create the kind of prescription drug coverage that Medicare beneficiaries really need.

There are two important pieces of legislation that I'm supporting: the Medicare Informed Choice Act and the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings Act. The Medicare Informed Choice Act helps deal with the immediate crisis by allowing seniors to sign up for a Part D plan at any time during 2006 without paying a late enrollment penalty. The bill also allows beneficiaries to make a one-time change in their plan enrollment if they are not satisfied with the plan they originally selected.

The second bill, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings Act, would start over again with the kind of drug benefit we really need. If enacted, seniors and the disabled would be able to choose a Medicare-sponsored drug plan with monthly premiums of $35, low out-of-pocket expenses, and no "doughnut hole" in coverage. The legislation also makes the drug benefit much less expensive, by mandating that CMS negotiate bulk discount prices from the drug companies.

Prescription Drug Fairness for All Americans
Prescription drug reform is a necessary component of health care reform for all Americans, not just seniors. Although high drug prices disproportionately affect the elderly, the affordability of pharmaceuticals is becoming a crisis for millions of working families, including those who have employer-provided insurance coverage. Prescription drug costs have been the number one cause of rising health insurance expenditures for the past five years. When health expenditures go up, so do health insurance premiums. Many health insurance plans are combining higher premiums with reduced coverage for drugs and higher co-payments. Even for people who have good employer-provided insurance, prices are climbing out of reach of many families. For families who don't have any health insurance at all, the dramatic increase in health costs is devastating, forcing tens of millions of people in this country to go without the care they need.

Despite the fact that drug prices have risen at three and four times the rate of inflation since 1990 and the industry is the most profitable segment of our economy, the pharmaceutical industry gets lots of help from us, the taxpayers. The drug industry is heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars through direct research grants, R & D tax credits, export assistance, favorable patent protections, even tax deductions for their advertisements and the free "samples" that they give to physicians. I have cosponsored a series of legislative initiatives that would sharply curb federal support for the industry unless it starts providing fair prices to consumers.

Fair Payments for Medicare Providers
In order to ensure the solvency of Medicare, Congress enacted a series of cuts to health care providers as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Combined with the inflation of health care costs, a shortage of professional health care workers that has raised wages, and reduced payments from private insurers, these cuts have severely damaged the viability of many hospitals, nursing homes, home health providers and physicians.

I strongly believe that we must restore these cuts before patient care suffers and facilities in our communities are forced to shut their doors. I support comprehensive Medicare reform that addresses the payment levels for all providers, instead of just singling out a few. I also believe that comprehensive reform must go hand-in-hand with the establishment of a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors, our most important Medicare priority.

Patients' Bill of Rights
Patients shouldn't have to fight with their Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) or other managed care plans in order to get coverage for medical treatment that their physicians say they need. It's a persistent problem, and one that has needed the urgent attention of Congress for a long time.

Since 1996, I have been an original cosponsor of legislation, known as the Patients' Bill of Rights, which would restrain the abuses of these insurance companies. The bill would guarantee access to specialists and emergency care, would prohibit discrimination based on genetic information, would allow women to designate an OB-GYN as their primary care providers, and would hold insurance companies accountable for the decisions they make.

Commitment to Medical Research
I have been a steadfast supporter of medical research throughout my career in Congress. Scientists tell us that they are on the verge of breakthroughs in treatments for cancers, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, AIDS and a broad array of serious and life-threatening diseases. We must continue to provide researchers with the resources they need to push forward.

Under President Clinton, we succeeded in doubling funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over a five-year period, delivering more than $13 billion in new funding for researchers to continue their groundbreaking work. I was an early and enthusiastic supporter of this effort.

Unfortunately, President Bush's commitment to health research has been extremely inadequate and we have failed to maintain the momentum gained during the previous Administration. This year's budget for the NIH provided less than a 1 percent increase, which is not even enough to cover the cost of inflation, let alone fund promising new research. The president's budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for direct cuts to the cancer and heart disease research programs, among others.

I will continue to fight these cuts and to renew our commitment to the promising research that extends and improves the lives of Americans and puts our nation at the cutting edge of new technology.

< Return to Issue list