Keeping Government Out Of Our Medicine Cabinets

KEEPING GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR MEDICINE CABINETS

How many times have we heard the old saying "If it isn't broken, don't fix it?" I couldn't help but think about those wise words this past week in Congress as we debated the issue of Medicare. More specifically, the prescription drug component of Medicare referred to as Medicare Part D.

The debate centered around a Democrat proposal that would have the government negotiate prescription drug prices for our nation's seniors. Today, seniors can voluntarily choose from the more than 45 private plans available through the current Medicare Part D program to suit their individual prescription drug needs. These private plans already negotiate for lower drug prices.

The bottom line is that the current program is working, in fact, it is working extremely well. So why would we want to put our nation's seniors at risk in favor of a plan that would almost certainly limit their accessibility to life-saving drugs, hurt our local pharmacies, curb innovation, and, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, offer no savings to the government?

The truth is that market competition has made the Medicare Part D program successful by offering broader coverage and significant cost savings to our seniors. The numbers speak for themselves. Recent estimates indicate that Part D will cost $373 billion less over the next 10 years than was expected just a year ago. Competition in the market place is working.

According to Health and Human Services (HHS), approximately 90 percent of seniors now have prescription drug coverage. And surveys show that 80 percent of seniors participating in Medicare Part D are satisfied with their plans.

Medicare Part D beneficiaries are also keeping more money in their pockets. A recent report from HHS shows competition reduced average monthly premiums for seniors to only $22 this year, down from $23 in 2006, and 42% less than originally estimated. Overall, seniors enrolled in Part D are saving about $1,200 a year on their prescription drugs.

So why would we fix a program that is clearly not broken and working hard for our nation's seniors?

Supporters of requiring the government to negotiate the price of drugs point to the Department of Veterans' Affairs drug plan as a framework for lowering drug prices for seniors. They fail to mention that the VA lowers prices by restricting choice. In fact, only 38% of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1990s and 19% of drugs approved since 2000 are available under the VA program. Popular drugs such as Lipitor, Nexium, Prevacid, Flomax, Ambien, Bytorin, and Lotrel, or many cancer drugs such as Alimta, Avastin, and Herceptin are not covered at all. That might help to explain why 40% of the 3.8 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the VA for health benefits are also signed up for Medicare Part D coverage.

Innovation is another important issue to consider in this debate. Profits earned by pharmaceutical companies are invested into the research and development of promising new medications. This affects everyone who hopes to someday benefit from potentially lifesaving medicines that could treat diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, or Parkinson's disease.

Our seniors -- and all the rest of us -- deserve better. Our choices about the medicines we need belong to patients and doctors, not to bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The free market has worked well to ensure that seniors get the drugs they need. Why jeopardize that?

http://www.house.gov/list/press/oh02_schmidt/medicare.html