Instead of providing a meaningful benefit through Medicare, it seems as though President Bush and the Republican Leadership are preparing to either provide drug coverage to only low-income beneficiaries or to provide drug coverage that relies on private drug-only insurance.  Neither of these plans will allow beneficiaries to receive a comprehensive, affordable, guaranteed benefit and in fact, these plans will nurture the price discrimination beneficiaries face when purchasing pharmaceuticals.   

Price discrimination has been well documented by Democrats and a number of consumer groups. Statistics have shown that seniors pay nearly twice as much for their prescription drugs than does the pharmaceutical industry’s most favored customers.  Robert Pear’s article in the New York Times from earlier this month highlights the finding that a large increase in drug spending was disproportionately attributable to only a few top-selling drugs; these drugs such as Vioxx, Celebrex and Glucophage, are all drugs that are marketed to seniors.  Aggressive marketing by drug companies has contributed to this growth, in addition to rising costs of drugs used most frequently by seniors. 
  
When it comes to an examination of who has taken the lead in trying to fix this problem, the record is very clear.  The Republicans have done next to nothing on this issue.  Democrats, on the other hand, have been on the House floor day after day since the 107th Congress began pushing for consideration of legislative solutions, such as those that have been offered by Congressman Tom Allen.  In fact, Democrats will continue their efforts to overcome the GOP’s opposition to moving this issue forward.
  
As I have already mentioned, though, the price discrimination issue is only half the battle.  The need for passing a comprehensive prescription drug plan is just as important. Consider, for instance, just some of the information compiled on the quality of prescription drug benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries. 

Twelve million Medicare beneficiaries, approximately one-third, lack coverage for prescription drugs.  The beneficiaries that do have drug coverage receive it through Medicare+Choice plans, employer-sponsored retiree plans, Medigap plans, Medicaid and State Pharmacy Assistance Programs.  These various supplemental plans provide assistance with prescription drug costs, but coverage varies in price affordability and dependability.  In sum, over two-thirds either have no coverage or unreliable coverage through Medigap or Medicare+Choice.

 Medigap coverage is inadequate and too expensive, and needs to be reformed.  As for Medicare+Choice, an increasing number of enrollees have prescription coverage that is not good and getting worse.  Most private health plans that provide services for seniors have unimpressive records of covering prescription drugs.  Yet, the Republicans call for prescription drug plans that force beneficiaries to rely on private health plans to receive crucial prescription drug coverage.
  
CBO has estimated that prescription drug spending over the next 10 years will cost approximately $1.5 trillion, a significant 32 percent increase from last year’s projection.  I am interested to hear more from Mr. Crippen of CBO on the cost of a benefit and the financial advantages of providing a meaningful, affordable benefit.
 
In closing, I would like to reiterate that Democrats would like to see a voluntary prescription drug benefit through Medicare that is affordable to all beneficiaries regardless of income, accessible to all beneficiaries, financed without reducing the solvency of Medicare, and is a guaranteed benefit that is uniformly available across the country.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.