Washington, DC - {Congressman Ed Towns (D-NY), opposed H.R. 1, the so-called “Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003" because the bill would result in privatization of Medicare and would give little or no prescription drug cost relief to seniors.  "This bill is more focused on privatizing Medicare and cutting assistance to the nation's hospitals than it is on providing drug coverage for seniors", said Congressman Towns.

In H.R. 1, the House considered a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.  The benefit package in the bill was extremely modest.  A person with $5000 in prescriptive drug costs would have to pay almost $4000 in out-of-pocket expenses under this bill.  And a person with $60 a month in prescriptive drug costs would be worse off with this proposed plan than a person with no insurance at all.

The bill’s prescriptive drug benefit, however modest, is voluntary and virtually all insurance companies have indicated that they are unwilling to provide it.  In any case, an argument could be made that some possible benefit is better than nothing.

A more troubling provision, however, is what happens under this bill in 2010, when a complicated combination of private and traditional Medicare will be in effect.  This new scheme will jeopardize a senior citizen’s ability to maintain traditional Medicare provided health care services.  Additionally, H.R. 1 contained a cut of $189 million for New York hospitals.

Moreover, one of the major advantages in having Medicare provide benefits, rather than a complicated array of private providers, is Medicare's ability to negotiate prices.  Incredibly, not only did this bill fail to provide cost controls, it specifically prohibited negotiations for lower prices on prescription drugs.

While it may be possible to fix a problem of inadequate prescriptive drug benefits with additional federal funds in the future, it will not be so simple to restore a senior citizen’s right to comprehensive medical insurance under Medicare.  The Medicare program has provided guaranteed medical insurance for senior citizens since 1965.  This bill puts that guarantee at risk in a way which may not be easily restored.  "That is why I could not support this legislation", said Towns.