Mel Martinez on Health Care Republican Jr Senator (FL); previously Secretary of H.U.D.

Support Bush’s plan to provide prescription drug benefits

CASTOR: The new Medicare law did plenty to enrich the drug companies, but nothing to actually lower drug costs for most seniors. In fact, the new law actually tied Medicare’s hands from negotiating for lower prices and it denied our seniors the right to buy high-quality, low-cost drugs from Canada. The government should be required to negotiate for the lowest prices possible. And seniors should get help locating safe and affordable drugs in Canada, until they can get them here at home. I will fight for a meaningful prescription drug plan - one that gives seniors real savings, and doesn’t make false promises.

MARTINEZ: I support Bush’s plan to provide prescription drug benefits to millions of Americans. It is a good first step in lowering the costs of prescription drugs for seniors. I support any good idea to reduce drug costs so long as we can assure the safety of the drug supply for patients.

Promote health saving account and Association Health Plans

We must assure every Floridian has access to quality care. I will:
• Ensure that doctors, not bureaucrats, make decisions on what is best for their patients.
• Allow drug re-importation as long as we can ensure the integrity of the distribution system.
• Help more Floridians afford health insurance by promoting health saving accounts.
• Encourage Association Health Plans that give small businesses access to health insurance premiums at the discounted rate like large corporations.

Relief for 40 million uninsured via small business AHPs

“There are over 40 million uninsured in America,” said Martinez. “Florida families need relief and I am committed to working with President Bush to increase access to affordable health care. With health insurance premiums continuing to rise, it’s essential that we provide small business owners and employers with more affordable insurance options. Florida families can count on me to work to provide access to affordable healthcare by allowing small businesses to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance.“

Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. HEATH SHULER (D, NC-11): Putting a dangerous, overworked FDA in charge of tobacco is a threat to public safety. Last year, the FDA commissioner testified that he had serious concerns that this bill could undermine the public health role of the FDA. And the FDA Science Board said the FDA's inability to keep up with scientific advancements means that Americans' lives will be at risk.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA-30): The bill before us, the Waxman-Platts bill, has been carefully crafted over more than a decade, in close consultation with the public health community. It's been endorsed by over 1,000 different public health, scientific, medical, faith, and community organizations.

Sen. HARRY REID (D, NV): Yesterday, 3,500 children who had never smoked before tried their first cigarette. For some, it will also be their last cigarette but certainly not all. If you think 3,500 is a scary number, how about 3.5 million. That is a pretty scary number. That is how many American high school kids smoke--3.5 million. Nearly all of them aren't old enough to buy cigarettes. It means we have as many boys and girls smoking as are participating in athletics in high schools. We have as many as are playing football, basketball, track and field, and baseball combined.

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.

• Reauthorizes State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through FY2013 at increased levels.
• Gives states the option to cover targeted low-income pregnant women
• Phases out coverage for nonpregnant childless adults.

Rep. FRANK PALLONE (D, NJ-6): In the last Congress, we passed legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support as well as the support of the American people. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the President, who vetoed our bill twice, and went on to proclaim that uninsured children can simply go to the emergency room to have their medical needs met. As the Nation moves deeper into a recession and unemployment rates continue to rise, millions of Americans are joining the ranks of the uninsured, many of whom are children. We can't delay. We must enact this legislation now.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ROY BLUNT (R, MI-7): This bill doesn't require the States to meet any kind of threshold standard that would ensure that States were doing everything they could to find kids who needed insurance before they begin to spend money to find kids who may not have the same need. Under the bill several thousands of American families would be poor enough to qualify for SCHIP and have the government pay for their health care, but they'd be rich enough to still be required to pay the alternative minimum tax. The bill changes welfare participation laws by eliminating the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to lawfully reside in the country before they can participate in this program. In the final bill, we assume that 65% of the children receiving the benefit wouldn't get the benefit anymore. It seems to me this bill needs more work, would have benefited from a committee hearing. It doesn't prioritize poor kids to ensure that they get health care first.

Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare.

• Extends Medicare to cover additional preventive services.
• Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations.
• Eliminates by 2014 [the currently higher] copayment rates for Medicare psychiatric services.

I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable, and I am vetoing it because:
• It would harm beneficiaries by taking private health plan options away from them.
• It would undermine the Medicare prescription drug program.
• It is fiscally irresponsible, and it would imperil the long-term fiscal soundness of Medicare by using short-term budget gimmicks that do not solve the problem.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. PATTY MURRAY (D, WA): President Bush vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need. This bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care.

Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment is to means test Medicare Part D the same way we means test Medicare Part B. An individual senior making over $82,000 a year, or a senior couple making over $164,000, would be expected to pay a little over $10 a month extra. That is all we are doing. This amendment saves a couple billion dollars over the next 5 years. It is very reasonable. There is nothing else in this budget that does anything on entitlement reform, and we all know entitlements are heading for a train wreck in this country. We ought to at least do this little bit for our children for deficit reduction. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BAUCUS: The problem with this amendment is exactly what the sponsor said: It is exactly like Part B. Medicare Part B is a premium that is paid with respect to doctors' examinations and Medicare reimbursement. Part D is the drug benefit. Part D premiums vary significantly nationwide according to geography and according to the plans offered. It is nothing like Part B.

Second, any change in Part D is required to be in any Medicare bill if it comes up. We may want to make other Medicare changes. We don't want to be restricted to means testing.

Third, this should be considered broad health care reform, at least Medicare reform, and not be isolated in this case. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 42-56

Voted YES on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare.

TRIBAL MEMBER CHOICE PROGRAM: Members of federally-recognized Indian Tribes shall be provided the opportunity to voluntarily enroll, with a risk-adjusted subsidy for the purchase of qualified health insurance in order to--
1. improve Indian access to high quality health care services;
2. provide incentives to Indian patients to seek preventive health care services;
3. create opportunities for Indians to participate in the health care decision process;
4. encourage effective use of health care services by Indians; and
5. allow Indians to make health care coverage & delivery decisions & choices.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. COBURN: The underlying legislation, S.1200, does not fix the underlying problems with tribal healthcare. It does not fix rationing. It does not fix waiting lines. It does not fix the inferior quality that is being applied to a lot of Native Americans and Alaskans in this country. It does not fix any of those problems. In fact, it authorizes more services without making sure the money is there to follow it.

Those who say a failure to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a violation of our trust obligations are correct. However, I believe simply reauthorizing this system with minor modifications is an even greater violation of that commitment.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. DORGAN: It is not more money necessarily that is only going to solve the problem. But I guarantee you that less money will not solve the problem. If you add another program for other Indians who can go somewhere else and be able to present a card, they have now taken money out of the system and purchased their own insurance--then those who live on the reservation with the current Indian Health Service clinic there has less money. How does that work to help the folks who are stranded with no competition?

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 28-67

Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]:

1. It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
2. It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.
3. It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. DEAL: This bill [fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed:

• On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to obtain SCHIP benefits? No.
• On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't go to cover adults.
• On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.

Veto message from President Bush:

Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.

Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.

It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Does ideological purity trump sound public policy? It shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears that ideology would profoundly change the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, but because of ideological opposition to market-based prices. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time under Medicare.

Under the guise of negotiation, this bill proposes to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program. The current system trusts the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution.
Status: Cloture rejected Cloture vote rejected, 55-42 (3/5ths required)

Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000.

Proponents of the motion recommend voting YEA because:
• Many doctors have had to either stop practicing medicine due to increased insurance premiums.
• Patients are affected as well--due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need.
• The cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution.
• I am pleased that S. 22 extends liability protections to all health care providers and institutions.
• These bills are a commonsense solution to a serious problem, and it is time for us to vote up or down on this legislation.

Opponents of the motion recommend voting NAY because:
• We have virtually no evidence that caps on economic damages will actually lower insurance rates. And in my view, these caps are not fair to victims.
• If we want to reduce malpractice insurance premiums we must address these problems as well as looking closely at the business practices of the insurance companies. What we shouldn't do is limit the recovery of victims of horrible injury to an arbitrarily low sum.
• This is obviously a complicated issue. This is the kind of issue that needs to be explored in depth in our committees so that a consensus can emerge. So I will vote no on cloture, and I hope that these bills will go through committees before we begin floor consideration of this important topic.

Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D.

Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics.

Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.

Expedited licensing for biosimilar products.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to provide for the licensing of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products.
• Allows any person to file an abbreviated biological product application with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Requires such applications to include information demonstrating a high degree of similarity or interchangeability between the biological product and the licensed biological product (reference product).
• Requires the Secretary to:
  1. approve an application and issue a license for a biosimilar product unless the Secretary finds and informs the applicant that the information in the application fails to demonstrate biosimilarity between the biological product and the reference product or the safety, purity, and potency of the biological product; and
  2. establish requirements for the efficient review, approval, suspension, and revocation of abbreviated biological product applications.
• Allows an applicant a determination as to the interchangeability of a product and its reference product based on whether a product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient. Grants market exclusivity to any biological product that is determined to be interchangeable for a specified period.
• Sets forth provisions governing patent infringement claims involving comparable biological products and legal remedies to expedite the adjudication of patent infringement disputes.
• Extends the period for approval of biological products to allow for studies of the use of new biological products in the pediatric population.