Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I plan on taking about 10 minutes of our time.
I serve on the HELP Committee with the distinguished chairman. There is no question we have not emphasized prevention in this country, but there is a reason we have not. We do not pay for it. Medicare does not pay for it. The insurance companies follow what Medicare does.
We have heard some pretty good claims this morning in terms of the HELP bill. I sat through almost 3 weeks of markup on that bill. I don't believe there is anybody in Congress who does not want us to change the way we look at prevention because there is no way we can control health care costs unless we both try to prevent chronic disease and also manage the chronic disease we have.
One of the reasons we have more chronic disease than other countries is because we keep people with chronic disease alive a lot longer. They let them die. They ration the care out, and they determine what the value of their life is. With a chronic disease, eventually they quit treating them. The numbers get skewed because we do a pretty good job. Even though we did not prevent it, we do a wonderful job, and we can actually do far better in managing chronic disease.
What the Senator and the HELP committee put out is a government-centered bill. Let me give an example. Duke University set up a clinic for heart failure patients. They were having phenomenal results. These are all Medicare patients, class III, class IV, class V heart patients. They dropped hospital admissions 27 percent. They shut it down. Why did they shut it down? Medicare would rather pay--because they are not flexible, they will not recognize prevention--they shut down a clinic that was saving them $100 million a year, even though it cost about a significant portion of that, 10 percent or so, to run the clinic. They would rather spend the $90 million than to pay for prevention. So what was a great clinic--keeping people out of the hospital, maintaining their chronic disease. Medicare did that.
That is the reason I am very opposed to the bill--not the principles of the bill but the bill that came out of committee. The bill that came out of our committee creates 88 new government programs--88. Think about it. What do we want in health care? What we want in health care is to be able to determine our own future, to determine our own doctor, and to be able to afford to buy the health care our families need. That is what we want. We create 88 new Federal Government programs managing our health care, and that freedom to choose, that freedom to make a judgment is going to go out the window.
The other points the Senator mentioned, he talked about increasing to 30 percent the ability of performance bonuses for people to get into reduction plans, wellness plans. He mentioned Safeway. They can spend 21 percent under HIPAA now. Safeway's testimony was, give us the flexibility everybody else in the country has and let's go up to 50 percent. We don't trust them to do that, even though Safeway has had no increase in health care costs in the last almost now 5 years because they have truly incentivized prevention.
He mentioned workforce development, and he mentioned all these incentives to help people become primary care doctors. They are not going to become primary care doctors. Do you know why? I am a primary care doctor. They are not going to pay them. The reason we have a disproportionate number of specialists versus primary care doctors in this country is because there is a 350-percent payment differential. How do you think that came about? Medicare created that differential.
If we want more primary care doctors, then what we have to do is pay people to go into primary care, and they will come running because it is the best place in the world to practice medicine. They get to care for entire families. They get to manage every type of conceptual disease one can think of, and the rewards are out of this world. But when the average medical student comes out of medical school owing $170,000, and their pay is one-fourth of somebody who spends 1 or 2 more years in training, there is no reason to think why they don't all go into additional training so they can be compensated at a level that matches the debt and the sacrifice they put in. They average 8 years of medical school and residency. We don't have many other people who have that kind of training. Yet Medicare created the shortage we have today by limiting the payment to primary care physicians.
The reason I make that point is the plans that are coming to the Senate floor are totally government centered. They are totally government managed. They are totally government created. He talked about sidewalks and bike paths. In that bill, we set up $10 billion a year for concrete, supposedly for wellness. I can think of a whole lot better things. We can put $10 billion in NIH and do a whole lot more in terms of savings for this country in terms of our health care.
Where do I agree with the chairman? We will never control our costs in health care and we will never make health care affordable for us as a nation or individually until we manage the chronic disease we have out there officially and until we incentivize the prevention of it. He is right on that. But there are two approaches to doing that. One says the government is going to do all of it, and the other says maybe we could incentivize individuals in the public to make good decisions for themselves. One costs a whole lot of money; the other does not cost any.
Let me tell you how well the government does. Go to any School Lunch Program you want to today. Go look at it. Look at what we feed our kids at breakfast and lunch, and then ask yourself: No wonder our kids are unhealthy. We are feeding them a high-fat, high-carbohydrate, simple-sugar, simple-starch meal. We are creating, through the government School Lunch Program and breakfast program, the very obesity the Senator says he wants to stop.
Then look at the food stamp purchases we incentivize. There are no limits on them--a government program. Then look at the people on the Food Stamp Program--and this is no discrimination toward them at all; they need the help--but look at the choices they make. There is no effort to limit to only buy what are good foods with food stamp money rather than junk food that, in fact, enhances chronic disease.
There are a lot of ways to approach it, but if we look at what the government is doing now--what does it do? In health care, what does the government do right now that is effective and efficient? Nothing.
The chairman talked about the fact that Medicare is going to go broke. It is. In 5 1/2 years, the Medicare trust fund will be belly up. Nobody disputes that point. The Medicare trustees are saying that. We have all these problems in Medicare. Why don't we fix those? We have a full 15 percent, at a minimum, of fraud in Medicare. Where is the fix? Why don't we fix it? Instead, we are going to bring to the floor 88 new government programs, a government-centric run health care system that is going to defeat and destroy the best health care system in the world.
It is not the most efficient, but there is no question if you are sick, this is the best place in the world to get sick. If you have cancer, your cure rate is 40 to 50 percent better than anywhere else in the world. If you have heart disease, your outcome is better than any other place in the world. Prevention is key, but as we try to fix the problems in health care, our first goal ought to be ``do no harm'' to what is good about American health care.
I yield for my colleague from Tennessee and note I have consumed over 10 minutes. I apologize to him for that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT