BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I know our leader is coming to speak, but prior to him coming, I will take a portion of my time that has been allotted to me by my side.
I sat here with great interest listening to the Senator from New Mexico. He referenced the State of Massachusetts. I entered into the Record yesterday the 21 percent of the people under the plan who could not get care in Massachusetts because they could not afford the copay and the deductible. This is basically a copy or model off of that.
He also discussed the fact that this shows a $132 billion savings over the next 10 years. That is provided you do not think you are going to allow any increase in doctor payments and you are not going to reverse the 21-percent cut.
Madam President, my leader is here, and I will be happy to yield to him at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I will be very brief.
Madam President, Americans woke up yesterday stunned to read that Democrats had voted to end debate on the latest version of this massive bill while they were sleeping. They will be stunned again when they learn about this second early-morning vote to advance a bill that most of them oppose. Americans are right to be stunned because this bill is a mess. And so was the process that was used to get it over the finish line.
Americans are outraged by the last-minute, closed-door, sweetheart deals that were made to gain the slimmest margin for passage of a bill that is all about their health care. Once the Sun came up, Americans could see all the deals that were tucked inside this grab bag, and they do not like what they are finding. After all, common sense dictates that anytime Congress rushes, Congress stumbles. It is whether Senator so-and-so got a sweet enough deal to sign off on it. Well, Senator so-and-so might have gotten his deal, but the American people have not signed off.
Public opinion is clear. What have we become as a body if we are not even listening to the people we serve? What have we become if we are more concerned about a political victory or some hollow call to history than we are about actually solving the problems the American people sent us here to address? This bill was supposed to make health care less expensive. It does not. Incredibly, it makes it more expensive.
Few people could have imagined that this is how this debate would end--with a couple of cheap deals hidden in the folds of this 2,700-page bill and rushed early-morning votes. But that is where we are. Americans are asking themselves: How did this happen? How did a great national debate that was supposed to lead to a major bipartisan reform lead to a bag full of cheap legislative tricks inside a $2.3 trillion, 2,733-page bill that actually makes health care costs go up?
This legislation will reshape our Nation in ways its supporters will come to regret. But they cannot say they were not warned. The verdict of the American people has been clear for months: They do not want it.
Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would just follow with one comment to my leader as far as his comments.
In 2007, we passed a bill called the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. That act requires the posting of any earmarks or direct benefits for Senators in any bill. It has to be posted. We have not seen that with this bill, though we know there are numerous and sundry specific earmarks for Members.
So my hope is that sometime during this process, we will take up the violation of this very law by the leader of this Chamber in terms of ignoring it and flaunting it. What he said, when we passed it, was it was a needed change, and now we see it ignored as they bring this bill to the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma.
One thing about rushing, not only is there a potential violation of the provision the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, but we are learning more about this bill every day as we scrub it and try to understand it and figure out what all is in it. All of that, of course, is made more possible by rushing things through in sort of an expedited, hurried fashion to get it by the American people before Christmas in the hopes they will not notice.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the leader.
I want to spend my time this morning kind of talking about how you control health care costs in our country. My experience, just from my qualifications--I have 9 years of experience in manufacturing medical devices. I did that as a young man, had hundreds of employees and a fairly large business. I left that business to become a physician. The call of my life was to help people directly rather than indirectly through my medical device association.
So I want to lay out the two different ways, the two different arguments for how we control health care costs because everybody in this Chamber wants to control health care costs. All the Democrats and all the Republicans do. We have 11 studies that say premiums are going to rise and one that says they are not under this bill. So that is not going to control costs.
But I want to read a story that a lady from my district wrote me because I think it is very important in us considering which way we go.
I hope you don't mind a personal story, but as I listen to the health care debate, I can't help but think constantly of my middle daughter. I am convinced that Chloe would have lost her chance for a normal life, had these policies--
In this new health care bill--
been in effect two years ago. No government agency could possibly have understood Chloe's unique needs or her extremely rare condition.
After a perfectly healthy childhood, my seventeen-year-old showed me that her left arm was twitching and wouldn't stop. Within weeks, the entire left side of her body was jerking constantly, every waking moment of every day. Her MRI revealed more than one periventricular heterotrophic nodule--
That is a growth around the ventricular system, the fluid system of the brain--
but her first two neurologists weren't sure there was a connection between the [changes in her movement and the movement disorder and the symptoms and the nodules]. They certainly had nothing useful to offer in terms of treatment. But I made the rash promise to my daughter that someone, somewhere, knew what to do, and that we would not stop looking until we found that person. Unlike mothers in a government run system, I was free to research the options and apply where I wanted. Our search took less than three months.
Chloe's pediatric movement disorder specialist at Mayo Clinic called her condition ``unique'' and unclassifiable. He had to debate her case with his neurology team, but in the end they were willing to try an unprecedented series of brain surgeries. Chloe was desperate to live a normal life again, so my husband and I agreed, though perhaps you can imagine what an excruciating decision that was. Today, Chloe twitches a little, but anyone who didn't know her history would think she is just fidgeting. She is an honors linguistics student at OU, and she even takes dance lessons. She recently started driving again. She said once, ``Mom, without the surgery, I would be strapped into a wheelchair now.
I know that Chloe would never have had the unique care she needed, if we had been required to petition a government agency for permission. A less dedicated person than her subspecialist would have tried to classify her condition and restrict her to known treatments. In fact, other subspecialists wanted to make those same restrictions. Chloe's doctor learned how to treat her by spending a great deal of time with her, by talking to her and to us for hours at a time, and by observing her in multiple contexts. I fear for the next mother whose child has an unclassifiable condition, and whose treatment is planned by a faraway committee with a diagnostic manual open on the table. Chloe won't be in that manual.
The thing that keeps people from getting health care in America today is the cost of health care. We have had all sorts of attempts of, how do we do that? We have had the Massachusetts model, and, as entered into the Record yesterday, they have insurance reform. Almost everybody in Massachusetts is covered. Yet last year 21 percent of those people who were covered could not get care because they could not afford the deductibles and copays. So expanding insurance and expanding the model does not solve it.
So you can either approach controlling costs or you can ration care. What has happened in this bill, as it comes through, is we have chosen to ration care. My colleagues are going to dispute that, but I want to offer significant evidence to offset that and discuss what is in the bill and to also discuss what is not in the bill.
What is not in the bill is a prohibition against rationing, which all of my colleagues on both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee voted against, which means you are for rationing if you vote against, a prohibition. The leader denied an amendment on the floor of the Senate to eliminate rationing, so we do not get to see where everybody stands. But we understand the intent. So there is no question that the way we are going to control costs is to limit your access by rationing health care.
The other side of controlling costs is to incentivize the prevention of disease and incentivize payments for good outcomes when we manage chronic disease that is there in an efficient and effective way. That is not in the bill. That is not anywhere in the bill. What we have to do is incentivize an insurance company to invest in the management of chronic disease rather than to pay for the consequences of the chronic disease. That is not in the bill either.
So we get two choices.
Now, what do we find in this bill? We find a Medicare advisory commission. They actually dropped the name ``Medicare'' from it, but we find an advisory commission that is going to tell us how much money we have to cut from Medicare, and we either have to cut that amount or make some cuts somewhere else.
We have the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and we have already seen during the debate on this bill when they do something that is based on cost alone--not clinical; breast cancer screening for women between the ages 40 to 50--when they do something on the basis of cost instead of clinical, we run in and jump and say no, but we are going to pass a bill that is going to totally empower that. Seventeen times in this bill is the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force referenced in what it is going to tell us what to do, and it is not going to tell us just in Medicare and Medicaid, it is going to tell us in every area what we are going to do. But because there was such a reaction to the first recommendation based on cost--and let me explain what that was. They said that if you are age 50 and over, the incidence of finding somebody with breast cancer is 1 in 1,470 people, but if you are between the ages of 40 and 50, it is only 1 in 1,910 people; therefore, it is not cost-effective. So it does not matter if you have breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 50, we do not think the government ought to be paying for your mammogram and we do not think anybody ought to have one. Well, that is fine for all those people who do not have breast cancer. It is terrible for the people who do have breast cancer and it could be found early with a mammogram.
So we rushed in here and we offset what that task force did. But they are going to be doing it time and time again. And is the Congress going to truly--every time they make a decision based on cost-effectiveness, not clinical effectiveness, are we going to reverse it? We are not. So there is another proof that we are, in fact, going to use the rationing of care to control costs.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to.
Mr. BURR. If, in fact, the Congress did reverse the decision of an advisory board, what does that do to the budget deficit? And what does it do to the claims that this current bill being considered is paid for?
Mr. COBURN. I am not sure I can answer the question. But it would make it less effective in terms of supposed claims.
Mr. BURR. So if the authors of this bill never intended to make cuts, then it blows the budget neutrality that is portrayed in this bill. But if they use all the mechanisms that are in place to make sure reimbursements are cut or the scope of coverage is affected by a decision to limit one's care, then we could see prevention cut, wellness programs cut, or even the preventive diagnosis such as for breast cancer limited to a much smaller group.
Mr. COBURN. I think the Senator from North Carolina is really going to where I am going to get to later; that is, what is the motivation for the decisionmaking?
I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are well intended, but I don't think they are well informed about the consequences of their intentions.
So if you set up the Task Force for Preventive Health Services and say you are going to rely on it, but we know they are going to make the decisions based on cost-effectiveness, not clinical effectiveness, what we are going to see is the American Cancer Society coming again and again and again because what we are going to do is we are going to cover those where it is cost-effective but not clinically effective. For 80 percent of Americans, they are not going to notice the difference, but one out of five Americans is going to notice the difference.
The second area, which I wish to spend some time on because we have actually modeled it after England, is cost comparative effectiveness. We ought to talk about what is comparative effectiveness research because there is nothing wrong with the research. It is health care research comparing various drugs, devices, and treatments head to head, and the whole goal of that is to find out what works best and what costs the least.
The assumption in this bill is, we can have 24 or 36 people in Washington decide that. In the Framingham studies they have been running for over 50 years on heart disease, we still don't have the answers and we have been studying it for 50 years. But we are going to be making decisions on cost, not on clinical effectiveness, which is going to limit your ability to have what you and your doctor think you need.
So we are going to pull out clinical experience of individual physicians. We are going to eliminate the heart of medicine, which is the combination of vast experience, gray hair, long years of training, family history, clinical history and physical exam and we are going to say: No, it doesn't matter. We are going to say: Here is the way you are going to do it.
Who uses comparative effectiveness research? Well, several countries do. When I share with my colleagues the stories about how it is used, you are going to get a real vision of what is coming with this bill--a real vision.
This bill creates a new agency called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to perform comparative effectiveness research. I have already said the idea behind it is good. I strongly support medical research. I strongly support helping doctors and their patients choose the best research and the best treatment. The problem is, this bill doesn't do that. On the contrary, this bill will empower the government to decide which treatments you can have and which ones you cannot have. That is what this does. This removes the judgment of the doctor and replaces it with the judgment of the bureaucracy in Washington. It is not a hypothetical concern, it is a real-world problem.
In Britain, they control health care costs by denying or delaying access to expensive therapies. That is one of the reasons this country has one-third better survival for every cancer you can imagine over Great Britain because we don't do that. As a two-time cancer survivor I am acutely aware as a patient, not as a doctor, in that I want to make sure for my family and my patients they have the best alternatives, not the cheapest, because the cheapest alternatives are the ones that take years away from your life.
I am going to go through some examples. Nobody can dispute this is what is happening now and what will happen under our program. To Senator Baucus's credit, he had a bill that wasn't cost comparative effectiveness; he had one based on clinical comparative effectiveness. That is not in here. What is in here is cost comparative effectiveness. Senator Baucus knew you don't want to use cost as the main thing; you want to use clinical outcomes as the No. 1 deciding agent in how we approach health care--not cost--because if you only look at cost, nobody in this country would get a mammogram between 40 and 50. But this bill is different from what Senator Baucus had offered in his Finance Committee markup.
There is an agency in Great Britain called the National Institutes for Health and Clinical Excellence. It is pronounced NIHCE. Here are some of the decisions of NIHCE in the most recent years. They have a problem in England with cost, too, and they have a single-payer, government-run system. They have the government running it, but they still can't control their costs, so what have they done?
They have repeatedly denied breast cancer patients breakthrough drugs. They have forced patients with multiple sclerosis to wait 2 1/2 years to receive new innovative treatments that people in this country are getting as soon as they are available. They have denied early stage Alzheimer's patients medication, requiring their condition to worsen before they give them the medicine. What do we know about the medicine? It works best when you have the slightest symptoms of Alzheimer's, not when you get worse. But that is the bureaucratic thinking: We will save money rather than practice good medicine.
They deny life-prolonging treatments to kidney cancer patients. They denied new medicine to all but a small percentage of patients with osteoporosis and then only as a last resort. In other words, you have to about have your bones breaking by standing before you get medicine for osteoporosis in Great Britain. In this country, we have prevented millions of hip fractures through effective medicines to restore the calcium and bone matrix in seniors' bones. But we have Medicare now saying you are doing too many tests to check on that, so you can only do it every 2 years. So we are going to use rationing, and we are.
They denied access to the only drugs available to treat aggressive brain tumors. They denied effective drugs to bowel cancer patients, colon cancer.
Macular degeneration is something that affects a large number of people in this country. That is where the macula--the area that actually allows you to see and concentrate your vision--as we age, we have what is called cystoid macular degeneration or dry degeneration. That is a disease of the eye where it causes vision loss. NIHCE required patients suffering from macular degeneration to go blind in one eye before they could have the medicine that almost every American who has macular degeneration in this country has. She had to go blind first in one eye before you could ever get the medicine. That is a bureaucrat making this decision or a bureaucratic committee because it was cost-effective to allow you to live with one eye. Elderly patients went to court to fight for drugs to keep them from going blind. Twenty-two thousand Britains became totally blind through that ruling by the NIHCE. In one case, an 88-year-old World War II veteran and former Air Force pilot sold his house to pay for the drug after the government said they weren't going to pay for it. The Royal National Institute of Blind People said that as a result of NIHCE's decision, countless people have either been stripped of their sight or stripped of their life savings to pay for private treatment.
For Alzheimer's, they ruled that three drugs, common to many people who are listening today--Aricept, Reminyl, and Exelon--were not cost-effective for patients with early Alzheimer's disease. Well, those are the only ones they work effectively on. One hundred thousand Alzheimer's patients a year were denied treatment that could have slowed the progress of their disease. The British Alzheimer's Society said this decision was disgraceful and victimized the most vulnerable in our society.
Brain cancer. Gliadel and Temodal were not cost-effective for treating brain tumors and severely restricted their access to them. A 47-year-old woman sold her house to buy the drug the government refused to provide. They have been held as the biggest breakthroughs in treating brain tumors in the last 30 years. Finally, in April of the year before last, they finally relented and allowed brain cancer patients to have the drugs that were available on the market.
Erbitux, very effective in resistant colon cancers. In 2006, denied. Seventeen thousand Britons a year get the sort of advanced colon cancer that Erbitux is designed for.
Yet they can't have it.
Mr. BURR. May I ask a question of my colleague? Listening to this list of products that have been denied people in Great Britain, and certainly this is true in some other countries, makes me look at the Medicare population in this country with the realization that the way Medicare was constructed, a senior can't pay out of pocket because no provider can receive a payment from a senior. If for some reason this bill were passed and you took part of the arsenal of drugs away from seniors or procedures away from seniors, how can a senior get a benefit if no provider can receive an out-of-pocket payment from a senior?
Mr. COBURN. That is the problem with our system today. What we are going to hear them say is the insurance companies do this now. At first, for new treatments, until they are proven effective, most insurance companies don't cover them, but they cover them much sooner than Medicare does today. Today, Medicare is the last to approve the drugs.
We are going to hear that is not any different than the limitations from insurance. That is true. We need to change that. But the fact is, we are getting ready to put all these people into insurance programs, and then we are going to have the Federal Government, which is just as bad or worse than the insurance company, making those decisions.
I wish to finish my point on cost. We get two ways for fixing cost because that is what is keeping people from getting access. We can either ration it--and there are three methods to rationing in this bill which will be used--or we can incentivize outcomes and we can incentivize prevention and we can pay, based on the transparency of outcomes and quality. We haven't done any of that in this bill. We have said we have, but when you look at how do you prevent it--and the model is the 200,000 employees at Safeway and what they have been able to do in using their incentive systems to pay for prevention, to use competitive purchasing to reconnect the employee with the purchase of health care.
I understand my colleague from Nebraska is here, and I will yield to him because I understand he was a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT