BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam President, health care--big issue. The health care reform bill that is current law--big issue. A lot of talk about repeal, fix what is wrong in the bill, what is right in the bill, depending upon your personal opinion.
I think that the Senate--more especially the committees of jurisdiction, and I am talking about the Senate Finance Committee--has a unique obligation, especially at this time, to conduct its oversight responsibility. Unfortunately, that was not the case as of yesterday.
One of the major problems with the new health care law is the huge amount of power and authority it grants to one man, the Administrator, perhaps we should call him the czar, of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Rest assured, every health care provider in the country knows what and who CMS is.
The Administrator is Dr. Donald Berwick. One of the major problems with Dr. Berwick is his longstanding, well-documented support for government rationing as a means of controlling health care costs--not my words, his.
Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee finally had our very first chance to question Dr. Berwick. I say finally, because for months my colleagues and I have requested this opportunity, a request which was denied when President Obama provided a recess appointment for Dr. Berwick. So yesterday's hearing was a hollow one of sorts, since Dr. Berwick had already been installed at CMS, or maybe parachuted in would be the right way to describe it, in that he has made many controversial comments about his love for the British health care system and for rationing and other comments that certainly deserve a hearing in regards to a confirmation process. That did not happen.
He was also installed pretty much after the debate that we had on health care. Now, unfortunately, we were only given 5 minutes each yesterday to question the most important man in American health care as of today. This was 5 minutes, sandwiched in between lengthy remarks by the chairman, the witness, and the floor votes we had yesterday.
I was not able to question Dr. Berwick on many things. I asked unanimous consent of the chairman if I could submit questions for the RECORD. Obviously he agreed and that was it. But when Ranking Member Grassley asked Dr. Berwick if he would commit to appearing before the committee again--which I think the doctor would; he is a very affable and personal man. I do not agree with him, but he is affable and personable--so we could continue our oversight, Chairman Baucus interrupted his response and refused to make any further commitments.
How is that for transparency? How is that for finally getting to a hearing about the man who is the most important man today in regards to the new health care law and implementing it?
Because I was not able to ask Dr. Berwick my questions yesterday, I am forced and am asking them here on the Senate floor. Dr. Berwick knows my No. 1 concern with President Obama's health care law is the enormous potential for the government to interfere in the treatment decisions of the doctor and the patient. Dr. Berwick has a long history of statements supporting government control of treatment decisions, or what I would call ``rationing.'' I know some would say that is not the case. But Dr. Berwick has said that:
Most people who have severe pain do not need advanced methods; they just need the morphine and counseling that have been around for centuries.
[Page: S8003] GPO's PDF
A most unique statement, to say the least. He has publicly stated an aversion to new medical technology and health care advances, saying:
One of the drivers of low value in health care today is the continuous entrance of new technologies, devices, and drugs that add no value to care.
That is in his eyes. He refers to this as an ``excess supply'' of health care. And, of course, we have his infamous quote that ``the decision is not whether or not we will ration health care. The decision is whether we will ration care with our eyes open.''
It should then come as no surprise that CMS under Dr. Berwick's leadership has embarked upon a path of increasing government control, centralized decisionmaking, and top-down mandates that treat doctors as nothing more than cooks practicing ``cookbook medicine'' and patients as nothing more than numbers, despite their individual needs and desires.
One example: attempts by CMS to restrict the number of times seniors with diabetes can test their blood sugar by limiting them to one test strip per day, regardless of what the doctor recommends. Doctors understand that diabetes care is an exceedingly complex and personalized enterprise. My question that I could not ask yesterday: Why is CMS replacing the judgment of a doctor on how many times their patient should test their blood sugar with a CMS-knows-best approach?
An even more egregious example of the government getting in between patients and doctors is Dr. Berwick's recent investigation into Medicare coverage of the life-extending prostate cancer therapy Provenge. Provenge is a therapeutic vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat late-stage prostate cancer through an innovative process that removes immune system cells from patients and exposes them to cancer cells and an immune system stimulator and then injects them back into the patient. Provenge has been shown to increase life expectancy by an average of 4 months but sometimes longer, with one patient living an additional 7 years. In addition, Provenge is special because of its lack of side effects as compared to the traditional chemotherapy methods. So not only can patients live longer, but their quality of life will be better.
Medicare coverage for FDA-approved drugs is usually automatic. My next question to Dr. Berwick would have been, had I had the opportunity in the committee yesterday but was denied because of scheduling: Why did you initiate a coverage investigation so soon after Provenge was approved? Why is CMS seeking to substitute its judgment for not only patients and doctors but for the FDA, the gold standard for drug approval worldwide? Are you questioning the FDA's decision? When drug companies and research folks produce after many years of research and effort and cost, are they going to have to go through two hurdles--first, the FDA, which can take years, and then CMS--as to whether Medicare will approve it? It seems that is where we are headed.
I know or I think I know the answer as to why Dr. Berwick decided to conduct this investigation.
It is cost--$93,000 for a complete cycle of Provenge was the driving factor behind this investigation.
The good news is that yesterday an advisory committee recommended that CMS cover Provenge. But I am very concerned about the precedent this sets not only for other cancer regimens such as the promising breast cancer drug Avastin but for all new medical innovations.
Some may say that an extra 4 months of life is not enough to justify this high price tag. It is a high price tag. First, the government should not be in the business of placing dollar values on life, period. That is what Great Britain is trying to move away from. That is why David Cameron made the unique statement that maybe we ought to have a system that puts the choice between doctors and patients. What a novel idea.
Secondly, the traditional chemo and all of its associated side effects costs Medicare upwards of $110,000 per patient per year. So Provenge is actually a cost saver when viewed in that context.
Third, this is exactly the type of innovative approach we need to win the fight against cancer. Medical advances don't come in giant leaps; they more often occur at the margins. We should not deny patients and doctors treatment options simply because they don't offer a complete cure. That is shortsighted, not to mention cruel.
Finally, if we want companies and investors to continue to pour their dollars and efforts into developing a cure for cancer, this is the wrong approach. The investment into researching and developing Provenge approached $1 billion over 15 years, 15 clinical trials. Refusing to allow a return on this huge investment will send a chilling effect across the health research industry, resulting in less investment, less innovation, and worse care for patients. Maybe less innovation is actually the goal of this administration and of Dr. Berwick, who has targeted the ``entrance of new technologies, drugs, and devices'' as ``one of the drivers of low value in health care today.'' Value is a subjective concept.
Another question I have for Dr. Berwick: I prefer that the value of health care be determined by the patient and doctor, not the government. Would you agree?
Finally, from yesterday's news, I have been shocked by the number of ObamaCare waivers coming out of the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the New York Times today, 111 waivers have been granted to employers to allow them to avoid the new health care mandates. The only thing more shocking than the number of waivers is who is getting them. Would you believe that they are some of the most ardent supporters of health care reform? Unions such as the Service Employees International Union, the United Federation of Teachers, and the Transport Workers Union have all applied for and been granted waivers from the rules. They don't have to follow the rules. They don't have to follow the mandates. Guess who are the strongest supporters of health care. The fact is, ObamaCare is bad for business, bad for workers, bad for seniors, bad for taxpayers.
My question to Dr. Berwick: When will the American people get a waiver from ObamaCare? Of course, that decision would be under the purview of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, whom I know as a personal friend.
Kathleen, Kathleen, Kathleen, you are granting all these waivers to people in regard to the mandate on health care. When will the American people get a waiver from some of the things they choose not to take part in? This is, indeed, shocking news.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT