Prescription Drugs

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss an issue that is on the minds of millions of seniors--prescription drug access and pricing. I am here to defend Medicare Part D and the importance of competitive drug pricing, because it works.

Prescription drugs play a vital role in our health care system. Thanks to technological and scientific breakthroughs in pharmaceuticals, Americans are living longer and more productive lives than ever before.

There has been a remarkable rise in pharmaceutical drug access to our Nation's citizens. A generation ago, there were nowhere near as many prescription drugs available--today, there are effective drugs on the market that help people do just about anything. From drugs that reduce blood pressure and fight uncommon bacterial infections, to others that lower stress and protect immune systems in the fight against cancer, there has never been a time in history like this.

Members of Congress have--over the last decade or so--made many efforts to extend prescription drug access to as many Americans as possible, specifically seniors. The expense has been significant, but so have the results. This improvement to prescription drug access is due in large part to Medicare Part D.

The Medicare Part D prescription drug program has been successfully reducing drug costs for seniors, and as long as we leave it alone and let it run as it was intended to, millions of Americans will continue to benefit--this was the goal and the goal is being met.

I strongly oppose any efforts to repeal the noninterference clause, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, are moving to eliminate the noninterference clause--written into the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA--which, in layman's terms, means that some Members of Congress would like to give the Government the ability to negotiate drug prices on behalf of consumers. Proponents of this move believe that Government negotiation of drug prices would lead to lower prices for the millions of Americans in need of prescription drugs. Yet that is not the full picture. The reality is that there is no proof that eliminating noninterference would reduce costs for seniors in need of low-cost prescription drugs; in fact, there is a chance that this approach could limit senior access to certain types of prescription drugs--this is because, in Government negotiating of drug prices, competition will be eliminated. This is to say that certain drug companies will simply back away from the table and choose not to participate.

As you can see, Government negotiation will not benefit the consumer. It actually hurts the consumer because it limits what prescription drugs are available to them.

For that reason, I feel strongly that moving in this direction and having this debate is not the best use of the Senate's time. Why are we debating a program that has been successful in providing drug coverage for our seniors and has done so while costing less than anticipated? Our seniors have a choice in their plans, and they are pleased with those options. We should be using this time to focus on those who lack any healthcare options. I am talking about the millions of uninsured people in this country.

My colleagues and I should be talking about ways to give these individuals a chance for health care coverage. We need to further examine the Tax Code and fix its glaring inequities. The Tax Code needs to be unbiased; where you work should not affect how much you pay for health care coverage or what kind of health care options you have.

Why can't all American workers--whether they work for a Fortune 500 company or the local bakery they started from scratch--have the ability to purchase health insurance with pretax dollars?

My bill, the TEA Act, will allow just that. Why aren't we talking about that?

What about Senator Coburn's Universal Health Care Choice and Access Act--why aren't we talking about that? His bill will help transform our health care system to one that focuses on prevention and helps to reestablish the doctor-patient relationship, while also empowering individuals to choose where their care is delivered.

I encourage us to get past this time-consuming and unnecessary Part D debate and turn toward issues that are in need of solutions. From the uninsured, to future budget insolvency, to the global war on terror, there is plenty--of substance--to discuss.

Source