Speeches & Floor Statements
Colloquy Remarks of U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Republican Colleagues -- Health Care Reform
Posted on December 8, 2009
Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his amendment, and I thank the Senator from Florida for his amendment, because Medicare Advantage is very important to Tennesseans. We have 243,000 Tennesseans who have opted for Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of all Americans who are on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage because it provides the option for increased dental care, for vision care, for hearing coverage, for reduced hospital deductibles, and many benefits. It is helpful to low-income and minority Americans, and it is especially helpful to people in rural areas. What the Republicans have been arguing all week is that, contrary to what our friends on the other side are saying, this bill cuts those Medicare Advantage benefits. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office says that fully half -- fully half -- of the benefits in Medicare Advantage for these 11 million Americans will be cut. Our Democratic friends say: No, that is not true. That is not true. We are going to cut $1 trillion out of Medicare over a fully implemented 10-year period of this bill, but nobody will be affected by it. Well, the Senator from Florida apparently doesn't believe that. He says: We have 900,000 Floridians who don't want their Medicare Advantage cut. And he is saying, in effect, we don't trust this Democratic bill to protect these seniors in Medicare Advantage. So I ask the Senator from Texas: If the people of Florida and the Senator from Florida don't trust the Democratic bill to protect Medicare Advantage, why should 240,000 Tennesseans trust the Democratic bill to protect Medicare Advantage? Mr. CORNYN. I agree with the distinguished Senators from Tennessee and Arizona, that what is good enough for the seniors in Florida ought to be good enough for all seniors. In my State of Texas, we have 532,000 seniors on Medicare Advantage, and they like it, for the reasons that the Senator from Tennessee mentioned. They do not want us cutting those benefits. But I say to the Senators from Arizona and Tennessee, I seem to recall that we had amendments earlier which would have protected everybody from cuts in Medicare benefits, and now we have a targeted effort, negotiated behind closed doors, to protect States such as Florida and Pennsylvania and others, and I wonder whether the Nelson amendment to protect the seniors of Florida would even be necessary if our colleagues across the aisle had agreed with us that no Medicare benefits should be cut. Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator points out, a few days ago, by a vote of 100 to 1, we voted to pass an amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet, which included words such as "protecting guaranteed Medicare benefits;" or "protecting and improving guaranteed Medicare benefits." The wording was: "Nothing in the provisions of or amendments made by this act shall result in the reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act." Is there any Member on the other side who can guarantee that seniors in his or her State in Medicare Advantage will not lose a single benefit they have today -- not the guaranteed benefit the other side goes to great pains to talk about. I think those who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage system believe that since they receive those benefits, they are guaranteed benefits as well. I would ask our two physicians here on the floor, who both have had the opportunity to deal directly with the Medicare Advantage Program, if you have a patient come in and you say: By the way, you are having your Medicare Advantage Program cut, but don't worry, we are protecting your guaranteed Medicare benefits, do you think they understand that language? Mr. COBURN. I would respond to the Senator from Arizona in the following way. First of all, they won't understand that language. But more importantly, if you look at the law, there is Medicare Part A, Medicare Part B, Medicare Part C, and Medicare Part D. They are all law. They are all law. What is guaranteed under the law today is that if you want Medicare Advantage, you can have it. What is going to change is that we are going to take away that guarantee. We are going to modify Medicare Part C, which is Medicare Advantage. So we have this confusing way of saying we are not taking away any of your guaranteed benefits, but in fact, under the current law today, Medicare Advantage is guaranteed to anybody who wants to sign up for it. So it is duplicitous to say we are not cutting your benefits, when in fact we are. Let me speak to my experience and then I will yield to my colleague from Wyoming, who is an orthopedic surgeon. What is good about Medicare Advantage? We hear it is a money pot to pay for a new program for other people. Here is what is good about it. We get coordinated care for poor Medicare folks. Medicare Advantage coordinates the care. When you coordinate care, what you do is you decrease the number of tests, you prevent hospitalizations, you get better outcomes, and consequently you have healthier seniors. So when it is looked at, Medicare Advantage doesn't cost more. It actually saves Medicare money on an individual basis. Because if you forgo the interests of a hospital, where you start incurring costs, what you have done is saved the Medicare Trust Fund but you have also given better care. The second point I wish to make is that many people on Medicare Advantage cannot afford to buy Medicare supplemental policies. Ninety-four percent of the people in this country who are on Medicare and not Medicare Advantage are buying a supplemental policy. Why is that? Because the basic underlying benefit package of Medicare is not adequate. So here we have this group of people who are benefitted because they have chosen a guaranteed benefit of Medicare Part C, and all of a sudden we are saying: Time out. You don't get that anymore. Mr. McCAIN. So a preponderance of people who enroll in Medicare Advantage are low-income people, and a lot of them are rural residents? Mr. COBURN. A lot of them are rural. I don't know the income levels, but I know there is a propensity for actually getting a savings, because you don't have to buy a supplemental policy if you are on Medicare Advantage. Mr. BARRASSO. I would add to that, following on my colleague from Oklahoma, that there is the coordinated care, which is one of the advantages of Medicare Advantage, but there is also the preventive component of this. We talk about ways to help people keep their health care costs down, and that has to do with coordinated care and preventing illness. Mr. COBURN. And we heard from the freshman Democrats that they want to put a new preventive package into the program, yet they want to take the preventive package out of Medicare Advantage. It is an interesting mix of amendments, isn't it? Mr. BARRASSO. We want to keep our seniors healthy. That is one way they can stay out of the hospital, out of the nursing home, and stay active. Yet with the cuts in Medicare Advantage, the Democrats have voted to do that -- to cut all the money out of this program that seniors like. Eleven million American seniors who depend upon Medicare for their health care choose this because there is an advantage to them. My colleague from Oklahoma, the other physician in the Senate, has talked, as I have, extensively about patient--centered health care -- not insurance centered, not government centered. Medicare Advantage helps keep it patient centered. So when I see deals being cut behind closed doors where they are cutting out people from all across the country and providing sweetheart deals to help seniors on Medicare Advantage in Florida in order to encourage one Member of the Senate to vote a certain way, I have to ask myself: What about the seniors in the rest of the country, whether it is Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, or Arizona? A lot of seniors have great concern, and I would hope they would call up and say this is wrong; we need to know what is going on, and to ask why it is there is a sweetheart deal for one selected Senator from one State when we want to have that same advantage; and why are the Democrats voting to eliminate all this Medicare money. Mr. CORNYN. May I ask my colleagues a question -- maybe starting with the Senator from Arizona -- on a related issue. Medicare Advantage is a private sector alternative or choice to Medicare, which is a government-run program. I am detecting throughout all of this bill sort of a bias against the private sector and wanting to eliminate choices that aren't government-run plans. Am I reading too much into this or do any of my colleagues see a similar propensity in this bill? Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may respond to the Senator from Texas, I think he is exactly right. There is a lot of very appealing talk that we hear from the advocates of the so-called health reform bill. But when we get right down to it, and when we examine it closely, we find, a big increase in government-run programs. What does that mean for low-income Americans, and what does it mean for seniors who depend on our biggest government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid? It means they risk not have access to the doctor they want. The Senator from Wyoming mentioned the Mayo Clinic, widely cited by the President and by many on the other side as an example of controlling costs, is beginning to say: We can't take patients from the government-run programs in some cases because we are not reimbursed properly. What is going to happen behind all this happy talk we are hearing about health care is, we are going to find more and more low-income patients dumped into a program called Medicaid. Under this program half the doctors will not see a new Medicaid patient. It is akin to giving someone a bus ticket on a bus line that runs half the time. Medicare is going to increasingly find itself in the same shape as Medicaid. The Mayo Clinic has already said they can't afford to serve patients from the government-run programs. The Senator from Texas is exactly right. We don't have to persuade the 11 million Americans who have chosen Medicare Advantage that it is a good program. They like it. In rural areas, between 2003 and 2007, more than 600,000 people signed up for it. In a way, the Senator from Florida may have a sweetheart deal, but in a way he has done us a favor. We have been trying to say all week the Democrats are cutting Medicare. They are saying: Trust us, we are not cutting Medicare. The Senator from Florida is saying: Floridians don't trust you. You are cutting their Medicare Advantage. I want to have an amendment to protect them. Senator McCain is saying: Let's protect all seniors' Medicare Advantage. Mr. McCAIN. May I also point out, for the record, on September 20, 2003, there was a letter to the conferees of Medicare, urging them to include a meaningful increase in Medicare Advantage funding for fiscal years 2004-2005 -- a group of 18 Senators, including Senators Schumer, Lautenberg, Clinton, Wyden, et cetera, including Senator Kerry, who now obviously wants to reduce the funding for Medicare Advantage. Again, perhaps he was for it before he was against it. I would also like to point out, as short a time ago as April 3, 2009, a group of Senators, bipartisan, including Senators Wyden, Murray, Specter, Bennet, Klobuchar, and others, wrote to Charlene Frizzera, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: We write to express our concerns regarding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' proposed changes to Medicare Advantage rates for calendar year 2010. The advance notice has raised two important issues that, if implemented, would result in highly problematic premium increases and benefit reductions for Medicare Advantage enrollees across the country. Again, as recently as last April, there was concern on the other side about cuts in the Medicare Advantage Program. Mr. COBURN. I wonder if the Senator is aware, in Alabama, there will be 181,000 people who will get a Medicare Advantage cut; in California, 1,606,000 seniors are going to have benefits cut; Colorado, 198,000; Georgia, 176,000; Illinois, 176,000; Indiana, 148,000; Kentucky, 110,000; Louisiana, 151,000; Massachusetts, 200,000; Michigan, 406,000 -- that is exactly what Michigan needs right now, isn't it, for their seniors to have their benefits cut -- Minnesota, 284,000; Missouri, 200,000; Nevada, 104,000; New Jersey, 156,000; New York, 853,000; Ohio, 499,000; Oregon, 250,000; Pennsylvania -- maybe, maybe not because they may have the deal -- 865,000; Tennessee, 233,000; Washington State, 225,000; Wisconsin, 243,000. I ask unanimous consent that the list of what the enrollment is by CMS on Medicare and Medicare Advantage enrollment, as of August 2009, be printed in the Record. Mr. McCAIN. The point of all this is, the Senator from Florida, a member of the Finance Committee, felt so strongly that Medicare Advantage was at risk he decided to carve out, and was able to get the majority on a party-line vote of the Finance Committee to carve out, a special status for a group of seniors under Medicare Advantage in his State. My motion simply says, everyone whom the Senator from Oklahoma made reference to deserves that same protection. That is all this motion is about. Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator would yield for a question, if this motion is not agreed to, which protects all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries -- all 11 million of them, 532,000 in my State -- and as a result of not only these cuts but perhaps additional cuts to come in the future to Medicare Advantage, which will make it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get coverage, I ask particularly my doctor colleagues, what is the impact of eliminating Medicare Advantage and leaving people with Medicare fee for service, which is, as I recall, the Bennet amendment earlier? You have to parse the language closely, but it talked about guaranteed benefits. I think the Senator from Oklahoma makes a good point. Right now, Medicare Advantage has guaranteed benefits. Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. Mr. CORNYN. What is the consequence of seniors losing Medicare Advantage and being forced onto a Medicare fee-for-service program? Mr. COBURN. Limited prevention screening, no coordinated care, loss of access to certain drugs, loss of accessory things, such as vision and hearing supplementals, but, more importantly, poorer health outcomes. That is what it is going to mean -- or a much smaller checkbook, one or the other. A smaller checkbook because now the government isn't going to pay for it -- you are -- or poorer health outcomes. If your checkbook is limited, the thing that happens is, you will get the poorer health outcome. Mr. BARRASSO. Additionally, the Senator from Arizona talked about the closed-door meetings, secretly trying to come up with things. There was an article in the paper today that the Democrats are turning to actually throwing more people on the Medicare and Medicaid rolls as they are trying to come up with some compromise; the idea being, it is going to be compromising the care of the people. They are trying to put more people onto the Medicaid rolls. The Senator from Tennessee has said many physicians don't take those patients because reimbursement is so poor. It is putting more people into a boat that is already sinking. They want to put more people on Medicaid and more on Medicare, but at the same time, they are cutting Medicare by $464 billion. This is a program we know is already going broke. Yet they want to now put people age 55 to 64, add those to the Medicare rolls, which is a program we have great concerns about. Special deals for some, cutting out many others, now adding more people to the Medicare rolls -- to me, this is not sustainable. Yet these are the deals that are being cut less than 100 feet from here off the floor of the Senate, when we are out here debating for all the American people to see the things we think are important about health care. Jobs are going to be lost as a result, if this bill gets passed. People who have insurance will end up paying more in premiums, if this bill is passed. People who depend on Medicare, whether it is Medicare Advantage or regular Medicare, will see their health care deteriorate as a result of this proposal. I turn to the Senator from Arizona, who has been a special student of this. Mr. McCAIN. So seniors, by losing Medicare Advantage, would then lose certain provisions Medicare Advantage provides and then they would be forced, if they can afford it, which they are now paying zero because it is covered under Medicare Advantage, then they would have to buy Medigap policies that would make up for those benefits they lost when they lose Medicare Advantage. Guess who offers those Medigap insurance policies. Our friends at AARP, which average $175 a month. We are telling people who are on Medicare Advantage today, when they lose it, they can be guaranteed, if they want to make up for those benefits they are losing, they would be paying $175 a month, minimum, for a Medigap policy. A lot of America's seniors cannot afford that. Mr. COBURN. That is $2,000 a year. Mr. McCAIN. They can't afford it. Mr. COBURN. I will make one other point. Over the next 10 years, 15 million baby boomers are going to go into Medicare. We are taking $465 billion out of Medicare; on the 10-year picture, 1 trillion. So we are going to add 15 million and cut $1 trillion. What do you think is going to happen to the care for everybody in Medicare? The ultimate is, we are going to ration the care for seniors, if this bill comes through. Mr. McCAIN. How much time remains, Madam President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remaining for you. Mr. McCAIN. Dr. Barrasso, have you treated people under Medicare Advantage? Mr. BARRASSO. I have. People know there is an advantage to being in this program, and that is why they sign up for it. That is why citizens all around the country have signed up for Medicare Advantage. They realize there is value in prevention and there is value in coordinated care. There is value in having eye care, dental care, hearing care. There are advantages to want to stay healthy, to keep down the cost of care. Mr. McCAIN. So you are making the case that even though it may cost more, the fact that you have a weller and fitter group of senior citizens, you, in the long-run, reduce health care costs because they take advantage of the kind of care that, over time, would keep them from going to the hospital earlier or having to see the doctor more often. Mr. BARRASSO. That is one of the reasons that Medicare Advantage was brought forth. I know a lot of Senators from rural States supported it because it would allow people in small communities to have this advantage to be in a program such as that. It could encourage doctors to go into those communities to try to keep those people well, work with prevention. The 11 million people who are on Medicare Advantage know they are on Medicare Advantage. They have chosen it. It is the fastest growing component because people realize the advantages of being on Medicare Advantage. If they want to stay independent, healthy, and fit, they sign up for Medicare Advantage. I would think people all across the country, who are seniors on Medicare but are not on Medicare Advantage, would want to say: Why didn't I know about this program? As seniors talk about this at senior centers -- and I go to centers and meetings there and visit with folks and hear their concerns -- they are converting over and joining, signing up for Medicare Advantage because they know there are advantages to it. For this Senate and the Democrats to say: We want to slash over $100 billion from Medicare Advantage, I think the people of America understand this is a great loss to them and a peril to their own health, as they lose the coordinated care and the preventive nature of the care. Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Tennessee, do you know of any expert economist on health care who believes we can make these kinds of cuts in Medicare Advantage and still preserve the same benefits the enrollees have today? Mr. ALEXANDER. The answer to the Senator from Arizona is no. I do not know of one. I know of one Senator at least who does not believe it. He is the Senator from Florida. It is interesting that all week we have been going back and forth. We have been saying to the Democrats: You are cutting Medicare benefits. They have been saying: No, we are not. We have been saying: Yes, you are. No, we are not. I am sure the people at home must say: Well, who is right about this? Well, the Senator from Florida, who sits on the other side of the aisle, has said: I am not willing to go back to Florida and say to the people of Florida that your benefits are going to be cut if you are on Medicare Advantage, so I want an amendment to protect you. The Senator from Texas wants and amendment to protect 11 million seniors and so does the Senator from Oklahoma and so does the Senator from Louisiana and so does the Senator from Wyoming, and the Senator from Tennessee. So the Senator from Arizona is saying, we believe you are cutting Medicare Advantage benefits for 11 million Americans. The Senator from Florida does not trust your bill. We do not either. We want an amendment that protects 11 million seniors. Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask our Senators to expand in the brief time we have. It seems as if all of the discussion about health care reform is a bit about accountable care organizations, coordinating care, particularly in the later part of life, avoiding chronic diseases in life. When I was at Kelsey-Seybold Clinic in Houston, TX, they told me it is Medicare Advantage that allows them to coordinate care, to hold down costs, to keep people healthier longer. Yet the irony, to me, it seems, is that by cutting Medicare Advantage benefits, we are going backward rather than forward when it comes to that kind of coordinated, less expensive care. Would the Senator concur with that? Mr. BARRASSO. I would concur that this is actually taking a step backward. That is why the Senator from Florida has demanded they make accommodations for the people of Florida. The people of Wyoming want those same accommodations, as do the people of Arizona and Texas. Because 11 million Americans have chosen the Medicare Advantage Program because it does help coordinate care. It has preventive care. It keeps it more patient centered as opposed to government centered, insurance company centered. That is the way for people to stay healthy, live longer lives, and keep their independence. We have seen cuts across the board on Medicare, whether it is home health, nursing homes, hospice care, Medicare Advantage. And across the board, they are cutting Medicare in a way that certainly the seniors of this country do not deserve. They have paid into that program for many years and they deserve their benefits. Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may say to the Senator from Arizona one other thing. We have talked a lot about our good friend, the Senator from Florida, and how he has been so perceptive on noticing that his Floridians with Medicare Advantage may lose their Medicare benefits. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired. Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds for the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ALEXANDER. I say to the Senator from Arizona, I believe there are other Medicare benefits that are likely to be cut in this bill. Aren't there cuts to hospice? Aren't there cuts to hospitals? Aren't there cuts to home health care, which we talked about yesterday? So if Floridians do not trust the Democratic bill to protect their Medicare benefits from Medicare Advantage, why should they trust the Democratic bill to protect any of their Medicare benefits? Mr. McCAIN. I wish to finally point out what Dr. Coburn said. Medicare Part C, which is Medicare Advantage, is part of the law, and to treat it in any way different, because those on the other side do not particularly happen to like it, I think is an abrogation of the responsibilities we have to the seniors of this country. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.