U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–239 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–514

COST AND PAYMENT PLANS OF

MEDICARE PART D

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 3

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 5

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 24

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

Leslie Norwalk, Deputy Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services ................................................................................................................. 7

Joseph R. Antos, Ph.D., Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy, The American Enterprise Institute .............................................. 18

Marilyn Moon, Vice President and Director, American Institutes for Research 20

Jagadeesh Gokhale, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute ............................................... 22

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Antos, Joseph R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

Gokhale, Jagadeesh: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

Moon, Marilyn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Norwalk, Leslie: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX 

Table III.B4.—Operations of the HI Trust Fund during Calendar Years 1970–

2014 ....................................................................................................................... 37

Table III.C1.—Operations of the SMI Trust Fund (Cash Basis) during Calendar Years 1970–2014 ....................................................................................... 38

Costs and Projections for Medicare and Part D .................................................... 39

Chart entitled ‘‘The Burden of Medicare’s Unpaid Bills’’ submitted by Senator 

Coburn ................................................................................................................... 40

Chart entitled ‘‘Pre-MMA: Where Beneficiaries Got Their Drug Coverage’’ 

submitted by Senator Coburn ............................................................................. 41

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Ms. Norwalk ...................................................................................................... 90

Mr. Antos .......................................................................................................... 92

Ms. Moon ........................................................................................................... 95

Mr. Gokhale ...................................................................................................... 100

(1)

COST AND PAYMENT PLANS OF MEDICARE 

PART D 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn, Carper, Akaka, and Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. The hearing will come to order. I want to thank 

everybody for being here, and especially thank our witnesses. The 

purpose of this hearing is not to beat anybody up, but to find out 

facts. 

The stakes have changed. Katrina has opened the eyes to what 

the responsibilities are upon us. We have Rita as well. I would like 

to talk to the person who names these hurricanes, where they come 

up with some of these names. 

What we really hope to accomplish from this is to hear what we 

think is going to happen and what the costs are associated with 

what has been passed. I have a personal bias as a practicing physician, thinking that the Medicare Part D program, although it has 

great benefits in it, my personal belief is that it fixed the wrong 

problem. It is not about whether or not seniors need drugs—they 

do—and whether or not they need help getting those drugs—they 

do. I believe that. I see it every day in my medical practice. So I 

have a bias on the program. 

What I am going to do today is just give a short opening statement. Our Ranking Member is testifying before another committee. 

Senator Carper will be here soon. When he does come we will allow 

him the time to give an opening statement, and then we will proceed with the questioning. We hope to make this a very brisk and 

fast-paced exercise because of all of the other things that we have 

going on. 

Let me just start by asking unanimous consent to put my full 

statement in the record, and without objection, that will be made. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coburn follows:]

2

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Today’s hearing will examine the unfunded liabilities the Medicare Modernization 

Act imposes on future generations and whether the new legislation will actually 

meet the needs of seniors. 

The Federal Government has more urgent demands to make on the American taxpayers than ever before. Our nation faces a constant threat of terrorism, made more 

ominous by nuclear proliferation in Iran, China, and North Korea. We know that 

these tyrannical governments could share their weapons with terrorists. Nothing 

about the so-called ‘‘security’’ at our borders and ports prevents the transport of 

these weapons into our backyards. The war on terror requires massive military, intelligence, and law enforcement resources. 

We also face long-term, expensive and previously unforeseen financial obligations 

to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no more important, appropriate or Constitutional use of taxpayer dollars than defending the nation from those who would 

destroy our cities and our citizens. 

Now, we must also reconstruct a disaster zone in our own country that covers 

90,000 square miles. Millions of families, homes and businesses were affected by 

Hurricane Katrina. Cities and towns 300 years in the making must be rebuilt out 

of the mud of the Mississippi delta. The Federal Government is on the hook for 

every penny of it. 

Americans are generous and proud, and so they will rebuild the Gulf Coast, Americans are far-sighted and security-minded, and so they will rebuild our new allies 

in the Middle East. What is unique, however, about these large new obligations is 

that they are occurring in the context of massive and unrestrained Federal deficits—already almost $600 billion this year. Unlike their elected officials, Americans 

understand about priority-setting from balancing their own checkbooks. When unexpected financial obligations arise, priorities must be set. Sacrifices must be made. 

Since 2001, non-defense discretionary spending has increased by 36 percent. Let 

me repeat that. Since 2001, when we were attacked by a vicious enemy and embarked on an expensive war on terror, we increased NON-defense discretionary 

spending by a record-setting 36 percent. 

During those years, we were a nation at war. We were rebuilding lower Manhattan. Oil prices were on the rise. We were facing a recession and tentative economic 

recovery. Those were years where we should have seen belt-tightening for discretionary programs. It was during these same years that Congress passed the biggest 

expansion of a mandatory entitlement program in four decades. 

Every senior wants and needs access to life-saving medications. But when I go 

home and participate in town hall meetings, I ask this question of the seniors in 

the audience: ‘‘How many of you would deny your grandchildren any health care 

when they grow old so that the government can buy you prescription drugs today?’’ 

Not a single hand goes up. Today’s hearing will examine if this is indeed the tradeoff we’re facing. 

With the drug benefit rolling out in January, I’m concerned if we can afford it. 

The President has identified ‘‘long term unfunded promises of our entitlement programs’’ as our greatest fiscal challenge. 

Entitlement spending already accounts for over 60 percent of the Federal budget. 

I understand that by 2040, the Medicare deficit alone, which is not the only entitlement program, will consume half of all Federal-income tax revenues, before paying 

for other entitlements such as Social Security and Medicaid. I hope that our witnesses will confirm today if it is true that the new drug benefit will add $8.7 trillion 

to the unfunded liability through 2078, bringing the total debt to $29.7 trillion. 

Today, the Federal deficit is nearly $600 billion. Just this fiscal year, the unfunded liability of Medicare is $126 billion. that means that after revenues kick in 

$217 billion from payroll taxes, social security taxes for Medicare, and premiums, 

another $125 billion must be taken out of the general revenues to cover the shortfall. Each year, the amount required out of general revenues will increase. 

When Congress passed MMA, over 76 percent of all seniors ALREADY had drug 

coverage. Some argued at the time against expanding the program to pay for even 

the wealthiest Americans. They suggested that a more affordable approach would 

be to means-test the program, providing drugs for the neediest seniors. 

I’m concerned that Part D may have enacted a massive cost-shift from the private 

sector to the U.S. taxpayer. The consequence of MMA is to actually force Medigap 

carriers out of business. What’s more, many private employers and unions are currently paying drug costs for their retirees. Come January, however, those private 

payers will simply drop coverage, or, if they retain coverage, they’ll bill the Federal 

Government for a large share of the cost. 

3

1The charts appear in the Appendix on pages 37 and 38. 

There are plenty of reasons to worry about the fiscal outlook for Part D. However, 

just as worrisome is the potential effect it could have on patients. One of the best 

predictors of positive patient outcomes is the presence of private insurance. The reason is that you generally get better results when you keep the government out of 

the exam room. I worry that we are placing too much responsibility for a patient’s 

treatment, especially his or her medication management, in the hands of a giant 

Federal bureaucracy instead of the important partnership between a patient, his or 

her doctor and family caregivers. 

I’m also worried that as demand increases under this universal benefit, a natural 

response to contain the inevitable sky-rocketing costs will be price-fixing. Price-fixing often leads to drug rationing in the form of restricted formularies and onerous 

authorization requirements imposed on patients and doctors. 

As Part D grows the Federal share of the U.S. drug market, there will be less 

competition—the ONLY downward pressure on prices. U.S. drug prices were high 

already, because American taxpayers subsidize the price-fixing behavior of other nations’ socialized medical systems. Once we ourselves fall into the price-fixing trap, 

I’m concerned that innovation will disappear. More disincentives for innovation in 

drugs could spell disaster for patients. As a physician, I worry all the time about 

drug resistance. What will we do when there is no new antibiotic around the corner—when pharmaceutical companies only develop new lifelong drugs—specifically 

because these products won’t be caught up in the new bureaucracy? 

Today is a fact-finding exercise. I hope to hear from the experts and get some of 

the latest numbers out in the open and on the record. As we evaluate this new program, its role in our economy, and prospects for the future, I am grateful for the 

time and expertise of our witnesses.

Senator COBURN. I also will put into the record the information 

from the Medicare Trust Fund, and I would note that this year the 

trust fund, all of Medicare’s expenses versus all of Medicare’s revenues, ran a $125.6 billion deficit. That is ‘‘B’’ with a billion. 

I would also put into the record that during the calendar year 

of 2006, that same deficit will rise to $187 billion. Those are not 

my numbers. Those are the Medicare trustee numbers. Those are 

the numbers that come from the trustees who are looking at the 

program. HI, the hospital insurance program, is doing well, based 

on how it has been managed, fees and everything that it has collected based on the premium. What is not doing well are the other 

programs that require participation. So without objection, I would 

like to enter the Medicare trustees’ projections into the record, as 

well as the projection combining those on a yearly basis, rather 

than a fiscal yearly basis into the record.1

With that, I will ask Senator Akaka if he would like to have an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for holding 

this hearing. This is very important to our Nation and our people. 

I want to apologize. I just got a call. I have to go back to the floor 

on my amendment that is pending, and ask that my full statement 

be placed in the record. 

Senator COBURN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. for many years, I supported efforts to establish a 

meaningful, comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. However, I voted 

against the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 

4

2003 (MMA) for several reasons. I believed that the bill was extremely complicated. 

It contained lapses in coverage, and included burdensome means tests and a provision that will cost taxpayers huge sums of money that will largely go into the pockets of drug companies. 

The negative impacts of this new law will be even more troublesome given the 

disturbing trend of decreasing benefits for retirees over the past few years. Many 

seniors are being forced to rely on Medicare, which is providing a less generous benefit than what seniors currently enjoy. If Medicare beneficiaries lose their employerbased coverage, they may have to pay more for a Medicare drug benefit that provides less comprehensive coverage. It is estimated that approximately 2.5 million 

people will lose their coverage and be forced to depend on a benefit that is not as 

good as their existing coverage. The intent of having a Medicare prescription drug 

benefit should be to expand and improve coverage for seniors, not merely shift the 

financial burden of existing coverage to the Federal Government. 

The prescription drug benefit is complicated. In October, Medicare beneficiaries 

will find out which Medicare drug plans are available in their area, and face a confusing set of questions. Beneficiaries will have to decide whether to enroll in the 

Medicare drug benefit and, if so, which drug plan to select. Those with existing coverage must first determine how their current drug coverage will be affected and, if 

continued, whether their current coverage will be more or less comprehensive than 

the Medicare drug benefit. also, the implementation of this benefit will be difficult 

due to the complex design of the prescription drug benefit plans and low-income 

subsidies. 

In particular, I am worried that seniors will not have access to the information 

they will need to make informed choices between private plans that would provide 

them with the best benefits. Further complication this arduous task is meeting the 

different needs and challenges of communities to make sure that no one will be unfairly denied access to assistance seniors are entitled to under the law. In crafting 

the law, I wanted seniors to have the option of participating in a Medicare administered drug plan rather than having to choose from private plans that will offer different benefits. 

Furthermore, the new Medicare drug benefit plan includes a major gap in cov- erage for drug spending between $2,251 and $5,100 for some beneficiaries. This is 

often called Medicare’s ‘‘doughnut hole.’’ According to the Congressional Budget Office, more than on in every four of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to have 

drug spending that falls in the range of the doughnut hole. I disagreed with the inclusion of the doughnut hole. No other insurance program that I know of operates 

like this program. Despite paying premiums, beneficiaries will not receive any help 

with their drug costs when they are in the doughnut hole. 

I also found the assets test used to determine the low-income subsidies for the 

prescription drug benefit to be unrealistic. According to Families USA, the assets 

test will deny subsidies to 2.8 million low-income seniors with even a small amount 

of assets. Additional assistance should not be unfairly denied to deserving low-income seniors. 

I also opposed the liegislation’s imposition of a means test for Medicare Part B, 

which I did not believe was appropriate for an entitlement program. This will complicate the process for seniors and create administrative difficulties for the CMS. 

It is hard to imagine that, as the Federal Government has assumed the cost of 

helping seniors obtain their prescription drugs, Medicare would be prevented from 

using the bulk purchasing power of the millions of its beneficiaries to lower drug 

costs for the program. This onerous prohibition was also included in the MMA. 

In addition to ensuring adequate and affordable prescription drugs for the nation’s 

senior citizens, we need to bring about massive reform of drug patent laws so that 

generic drugs can be made available more quickly in an attempt to slow the massive 

increases in drug costs. Too often drug companies are allowed to artificially extend 

the length of their patent protections on their products through the creative exploitation of loopholes in prescription drug patent laws. We must act to slow the increasing costs of prescription drugs. 

Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to recognize the work of all the individuals in Hawaii who help Medicare beneficiaries understand their options. I also 

wish to recognize Mary Rydell, the CMS Pacific Area Representative, Christine 

Messner, the Social Security Administration Pacific Area Public Affairs Area, and 

Pamela Cunningham from the Hawaii Department of Health’s Sage Plus program, 

for their outstanding efforts in promoting the understanding of Medicare Part D. I 

greatly appreciate the efforts of Barbara Kim Stanton and the AARP who help increase the awareness of the choices that beneficiaries will soon have to make. I was 

delighted to take part in several events during the August recess with these dedicated individuals. 

5

Mr. Chairman, I remain committed to improving and simplifying the Medicare 

prescription drug benefit so that all seniors are able to obtain all of the medications 

that they need. Our seniors deserve no less. I look forward to working with my colleagues to correct the mistakes of the MMA and fulfill the promise to seniors that 

the Federal Government will help beneficiaries get the drugs they need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COBURN. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I hate to rain on the parade, Mr. Chairman, but I will take an opportunity to make a fairly short statement. 

The one thing that I learned when working with you, with your 

background as a physician, that there are different perspectives on 

ways to solve problems that we can agree upon are necessary for 

resolution, but the question is how much of our national resource 

do we devote to health care? 

When you look at the results of the work done in our society on 

the medical research side, it is pretty astounding, thank goodness. 

And I confess to being not addicted, a user of some things that I 

get regularly, and it helps so many ways. When I look at the fact 

that my father died when he was 43-years-old, and my father was 

a health faddist, and I look at the luck I have had in life and see 

that I am fairly fit for my age, and those in the room probably 

know I am more than 50, but the fact of the matter is it is helped 

by a cholesterol-lowering drug, and something to keep tennis from 

getting too much of an elbow, etc. So I have great sympathy for the 

people who use these things. I believe that the beneficiary of appropriate means share the cost. 

So when we look at things, I think this is a timely hearing, and 

I respect so much your experience, but also your focus on how we 

reduce the cost of things. I know you are not picking on health 

care, that we talk about lots of things, and I share some of the anxiousness to get those costs reduced. But we found out last week, 

Mr. Chairman, that health care costs increased almost 10 percent 

last year. 

Now, one of the principle reasons for the skyrocketing health 

costs is the price of prescription drugs. You know this better than 

the people on Medicare, because Medicare does not currently cover 

prescription drugs. I have long supported the creation of a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, but I voted against the new Medicare drug bill 2 years ago because it is a totally, inadequately complicated plan that will leave many Medicare recipients with more 

confusion than coverage. In fact, the bill contains an unbelievable 

provision that actually forbids Medicare from using its buying 

power—this astounds me, Mr. Chairman—to bargain for the best 

possible price on prescription drugs. We see what happens with 

VA. VA has every right and every responsibility to negotiate for 

drug prices, and they get significant reductions. 

So we hear a lot about the free market, and I know something 

about that. I was in the business world for many years. But I can 

tell you this, in the free market, businesses always negotiate for 

the best possible price on everything they buy. That is far from the 

only problem with the current law. 

6

The new Medicare law simply does not provide adequate coverage for seniors whose lives are totally dependent on these drugs. 

We have all heard about the donut hole in the law. It means that 

after seniors receive a particular amount of drug coverage, they 

will then be cut off for a significant period of time, yet they still 

have to pay the premiums, and it is something around in the, I 

think, 3,000 plus area that they have to be responsible for. So they 

will pay the monthly premiums to insurance companies that are 

not going to cover their prescriptions. 

To make matters worse, when we were considering this bill, the 

Administration misled Congress about its cost. I am not saying it 

was intentional, but that was the ultimate outcome. Tom Scully, 

who is head of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services—he 

was the head at the time—threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary if he revealed the true cost of this bill to Congress. I asked 

GAO to investigate the legality of Mr. Scully’s action, and GAO 

found out that Mr. Scully was so far out of line that he should 

repay part of his salary to the government. That was more than a 

year ago. We are still waiting for him to pay back the taxpayers. 

Then there was more. We found out that there were some fake 

news stories about the new Medicare law, were distributing them 

to TV stations. One of our witnesses, identified by the fact that she 

is the only one at the table, was featured, as the reporter, Karen 

Ryan, who extolled the virtues of the Medicare law, did not talk 

about the donut hole or other problems. I asked GAO to evaluate 

HHS’s activities. The GAO found that these fake news stories were 

illegal propaganda. 

Mr. Chairman, to sum it up, this new Medicare drug law has 

been plagued by lack of candor. The focus of our hearing today is 

on the failure to be honest about this bill’s costs, but we are also 

seeing a lack of truthfulness to seniors about the problems like this 

donut hole, and we have seen the lack of accuracy for the American 

people, when the Administration concealed its role in the fake news 

stories. I did not think it was proper. It was decided and we are 

on our way. 

But I hope our hearing today is going to help us thrash out the 

truth about the upcoming Medicare drug benefit, and I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for doing it. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. One of the 

things that I hope we will get into, if the witnesses would just consider this, your testimonies are going to be included in the record. 

We would like for you to limit your opening remarks, so we can ask 

questions. But one of the things I do not think the American people 

understand about the price of drugs in the United States, is that 

there are single purchasers in lots of other places in the world. So 

consequently, Americans pay two to three times the price at retail 

for the identical drugs that they could buy in countries where there 

are price controls. 

What that has essentially done is forced the cost for research for 

all the wonderful new drugs we have—I mean just to share with 

you, there is going to be a study that is going to be a breakthrough, 

going to be announced in the next 6 months, on a treatment to stop 

Alzheimer’s in its tracks. I mean it is great stuff. The enzyme that 

7

1The prepared statement of Ms. Norwalk appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

causes that disease has now been identified. It is the secretase enzyme. It is going to stop it. 

Now, the cost of that drug is going to be enormous. Why? One, 

there is margin, but because when they go to sell it, they are going 

to have to negotiate a low price everywhere else, but we are going 

to pay a high price. 

How does that work out? With Medicare Part D—and we have 

seen good competitive bids come in—which is lower than what they 

thought, but the total cost for drugs in the country is not going to 

go down. The total cost for the drugs in the country is going to stay 

the same or go up, because we are going to continue with the same 

cost shifting that Medicare has induced in every other aspect of 

health care. If you look at any drugs out there—and I see them 

every day as I practice medicine on the weekends and on Monday 

mornings from 6 to 9 o’clock. What we see is price increases of 6, 

8, 9, 10 percent this year. What we see is 30 percent price increases over the last 3 to 4 years when we have had total inflation 

of less than 10 percent. 

Those price increases are coming because we are paying for the 

research. We are also paying to subsidize everybody else’s drugs in 

the world. At the same time we are not protecting the intellectual 

property of the pharmaceutical industry. China copies it. We have 

not done a good job of enforcing that in trade. 

So there are a lot of reasons why our drugs cost so much in this 

country, but it is important for us to understand how we got where 

we are. That is why we want to know what is happening now. 

With that, I will turn to our first witness. Leslie Norwalk is the 

Deputy Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services. She directs the task of—and she has had a tough job, I 

want to tell you, and by the way, done a great job, because I know 

lots of congressional offices and Senate offices have worked with 

you. Even though I do not agree with it, I am out there helping 

seniors try to figure it out. 

Ms. NORWALK. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Hundreds of changes that were made in the 

Medicare Modernization Act, as well as the Part D program and 

enrolling. 

We welcome you. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for 

the service to our country and the service to seniors. 

TESTIMONY OF LESLIE NORWALK,1 DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES 

Ms. NORWALK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg 

Thank you for having me here today to discuss the cost of the Part 

D benefit. I think this coverage is critically important as we go forward for reasons that you both mentioned. Medicare beneficiaries 

today, and certainly those of tomorrow, desperately need drug coverage in order to reduce their costs for health care. 

I would like to start today with a little bit of background about 

how this came to pass, and one of the many reasons why it is that 

the Medicare drug benefit is so necessary. When Medicare was created in 1965 the cost of health care was mainly in physician office 

8

visits and hospital visits, and prescription drugs did not play a critical role in the treatment of individuals. I suspect at the time there 

might have even been house visits by doctors. Certainly things 

have changed a great deal in 40 years. Part of that great deal is, 

in fact, Mr. Chairman, all the new drugs that are coming down the 

pike to do things like help cure Alzheimer’s. And yet, if you do not 

have access to those drugs, they cannot help you. It is quite true 

that many of them can be very expensive. 

One of the things is that we spend a lot of money on heart disease. Just for example, in this country, we spend a lot of money 

on angioplasty and bypass surgery. These are two things that 

Medicare currently covers, and yet today, the Medicare program 

does not cover basically beta blockers and statins which cost 

around $1,000 or less a year. And it does not really make sense in 

this day and age for a government program as a public policy to 

not do things like preventative care and to not have prevention as 

a focus. I am sure as a physician it is going to be one of the key 

things you do with every patient. 

So from a government perspective, we need to be out there talking about prevention. One of the things that the Medicare Modernization Act in fact did was allow a ‘‘Welcome to Medicare’’ physical for those who enter the Medicare program, in those first 6 

months, so that we can stop the need for angioplasties and bypass 

surgeries, and give them the prescriptions that they need and a 

way to afford them so that they do not incur the costs on the Part 

A and Part B side of Medicare. 

Of course, when you do that scoring, any savings that would 

have accrued to the hospital side or the physician side is not counted in that score, just to make that point. 

Senator COBURN. I run into that problem all the time up here. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORWALK. One of the things I would like to do is talk about 

the five basic principles of the Medicare Modernization Act surrounding the drug benefit, just as a context setting exercise. 

The first is that it is available to all beneficiaries, whether they 

are 65 and over, whether they are disabled, whether they are in 

Medicare fee-for-service or in a coordinated care plan, something 

known as Medicare Advantage. It does not matter if they have a 

preexisting condition, or if they get their drugs by mail or retail. 

All individuals in the Medicare program are eligible for this coverage. 

While that is terrific, there are lots of beneficiaries that need additional help. As Senator Lautenberg pointed out, there are often 

either gaps in coverage or premium payments, and many beneficiaries cannot afford those. Consequently, the program is set up 

to provide additional help, not just for those who are dual eligible, 

but also for individuals who are not in the Medicaid program, yet 

still have incomes limited enough that they need additional help. 

We have been working very diligently to find those individuals to 

get them enrolled so that they do not have the burden that some 

other beneficiaries may have in terms of just paying the basic premium, for example. 

The third important tenet is keeping retiree health plans. About 

11 to 12 million individuals in the Medicare program today are forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 024239 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\24239.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9

tunate enough to receive their coverage through a retiree health 

care plan. Each plan is different depending on the employer and 

the union, certainly, that would offer it. But every beneficiary I 

have ever met who has this coverage is very interested in retaining 

that coverage, and over time they had been concerned about losing 

it. The reason that concern exists is because in 1988, merely 17 

years ago, 66 percent of all large employers had retiree health 

plans. That number today is 33 percent, cut in half. For those who 

are newly hired, only 10 percent and fewer have access to retiree 

health plans. 

Fourth is catastrophic coverage. No matter what your income, if 

you are going to have a blockbuster drug—say you have cancer or 

leukemia and you need Gleevec, and it is $40,000 a year, except for 

maybe Warren Buffett, that is something that really gives you 

pause. How can I keep myself alive and spend $40,000 a year? So 

no matter what your income, the catastrophic coverage piece is a 

very important part of the program. 

And finally, it is voluntary. Many beneficiaries do not like 

change. They may not be interested in this benefit for whatever 

reason, and may take a year or two to feel, ‘‘Yes, maybe I do need 

this coverage after all.’’ They can choose, and if they like it, fantastic, and if they do not like it, that is their option. 

I am going to have to sum up quickly, but I wanted to talk briefly just about the five different categories of individuals if I may, 

and how it is that we look at the program going forward. I think 

it helps us categorize costs as well when we get to those questions. 

The first of the five are those that are dual-eligible. There are 

about 6.2 million beneficiaries that are dually eligible. They will all 

automatically be enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program between now and January 1, so that each and every one of 

them will have coverage, regardless of where they live, including 

in a hurricane impacted area, so that they can have access to drugs 

anywhere. 

In the second group are those in the Medicare Advantage program, that more comprehensive program outside of fee-for-service. 

There will be, we expect, about 6 million beneficiaries enrolled in 

that program. They too will be automatically enrolled in the same 

Medicare Advantage plan that they are in now, except that plan 

will have drug coverage. They can opt out later if they choose to. 

The third group are those employers that I mentioned before, 

those in retiree health plans. We expect about 10 million of them 

will still be in these plans beginning next year. Rather than being 

in the Medicare drug benefit, these 10 million will be in a plan that 

would be considered creditable coverage and that their plan is 

worth as much as the Medicare benefit. Those 10 million, each of 

them as individuals, the subsidy would go to their retiree health 

plan for a portion of their drug costs. 

The fourth group are those people that are eligible for extra help, 

and yet are not in the Medicaid program. There are about 8.4 million of them we think, and we are searching long and hard to find 

as many of them as we can before November 15, so that when they 

sign up they will know that they will have that extra help. 

Then finally, the fifth is the general Medicare population. There 

are about 12 million that I did not include in the first four buckets. 

10

I personally believe strongly in the Medicare drug benefit. I am 

happy to address any of the concerns that Senator Lautenberg or 

you have raised about cost and coverage, and am certainly happy 

to talk about the positive things. I think there are many. I just 

thank you for inviting me and giving me this opportunity to explain the drug benefit. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much, Ms. Norwalk. Let me 

clarify. You said it is voluntary, but if you are dully enrolled, it is 

not voluntary. 

Ms. NORWALK. That is correct. You would automatically be enrolled, but there would be no cost to you from a premium perspective except you would pay copayments for drugs just like——

Senator COBURN. Except it is not voluntary. 

Ms. NORWALK. I suspect if you did not want drug coverage, you 

could opt out, but there is no——

Senator COBURN. There is no mechanism for—I think that is just 

one of the important things, and if you are in a Medicare Advantage program now, it is not voluntary. You can later opt out, but 

you are going to get in it, you are going to be enrolled in it whether 

you want to be enrolled in it or not right now; is that correct? 

Ms. NORWALK. You would be automatically rolled over, but you 

do have the option even before December 31, before the coverage 

starts, to not elect that prescription drug coverage. 

Senator COBURN. There is a lot of debate among fellow Senators 

and throughout the country about what this thing really costs. If 

we are going to state here unequivocally, prevention is important, 

access to medicines is important. And I talked about this a lot because I have a lot of seniors today that may choose between eating 

and taking a pill. It is a real problem out there. Part of the problem is my profession because we prescribe the most expensive 

medicines that do 100 percent when we can prescribe one that 

costs 10 percent that does 95 percent, so part of it is on our part 

that this has happened. Part of that is demand pulled from the 

drug industry in creating that such as buying the lunches for everybody in an office every day, which we do not accept in our office, 

by the way. 

But the CBO estimated last month that Part D will actually cost, 

over the next 10 years, $855 billion. What do you think about that? 

Ms. NORWALK. I would first start out by saying projections are 

incredibly difficult, whether it is the Office of the Actuary or the 

Congressional Budget Office, and both would admit that estimating 

something even before it is begun has been incredibly hard. 

Two of the key components of that estimate—if I just leave it to 

2006, for the first year—two important components of that are 

something called the benchmark or what the average premium is 

of all the plans that have come in. Now, this average is not a 

weighted average, it is just every single plan that comes in is worth 

one. What is the average of that? 

That average is important because the Medicare program subsidizes 74.5 percent of that average. The original estimates were 

overstated, and you can see that in the beneficiary premium numbers, that the initial estimate was $37 a month and now it is 

$32.20. What that means is actually a fairly significant change in 

what you will see between the mid-session review numbers that 

11

the Office of the Actuary has out now and what will be in the 

President’s budget next year. There has not been a re-estimate. But 

because of that change in per beneficiary subsidy, it is many billions of dollars cheaper than they originally estimated in 2003 because of competition, frankly, and the fact that the drug companies 

did a good job of negotiating with the insurance companies who are 

offering this benefit, and bringing in a lower price, not just the 

drug companies, but the pharmacies. 

I do think that the cost will actually come down from the estimates that were in the mid-session review numbers, and I suspect 

that the Congressional Budget Office as well will take another look 

once they have the new numbers. 

Senator COBURN. But according to your testimony, from $37 to 

$32, or $36.50 to $32, that is about one-ninth to one-eighth. So if 

you take this $855 billion and you take $110 billion off it, we are 

still at $745 billion, compared to $460 billion, which was the Administration’s original estimate through OMB for the cost of this 

program over 10 years. 

Ms. NORWALK. Let me say a couple of things. The first point is 

that the Office of the Actuary’s initial estimate was $535 billion, 

just to be accurate, and it spanned the years of 2004 to 2013. If 

you think about how that—because it is a 10-year number, what 

happens 2 years later is that 2004 and 2005 drop off. Those are 2 

years where we do not have a drug benefit at all. And instead you 

add on the back end two expensive years because we have more 

beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries for each year, basically when 

you add 2014 and 2015 to it, you are taking off 2 years at basically 

zero and adding 2 years which are basically——

Senator COBURN. That is a great explanation. Now give me your 

opinion. Is it going to cost more than the $530 billion in real dollars over the next 10 years that you all estimated? 

Ms. NORWALK. Over the next—$535 billion between now and 

2013, in my estimate, no. And the reason I would say no is because 

I am hopeful that we will have a very high number of participants. 

The Office of the Actuary estimated 39.4 million in this first year. 

I am hopeful that we do that well. I think Wall Street has been 

a little more skeptical, and has come in with estimates that are 

less than that. And if fewer people sign up, you have two things 

that—two different interactions that can occur first. Just the overall subsidy would decrease by the numbers that do not sign up for 

the benefit because it is voluntary. And the second part that happens really depends on those who do sign up, what is the mix; is 

there adverse selection, for example; and are only the sickest people signing up? 

And figuring out that number for one year alone is difficult, but 

when you do it over year after year, and how that compounds is 

also difficult. 

I think the other reason that these are complicated figures and 

difficult to discern, is that what happens this year? What is the experience that the drug plans have in offering the benefit in year 

one, and how does that impact on how they bid in year two? 

Certainly when we have an average premium of $32, that means 

that a significant number of plans will offer at less than that. Almost every beneficiary in the country will have access to a plan 

12

that will be less than $20 a month, and a significant number of 

them will have access to plans even less than $10 a month. So in 

that regard, well, if the lower premiums mean that more will sign 

up, there may not be adverse election. 

Senator COBURN. So if there is not and everything goes the best 

it can go, everybody that is not on a Medicare drug plan is going 

to pay a significantly higher price for their drugs in the future; is 

that true? 

Ms. NORWALK. Repeat the question, please? 

Senator COBURN. If everything goes as best it can go to where 

you got the enrollments and there is not adverse election, everybody in this country who is not on Medicare D is going to pay a 

higher price for their drugs? Somebody is going to pick up this difference. 

Ms. NORWALK. I actually think it depends on the type of drugs. 

Fifty-five percent of all the drugs consumed in the United States 

are generics. Generic drugs are cheaper in the United States than 

in nearly every other country in the world in spite of price fixing. 

Not true for brand name drugs, certainly, but as more drugs become available off patent in generic form, I do think those prices 

will come down. So I think it really depends on the drug mix that 

an individual is taking and whether or not a generic is available 

for that individual. 

I think even that is a more complicated question than just if you 

are not in the Medicare program will you pay more. I think it depends on what disease you have and what drugs you need to take 

going forward. 

Senator COBURN. What is going to happen, in your estimate—

and this is a guess and nobody is going to hold you to it. What happens if the formulary is such that patients cannot really get what 

they need because a decision has been made to make the formulary—and by formulary I mean the choice of drugs that you can 

have—you cannot have the best or you cannot have the one you 

need, you can have second or third best? If we are getting close on 

numbers, what is going to happen in terms of—are you all going 

to change the formulary to stay within the numbers? 

Ms. NORWALK. Well, one of the things that the Medicare Modernization Act requires is that we use U.S. pharmacopeia to put together a standard set of classes and classifications as a model. If 

the drug plans come in with drugs according to that model, then 

they can have an automatic pass, if you will, at the formulary. 

Now, we have been reviewing—each and every formulary was reviewed by CMS and approved prior to being used. The second important piece in terms of how the formulary is done is that we have 

required six classes of drugs that all or substantially all of them 

must be covered in a formulary, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsives, anti-cancer drugs, immunosuppressants and HIV/AIDS drugs. So a significant number of drugs in 

fact must be covered by these plans, and that will, I think, limit 

the number of appeals that we have and any possible disruption we 

might have as individuals move from, say, Medicaid to Medicare, 

or frankly, other forms of insurance into the Medicare program. I 

know there has been great concern about that in particular. 

13

Senator COBURN. You concern me a little bit, as a two-time cancer survivor, that oncologic drugs were not mentioned. 

Ms. NORWALK. No. Anti-cancer drugs, yes, they are. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I have one final question and I will 

go to you, Senator Lautenberg. 

In your testimony you mentioned that 76 percent of the seniors 

prior to Medicare Part D had some drug coverage. 

Ms. NORWALK. Correct. 

Senator COBURN. I am not going to put you on record with this 

question, but I am going to put you on record with a second one. 

Senator Lautenberg alluded to the fact that lots of people are going 

to get this benefit that have tremendous means, and very few people are going to need the drugs that you described, thank goodness. 

Would you not agree that a significant means testing for Medicare 

Part D would be a way, in what we face today, to put this benefit 

to the people who really need it and to those that are secure 

enough and have the resources to pay for it themselves, like myself, that we would be better off as a Nation? 

Ms. NORWALK. So you are suggesting that like we will be starting 

to do in Medicare Part B, that we should, as we call it, income relate the premium? 

Senator COBURN. You have a very smooth means test. You can 

call it ‘‘income relate the premium,’’ but what it is is the cost of 

Part B goes up if you have more assets and you earn more income. 

If that is good enough for getting into a doctor’s office, why is it 

not good enough for buying your drugs? 

Ms. NORWALK. I am glad you are not putting me on the record 

for this question. 

Senator COBURN. I am not asking you to give an answer reflective of the Administration. I am just asking you to logically answer 

that question. Why would Senator Lautenberg and I both be eligible for this? Granted there is a slight means test in this—I do not 

mean to imply there is not—but why should the government pay 

30 percent of my drugs? 

Ms. NORWALK. I think part of the answer is, for whatever reason, 

if someone is—I am quite sure that you would be very good to take 

your beta blockers and statins and so on and so forth. I have no 

idea what the mentality is, why someone actually might not take 

them, whether it is income related or otherwise, but we certainly 

hope that whatever we do as a public policy, even if it were to cost 

more or less depending on your income, that we would at the end 

of the day encourage people to take the beta blockers and statins 

and avoid the angioplasty and bypass surgery, because even though 

it does not count, it is an important piece of the overall Medicare 

program on the A&B side. 

Senator COBURN. More importantly, that we have government 

programs of prevention so that you do not end up with hypertension, hyperlipidemia and all the other diseases that preclude the 

need for beta blockers and ACE inhibitors and statins. 

Senator Lautenberg, you have been very patient with me. Thank 

you so much. I would note that we have a vote that starts at 3:10. 

We will allow Senator Lautenberg to continue his questioning. 

Then if you have any additional statements on the basis of questions that have been asked of you, I will submit some in writing 

14

for you to answer, and hopefully Senator Carper will be here at 

that time too. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Interesting exchange, Senator Coburn. I 

do not know about Ms. Norwalk, but there were times when you 

left me sufficiently far behind in terms of the types of products that 

we are talking about. I just do what the doctor tells me. [Laughter.] 

Ms. NORWALK. Wise counsel. 

Senator COBURN. As long as you have a good doctor, that is 

great. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So far he is doing well. I hope he lives a 

long time. [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. Senator Lautenberg, you do know the rule, is 

you always want to have a doctor far younger than you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, as Strom Thurmond once said at his 

90th birthday, talking about his health, he thanked everybody for 

being there, and he said, ‘‘I hope you’ll all join me on my 100th 

birthday.’’ And he said, ‘‘You’ll be able to if you exercise and eat 

right.’’ You will be here. 

Enough of this good feeling. Let us get on to the business. You 

raised an interesting question about means testing, and unfortunately, I do not think we can accomplish a full review of that in 

this kind of forum, but that policy is kind of live and let live, and 

I think it has been said by other people. It would require a very 

thorough exam, and I would drag it into tax policy all together, because when I hear that we are going to have an $850 billion cost 

over a 10-year period, I think is what you said, and I look at how 

people like you and me got tax reductions, they are going to cost 

closer to a trillion over the 10-year period, so we have enough 

money there. So if we are going to have a means test, we are going 

to open up a subject that will keep us all sitting here for a long 

time. 

Ms. Norwalk, you talked about the premium that is going to be 

paid for the year 2006. I think you said that was fixed for the year 

2006? 

Ms. NORWALK. May I clarify? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Please. 

Ms. NORWALK. The average premium is $32 if you simply took 

in every single bid that came in from all of the drug plans that 

want to offer benefits, and you take that and you get an average. 

Well, the average is $32.20. But as in any average, you have some 

plans that would be offered at above that and some that would be 

offered below that average. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What do you think the scaling would be 

like in 2007 on? Is there any prediction that we would be close to 

those numbers? 

Ms. NORWALK. I do not know that the actuaries have looked at 

it for the following years. They did in the beginning which they had 

the average premium going up one year after the next. I think 

what we are likely to see is, depending on what happens the first 

6 months of the benefit, as the drug plans are taking a look at the 

experience that has come in based on what they have bid now, because many drug plans will be significantly less than even $20, 

15

some less than $10, and how do they do in terms of managing 

costs? 

For many of them, what they do for a living is help manage costs 

and formularies, and they do things like step therapy or making 

sure that people are getting generics before brand name drugs, for 

example. How the companies do individually will obviously greatly 

impact what the average is for next year, but at least they will 

have a few months of seeing what the expenditures look like——

Senator LAUTENBERG. But if you had to guess, would you guess 

that costs could be lower in the years——

Ms. NORWALK. It is possible that they would be lower because 

the plans that bid higher this year for the standard benefit package 

would probably not be viable, so may drop out, and consequently, 

the lower costing plans would stay in. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. However, if we look at past experience, we 

have not seen any decline at all in prescription drug costs as a 

total, but we have seen the demand go up. And I suspect—and I 

was excited to hear, Tom, what you said about the prospects for 

Alzheimer’s—if we could find a way to deal with these long-term 

illnesses, it would be fantastic for people as a whole, but it would 

also be great on the spending side for our lives. 

I think it is fair to say that if one looks out ahead, we are entered into fairly precarious ground about predicting price and costs 

on these things. So the warranties I do not think—it is a statement 

but it is not a representation really in terms of the long term. 

One of the problems Senator Coburn talked about, and that is 

the dual-benefit programs, and people are confused about where 

they go, how they get there. There is a lot of confusion in the material that people are offered. I wonder whether it is not possible for 

CMS to develop an easy-to-comprehend piece of literature, give 

them a reference that eases the burden of making—it is very complicated and confusing. 

The Government Accountability Office came to the conclusion 

that the former Medicare head, Tom Scully, broke the law when he 

prevented an HHS employee from giving cost information about the 

new Medicare drug program to Congress. GAO directed HHS to recover Scully’s salary for this time period, and I am sure that you 

have heard that. Do you know what steps HHS has taken toward 

recovery of his salary? 

Ms. NORWALK. Well, a couple points to that. I would say, first of 

all, I am not sure that was the—in fact, I am certain it was not 

the conclusion of the Office of the Inspector General that also took 

a look at this issue, at least that is not my recollection. 

I do know from remembering reading about it in the Wall Street 

Journal that the Wall Street Journal actually wrote an article in 

September 2003 before this was voted on in either the House or the 

Senate, that there were significant differences between the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary, and it may 

not have been quite to the tune of $135 or $140 billion, but it was 

to the tune of, say, $80 billion, certainly enough to put people on 

notice that there were significant differences between the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary. So I am not 

sure that it was the secret that people seem to think of it now because there was actually a fair amount written about it in advance. 

16

I am not sure what people did ask to specifically look at those 

different points. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The IG did answer questions when it came 

to law. That is not his responsibility. But the conclusion given by 

the Government Accountability Office was that there was an overpayment of some $80,000 for the time that he was on HHS business. But nevertheless, it was not the course of action that HHS 

chose to follow, and I think it was an unfortunate outcome. 

As you know GAO ruled that some of the news stories on the 

drug benefit were propaganda, considered propaganda. Now, has 

CMS, HHS stopped producing these VNRs? 

Ms. NORWALK. I do not know that we have done any recently. I 

would say that I think they are an important source of information, 

but you raise a very good point. At least I have heard you raise 

it before, which is, it is critical that they be labeled as from the Department of Health and Humans Services, not that it is an important way to get at information as any other press release might be, 

but it is important to make sure that the people identified are in 

fact identified as coming from the Department and so on and so 

forth. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks. Because it is very important that 

people not be led to believe that this was an interesting news report that came out, but it was a prescribed structured thing that 

was designed to create a different opinion. And the disclaimer is 

very important there. 

Mr. Chairman, there are lots of things—and I would ask that the 

record be kept open and Ms. Norwalk be responsive to those questions. 

Senator COBURN. Without objection. 

Ms. NORWALK. Sure. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would say this. You raise a very important—the vote is just starting? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. We have made arrangements, Senator 

Carper has gone to vote. He will come back and chair the Committee so we can keep going, so we are respectful of your time. And 

then I will go vote and then come back. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You raise a critical question about what is 

the national obligation to provide as much good health as we can 

to people. I know we certainly try to do it at times of disaster and 

times of immediate crisis. But it is an important philosophical 

question. I agree totally with you. When we look at the cost that 

is passed on to the American people that is not passed on in countries other than ours, where the product is identical and we observe all the costs for research and marketing as well, by the way. 

So the topic is an appropriate one, and I hope that we will be able 

to help there. 

You know what happens? I am so accustomed to my wife saying, 

‘‘Frank, quiet.’’ [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. Ms. Norwalk did not say that, Senator Lautenberg. 

Ms. NORWALK. Absolutely not. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, thanks very much for your testimony. 

17

Senator COBURN. The record will remain open for additional 

questions. Ms. Norwalk, I have three questions that I will submit, 

and then I have one last question before I go vote. Remember 

Medicare Plus Choice? 

Ms. NORWALK. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. Describe for us what happened to Medicare 

Plus Choice? 

Ms. NORWALK. It exists. It is called now—it went through a 

name change through the Medicare Modernization Act. It is now 

called Medicare Advantage. We expect that at least two-thirds of 

all beneficiaries will have access to a Medicare Advantage plan in 

2006 that includes zero premiums for drug benefits and zero premiums for their physician benefits. 

Senator COBURN. That is a great point. I want you to give the 

historical representation of what went up and then what went 

down, why it went up and why it went down. 

Ms. NORWALK. Sure. The program initially started in the early 

1970s, gained significant numbers of enrollees peaking, in the late 

1990s. In 1997 when the Balanced Budget Act passed, they 

changed the way that Medicare Plus Choice plans were paid in 

hopes of encouraging them to go into rural areas, and frankly, putting money aside, if you will, to pay those who did show up in rural 

areas. 

Well, the money was put aside but they never came to the rural 

areas, or very few of them, and so that money went away. Their 

plan payments plummeted. Consequently, the Medicare Plus 

Choice plans were trying to figure out how could they, (a) stay in 

business, (b) keep up their physician and hospital networks, or increase premiums or reduce benefits. 

And overall, they lost it, not surprisingly, as that financial pressure continued after 1997, mainly in 1998 and 1999, and we started to see a decline in the enrollment in—I think it is 2001 if I recall—basically because of these reduced benefits and limited networks. 

Senator COBURN. Actually what you saw is fewer people wanted 

to come in and be providers for Medicare Plus Choice because the 

margin was not there for an insurance or health maintenance organization to survive. 

Ms. NORWALK. That is correct. 

Senator COBURN. So my question for you is, how do we know 

that is not going to happen on Medicare Part D? 

Ms. NORWALK. I think a couple things are important with that. 

One of the reasons that we talk about benchmarks in the average 

premium is because we totally changed the way that we do the 

plans, that rather than pegging something based on Medicare feefor-service payments, which is what it used to be in the Medicare 

Plus Choice program, the Medicare Part D program uses an average of all the plans that come in, and we look to competition to 

keep that price low because Plan A wants to get more enrollees 

than its neighboring plan, Plan B. 

And in fact, that is what happened with the premiums coming 

down. That was because, I think personally, of competition. 

The payments that way are no longer based or pegged to some 

Medicare number or whether that goes up or down depending 

18

1The prepared statement of Mr. Antos appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

frankly, on what Congress does. But the drug benefit instead is focused on competition in looking and coming up with averages. 

Now, if it turns out, for example, that a plan wanted to charge a premium that was over $32.20, the government is going to continue to pay exactly that same subsidy that it paid, and a beneficiary would pay anything additional. If someone charges less than 

the average premium, the beneficiary will then pay less. So what 

happens is the government is paying the same for everyone, and 

what the beneficiary then pays will depend on the plan they 

choose, and perhaps it may impact the benefit package. 

So rather than having it attached to something in Medicare feefor-service, it is based on competition, which is why I think it is 

more sustainable in the long run than the Medicare Plus Choice 

plan was going forward because of its tie to the—as we call it—the 

AAPCC. 

Senator COBURN. There is probably not anybody more knowledgeable about this issue, and I am sure a lot of people were lost 

with that explanation. [Laughter.] 

Ms. NORWALK. Sorry. 

Senator COBURN. I did follow you, and that is fine. 

Thank you so much for coming before us. Thank you for the hard 

work that you are doing. 

Ms. NORWALK. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. What we will do is seat the next panel, and 

Senator Carper will be here. I will run to vote, and Senator Carper 

will start our next panel. 

Ms. NORWALK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Senator COBURN. We will resume. I apologize. We had two votes, 

which they did not tell us, and it took that long to get all the Senators to the floor, and I was the first one to vote on the second one, 

so we will resume. 

We have in our next panel Dr. Joe Antos, the Wilson H. Taylor 

Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Jagadeesh Gokhale, Senior Fellow at the 

Cato Institute; and Dr. Marilyn Moon, who is the Vice President 

and Director of Health Program at the American Institutes for Research. 

Let me welcome each of you, apologize again for the delay in the 

time, and your complete statement will be made a part of the 

record. Try to limit your statement to 5 minutes if you can, but let 

us do a good job with this. 

Dr. Antos. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH R. ANTOS, PH.D.,1 WILSON H. TAYLOR 

SCHOLAR IN HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT POLICY, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Mr. ANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Passage of the Medicare 

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003 

marked a major milestone for Medicare. For the first time, all 

beneficiaries will have access to outpatient prescription drug coverage under Medicare rather than anywhere else. Special low-inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 024239 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\24239.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
19

come subsidies will be available to needy beneficiaries, and absolutely millions of seniors and disabled people will save money when 

they buy their medicines under the new program. Those are good 

things. 

All of this comes at a cost. The new program is the largest entitlement expansion since Medicare was established more than four 

decades ago. The huge sums that the Federal Government will 

spend through this program will largely be funded out of general 

tax revenues. That means the new drug benefit was enacted without being fully financed through specifically earmarked funds, and 

every dollar spent by beneficiaries will add 75 cents to the Federal 

Government’s budget deficit. By adding the new benefit without 

full funding, Congress has increased the cost pressures that threaten Medicare’s stability. So how much money are we talking about? 

Now, actually, Mr. Chairman, I think you and the first witness 

covered this very well, so I will not repeat the numbers except to 

say that it has seemed, especially this year, that there have been 

many estimates coming out first from the Administration and then 

from the Congressional Budget Office, and every time you turn 

around, the numbers appear to go up. But that is somewhat misleading, as I think the first witness tried to indicate. 

In fact, we have not spent the first dollar on prescription drugs 

for the full drug benefit yet. That means that the actuaries do not 

have any basis, really, for estimating—or making a new estimate 

of the cost of the full drug benefit. All that has happened, as the 

first witness pointed out, is that we have shifted the observation 

period from a period of 10 years where only 8 of the years involved 

a vast amount of spending and now it is a full 10 years of the full 

drug benefit and a lot of money every single year. 

That is the reason the numbers seem larger. However, the fact 

is that this is a program that has no sunset. So the fact that the 

numbers seem larger is not just an optical illusion. The actual cost 

of the program could well be much higher even in the next 10 years 

than either CBO or the Administration estimate. There are all 

sorts of reasons for that, as laid out in my testimony. One of the 

most important reasons, however, is what policymakers might 

choose to do. New legislation, for example, might be considered 

here on the Hill to make the benefit richer, to fill the doughnut 

hole, for example, a particularly sore point with a number of Members of Congress. 

If that were to happen, that would substantially increase program costs not just for 10 years but forever. In any event, even the 

most accurate budget estimate, 10-year window estimate, does not 

tell us how much the program will spend past 2015. The amount 

is stupendous. The Medicare trustees estimate that Part D spending net of beneficiary premiums and State payments—that is the 

so-called clawback—will total about $8.7 trillion over the next 75 

years. That is measured in present value terms. 

Now, that is the amount of money that must be transferred from 

general tax revenues over the next 75 years to pay the full cost of 

Part D. That is a very large amount of money. That is well over 

the $725 billion over the next 10 years estimated by OMB or the 

$850 billion from CBO. And while that is a long-term projection 

20

1The prepared statement of Ms. Moon appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

rather than a known fact, it still tells us the direction of this program. 

The direction clearly is to make a huge commitment of our Nation’s resources to this benefit. However, the drug benefit by itself 

is not the whole story. Medicare Parts A and B also are underfunded. As you mentioned with the first witness, Part A is reasonably well funded, but that will change. Part B is not. 

So what can we do? We cannot expect the economy to grow our 

way out of this. The Congressional Budget Office, in a report several years old, indicated that if you look at all of the major entitlement programs oriented to the elderly—that is, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—by 2030 we could be spending 17.4 percent of GDP on those programs. That is a lot of money. CBO says 

that is an unsustainable level of spending. 

We could raise taxes. If we raise taxes, however, that cuts into 

our economy’s ability to grow. My colleague at the Heritage Foundation Tracy Foertsch and I did an estimate of that impact. We 

have looked at what the economic effects would be if we were to 

fully finance Medicare A, B, and D for the next 10 years. That is 

just 10 years of full funding. If we do that, then we will have a serious impact on the economy. GDP will fall by an average of $87 

billion a year. Employment will drop by an average of 816,000 jobs 

per year. That is really serious. 

We need to do something about Medicare, but growing our way 

out of it is not the answer. It will help. Taxing our way out of it 

is not the answer. We probably will increase taxes. What we have 

to do is look at the incentives that are driving the costs in the program. 

I have a lot to say about that in the written testimony, but the 

bottom line here is that we have made promises that we cannot 

keep, and I believe it is incumbent on Congress to look carefully 

at those incentives that are driving Medicare spending today and 

will drive Medicare spending tomorrow. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Dr. Moon, I am going to ask you to go next, if 

you would. 

TESTIMONY OF MARILYN MOON,1 VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, HEALTH PROGRAM, AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR 

RESEARCH 

Ms. MOON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure 

to be here, and I thank you for the invitation. 

For 40 years, Medicare has provided nearly universal coverage to 

a vulnerable population, changed with the times, and done a better 

job of constraining costs than has the private sector for much of 

that period. From the perspective of Medicare beneficiaries, the 

goal of changes in Medicare should be to seek genuine efficiencies 

in the delivery of medical care, to assure access to care for this population, particularly those with limited resources, and to find an 

equitable way to finance the program over time. 

While concerns about the costs of Medicare are important, it is 

also the case that Medicare cannot function well if it is inappropriately restricted. The new prescription drug benefit—although limVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 024239 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\24239.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
21

ited in its comprehensiveness—is an important addition that is essential to assuring access to good health care. No one would imagine today starting a new health care insurance program without 

prescription drug coverage, for example, as Medicare was in 1965. 

But it is important to find the right balance of benefits, access, and 

sources of financing. 

I make several points in my testimony today that I am just going 

to briefly summarize here. 

First, historically, Medicare has done as well or better in holding 

down the costs of care as has the private insurance system, and I 

think that was indicated earlier when others talked about the costs 

of health care. They are going up everywhere. It is a problem 

throughout the system—or it is an issue throughout the system, I 

should say. We should be concerned about the problems that are 

created when health care grows rapidly and whether or not it is 

necessary to do so. But I would also point out that we have gotten 

a lot out of the very positive effects of changes in health care in 

recent times. 

Second, improvements in the efficiency and appropriateness of 

care can help to reduce costs, but will not be enough to avoid a 

need for greater financing from Medicare over time. People are 

often looking for the magic bullet to avoid having to pay more. It 

simply is not out there. It would be nice if, for example, a change 

in the delivery system by itself would suddenly reduce health costs 

substantially. Others would like to pass costs off onto beneficiaries 

and solve the problem that way. Actually, passing the costs off onto 

beneficiaries is not a way of saving society money. It is simply a 

way of saving the government money. It is effectively a form of financing. It is implicitly a way to finance the program by asking 

beneficiaries to pay more either through higher premiums or a 

higher age of eligibility, for example. 

In addition, it is often thought to be a magic bullet to incomerelate the program. I wish that all Americans over the age of 65 

and those with disabilities were wealthy enough that income-relating was a viable option and could solve the problem on its own. But 

over half of seniors in the United States have incomes of less than 

$25,000 a year, and they are simply not well off enough to be able 

to fund a substantial additional amount out of their own pockets. 

Already, individuals over the age of 65 pay more for their health 

care, not counting long-term care, than they did before Medicare 

came into being in 1965. Just as the Federal Government and 

other health care payers have been affected by higher health care 

costs over time, so have seniors who pay for, on average, about 45 

percent of the costs of their own care. 

Medicare pays only about 55 percent of the costs of the care. Either individuals pay or someone else pays on their behalf. And in 

the case of the Medicare program itself, it is split such that about 

70 percent of the costs of Medicare are paid by the Federal Government and about 30 percent are paid by beneficiaries out of premiums and out of taxes they pay. 

So one of the important lessons is not to overstate what is possible to get out of seniors over time, although we certainly should 

look at who could and should pay for this program over time. A 

better way to think about Medicare is to assess who is best able 

22

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gokhale appears in the Appendix on page 77. 

to pay for the care. This is something that will need to be looked 

at periodically over time. It is very difficult to know, for example, 

whether future beneficiaries will be substantially better off as compared to future workers. 

If you look at the Actuary’s estimates from the most recent Board 

of Trustees Report, you will find that per worker GDP—that is, a 

measure of how well off people will be after controlling for inflation—will increase by approximately 66 percent into the future. If 

you assume there would be no savings from Medicare from any 

changes, which I do not believe we will allow to happen, the Medicare burden on workers would lower per capita GDP, but still leave 

workers 57 percent better off than they are today, even after controlling for inflation. 

It is going to be a tough challenge to look into the future and decide how to balance who should pay, but that one of the important 

things to remember is that Medicare has been a successful program 

and that seniors and persons with disability need to have this program continue. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much. Dr. Gokhale. 

TESTIMONY OF JAGADEESH GOKHALE,1 SENIOR FELLOW, 

CATO INSTITUTE 

Mr. GOKHALE. Chairman Coburn, Senator Carper, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify at this hearing. I am quite honored by 

it. 

Senator Lautenberg reflected earlier that the extent to which the 

National Government should assist people in spending healthier 

lives and improving their health is a philosophical question. He did 

not answer that question, but economists have a definite answer to 

the question regarding the extent to which the Federal Government should be involved in any particular activity, and that answer 

is market failure. If there is a clearly perceived market failure, 

then government intervention is justified. 

We know that the vast majority of seniors have prescription drug 

coverage. The numbers that I have seen suggest that up to 90 percent of them have access to prescription drugs—which does not indicate a clear market failure. Indeed, I believe that implementing 

this law as is will cause market failure and will displace the private provision of prescription drug insurance for retirees. It will 

also displace and worsen the quality of prescription drug insurance 

provision for non-retirees as well. 

This law will improve access to prescription drugs for low-income 

retirees, both those who are and those who are not currently covered under Medicaid. Upper-income retirees and those with high 

drug expenses will also benefit substantially. But some retirees 

may experience higher out-of-pocket costs and worse quality of coverage if employers and other providers reduce or withdraw their 

higher-quality retiree supplemental plans over time. 

So MMA, therefore, appears to be designed to displace first private drug coverage in the insurance market, and that will be followed, I anticipate, by sustained pressure in Congress to further 

liberalize the law that is on the books today. 

23

The difficulties of improving the operation of prescription drug 

and drug insurance markets are well known. But this program is 

actually likely to worsen the performance of those markets. 

Theoretical reasoning and empirical studies suggest that private 

drug prices would increase following the entry of a large number 

of additional government-subsidized patients. Existing patients 

would increase their demand for drugs because of the additional 

subsidy. Doctors will also prescribe more drug therapies as a result 

of people having access to more generous drug insurance. 

Most of the burden of drug price increases will fall on workers 

because employer provision of health insurance to workers will become more expensive as drug prices increase. That will have adverse effects on labor markets. 

The drug law represents a very large addition to the already considerable financial shortfall faced by the rest of the Medicare program. Unresolved, this shortfall will grow larger and impose higher 

fiscal burdens on future generations, erode economic productivity, 

and decrease the growth of national output. I think very few people 

are really appreciative of how huge an addition to Medicare’s unfunded obligations this program represents and the adverse impact 

those obligations will have on other sectors and the economy as a 

whole. 

Finally, the Medicare Modernization Act will change workers’ 

and younger generations’ perceptions of how much they should 

save for their own future health care needs. Studies have shown 

that an expansion of Federal entitlement obligations increases consumption and reduces national saving and investment, and that 

would cause a further negative impact. So there are three tiers of 

negative impact that the economy will experience: first, worse 

health coverage for workers; second, higher tax burdens to finance 

this additional entitlement obligation; and, third, reduced savings 

that will reduce our investment and capital formation and, therefore, reduce worker productivity going forward. That will have a 

negative effect on future output. 

This law was passed rather hastily. The program lacks appropriate controls against spending escalations. That means future 

Congresses may be induced to regulate the actions of various players—pharmacies, drug manufacturers, employers, plan providers, 

and so on. And those regulations will have counterproductive effects. They may reduce or cause drug supplies to be restricted. 

They may induce illegal drug sales and worsen the quality of doing 

insurance for everybody in the economy. 

So my recommendation really would be to repeal this law. But 

if doing so is impractical, I would certainly recommend downsizing 

it to cover only low-income retirees, those with inadequate drug insurance, and those with high drug costs. And that would be, I 

think, a financially and economically sensible course to follow. 

I think I will stop there and welcome your questions. Thank you 

again. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much. Right now I want to call 

on my Ranking Member, Senator Carper. 

24

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. I think I can withhold any 

kind of statement now and just maybe I could ask some questions. 

Thanks very much. 

To our witnesses, thanks a whole lot for being here. I apologize 

for missing the testimonies of several of you. We have votes on the 

floor, trying to get a military construction appropriation bill passed, 

and I have some input there. And I had another committee I was 

testifying before, so I apologize. I am usually a better, more attentive Ranking Member than I have been this afternoon. 

Let me just start off, if I could, by asking each of you maybe to 

comment on some of the reasons why you believe that health care 

costs in general are rising, not just in Medicare but in general, 

some of the reasons why you think that is happening, and maybe 

you could share with us a couple of useful tools that you think 

might be out there for us to constrain the growth of those costs. 

Mr. ANTOS. Well, let me start, Senator. I think perhaps the most 

important factor that is driving health care costs in general has to 

do with the very nature of health insurance. Health insurance by 

its nature subsidizes people. They don’t pay out of pocket for the 

full cost of their care. 

In this country, as we all know, for the last 50 years or so, we 

have had a very generous tax break for employer-sponsored coverage. So most people get their health insurance through employers. I can speak personally on this. They are not very much aware 

of what the full premium is that is being paid for directly out of 

their pay and partially on their behalf by their employers. So we 

are unaware of that. We are also unaware of the real cost of an 

office visit, a prescription drug, or any of the other medical interventions that might be before us. So we are cost-unconscious. This 

is one of the rare sectors in our economy where people buy things 

without knowing what they cost and only finding out later. 

That has to be driving a lot of the cost. If people were more 

aware, for those things that are optional—not those services that 

you can’t avoid, but for those things that are optional, people would 

think, Do I really want this? And in particular, in the case of prescription drugs, people would be incented and they are increasingly 

incented to think about generic drugs rather than the brand name 

equivalent. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Dr. Gokhale. 

Mr. GOKHALE. I agree that there is a tremendous amount of government involvement in the health care market. Low-income individuals have government subsidies. Employees have government 

subsidies through a tax deduction for employer-provided insurance. 

And retirees have government subsidies. Pretty much everybody in 

the economy is affected by government subsidies. This third-party 

payment system that we have established makes people insensitive 

to the cost of the health care they are consuming. And insensitivity 

to the price means people are going to demand health care even if 

the benefit is very slight. Health care services are consumed for the 

most minor illnesses, when they are probably not needed. For example, if I have the flu, I would run to the doctor because it is easier to take care of it that way if it doesn’t cost me anything. 

25

This is especially true for prescription drugs. Prescription drug 

prices have been growing three times as fast as health care costs 

have been growing in general, and that is because there is a shift 

in emphasis on——

Senator CARPER. Is that when we include generics as well as 

non-generics? 

Mr. GOKHALE. I am talking about all prescription drugs. That is 

because there is more emphasis now on drug therapies, so the demand for drugs is rising. Doctors are prescribing drugs more frequently. So, obviously, the pressure of rising demand for drug 

therapies that are easy to administer is escalating faster. 

Ms. MOON. I have a different view than my colleagues. Although 

we are all economists, everyone sees this a little bit differently. I 

do believe that there are a lot of market failures in health care, 

partially because of very poor information. It is very difficult for individuals to know what care is necessary and what is not necessary. And although I do think that, at the margin, people are 

using extra services, I personally do not know many who say, ‘‘I 

would like to run to the doctor today. I am a little bored and it is 

going to be free,’’ or ‘‘I am feeling a little blue, so perhaps I will 

get knee replacement surgery and I will move around a little better.’’

In terms of the large expenditures, I do not believe overuse is a 

major issue. The major issue is that individuals right now, without 

information about quality, necessity and effectiveness, see that the 

way to protect themselves is to overuse services to a certain extent, 

to ask for extra tests if there are things that are uncertain, to go 

to a different doctor if they are not finding what they want from 

the first doctor. We could do a lot better with information and educating the public that sometimes more is not better. That would be 

one thing that would help substantially, but I don’t think we 

should kid ourselves. We are getting a lot from the health care system. Our lives have improved. Our health status has improved. 

And most Americans are willing to pay a lot, and I don’t think we 

have seen the end of what Americans are willing to pay for health 

care. 

Even in the case of prescription drugs, which is much less well 

covered for seniors than are other aspects of their health spending, 

they use drugs just as fast as they use hospitalization. We need 

better information for consumers, but it is going to be very difficult 

to wrestle this tiger to the ground. 

Senator CARPER. I have some more questions, but let me wait for 

the second round. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Do any of you know any government program 

where the estimated costs went down versus what they were estimated when they first started? 

Ms. MOON. Medicare. When we adopted the relative value scale 

for physician services——

Senator COBURN. No, I said when they were first started. 

Ms. MOON. When they were first started? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. When Medicare was first started, their 

first year, their second year, they weren’t anywhere close on the estimate. Relative value scale, there is no question it did better than 

what they thought. But I am talking about government programs—

26

do you know of any government programs that had an estimated 

cost that are mandatory or entitlement programs that cost less 

than what they were estimated at the initial onset of them? Does 

anybody know one? I don’t. I just thought there might be one out 

there. 

What is the debate in Germany today? Forty percent of their 

GDP is consumed by the government programs, right? They have 

an unemployment rate of 12 percent, they have a tax rate twice 

ours, and they have a stagnant economy. How do we not get there 

with this program and others? 

Mr. GOKHALE. There was a study done by Edward Prescott, who 

is the latest Nobel Laureate in economics, which compared the U.S. 

and Europe now versus in the 1970s. Both countries have essentially the same technologies, so productivity per worker is pretty 

much the same, has been the same in the 1970s and is the same 

today. But in the 1970s, tax rates, marginal tax rates in the U.S. 

compared to those in European countries on average were similar. 

And so hourly work rates for workers were also similar. Therefore, 

output levels per capita and living standards per capita were similar across the two countries in the 1970s. 

Today, however, because a much higher fraction of workers’ earnings are taxed to support the entitlement system—much more generous entitlement system in Germany and other European countries—those high tax rates mean there is less work effort by those 

who work, and workers prefer to take more vacations. There is 

more unemployment. There is less flexibility in the labor force as 

a result. Although productivity per worker is the same between the 

U.S. and Europe (because the technology available to both areas is 

the same), output per capita in Europe is much lower because of 

lower work effort. 

Therefore, living standards in Europe are only about 80 percent 

as high as those in the United States. So high tax rates to finance 

entitlement obligations that will not over time, will surely make 

the U.S. economy more similar to that of European countries in the 

future if the current laws are continued and the fiscal shortfalls 

that the country faces remain unrsolved. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Well, that is my view. I have studied what 

has happened in Europe in terms of the percentage of GDP that 

has been consumed by the government and the drag it is on the 

economic progress, which inhibits growth, which inhibits all that. 

Dr. Moon, what is your solution? How do we fix this? Do you have a solution for us? How do we take this $29.7 trillion unfunded 

liability over the next 75 years. How do we handle that and not kill 

our economy or lower the standard of living? How are we going to 

do that? Do you have any suggestions for us? 

Ms. MOON. One of the things that we should continue to do is 

to seek ways to improve the efficiency of the Medicare system. For 

example, the changes that occurred in 1997 with the Balanced 

Budget Act served to lower substantially the projections for the future, and, in fact, even with the addition of the prescription drug 

benefit, the actuaries are not projecting that Medicare spending 

will reach the same level in 2025 as they had projected in 1997. 

So there are things that can be done gradually over time that are 

effective. I think it is——

27

Senator COBURN. Do you see a requirement by the government 

making it mandatory that physicians care for Medicare patients? 

Ms. MOON. I would hope not. I would hope that this continues 

to be a voluntary program. What it means, if we are to keep it voluntary, is that Medicare will have to pay at a reasonable level as 

compared to what other parts of the health care system pay physicians for health care. 

Senator COBURN. But they don’t, do they? 

Ms. MOON. Actually, physicians’ payments now are pretty comparable to what a lot of private insurers pay. In some places the 

level is higher, some places it is lower—not so much because Medicare has gotten more generous, but because the rest of the system 

has gotten a little tighter. 

Senator COBURN. Do you have a reference for me for that? 

Ms. MOON. MedPAC, the Medicare Payment——

Senator COBURN. MedPAC study? 

Ms. MOON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. What I hear continually from providers is 

not next year, and that is what we are seeing, is the providers, 

they can’t—what used to happen—and that is why I took issue 

with one of your other statements. This is a cost-shifting program, 

and in your statement you are denying that it is a cost-shifting program. And what used to cover for covering the differential in Medicare in terms of providers and hospitals was the fact that they had 

this other private sector out there that paid a higher premium, and 

that was cost shifted and there was not a problem. 

As we have held down Medicare and as the other costs of health 

care have risen, then that ability to cross-subsidize, I believe, has 

lessened, and that is why you are starting to see people wanting 

to move away from it. 

The real question I guess I would come back and ask you is: How 

do we fix the costs in health care? Because we are never going to 

fix Medicare until we change the incentives. And I loved what you 

said about markets. There is no market transparency in health 

care. Would you agree? 

Ms. MOON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And so we are never going to be able to use 

market forces unless there is market transparency in terms of 

price, quality, outcome, and availability. Would you agree with 

that? Would everybody agree with that? 

Ms. MOON. Yes. 

Mr. ANTOS. Yes. 

Mr. GOKHALE. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. So is that one of our solutions, to create market 

transparency to help create competition? 

Ms. MOON. To some extent, although this is a market in which 

I do not believe that price works as well as in a lot of markets. 

When someone becomes very ill, which is where most of the health 

care spending occurs, on average, they are not going to be very 

price-sensitive. They are going to want the care that they need for 

their loved ones. 

Senator COBURN. But you do not believe, if there is a quality indicator in the market and I become ill and a price indicator, that 

even though it may be a major illness, I will not have the capaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 024239 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\24239.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
28

bility through my family or myself to make a value judgment on 

that. I will go to get the care and not consider price and outcome. 

Is that your testimony? 

Ms. MOON. No. I think that there is a little bit of sensitivity to 

price and a lot of sensitivity to outcome if people know what it is. 

Senator COBURN. They don’t know, though, right? 

Ms. MOON. They don’t know very well. 

Senator COBURN. That is right. 

Ms. MOON. But I really do not believe that most people are inhibited, for example, if they are told that their family member needs 

an operation, they are going to try to get it. If they can get someone to help them pay for it, of course, they will. But I do not believe 

that it is very much of a deterrent to health care spending, nor do 

I think it should be when we are talking about really serious illnesses. 

Senator COBURN. Do you remember when we used to have forced 

second opinions in health care? 

Ms. MOON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. What did that show? 

Ms. MOON. What it largely showed is that a second opinion that 

was different just confused people and they didn’t quite know what 

to do with that. We are in a much better position now to take advantage of a lot of information that is out there. We need a lot of 

sorting out of the quality of that information and some feeling on 

the part of individuals that they are getting credible information. 

But we are a lot closer to being able to have good information than 

we were. 

Senator COBURN. I do, too. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am torn as to which way to go with a question or two. First 

let me make a comment. I voted for the Medicare prescription drug 

bill, not because I was deeply enamored with it, but we were sitting 

around in my office with my senior advisers and asking, Well, what 

is your advice? It was literally almost time to vote, and I had been 

wrestling with this for some time. And most everybody around the 

table said the politically smart thing to do would be to vote no. If 

it becomes law, people who wanted it to become law won’t be mad 

at you because, even though you voted no, they will still get the 

benefit. And the people who wanted you to vote no, they will be 

glad you did even though the measure was approved. 

And I said, well, all well and good to give me political advice. 

Just tell me what you think is the right thing to do. And I will 

never forget one of the fellows, one of my allies, who is now gone, 

one of my legislative aides who is now gone, he said, ‘‘I think the 

right thing to do is to go ahead and vote for it. This is a flawed 

program, but we need to get started somewhere. There are a lot of 

things we can do with pharmaceuticals today that we could not do 

40 years ago when Medicare was introduced. And for a lot of people 

around the country who don’t have anything at all, for a lot of people who are really poor who don’t have any kind of coverage at all, 

for a lot of people who have very high, very expensive drug costs 

and prescription costs, this is a pretty good benefit.’’

And in the end, I was persuaded to vote for it, and I have not 

regretted it, at least not yet. 

29

I missed the part of the conversation where you all talked about 

means testing. I think it was Part B of Medicare, which is something I support. I think the Chairman does as well. I see in the 

Medicare Part D program that it is means tested to some extent. 

If you happen to be poor, you do not pay the monthly premium. If 

you happen to be poor, you do not pay the deductible. If you happen to be poor, you do not—there is not much of a doughnut hole 

there. If you happen to be poor, you get a pretty good benefit. If 

you happen to have huge out-of-pocket drug costs of $1,000 a 

month or so, I mean, it is a pretty good benefit. 

So it is really a program that is, I think, most beneficial to people who are poor and folks who have really catastrophic needs. If 

you happen to be middle class and you do not have huge prescription drug needs or you happen to be wealthy and you do not have 

large prescription drug needs, it is not a great program. For folks 

who have something that they like that is reasonably good, I basically say to them in Delaware, ‘‘You should probably just keep 

doing what you are doing, using what you are using, until you lose 

it, and then you may want to consider this.’’

There was a very good cover story, I think it was Business Week,

a couple of weeks ago where they talked about the new generation 

of pharmaceuticals that are being developed, which are designed to 

take advantage of our ability to map the human genome and to develop almost like personalized drugs. We have a pharmaceutical 

company in Delaware, AstraZeneca, that has developed a drug—it 

starts with an ‘‘I.’’ I can never remember the name of it. It is something like ‘‘intressa’’ or something like that. And they have come 

up with this drug, and they found—it is weird. They found that 

people in Asia—it is a cancer, an oncology drug. They found that 

people in Asia who are treated with this drug do reasonably well, 

but folks, maybe in the United States or in Europe, don’t. They had 

a hard time figuring out why for a couple years, and I think they 

finally figured out it has something to do with the DNA or the genetic makeup of some of the folks in Asia who are benefited by this 

drug is maybe different somehow than we are. I will leave it to the 

doctors on this Committee to figure out why that is the case. 

But I make the point just to say that we can do so much more 

with pharmaceuticals today than we could 40 years ago when 

Medicare was introduced, and I think that argues for our benefit. 

I think as work goes on by large and small pharmaceutical companies in this country, they are going to be able to develop medicines 

that are almost like designer drugs, in the best sense of the word, 

designer drugs for us to help us. And we may have as many blockbuster drugs, but we are going to have more drugs that are particularly good for me or for Dr. Coburn or for Dr. Moon or anyone 

else in this room. So I am rather encouraged by that. 

There is more I would like to say, but I am going to maybe offer 

a statement for the record. But let me just ask a question, another 

question, if I could. 

Senator COBURN. We have agreed to leave the record open for a 

period of time. 

Senator CARPER. That is great. Thanks. Thanks very much. 

What I want to ask you to do is help us look at the VA system 

for just a little bit. I was a naval flight officer back in the Vietnam 

30

War. I remember coming back from Southeast Asia, getting out of 

the Navy in California, and just moving over to Delaware and 

going to get an MBA at the University of Delaware. And almost the 

same day I enrolled at the U of D, I went to the VA hospital about 

15 miles down the road and signed up for, oh, gosh, whatever benefits I was eligible for, including the GI bill. 

I remember getting some dental work done there. I found out 

that I could get a physical and that sort of thing, and for a year 

or two I could get some medical care at that hospital. 

At the time, I remember talking to the providers. People were 

not anxious to be doctors or dentists or nurses at that VA hospital. 

They were not anxious to be doctors or dentists or nurses in the 

VA system, and it was not the place—it was like a backwater rather than a cutting-edge sort of place to practice business. 

Boy, that has changed in the last 10 years, in really more in the 

last 5 years, but really over the last 10 years. And they are doing 

something right there. 

One of the things they seem to be doing is harnessing the information technology in ways that makes them more productive. If 

you go to the VA, you have an electronic health record. They use 

that and a lot of other tools in a real smart way to provide better 

health care, better outcomes. They have been able to reduce the 

level of employment within the VA system. They have taken a 

whole boatload of new patients because of the war in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. And it is really rather remarkable that the backwater 

that nobody wanted to work in when I first came out of the Navy 

is a place where people actually think it is a neat place to work 

and to get care. 

Let me just ask you if there are any implications there for us 

from the VA system. If you would, don’t take a long time but just 

give us some thoughts, if you would. It is not exactly the free enterprise system, but something good is going on there. 

Mr. ANTOS. A lot of good is going on there. They have certain advantages over the rest of the health care system in the sense that 

everybody is an employee. So the doctors adhere strictly to the formulary. It is more than a formulary. You are going to prescribe 

drug X for condition Y, that is it. That is a great advantage, especially if your patients will respond properly to drug X. Presumably 

they have some safety valve there, but, by and large, there is strict 

adherence to the formulary. You don’t see this anywhere else. 

As far as information management is concerned, absolutely, they 

are way ahead of everybody else now. But, again, the advantage is 

that they are buying the computers, they are putting the software 

in, and everybody is doing the same thing. 

Maybe we do not have to make everybody do the same thing, but 

there is a strong sense that I have that HHS in particular should 

begin to take an initiative about not just saying, well, let’s get together and talk about it, but let’s decide what the electronic standards are, let’s decide what the minimum data set is, not the maximal data set. If we can do that on electronic health records, then 

we could let the private sector go ahead and develop the products 

more appropriately. But we have to take that first step, and honestly I don’t see anybody else doing it. I really think it is the job 

of the government to make that step. 

31

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Dr. Gokhale. 

Mr. GOKHALE. I imagine there is going to be a fairly steep and 

long learning curve before people trained in medicine, non-information technology disciplines, who already bear a huge burden about 

being good at their fundamental profession, to then adopt new 

technology when they are not used to it—haven’t done it ever before—to streamline all their information flow, keep their patient 

records, do proper diagnostics, and provide the information in a 

streamlined way so that it can be used in a high-tech manner, 

stored in a high-tech manner, and retrieved in a high-tech manner 

by those who need it. 

Getting all of that together is going to take some learning and 

take a lot of adjustments. I don’t think it is a short-term solution. 

Health care costs are rising much faster than the cost reduction 

that the adoption of this kind of technology-intensive approach can 

bring about. So I think that it is a good idea, a good approach, but 

it is going to take time. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Dr. Moon. 

Ms. MOON. The VA system is in some ways like a very well run 

coordinated care system that, first of all, looks at the whole of the 

treatment of people, which is a very good idea. 

But, in addition, the VA brought in respected people who had a 

lot of knowledge and were really pushing to be on the frontiers of 

knowledge. That develops a trust so that people will comply if they 

think things are being done for a good reason. And, in particular, 

their drug formulary is based not just on the best price they can 

get from a particular drug manufacturer but, rather, on studies of 

equivalence and which drugs work the best, with some ability then 

to recognize that not everything works the same way for every person. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, thanks for being generous with 

the time. I realize we face these huge cost concerns with respect 

to Medicare, and with the addition of Part D, it does not make it 

any easier. 

Having said that, this is one of those deals where I think the 

glass is also half-full, and I was a supporter of health savings accounts—my guess is you may have been as well—and the kind of 

consumer-directed health care that I think it helps to foster. I am 

encouraged by these developments with respect to drugs that are 

more like designer drugs where they can actually figure out what 

our genetic makeup is and which ones might work better for particular people than others. 

I am encouraged by the work that—and it is not just the work 

they have done at the VA, although they are a good example of 

how we can get a little more productivity out of a health care delivery system by harnessing IT, just like we got more productivity out 

of the rest of our economy back in the 1990s, with the exception 

of health care maybe. 

I am going to walk out of here and go catch a train, but this is 

something I am really interested in. I am not a doctor, but I am 

still really interested in it. I think it is just hugely important for 

our country because—I will close with this. I was talking with Rick 

Wagner the other day, who is the chairman of GM, and we were 

talking about health care costs, trying to compete with the rest of 

32

the world. And the folks in the auto industry used to say, ‘‘We 

spend as much money for our health care costs as we spend for the 

steel that goes into our cars, trucks, and vans.’’ And then it became, ‘‘We spend more money for health care costs than we do for 

the steel that goes into our cars, trucks, and vans.’’ Now our 

friends at GM tell us that they spend more money for health care 

costs than they spend on all the capital investment they make 

throughout the world, and they have to compete against companies 

that don’t have health care costs even close to that. 

One of the things I suggested to him—I will say this and stop. 

But there is some interesting work being done at a consortium of 

high-tech companies. Sysco is one of them. I think Intel and Oracle 

are other ones. And I have drawn them to GM’s attention and more 

recently to DaimlerChrysler. And what they have sought to do with 

that consortium of three high-tech companies is to find ways to 

use—in pricing and reimbursing health care costs, to provide us to 

do a better job, and who also use IT, have captured IT. 

And so there is—this glass is half-full, and I think maybe one of 

the things we can do with our Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, is 

find ways to put a spotlight on the stuff that we are doing well, 

just like we are trying to do with Katrina, put a spotlight on the 

stuff that we are doing well, that actually holds down health care 

cost growth and provides some better outcomes. 

Thank you, and to our panel, thanks so much. I am going to go 

see my 17-year-old son inducted into the national—not the national—I started to say the national hall of fame—the National 

Honor Society at a charter school in Wilmington. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for making 

it back after the vote. I appreciate that. 

I just have a few other questions, and then I would like to have 

the opportunity to submit questions to each of you, if you would answer them in writing. There will be about three or four. 

Dr. Moon, you reference on page 5 of your testimony, ‘‘Medicare 

currently covers only 55 percent of the acute health care costs of 

its beneficiaries.’’ Where does that number come from? 

Ms. MOON. That number is fairly consistently reported in a number of places, but the most recent numbers that I had were from 

the Administration, from CMS. 

Senator COBURN. Would you be kind enough to send us the reference for that number? 

Ms. MOON. Sure, I would be happy to. 

Senator COBURN. I have one other question I want to ask, and 

I am asking this as a provocative question because I can tell you, 

I am absolutely on the other side of it. And I believe the reason 

we are having problems today is only 53 percent of our market, 

even though it is a non-visible, non-transparent market, is private 

and 47 percent is public. Should we just go onto a single-payer system? What are your thoughts? And ration care? Because that is 

what everybody else in the world has done. 

Mr. ANTOS. As my mother used to say, just because the kid down 

the street does it, doesn’t mean you can. She was right. 

All systems ration care. We basically have a choice to make, and 

we have not quite made the choice. You can either have a government entity or an expert decide what is—kind of make the value 

33

judgment, what is right for you. Or you can try the market system, 

which we are struggling with right now in this country. You can 

try the market system and, in the absence of market failures, you 

would have people more personally deciding what level of health 

care they need as patients, but I agree with Marilyn on the problems. I do not think anybody would disagree with Marilyn’s initial 

statement that lack of information is a big factor. That is one of 

the market failures. We do not have a Consumer’s Report for 

health care, or if we do in CMS, nobody can understand it. 

So we have a choice there. If we go the route of Europe, we will 

go the route of Europe economically as well. We will have a smaller 

economy. We will be able to consume less of everything else. But 

we are going to have to make a decision. 

Ultimately, there are scarce resources. Nothing is free, including 

health care, in spite of our institutions that lead many of us to believe that it is almost free. 

Mr. GOKHALE. I agree with Joe’s comments. I would add that 

there is a lack of information transparency right now. But we do 

not have a free market. We have a market in which the government intervenes considerably. The current system provides very little incentive for people to actually seek out health care options and 

information. They do not have the incentive because someone else 

pays for their health services. They do not have the incentive because their own resources are not at stake. 

One good feature of the current law that was introduced, Medicare Part D, was setting up Health Savings Accounts, which would 

encourage workers to put away some funds for their own future 

health care needs and they would get a tax break for it. That is 

a step in the right direction. I think that feature of the law should 

be expanded. And you would see, I think, that it will go a long way 

towards promoting greater transparency and market information. 

Although many think that the market is failing in the information and transparency area, it is mostly because we are not letting 

it operate properly. 

Senator COBURN. Dr. Moon. 

Ms. MOON. I believe that we could have a well-functioning universal single-payer system in the United States, but it would be 

difficult to do. It would be difficult to do with the kind of philosophy and culture of the United States where we value the ability 

to be very independent and to do things a little differently than 

other people. By its nature, it is very important in a universal system to have a lot of standardization and equality, and that is one 

thing that a lot of Americans do not want. They want to do things 

their own way. So I think our culture would make it difficult to do 

so. 

I don’t think that it means that inherently a universal system is 

bad or inappropriate. In fact, I think it could be more efficient, but 

it is not something that Americans are willing to do. 

Other societies that do well with a universal system have much 

more of a communitarian viewpoint, and it does have its downsides 

as well. Thus, we are better situated to consider how much of a 

floor of care and coverage we want to have. This is the key issue 

to talk about now so that no one totally falls through the cracks. 

34

Senator COBURN. I agree with that. My own personal philosophy 

is that we cannot keep doing what we are doing, because I think 

we have cost drivers because of what we are doing, a pseudo-market that is really controlled and influenced by the Federal Government making people make poor economic decisions—not just patients. I am talking provider groups, the whole works throughout 

it. And so I don’t think we can keep doing it. I think we either have 

to go to a single-payer system or we have to go to a real market. 

And I am inclined to want to create a market, a real market, what 

an economist would say is a real market, where there is an evaluation of value based on price transparency, quality transparency, 

and output transparency, with the purchaser of the health care 

with some skin in the game. 

And that does not forego the fact that you can have that floor, 

and I think we can afford the floor even more, I believe, if we go 

that way. And there are some good studies like on best practices. 

That is one of the things VA has done. But if you incentivize best 

practices, you cut costs. And we have seen that in two or three 

pilot projects now that are working. One is getting ready to start 

for Medicare, where you pay the doctors more if they follow the 

best practice parameters of the University of Vanderbilt and Duke 

and Utah and follow that. And what happens is you get less overutilization by the physicians, and you also incentivize the information RX coming back to the patient so they get a break. In other 

words, there is an incentive for the patient to do what the doctor 

says to do based on what the known best practice is in the country. 

And it also helps us on our liability because now you are not shooting into the dark to protect yourself. You have got the best in the 

country recommended at this time, here is the best way to do that. 

And so we can either mandate, like we do in the VA, here is the 

way you will do it, or we can incentivize it and see if we can get 

creativity. 

The only thing I would say if we go to a single-payer system, 80 

percent of the world’s innovation in health care will dry up because 

that occurs here. And the only reason it occurs here today is because there is still a pretty big market that is private, even though 

we don’t call it a market. An economist would say it is not a very 

good market. There is still a way to follow what my economists 

taught me, which was greed conquers all technological difficulty. 

And my economists said, if you have that capability, then you will 

accomplish the technical things. 

So I would hope that if you have additional ideas in terms of 

health care, whether it be expanding the VA system—because 

there is not going to be one system that fits all, and there is not 

going to be a perfect market developed. I understand that. But 

there are ideas that are good out there that we can use, and we 

are going to have to do something because we cannot take $29.7 

trillion and heap it on our kids. And that is just Medicare. That 

is not Part B of Medicare. That doesn’t include Medicaid, and that 

doesn’t include Social Security. 

So we are on an unsustainable path, and we need every good 

idea from every viewpoint to try to solve the problem. 

I appreciate your consideration and spending extra time with us 

today. I do apologize about the vote, and I am sorry that you are 

35

still here. I thank you for your testimony, and I look forward to 

your written responses. 

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 


24239.001
38


24239.002
39


24239.003
40


24239.004
41


24239.005
42


24239.006
43


24239.007
44


24239.008
45


24239.009
46


24239.010
47


24239.011
48


24239.012
49


24239.013
50


24239.014
51


24239.015
52


24239.016
53


24239.017
54


24239.018
55


24239.019
56


24239.020
57


24239.021
58


24239.022
59


24239.023
60


24239.024
61


24239.025
62


24239.026
63


24239.027
64


24239.028
65


24239.029
66


24239.030
67


24239.031
68


24239.032
69


24239.033
70


24239.034
71


24239.035
72


24239.036
73


24239.037
74


24239.038
75


24239.039
76


24239.040
77


24239.041
78


24239.042
79


24239.043
80


24239.044
81


24239.045
82


24239.046
83


24239.047
84


24239.048
85


24239.049
86


24239.050
87


24239.051
88


24239.052
89


24239.053
90


24239.054
91


24239.055
92


24239.056
93


24239.057
94


24239.058
95


24239.059
96


24239.060
97


24239.061
98


24239.062
99


24239.063
100


24239.064
101


24239.065
102


24239.066
103


24239.067
104


24239.068
105


24239.069
106

Æ


24239.070