Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to offer a Medicare prescription drug plan. There is no need for this type of government-run fallback…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to offer a Medicare prescription drug plan. There is no need for this type of government-run fallback because the House-passed legislation already guarantees that every Medicare beneficiary will have a choice of at least two Medicare prescription drug plans. My colleague represents rural Texas. I represent rural Illinois. We know that one of the problems in the past was Medicare plans leaving rural areas. I think the benefit of what we have crafted is that it broadens the scope of the region, so it brings in urban and suburban and rural areas.
The motion also instructs conferees to recede to the Senate and remove the hospital market basket update adjustment contained in the House bill.
I would note for my colleagues that we are not cutting hospital reimbursement. We are reducing the increase they are going to receive. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, the nonpartisan panel of experts that advises Congress on Medicare policy, hospitals make a 10 percent profit for Medicare inpatient services and a 5 percent profit, on average, for all services provided to Medicare patients. MedPAC unanimously advised Congress to increase payments by 3 percent, which is what the House bill does. This is often referred to as market basket minus 0.4 percent.
Finally, this motion would instruct conferees to accept every rural provider increase contained in both bills. This budget-busting motion would mean the cost of the entire package would greatly exceed the $400 billion allocated under the budget resolution for Medicare prescription drugs which would jeopardize our ever getting to a final bill. Obviously, in our budget resolution we passed a bill for prescription drugs at $400 billion. If we go above that amount, we will raise to a point of order, and really we will have no resolution to this.
This motion is unnecessary. The House has already recognized the need to ensure that rural Medicare providers are paid fairly. In fact, the House-passed bill contains a $24.9 billion increase in payments to rural providers which would help rural hospitals and physicians, among others, continue to provide care to rural Americans. Let me just say that again. I traveled all through the August break to many of the rural hospitals. They do not have the numbers to be able to bring to bear all the benefits; so they really need this increase, and this rural increase of $24.9 billion is real dollars to rural hospitals, and I know my colleague knows the need for an increase in rural hospital coverage.
I would also note that conferees have reached agreement in a bipartisan, bicameral basis on a number of issues that will be reopened under this motion. Do we really want to tell the conferees to start over all from scratch? I do not because we want to see success in this Medicare prescription drug bill, and we want to finally get help to the seniors who have asked for it.
Mr. Speaker, we should allow the conferees to work out the differences between both bills. Since both Chambers have made a significant commitment on helping rural providers, I have every confidence that they will develop sound policy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just respond to my colleague. The private sector already does manage the Medicare system. The private sector is already involved in Medicare. They have been doing the job now. They can do it again. If we mandate, as in our bill, that there would be two providers and, again, expand the area of coverage from cities to suburbs out to the rural areas, we will have coverage. I would remind folks $24.9 billion for rural hospitals is real money.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker, it is my time.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is because it is on a county-by-county basis. What this Medicare bill does is set up at least at a minimum two coverage areas that would cover the cities, the suburban areas, and out to the rural areas. That way we bring in a bigger pool. But I will also say again $24.9 billion to rural hospitals we jeopardize if we go off in an opportunity to start instructing conferees and distract from this debate.
Let me say one other thing about this legislation. I know my good friends and colleagues are budget watchers, and the idea is that we have a budget that has $400 billion for prescription drug benefit coverage. Anything other than what we have going down the track would probably be risen to a point of order because what they are going to do is expand the cost structure.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) be allowed to control the balance of my time.