|
Hearing on Physician Payment
Posted by on November 17, 2005 Opening Statement Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Hearing on Physician Payment November 17, 2005 I would like to thank Chairman Barton for holding this hearing on the very important topic of physician payments. As a Member of Congress and physician, I can strongly empathize with the medical community as they face the impending 26% cut in reimbursements over the next six years. Medicare payments are already lower than medical practice costs. According to a survey conducted by the American Medical Association, a tremendous number of physicians, 38 percent, responded that they would be forced to reduce the number of Medicare patients they accept based on the 4.4% reduction they face this coming year. This data is just reflective of the first installment in a series of cuts. This is of great concern to me as access to health care is crucial for the Medicare population. In addition, based on these reduced reimbursement rates, physicians will be less able to invest in information technology and necessary medical equipment. All of these combined factors will negatively impact the quality of care that these individuals receive. Furthermore, as we continue to explore Pay for Performance by addressing whether this system is an improvement over the current one, it is important to establish true quality indicators. For example, a measure should not focus on the number of procedures done, but rather on whether the care administered resulted in a better outcome for a patient. Physicians should also not be penalized for a patient’s noncompliance with certain treatments. We have the unique opportunity to truly reform health care and this can only be accomplished by laying a solid foundation for such a program. The timing of this hearing is ideal as all of these issues need to be addressed before the adverse effects of these cuts come to fruition in January 2006. I look forward to today’s testimony as we work together to find practical and permanent solutions to this issue. A substantial, long term fix to reimbursements will allow physicians to devote their full attention once again to the profession they have committed themselves to and that is patient care.
How to Prepare for the Baby Boomer Generation: Medicare, Medicaid & Pay for Performance
Posted by on November 16, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this morning at a breakfast, Chairman Alan Greenspan was talking to a group of us, and he made mention of the fact that one of his concerns about those of us who were members of the baby boomer generation, despite the fact that we may have lavish pensions or Medicare, Social Security awaiting us upon retirement, that we may suffer because there are not enough of those in the generation coming after us to provide the things that we may want; and of course one of those things we may want will be physicians to take care of us in our old age on Medicare and Social Security.
Well, there is an event happening at the end of this year that I think is particularly pernicious to the upcoming crop of young medical students and physicians, and that is a planned 4.4 percent negative update, that is, a pay cut for doctors who provide care for Medicare patients. As a Member of Congress, and as a physician, I can strongly empathize with the medical community, particularly the younger medical community as they face an impending 26 percent cut in reimbursement over the next 6 years, law already in place, cuts already programmed to happen unless this Congress takes action.
Medicare payments are already lower than the cost of delivering the care. Medicare payments do not pay the freight for overhead in a doctor's office. According to a survey conducted by the American Medical Association, a tremendous number of physicians, 38 percent, responded that they would be forced to reduce the number of Medicare patients that they accept, based on the 4.4 percent reduction that they face just for this coming year.
This data is reflective of the first installment of a series of cuts. This is of great concern to me, as access to health care is crucial for the Medicare population. We have seen the roll-out yesterday of the availability to the part D Medicare prescription drug benefit; and many of us, myself included, have argued on the floor of this House that the Medicare prescription drug benefit is crucial to providing 21st-century medicine to our seniors. But if we have no doctors present to write the prescriptions, then all of the prescription drug benefit in the world will be of no benefit to tomorrow's seniors.
It is not just that we have doctors dropping out. We have doctors restricting the types of services that they might offer to Medicare patients, and we have doctors restricting where they might go into practice.
Well, in addition, based on these reduced reimbursement rates, doctors will be less able to invest in things that we are asking them to do, things like information technology and necessary and up-to-date medical equipment. All of these combined factors will negatively impact the quality of care that our seniors receive. Simply put, we are driving doctors out of the Medicare system, and we can no longer afford to do that.
Now, one of the proposed solutions deals with what is called Pay For Performance; and true, we should explore the concept of Pay For Performance by addressing whether this system is an improvement over the current one. It is important to establish the true quality indicators, and this is best done in conjunction with the specialty societies themselves, with the doctors themselves who will be delivering the care.
What are the goals of Pay For Performance? Well, the number one goal is better clinical outcomes. In partnership with that, we want improved patient satisfaction, and that goes hand in hand with improved physician satisfaction.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that doctors will support a concept like Pay For Performance if they believe in what it is trying to accomplish; but if it is just simply empty rhetoric, doctors will be among the first to recognize that and will abandon any attempts by Congress to drive a concept like Pay For Performance.
Ultimately, if Pay For Performance is structured appropriately and the cost of delivering care comes down, well, that is good. We save some dollars in the Medicare part B system, but that money cannot be used to offset other debt. It has to be put back into the system and reward those doctors who have improved quality and lowered costs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, fortunately, in my committee, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we are going to hold a hearing on physician reimbursement tomorrow, and it is timely. I am grateful to the chairmen, both the full committee chairman (Mr. Barton) and the subcommittee chairman (Mr. Deal of Georgia), for having this hearing. We are going to have good panels of witnesses present to receive our questions, and I think it is timely that my committee be involved in that discussion because, after all, that is the jurisdiction where this particular argument resides.
 Watch Video
Medicare's 40th Anniversary
Posted by on November 15, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 40th year of Medicare. Two years ago, the 108th Congress passed significant legislation that filled in a missing link in Medicare. That missing link was the missing part of prescription drugs.
Significant changes in the Medicare program are going to result in more services, more coverage, and more responsiveness from a program that, quite frankly, no longer lived up to what it needed to do, which is taking care of our seniors in a timely fashion, allowing them access to prescription drugs on a timely basis.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of people are complaining that there are too many plans and it is too complex. Two years ago we heard the opposite, that not enough plans would show up, and that it would be a default position that would only be offered to Medicare beneficiaries.
The situation is complex because health care is complex, but these are important decisions. I urge people over this holiday season coming up to sit down with their mothers and fathers, to sit down with the Medicare beneficiaries in their families and help them work through this process. I think we will find this to everyone's betterment.
 Watch Video
Medicare Part D - Special Order (2)
Posted by on November 15, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank him for once again bringing this subject to the floor of the House.
It is a timely subject. Here we are celebrating Medicare's 40th birthday; and, Mr. Speaker, as the Members will recall, 2 years and 1 week ago we actually passed this legislation, on November 22 of 2003, which now has become the Medicare Modernization Act and with it the prescription drug plan.
Mr. Speaker, I have been doing town hall events and informational groupings throughout my district, and my district is pretty diverse. I have been very fortunate. I have had someone there from CMS with me, and together I think we have been able to answer a lot of the questions that come up. I do not want to get ahead of the program that Dr. Gingrey has proposed for this evening, but the concept of the worksheet, the concept of prearranging some of the information in an organized fashion, is a critical one. It is so important because we are coming up on a time of year of celebration of holidays, Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday, when families are going to be together. It is a great opportunity for them to talk, after they have had all the football and turkey that they can handle, to sit down and talk about what are the changes that are coming up in this Medicare program.
The gentleman alluded to calling 1-800-Medicare. I must admit I have not had the courage to do that myself, but I do go on the Internet, and we can go into the plan selector part on www.Medicare.gov. They do ask for their Medicare number, but if they scroll down that page just a little bit, they can actually fill out the plan finder information without giving up any information, if they just want to check and see what is available.
I have done this for Texas. We have got in excess of 40 plans available to seniors in the Lone Star State, and they are good plans. Some of them come in with less of a premium and less of a deductible than what Medicare proposes. In fact, I have seen premiums as low as $10 and $20, and I have seen some programs with a zero dollar deductible.
A lot has been made about the so-called gap in coverage that occurs at some levels. And do remember, Mr. Speaker, we passed this legislation 2 years ago, and what were we trying to do? We knew we could not cover every last single person in this country, so we wanted to provide the greatest amount of coverage to those who were the poorest and those who were the sickest, and I think we did a good job in accomplishing that. But it does leave a gap in coverage, or at least the Medicare proposal, the proposal for the Medicare prescription drug plan, was to leave a gap. But, actually, there are some plans in Texas where, if they are willing to accept generics, there is, in fact, no gap in coverage. So there is complete coverage from the first dollar spent up and to the so-called catastrophic ranges.
I have had some people complain about the time frame that is available to sign up for this program. It starts today, and for the next 6 months people can sign up for any of the Medicare-eligible programs. Those who have not signed up by May 15, right now Medicare is proposing a 1 percent penalty per month. That will be 32 cents penalty the first month of June of 2006, and it will continue at a 1 percent per month increase thereafter.
But realistically, this should be thought of as insurance and not an entitlement. That is what I have tried to explain to my constituents when they say they do not like the idea that you are forcing me to sign up. It is a voluntary program. If you decide it is not for you, you are absolutely free not to sign up.
But when I was a physician and I offered health insurance to my employees, they would be expected to pay a small part of it. If they chose not to pay that part, they could opt not to take the insurance. But they could not just wait until they got sick and then say, I would like to sign up for the insurance. Otherwise, it would not be fair to the rest of the people who have been paying their premiums all along. The program is structured to look like commercial insurance. It is on purpose not scheduled to look like an entitlement, because it is not. It is insurance coverage for seniors who need help with paying for their prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I would just stress as a last point that when people evaluate these plans for their families or for themselves, that they look at cost, coverage, and they look at convenience. Many of the plans cost less than what Medicare has proposed.
The coverage part is important. You want to be certain that you pick a plan that covers the medicines that you are actually taking. Talk it over with your doctor. If your doctor is watching a problem like a mildly elevated blood pressure, be sure that those medications would likely be covered. Every plan lists on the Web site how many of the top 100 prescriptions covered by Medicare that particular plan covers. Most are in the high-90 range. I have not seen one less than 82 or 83 of the top 100 prescriptions covered by Medicare. But check out the coverage.
Finally, convenience. They will provide a pharmacy that is close by. If your neighborhood pharmacy is the one you want to use because they have a delivery boy you like, use that tool to help you decide which one of those pharmacies you want to use. There is also mail order.
There is a lot of flexibility in these plans. Yes, it is complicated. Health care is complicated in the 21st century. These are not easy decisions. Yet at the same time, Tom Brokaw called you the Greatest Generation. You beat the Nazis, solved the problems of the Great Depression, and solved a lot of the problems related to civil rights. Seniors can solve these problems as well.
This program will become streamlined over time. I am happy about things like disease management and physicals that will be offered now. It is good legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is good medicine.
 Watch Video
Rep. Burgess Secures Federal Funds for Local Projects on Two Appropriations Conference Reports
Posted by Michelle Stein on November 9, 2005
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, and the Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations conference reports. Congressman Michael C. Burgess voted in favor of both conference reports.
“I am very pleased that these worthy projects will receive funding,” said Congressman Michael C. Burgess (TX-26). “When fighting for precious federal, taxpayer dollars, I knew I had to be accountable for picking projects that were necessary to the safe growth and development of North Texas’ natural water resources.”
H.R. 2419, Energy & Water
The conference report passed 399 – 17 on the House floor. The Energy and Water (EW) Conference Report provides a total of $30.5 billion in budget authority for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Department of Interior including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy, and several independent agencies. This bill is $1 billion below the Senate passed level and 2% or $749 million above last year’s level.
Lewisville Dam Operations and Maintenance - $4.290 million
Funds will be used for repairing the service gates and the spillway; modernizing surrounding parks; resurfacing the embankment service road; and managing habitat restoration and archeological resources.
Grapevine Lake Operations and Maintenance - $3.349 million
Funds will be used to sandblast and repaint the service bridge; maintain the shoreline; modernize surrounding parks; and restore habitat restoration.
Ray Roberts Lake Operations and Maintenance - $963,000
Funds will be used for repairs to the Overlook Part that will bring the facilities up to the Corps of Engineers Justified Level of Service stands, and repairs to the shoreline damage from erosion.
Texas Water Allocation Assessment - $1.44 million
Funds will enable the Corps to assist Texas water regions in determining if existing water can be better allocated to support more balanced water use in light of future needs.
Upper Trinity River Basin Study - $800,000
Funds will be used to continue feasibility studies for the Dallas Floodway and Stemmons North Industrial Corridor.
Fort Worth Central City - $7 million
Funds will enable the construction of a by-pass channel and appurtenant structures to control flood flows along the Clear Fork and West Fork or the Trinity River to provide ecosystem restoration and recreation facilities.
Little Fossil Creek, Halthom City (Section 205) - $270,000
Funds will be used for flood control projects including the widening and deepening the channel for Little Fossil Creek; installing erosion control features where necessary; and building a multi-use recreational trail along the west side of the creek.
H.R. 2862, Science, State, Justice and Commerce
The conference report passed 397 – 19 on the House floor. The report provides a total of $57.85 billion which was roughly $3 billion less than the President requested by $1.61 billion over fiscal year 2005.
The Science, State, Justice and Commerce Conference Report funds a wide range of federal agencies including the Department of Justice – which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Department of Commerce – which includes the Patent and Trademark Office, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Bureau of Census; Department of State; as well as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NSAS), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
“To feel secure is a basic tenet of life, and I wanted to work to bring funds back to our men in blue” said Congressman Michael Burgess. “The $150,000 that will go to the City of Denton Police Department will allow them to acquire the necessary equipment for them to continue to keep us all safe.”
The funding for the City of Denton Police Department will go toward the purchase of a Live Scan digital fingerprinting system. This device will allow for the immediate transmission of fingerprint records to the Department of Justice of other authorized receiving agency.
Iraq Special Tribunal - House Resolution 534
Posted by on November 9, 2005
Madam Speaker, the path to a free and democratic Iraq has been dangerous and protracted. Yet, after years of oppression, the Iraqis are closer than ever to having a nation ruled by their people instead of a tyrant.
For the safety of our Nation, I believe we must continue to support the sovereign actions of this developing nation.
Current news headlines are showcasing the trial of Saddam Hussein and what danger accompanies that activity. His trial is important, but a strong, independent Iraqi judicial system is of greater importance.
As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to uphold and support this principle, especially in a land that has been so tormented. The Iraqi Special Tribunal has been impaneled to bring swift and impartial justice to both the victims and the nation of Iraq. I urge Members to support H.R. 534, recognizing the importance and credibility of an independent Iraqi judiciary.
 Watch Video
Accountability in Congress
Posted by on November 9, 2005
Mr. Speaker, indeed, tomorrow this House will hear the debate on the budget resolution, and I think the country needs to hear the debate. I think the country needs to see that all of us in Congress, on both sides of aisle, are accountable. They need to see that we are results driven. We are results oriented, and they need to see some success from this body.
Now, our commitment, my commitment is to the hard-working Americans who pay taxes in this country. I think we have an obligation to the taxpayers of this country to redesign government when necessary, to reform programs if they are not working well, and always ensure that those Federal programs, those Federal agencies are working at peak performance.
Mr. Speaker, it would not be saying too much to say we need to rebuild some confidence in America. If we can cut some red tape then I think we should. Where local solutions will work, we need to empower local authorities to envision and utilize those solutions. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was addressing our committee yesterday and talked about preparation for pandemic flu and he was challenged and someone said, Mr. Secretary, you need to have a plan. Do not let the local people have to come up with a plan. And the Secretary does have a plan. But he said, local activities are going to be important as well. You do not need the Secretary of HHS telling every school district across the country when they can and cannot open their doors.
I could not agree with him more. Mr. Speaker, we need to modernize some of our Federal programs, where we are using tin-can telephones when the rest of the world is using satellite communications, and it is not right. We need to reform government. We need to set priorities. And sometimes that means making some tough choices. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we need to learn from the past, learn from the past, whether it be the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918, learn from the past of previous wars this country has fought; but along those same lines, we need to utilize that information from the past to plan for our future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, 2 weeks ago, my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, spent 3 days, 3 days on a markup to produce a plan, a plan that reforms government and leads to greater value for dollars spent, particularly in the Medicaid program. We held hearings through the spring and the summer leading up to this legislation. We heard testimony from Members; leaders of the National Governors Association, a body of 35 bipartisan Governors in this country, who came to us with a set of principles and said we had a lot of ideas that we put out on the table, but here are seven things that everyone of us, 35 out of 35 agreed upon.
And, Mr. Speaker, we crafted legislation that incorporated at least six of those seven principles. We left out some judicial reforms that I would have liked to have seen in the bill, but maybe that is for another day. But those other reforms were crafted in legislation and then we spent 3 days, 3 days on the Committee of Energy and Commerce talking about that.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I think we have crafted a legislation that is going to save Medicaid for the poor, the truly infirm, the people that really need it in this country. The default position was to see more and more people turned off the Medicaid roles by the States as they could know longer afford to keep up with the expenditures in Medicaid. So we are going to provide more services. And maybe we are going to deliver a little greater value. And, Mr. Speaker, if that means that a few dollars are saved in the process, well, I am all for that.
But consider the numbers involved here. Medicaid, with no reform, is going to grow at a rate of 7.3 percent over the next 5 years. With the reforms we put in place, Medicaid is going to grow at a rate of 7 percent over the next 5 years. We are talking about a miniscule amount of savings by adding some value to the program as it exists today. As a consequence, more patients will be served by this program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know, because I sat in that markup for 3 days, I know right now it is popular to vilify the productive segment of American society. I have heard it done from every angle. There is angst, genuine angst over reinvesting in the productive segment of American society. We hear it all the time, why $55 billion was given to people who really do not need it.
But, Mr. Speaker, those are the taxpayers. Those are the people who create the jobs. I know, because I was one three short years ago. That 38 percent tax rate I paid on my business allowed me to employ 50 people in my town of Lewisville, Texas. It allowed me to purchase equipment for my practice. But what do we hear out of the other side? They want that $55 billion back, but that $55 billion that we reinvested produced $262 billion for the American Treasury this year in additional tax revenue. So they would have to double the tax and double it again to even approach the amount of money.
Well, this is the default position on the other side. This fall is not the time for Democrats to roll out positive agenda, said a House Democrat aide. That is a shame. We need their ideas. We need their enthusiasm. We need their energy. I look forward to this debate tomorrow. I think at the end of the day we are going to have a good product for the American people.
 Watch Video
The President and the War on Terror
Posted by on November 9, 2005
And with that I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who, by the way, last August joined with me over in Iraq where we saw some extraordinarily interesting things, one who performs so well for the people from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this hour, for being here. I know the gentleman has been a little bit under the weather, and I was concerned about his voice holding up for the whole time, but I am so glad he was talking about this issue.
Mr. Speaker, just the other day I pulled out the joint resolution from the 107th Congress. I would point out that the 107th Congress was the term before either the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) or myself was in Congress. This was the joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. It is really quite an interesting document. It is instructive to read through this document.
To be sure, there is mention of weapons of mass destruction, but there is also a good deal of discussion of Iraq being in breach of its international obligations, failure to follow United Nations resolutions, oppression of their own people, using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and, perhaps very interestingly, the violation of Public Law 105-338 which was passed in a previous President's administration in 1998 where it was a sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. That was passed in 1998, and we had to wait until 2003 to have a President who had the courage to actually execute that. I am glad we have a President who had that wisdom, because I would not like to think of the world in 25 or 30 years time had we not taken the effort that has been undertaken in Iraq.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is quite right. We were in Iraq in August. It was my fourth trip there. Boy, big steps. Every time I go to that country, it is incredible the amount of work that has been accomplished, hard work in sometimes tough, tough climatic conditions, the weather is hot in the summer, cold in the winter, dusty all year-round, and then of course the constant threat of danger from terrorists and insurgents who live in that country.
But the actual quote that the gentleman was talking about from the judges, I think they were referencing the beginnings of the trial of Chemical Ali, the man who was responsible for the killing of the Kurds in Halabja, and he was accused of killing 180,000 Kurds. Chemical Ali's defense of that was, it was not one bit over 100,000, and I do not know why you continue to lie about it. So perhaps he will get his day in court soon. I hope that is true.
Mr. Speaker, I had been on the Floor earlier tonight talking about the debate that we are going to have on the budget, and I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) has referenced some of those points. I do get so frustrated, and the group that was here the hour before us, continuing to vilify the productive sector of our society, the productive segment of our society that provides the tax revenue for us to be able to do all of those free market capitalism things that the gentleman from Iowa referred to, all of those things that we want to do that are good things for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. All of those things are made possible because of the productive segment of society. This angst over the $55 billion that was returned to the most productive segment in society in May of 2003, legislation that I voted for and I believe the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) voted for, this $55 billion they desperately want to have back. But what has that $55 billion that we passed in May of 2003, what has that given us? It has given us 262 billion additional dollars in tax revenue for fiscal year 2005, the fiscal year that just ended on September 30.
So, Mr. Speaker, to get back the benefit of that $55 billion that we reinvested in the American economy, we would have to raise taxes, not that $55 billion, but you would have to double that and double that again to get the same number of dollars back to the Federal Treasury that the tax relief provided in May of 2003.
I think one of the most telling things I have seen in the past several days as we prepare for the debate was a quote from Roll Call from just yesterday. This fall is not the time for Democrats to roll out a positive agenda, said a House Democrat aid. That is some of the most unfortunate language that I have heard since coming to this House a year-and-a-half ago. If the other side is so bereft of ideas, if they are intimidated or frozen by their leadership, if they are afraid to show up for the debate, then that is truly one of the saddest comments on this body and this country.
Because we need their ideas. We need their enthusiasm, we need their participation. I think, Mr. Speaker, hopefully, over the days and weeks to come, we will see more of that. We will see more of a willingness to have and to engage in debate, and not just the talking points that are in the top drawer of your desk. We can have talking points read to us by a commentator on CNN.
We do not need people to come down here and read their talking points, we need them to come down here where really it should be the free exchange of ideas. This should be the marketplace of great ideas in this country where they are talked about and debated. So I would welcome the opportunity if the other side would some day wish to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) has some other very important data that he wants to share with us, and I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a person who has become a good friend, and such a good friend that he is over working at night in his office and he sees me having a little difficulty with my voice and comes over to help me out. That is the kind of camaraderie we have here. We have seen a lot of Iraq together, and we do see it through the same eyes, and I appreciate his 4 trips over there and my 3 trips over there, and each time we are there, the troops appreciate it. But I can tell my colleagues that we appreciate them a great, great deal, and it is an honor to be with them at a time like that.
 Watch Video
Hearing on Pandemic Flu
Posted by on November 8, 2005 Opening Statement Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Hearing on Pandemic Flu November 8, 2005 Mr. Chairman, I believe that this hearing comes at a pivotal moment as our government gears up to address a potential pandemic influenza outbreak. On November 1, President Bush outlined broad principles of a national strategy to prepare for the risk of pandemic flu. Secretary Leavitt, I am especially interested to hear from you about lessons learned from your trip overseas to areas already hard-hit by avian flu. I am hopeful that the plan this government has developed takes into account containment strategies that may be working in other countries to halt the spread of this disease in poultry. If we can get a handle on the animal to animal transmission, hopefully we can reduce the probability that H5N1 will change into a disease characterized by more efficient human to human transmission. Outside of animal health countermeasures and greater disease surveillance, I agree with President Bush that we must fully prepare for the potential of a human outbreak of some variant of H5N1. Stockpiling vaccine and anti-virals will be essential to this. I think that it will be important as well to discuss how the national plan treats matters such as intellectual property as we seek to increase surge production capacity. I am pleased to see that companies such as Roche have been proactive and have begun discussions with other companies to determine whether they have the capacity and the ability to produce an anti-viral such as Tamiflu. The private sector will play an essential role in our preparedness strategy and we have to ensure that they have the ability to participate in any national plan. Because of that, I believe that it is essential that we also address liability issues that confront manufacturers. We must address this issue immediately should the government need to call on manufacturers to ramp up production of vaccines or anti-virals. The threat of pandemic flu is greater than any public health threat this country has faced in many years. I believe it is our responsibility to fully inform the American people we serve about the threat faced by this possible outbreak, truthfully and with a full accounting of the facts. It is also our responsibility to prepare the American people the best we can for a potential outbreak. We must do this with all due haste because the alternative of being unprepared is too chilling to consider. |
Latest from twitter
Get the most up to date news from me on Twitter.
Five things you need to know about the #COVID19 from @DrNancyM_CDC https://t.co/SOUwnXj9AB
Katherine Johnson was a pioneer and inspiration to young women around the world. Her legacy will live on for genera… https://t.co/FwAKIYXlPk
"Entrepreneurship is the backbone of the American economy and minority-owned businesses are no exception to that fa… https://t.co/g2ReRiewHm
. @CDCgov announced an initiative to help labs in rural communities improve diagnostic excellence through… https://t.co/rMDvYlPdkt
With the announcement of another confirmed #COVID19 case, I want to thank the over 300 U.S. Public Health Commissio… https://t.co/qf9ddh9nLN