Indiana Township woman to testify at Senate hearing about lowering prescription drug prices |

Indiana Township woman to testify at Senate hearing about lowering prescription drug prices

Joe Napsha

An Indiana Township woman who suffers from multiple chronic conditions is scheduled to testify Wednesday before a Senate hearing in Washington, D.C., about how she deals with the high cost of prescription medications she needs.

Barbara Cisek of Rural Ridge, who suffered a stroke and deals with diabetes and migraine headaches, is to testify before Sen. Robert Casey, D-Scranton, on the difficulty patients face in affording their medications. Cisek, who lives on a fixed income, receives her prescription drug coverage through Medicare and typically spends $500 per month on prescription medications and over-the-counter supplies.

Casey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging, wants to pass legislation to allow the safe importation of prescription drugs, allow Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices and enhance transparency with respect to prescription drug prices, his office said Monday.

Of the more than 59 million seniors and people with disabilities with Medicare, half of them live on low, fixed incomes of less than $26,200 per year. Prescription drugs represent $1 of every $5 spent on health care among people with Medicare, Casey said in a statement.

The hearings are scheduled to continue on Thursday in an effort to advance solutions to cut prescription drug prices.

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.