in the healthcare area. i have a county the size of delaware with one community that would like to say it has 2500 people. it does have a hospital. but when you have a rural community, rural county that big with that small of a small, it's difficult to keep a doctor without at least a p.a. there, the hospital has to close. and if that hospital closes, emergency care is 80 miles away. not a likely story and most of the places, and we need to make sure that those things are covered. i've appreciated getting to share those with you over the period of time. i was always curious as to why you left a very successful practice and were willing to come back here and try to make a difference, and i want to

congratulate you on the difference that you have made. now one of the questions i'd ask you is, why are you willing to leave a place with so much responsibility and background and capability to be willing to be the secretary of health and human services? >> thank you, senator. when i think about the mission of the department of health and human services, which is to improve the health, safety, and well-being of the american people, it is what i've literally spent my life trying to do, and so to have the opportunity to participate, if confirmed, to be serving as the secretary of health and human services and to try to guide that organization in a direction that would further fulfill that mission, i can think of anything more exciting or fulfilling. >> well i think you have the background for doing that, too,

with a wide range of experience you had between the different practices and hospitals, and then coming here and going through a number of different committee situations. but what you're about to go through is a rather intense, and that is followed by probably the most productive part, if senators happen to read the answers, and that is why we get to do written questions as well, which we hope you will provide a rapid response on. but those aren't nearly as much fun for the panelists, because they aren't in public. i'll move to some questions that are a little bit more related here. because we begin serious and the challenging task of restoring these health insurance markets, which are teetering on the brink now, some are collapsing. some counties you can't get coverage in wyoming there is only one provider, and it's my understanding that the incoming administration may have the ability to make some key policy

changes immediately, some of the most critical changes for short-term stabilization of the markets might include reducing the number of special enrollment periods in requiring upfront verification, or aligning grace periods for nonpayment of premiums with state law. my understanding from those in the insurance business is that it is targeted actions by the department of health and human services may provide some meaningful changes that could impact premiums for the next year. are those some options that you might consider? >> absolutely, the insurers, as i think the chairman mentioned, are deciding right now as they come forward in march and april what the premium levels will be for 2018, calendar year 2018. what they need to hear from all of us, i believe, is a level of support and stability in the market. the kinds of things that make it so that they are able to provide product to patients out there. you mentioned that there are counties in your state where

there is only one provider. there are five states in this nation where there is only one insurance provider, one-third of the counties in this country only have one insurance provide provider. we must, as policymakers, and end as folks administering these programs, we must ask ourselves, what is going on? what are the problems out there? that may work for the insurers in certain instances, it may work for government, but that doesn't work for patients. so we keep the patients at the center of all of this we will get to the right answer, and that is what i hope to do with each and every one of you. >> i appreciate that, and i got to work for years with senator kennedy on biologics and bio similars, and having the requirements for the bio similarity has needed some additional information. the fda has issued guidance documents since the law passed, but they haven't set policy on interchangeability with the reference to that.

i was concerned that in 2017, having gone through nearly two full presidential terms, that just yesterday we finally got a draft of the fda's interchangeability policy. i will ask that question, since my time has expired, in writing. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. >> senator sanders. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and congressman price, thanks for being here and thanks for the conversation the other day. congressman, on may 7th, 2015, let me begin by saying, all of us know that we have come through a very unusual election process. president-elect trump received almost 3 million votes less than second clinton, but he won the electoral college. he is going to be inaugurated this week. he won a number of states by rather slim margins. during the course of his

campaign, mr. trump said over and over again that he would not cut social security, not cut medicare, not cut medicaid. let me read some quotes. on may 7th, 2015, mr. trump tweeted, "i was the first and only potential g.o.p. candidate to state there will be no cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid." on april 18th, 2015 he said, "every republican wants to do a big number on social security, they want to do it on medicare, they did want to do it on medicaid, and we can't do that, and is not fair to the people that have been paying and for years, and now all of a sudden they want to be cut." august 10th, 2015, mr. trump said, "i will save medicare, medicaid, and social security without cuts. we have to do it. people have been paying in for years, and know many of these candidates want to cut it." march 29th, 2015, trump said,

"you know, paul ryan wants to knock out social security, knock it down, way down, he wants to knock medicare way down, and frankly, two things, number one you are going to lose the election, if you're going to do that, i'm not going to cut it. and i'm not going to raise ages, and i'm not going to do all of the things they want to do. but they want to really cut it, and they want to cut it very substantially. the republicans. and i'm not going to do that." point being, this is not something he said in passing. i think it is likely he won the election because millions of working-class people and senior citizens heard him say he was not going to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. congressman price, a very simple question. is the president-elect, mr. trump, going to keep his word to the american people and not cut social security, medicare, and medicaid? or did he lie to the american people? >> i haven't had extensive discussions with them about the

comments that he's made, but i have no reason to believe that these that he has changed his position. >> so you are telling us to best of your knowledge that mr. trump will not cut social security, medicare, and medicaid? >> as i say, i have no reason to believe that position has changed. >> congressman price, quoting mr. trump again, or at least paraphrasing, just last week he said, roughly speaking, pharma is getting away with murder, you recall that. >> i do. >> there are many of us on the side of the aisle who are working on legislation that would do at least two things. number one, and the absurdity of the american people being ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry, who two years ago made the top five companies made $50 billion in profits, while 1 out of 5 americans can't afford to fill the prescriptions or doctors right. will you and will the

president-elect to join us in legislation we are working on, which number one will allow medicare to negotiate prices with the drug companies and lower prices, and number two, allow the american people to bring in less expensive medicine from canada and other countries, is that something you will work with us on? >> the issue of drug pricing and drug costs is one of great concern to all americans. i think it's important to appreciate that a couple of areas we have had significant success, whether it's in the generic area where costs are significantly less and they have bank, -- >> you are aware, sir, we are paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, you don't disagree, do you? >> i think that's the case, i would have to look at the statistics. i think there are a lot of reasons for that and if we get to the root cause of what that is, then i think we can actually solve the bipartisan it way. >> one of the root causes is that every other major country on earth negotiates a drug prices with the pharmaceutical

industry. in ourhe drug companies can raise their prices, today they could double their prices, there is no law to prevent them from doing that. will you work with us so that medicare negotiates prices with the pharmaceutical industry? >> you have my commitment to work with you and others to make certain that the drug pricing is reasonable and that individuals across this land have access to the medications that they need. >> that wasn't quite the answer to the question that i asked. congressman price, the united states of america is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. canada does it, every major country in europe does it. do you believe that health care is a right of all americans, whether they're rich or their poor? should people come up because they are americans, be able to go to the doctor when they need to, be able to go into a hospital because they are

americans? >> we are a compassionate society -- >> know we are not a compassionate society, in terms of our relationship to foreign workers and people, our record is worse than any other country and earth. we have the highest rate of child poverty than any other major country, and half of our senior older workers have another nothing set aside for retirement. so i don't think compared to other countries we are particularly compassionate. but my question is, in canada and other countries, all people have the right to get health care, do you believe we should move in that direction? >> if you want to talk about other countries health care systems, there are consequences to the decisions that they've made, just as there are consequences to the decisions we've made. i believe, and i look forward to working with you, to make sure that every single american has access to the highest quality coverage and care that is possible. >> access to does not mean that they are guaranteed health care. i've access to buying a $10 million home, i don't have the money to do that. >> and that is why we believe it's appropriate to put in place a system that gives every person

the financial feasibility to be able to purchase the coverage that they want for themselves and for their family, again, not what the government forces them to buy. >> but thank you very much. >> thank you, senator sanders. senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman, welcome to the committee, having worked with you over the year years, i find you to be very, very knowledgeable, very upfront, very straightforward, very honest, and somebody who ry understands health care system in this country. and you are just perfectly situated to be able to help turn it around. we hear a lot from our other side about how bad the system is, and so forth, and i'm going to tell you i don't think it's very good myself. and we've got to work on it and get it done right, but boy, i'd sure like to have you right there helping to get it done. because you're one of the really premier people in this whole congress and in the world, as a matter of fact, understanding what needs to be done, and yet

recognizing the problems of getting it done. now, dr. price, some of my colleagues have criticized you for your health-related stock holdings, while serving in the house. now, not only do house rules not prohibit members from trading stocks, but it is also not an uncommon practice for members of congress. in fact, there are members on this committee who as i understand have traded individual health stocks while serving on this committee. now this appears to be nothing more than a hypocritical attack on your good character. and i personally resent it. because you've always disclosed. but let me just say this, can you confirm that you have always followed the law relating to trading in stocks while serving as a member of congress? >> thank you, sir. everything that we have done has been a aboveboard, transparent, ethical, and legal, and as you know in the members of this committee know, there's an organization called the office of government ethics that looks at all of our for every cabinet

nominee, looks at all of the possessions, all the holdings and the like, and makes a recommendation as to what that cabinet member must do in order to make certain that there is no conflict of interest. the office of government ethics has looked at our holdings and given advice about what would need to be done in terms of divesting from certain stock holdings to make sure that there is no conflict of interest. we have read those and agreed to those i'm assigned to those, that document is online for everybody to see. so that everybody is absolutely certain that there will be no conflict of interest whatsoever. >> thank you and you follow their advice? >> absolutely. >> dr. price, the collapse of obamacare has exacerbated our nation's health care problems. too frequently my colleagues and i have seen european idealism strangle functional insurance design with cost prohibitive measures. and despite these failed reforms, i don't think we can lose sight of the broader health

system that is at risk. for example, diseased patients do not have access to life-saving treatment because policies that stem from obamacare prevent investments in innovative therapies that can cure and save lives. now this is an issue that i'm deeply passionate about. dr. price, what steps do you believe will improve the pipeline for rare diseases therapies to bring treatments and cures to patients in desperate need of hope? >> the orphan drug act, which passed 30 years ago or so -- >> my first bill, by the way. >> and it really has revolutionized the ability to treat rare diseases, and what he did is make the united states the leader in coming forward with treatments for rare diseases. and i think that there are things that we can do in terms of patent protection in terms of liability, in terms of incentive is asian, resources to be able to encourage the discovery of

cures for rare diseases. >> we have a lot more drugs coming through, even blockbuster drugs that can because of that little bill. we put some incentives in effect, and all of a sudden there is an explosion in orphan drugs for population groups of less than 200,000 people. it's a pretty important little bill. it cost a lot of money, but it was a republican bill. >> one of the success stories for public policies in the country. >> dr. price, one of the central duties of the hhs secretary is to be diligent and thoughtful when considering federal regulation being necessary, and assessing whether the regulations impede research, development, and innovation. over the years, the regulatory infrastructure guiding dietary supplements has changed dramatically. do you recognize the importance of dietary supplements in helping americans reach and maintain healthy lifestyles? >> absolutely. >> and will you commit to me and other members of the committee

to work to ensure appropriate regulation and implementation of dietary supplement health and education act, so that we can protect public health while assuring consumers continue to access safe products? >> this is one of those areas where it's incredibly important to gain the information that you referred to, together the individuals that know the most about this area, whether it's consumers, whether it's those providing the product to market. make certain that they are up attractions for unadulterated products, but that it's absolutely vital that we get it right. >> i'll tell you this, i have to commend donald trump for picking you. you are clearly one of the premier people in all of congress who understands the problems of health care. and you have the professional background that i don't know any other member of congress can match to help solve the problems that we have. we've got a real messy situation

here. and obamacare has not really helped. do you think obamacare has helped? >> i think some of the things that have occurred with the passage of the aca have approved have improved certain areas. the coverage has certainly improved. but the consulates as of that, that many people as i mentioned before have coverage but they don't have care, so there are so many things about just the decision-making process, who decides about our health care? should it be the federal government or should it be patients and families and doctors, and we certainly believe the latter as opposed to the former. >> i take it you believe that getting health care closer to the people is a far better thing than everybody pontificating from washington, d.c.? >> i think the more involvement with patients and families and doctors can have in medical decisions, the higher quality care we will have. >> in my earlier life one of the things i did was a medical liability defense lawyer defending doctors, hospitals, nurses, health care providers, et cetera. what do you think we should do

about medical liability? >> this is a really difficult challenge because it's not just the malpractice rates that doctors or hospitals pay, but it does the practice of defensive medicine, which is the things that physicians do that don't hurt anybody but they test and procedure and examination to students that aren't messerli needed to either make a diagnosis. it shows up in their history so that if they are called into a court of law they can say to the judge and jury i don't know what you want me to do because i did every thing, when in fact everything is rarely necessary to treat or diagnose. if you look at it in that light and try to focus on decreasing the practice of defensive medicine to the benefit of patients, than i think we can get to the right answer in there and there is an exciting opportunity that have been bipartisan in the past. >> thank you, sir, i think you are a great nomination. >> thank you, senator hatch, senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, representative price we are grateful you are here and thanks for the visit to our office. i wanted to highlight something

we probably don't spend enough time highlighting or talking about, and that's the full protections of what was known as the original bill being patient protection and affordable care act. we have a lot of shorthand terminology since then. and i know you and i have a basic disagreement, i think it's important to be candid about that. i think what a lot of people have forgotten about, and the chairman had a chart earlier that outlined the categories of americans that have health insurance by virtue of various programs. i think the number he had on the poster about the number of americans in the employer-sponsored coverage category, i think it was 178 million people. that is a lot of folks with coverage who had coverage before, most of them i guess would have had coverage before, the legislation. and after, meaning they are

paying their premiums and that coverage for it but they didn't have protections that only came with the passage of the legislation. we know that somewhere between 11 and 12 million people have purchased health insurance through the individual marketplace. and so i want to ask you a couple of questions about those basic protections. that are now law, that were not allowed before. i think you'd agree with me, and you know from your practice, that you meet remarkably inspiring people in your work, and once in a while, here in the senate, we do as well. probably don't take enough time to have those opportunities. but one of the people i met in the lead up to the legislation passing was stacy ritter from manheim, pennsylvania. she didn't have a personal challenge, it was the challenge faced by her two daughters, they were four years old, madeline and hannah. and as she said, as stacy said about her daughters, she said

that they would be at that time, before the passage of the bill, punished and rejected it because they had the misfortune of developing cancer as a child. in her basic problem was the caps on treatment. so the first question i would ask in terms of your work as secretary of health and human services should you be confirmed would be, will you commit to maintaining the protections that ensure that no child, no child, is denied insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions? >> well i think pediatric cancer is one of those things that is remarkably challenging. i remember when i was in my residency and did a rotation on the pediatric orthopedic ward, and so many of those children had cancer, and before i began that the rotation i almost dreaded going that month because i was worried about the severity of the challenges that i would

meet. i tell you, it was one of the most uplifting months i spent in medical school, and that was because the children were so uplifting. absolutely we need to make certain that every single child has access to the kind of coverage that they need and the care that they need, and there are a number of ways to do that and i look forward to working with you to make that happen. >> i heard the word yes there. secondly, and it's really hard to believe that we even have to ask a question about this next topic, which is victims of domestic violence. it was the state of the law prior to the passage of the legislation, that victims of domestic violence were considered americans without a pre-existing condition. it still the law in some states that they are not protected. so question number two is, will you commit to maintaining the protections that ensure that victims of domestic violence

will not be discriminated against when purchasing health insurance? >> i think it's absolutely vital that victims of domestic violence and others, anybody, we need a system in place that ensures that individuals are either not priced out of the market because they get a bad diagnosis, or not eligible or able to purchase coverage that works for them. >> i want to interrupt. i get hung up on priced out of the market. what i'm asking for is an ironclad guarantee that that circumstance, that horrific circumstance, will never be a bar to coverage, treatment, or care. >> it certainly shouldn't be, and as you well know, i think if i'm fortunate to be confirmed, that's an administrative role in the policy decision that the legislators would make. >> i think we can agree on that. number three, we maintain to committing the protections that prohibits discrimination on health insurance on the basis of

health status or disability? >> again, i think it's absolutely imperative that we have a system in place that works for patients, and anybody not being able to gain access to the coverage that they want or need is not a system that works for patients. >> and i will follow-up with more questions, what i'm getting at here is that we had a states of the law before passage of the aca where individuals like that, whether they happen to have a child with a pre-existing condition, even if their parents were paying premiums for years, and insurance, they could literally say you have a pre-existing condition or your child is and you can't get coverage. women were discriminated against because they were women. just a remarkable stain on america that we allowed allow o happen. my concern now, though, is not just a series of concerns that you have proposed as a member of the house, and what you could do

as second, but i just heard earlier that the three areas that will be of focus in whatever replacement plan there is, i am anxious to see it, would be, and i wrote them down. i think chairman alexander wanted to take off the table, and that's a good thing, medicare. but i heard that there will be three targets. that's my word, of course. the individual market, medicaid, and employer-sponsored coverage. so i hope, if employer-sponsored coverage is a subjective change, that will ensure all those protections that are in place right now, and that's why i am asking those questions but i will follow-up more in writing or if we get another round, mr. chairman, put me on record as incorporating by reference everything ranking member murray said about questions and additional rounds. thank you. >> thank you, senator casey,

duly noted and i appreciate your using your 7 minutes to ask questions. >> senator isaacson has deferred to senator paul. >> is a fellow physician and as a fellow physician who did some of my training at brady, congratulations, and i wish everybody at the committee could come there and see working there, see what it's like to work in one of our nations biggest charity hospitals. often doing work that is just incredible. gunshot wounds, compound fractures of the femur, you name it. and i remember being there as a student and as an intern some, and we used to always calculate how many hours and divide our earned income and say boy, we wish we could get minimum wage. i think it is important that we get somebody with that kind of clear reasoning and critical skills to be in charge of our government. both knowing about the medical aspect as well as the public policy aspect. i think what i regret about this kind of hearing, and i think

what a lot of people in america regret about it, is sort of the vitriol in the rancor and the partisanship that should go into something that we all kind of want the same things. into question your motives, i think, is insulting.to questiony is insulting. the whole question of, and i guess this would be my first question to you, did you go into public service to enrich yourself or for public service? >> i have a passion for public service and a passion for people, and that's what guided our decision that some might think was a foolish decision for both of us. >> did you take a pay cut to go into public service? >> i didn't consider the reading numeration for public service. >> but i'm guessing it would have been a pay cut. i think we aren't separated that much of honor motives, i think we all want the most amount of insurance at the least amount of cost for people. we want people to get access to

health care. what are your motives? what are your goals? what should we do with the health care system, do you want more people to be insured, do you want more people to have health care, or do you think we disagree just on how we do it and not necessarily the motives? >> as i tried to lay out earlier, and i know time is short for everybody, but the principles that i think are absolutely imperative for health care system is one that's affordable for everybody, one that provides access to health care and coverage for everybody, one that is of the highest quality, that is responsive to patients, the system isn't any good if it's not responding to patients. one that incentivizes innovation, because it's the innovation that drives a high quality health care, and then one that ensures choices are made and preserved by patients. so patients ought to be the ones choosing who is treating them where, when, and the like. >> you, and us by extension, republicans by extension, have been accused of having no replacement ideas, no ideas for how to fix the system. approximately, how many bills do

you have that would be regarded as replacement bills or ways to improve the health insurance system in our health care? >> we've had one large-term bill since march or early 2009, and then beyond that, tens of pieces of legislation to address the health care issue. >> it's also been insinuated that america is this horrible, rotten place, that we don't have compassion, and i guess by extension, the physicians don't. as you worked as an emergency room physician or as he worked as a physician, did you always agree as part of your engagement in the hospital to treat all comers regardless of whether they had an ability to pay? >> that is one of the things we pride ourselves upon, and that is that anybody that showed up in need of care was provided that care, and that was true not only in our residency but in our private orthopedic practice as well. >> and it's interesting that those who say we have no compassion extolled the virtues of socialism, and you look at a country like venezuela, great resources and an utter disaster

where people can't eat, devolving into violence. i think it is important that we do have a debate in our country between socialism and communism and america and capitalism. one of the things that is extraordinary about our country is that two years ago, in 2014, we gave away $400 billion, privately, not the government, individually if you are churches charities, we are a incredibly compassionate society. often this was misplaced and sort of the wonky numbers of this number and that number within health care. how much we do help each other, not only do we help each other in our country, most, all that you have to physicians in my committee of bowling green have gone on international trips and done international charity work. and all of that is lost in saying that we are this heartless, terrible country. i would just argue the opposite. i think the greatness of our country and the greatness of the compassion of our country, we give away more than the gross domestic product of most of

these socialized countries around the world. so i think it is important. with regard to replacement, a couple of things. there are some big, broad ideas that i think would ensure more people. one is the idea of legalizing the sale of all types of insurance. under obamacare we made it illegal to sell certain types of inexpensive insurance. do you think we can ensure more people and help some of the people who actually don't get insurance under obamacare to get insurance if we would legalize the sale of more types of insurance? >> i think choice, as i mentioned, is absolutely vital, and i know that if we have as a principal, and as a goal, having patients have those choices, than i believe that patients will select the kind of coverage that they want. the choices that ought to be available to them are a full array of opportunities. >> do you think health savings accounts will help also some people that are not hell currently question works because i think health savings accounts and high deductible catastrophic coverage are things that make a whole lot of sense for many individuals, and we ought not force anybody to do anything, it

all ought to be a voluntary choice, but they ought to have the choice to be able to select them. >> one of the things you have had different legislation on and i'm a big supporter of his allowing individuals to join together in groups to buy insurance. do you think this has a possibility of what senator alexander talked about the millions of people in the individual market, i have great sympathy for that. i was a small physician with four employees, and if one employee were to get sick it could be devastating not only to them, but also to the economics of keeping them employed. but letting us join together into pools, where instead of me buying insurance as 1 of 4 people, i could buy it in a big group, maybe 100,000 people, maybe 1 million people, and currently the laws kind of prevent that. but you had some bills for expanding that, and i'm a big fan of that. could you mention some of the association health plans and how that might help some people to get insurance who don't have insurance currently? >> association health plans are one of those entities that would allow individuals who are economically aligned in some way to be able to purchase coverage together even though they don't

necessarily work together or are in the same group. individual health. at which i think is one of the secrets to be able to solve the individual and small-group market conundrum that we find ourselves and would allow anybody to pool with anybody else solely for the purpose of purchasing health coverage. it's not a new idea, the model for it is actually the blue shield plan that existed decades ago that allowed people to pool their resources together for major medical coverage for hospitalization. it just makes a lot of sense. it allows insurance to work the way it's supposed to work, which is to spread the risk, and then anybody's adverse health status doesn't drive up the cost for them or anybody else because the pool was large enough. >> thank you, senator paul. senator franken. >> i tell you how we get really big risk pool, being called medicare for everybody, that would be the biggest risk pool. dr. price, it was nice meeting you the other day.

did you enjoy meeting me? >> i did, i did. i enjoyed our discussion about her gray hair. >> dr. price, what is the leading cause of preventable death in the united states? >> i'll defer to you, you've obviously got it on the page in front of you. >> i actually knew this before i put it on the page. it's smoking. >> that hits home. i lost my dad, who was a lucky strike's smoker from world war ii, to emphysema. he prided himself on the fact that he never smoked a cigarette with a filter for years and years, and it was an incredible tragedy. >> i lost my dad, too. as a physician you may know, i guess you didn't, that smoking kills approximately 480,000 americans each year and totals $170 billion each year in health care costs.

and yet, between 1993 and 2012, you were a shareholder of tobacco, of big tobacco companies. meaning that you personally benefited from tobacco sales. meanwhile, you voted against landmark legislation in 2009 that gave the fda the authority to regulate tobacco. congressman price, you're a physician, which means you took the hippocratic oath, a pledge to do no harm. how do you square reaping personal financial gain from the sales of an addictive product that kills millions of americans every decade with also voting against measures to reduce the death toll inflicted by tobacco? >> well, it's an interesting question, senator, and it's a curious observation. i have no idea what stocks i

held in the '90s or the 2000s, or even now. all of these decisions for all of us, i suspect, or through mutual funds and through pension plans. i would bet, and i'd welcome a ion not bad here. i would suspect that in your pension plan that there are components of that that are held that may have something to do in some time in your history with tobacco. >> i find it very hard to believe that you did not know that you had tobacco stocks, i find it a little hard to believe that in the questions about your stock portfolio you've said you didn't know things. just over the last four years you traded more than $300,000 in health related stocks, while at the same time sponsoring advocating legislation that could affect the performance of those stocks. now we've talked a little bit

about the zimmer biomet, your broker, you say, you did know this, bought it on march 17th, 2016. you did introduce a bill later, a week later, on march 23rd, 2016. you say that you did not know then. that you had this stock. it was to delay a federal rule that would have reduce the profitability of the companies to delay a rule that would hurt the company. what i don't understand is once you found out that your broker bought it, you kept the stock. you purchased this 50,000 to $100,000 worth of stock in a biomedical company called innate immuno. the single largest purchase in the past three years, in a

private deal that was not made available to the public. and i find it absolutely amazing that you responded that you did not know that you got a discounted price. that is absolutely amazing, because we discussed this. >> by definition, i believe, that is the nature of a private placement offering. what i said to you and what i've said to others is that i paid exactly the same price as everybody else. i disclosed it. >> it was a private offering that only went to about 20 people, including your colleague, representative chris collins, his chief of staff, and a prominent d.c. lobbyist. and he reported 50 to $100,000 in profits on this purchase. it really begs credulity, sir, when you say you did not know that you got a discount on this. this was a private offering to a very small number.

when you have the chairman of the budget committee, when you have a congressman, his chief of staff, these sound like sweetheart deals. and i think that our job in this body and in congress and in government is to avoid the appearance of conflict. and boy, you have not done this. i want to talk just about your latest plan empowering patients first act. some of it is detailed in this article from "the new england journal of medicine," it is called care for the vulnerable versus cash for the powerful. trump's pick for hhs. i'll just read a random paragraph. prices record demonstrates less concern for the sick, the poor,

and the health of the public, and much greater concern for the economic well-being of their physician caregivers. and i would commend this to every member of this committee before making a vote. because what your plan does, one of the things is it gives a tax credit to americans who buy health insurance, it is no different for someone who is poor, someone who makes 20,000, 30,000, and to bill gates. it is an incredibly-regressive system. do you have about, you guys want to end the expansion of medicaid. that has people in minnesota scared out of their minds. look, i've heard a lot, oh, obamacare has been a disaster. first of all, you have to admit

that it has bent the cost curve. that the costs of health care in this country has grown less than it did in the previous ten years. it's also covered 20 million more people. but, forget them. you know, in 2008, i would go around the state of minnesota, in every vfw hall, in every cafe, i would see a bulletin board where it would have a burger bash or a spaghetti dinner for someone who had gone bankrupt because they had gone through their annual cap or their lifetime cap. i am very frightened about what you are going to do. and so are millions of american americans. and, frankly, i know that you do things that help physician

groups. you've put in provisions that would prevent these findings by efficiency and innovation, boards that would have to be cleared by physician groups. i see you as someone who is therefore the doctor, and that this is a cover for, this is not going to create access for all americans, what you talked about, the empowering patients first act. this is going to unravel something that has given a lot of americans peace of mind, knowing that their kids can stay on their health care until their 26. knowing that if they have a pre-existing condition, that won't stop them from getting

care. that's what this hearing should be about. and you're a smart man. >> senator, we are a minute ove over. >> okay, and my second round i will be a minute short. >> sure. >> thanks. >> you may be here by yourself. >> all be here with him. >> you know, -- >> thank you, senator franken. >> congressman price, since that question ended with him not giving you a chance to respond, do you have any response to senator franken? >> i would just say that this is one of the things that makes it difficult to reach a solution here in washington. the concerns that were expressed by the senator are valid concerns. the conclusions that he drew on

the policies that i've promoted and will continue to promote our absolutely incorrect. we all share a concern for the american people in how we best nick certain that they have access to the highest quality care that the world knows. and so i hope, and i understand why he's doing it, this is a political activity, i understand that. but i hope that we are able to work together if i'm given the privilege of leading and serving as the secretary of health and human services, to truly solve these difficult challenges that we have in our nation. >> congressman price, isn't it true that by the date of may 15th every year since you've served in congress you have had to make full disclosures of everything you've owned, everything your wife owns, what it's worth, when it was acquired, and what it was sold for? >> every single year we do a yearly financial disclosure in the house and it requires a monthly periodic transaction form that updates that if there is any dignity can change. >> isn't it true that every transaction that's been referred

to in questions of you were available to the public to find in the records of the senate ethics committee and the house ethics committee? >> absolutely and they remain so today. >> these are not discover things that were hidden, they are in fact something we did require you to disclose every year? >> there is not a single piece of information that i did to reveal to the public in a transparent process. >> isn't it true that transparency is an antiseptic that creates an environment where there is no current corruption customer unshine cures disease. >> isn't it correct that you worked throughout your career in the georgia senate, united states congress, and i'm sure you will as hhs secretary to always be transparent? >> absolutely, it's a homework homework into key, especially in health care, and in the services that hhs provides. >> is not true that you love your country, you love your job, and if you have the opportunity to be secretary of health and human services you will be doing anything you can to make sure there's never an appearance of any colic of interest whatsoever? >> without a doubt, and that is why i mention the government

office of ethics and the work that they do to look at everybody's holdings and assets who are scheduled to potentially serve in the cabinet, and then they make a recommendation, a very specific recommendation, that is also available to be seen online. and we have agreed to every single recommendation that they made to divest of whatever holdings we had that might even give the appearance of a possible conflict. >> mr. chairman, that is it. >> thank you, senator isaacson. senator bennett. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for the 7 minutes as well, and i should tell you that i have never shown a need, my knee, to any nominee before, dr. price came to my office, but he gave me some free medical advice and i'm grateful. it's terrible, but i will talk to you after it's over with. it's not because of you. >> i can't ask you, but i'm curious as to whether or not you've got an mri. >> today. congressman, i enjoyed our conversation and it's good to see you here. i know you've been chair of the

house budget committee, i know you're a male member of the tea party, have been a strong advocate of balancing the budget, introducing a balanced budget for a stronger america. what i've noticed is that after gaining control of the house, the senate, and the white house, the first order of business for the republican majority here has been to pass a budget resolution repealing the aca. in this budget resolution specifically authorizes $9 trillion in additional debt over the next ten years. it also rigs the bill in secret to block any point of order to the bill because that bill will increase the deficit. and let me read my colleague, smart guy who's here, senator paul, who astutely highlighted in his floor speech on january 4th, he said "the more things change the more they seem to say the same. republicans won back the white house, republicans control

the senate, republicans controlled the house. and what will be the first order of business for the new republican majority? to pass a budget that never balances. to pass a budget that will ask ad $9.7 trillion of new debt over ten years. this is a facsimile of his chart. is that really i'm a he asked, what we campaigned on? is that really what we can paint on? the quote goes on, why would we vote on a budget that adds $9.7 trillion to the debt? because we are in a hurry, we can't be bothered, it's just numbers. i was told again and again, swallow it, take it. they are just numbers. don't worry, it's not really a budget. and yet the legislation says it's a budget! "so this is what republicans are for, this is the blueprint that the republican party says they are four, $10 trillion worth of new debt, i'm not for it." said that honest man.

rand paul is right, the repeal law overrides two separate budget provisions already passed by the senate to prevent increasing the deficit by more than $10 billion, so i ask you, sir, are you aware that behind closed doors, republican leadership wrote into this bill that any replacement of the affordable care act would be exempt from senate rules that prohibit large increases to the deficit? >> as you may know, senator, i stepped aside as chairman of the budget committee at the beginning of this year, and so i wasn't involved in the writing of that. >> you have been the budget committee chairman during the rise of the tea party. you are a member of the tea party caucus. you have said over and over again as other people have that the reason you've come to washington is to reduce our deficit and reduce our debt. i assume you're aware, very well aware, of the vehicle that is being used to repeal the affordable care act. this is not some small piece of

legislation, this is the republican budget >> yes. i'm aware of the bill, yes. >> so do you support up budget that increases the debt by $10 trillion? >> what i support is the opportunity to use reconciliation to address the real challenges in the affordable care act and to make certain that we put in place at the same time a provision that allows us to move the health care system in a much better direction. >> do you support the budget that was passed by the senate republicans? to repeal the affordable care act that adds $10 trillion of debt to the budget deficit? >> well the reconciliation bill is yet to come, i support the process that allows for and provides for the fiscal year '17 reconciliation bill to come forward. >> will you commit today that any replacement plan for the affordable care act will not in any way contribute to our deficit or our debt? >> i commit to working with you to make certain that that happens. >> will you commit as a member of the tea party that no

replacement for this a dreadful obamacare that allegedly created this deficit and debt will add to the deficit and debt, will you commit to that, can you tell the tea party you are not going to increase the deficit by repealing the affordable care act? >> there are a lot of contributions to the debt and the deficit, as you know, senator. >> that's true, and you and i talked about that briefly. are you going to allow the repeal of the health care bill to be one of those contributors to our deficit into our debt? the cbo has said that repeal of the health care law could increase our deficit by up to $353 billion. that is what they've said, rand paul, senator paul, an honest man, has gone to the floor and said the first thing we are doing is passing a budget that increases it by $10 billion. what do you say to the tea party about that? or more important, people that live in colorado? >> what do i say to the folks in colorado and across this land is at the congressional budget office and the conclusions that

they reached on that are in a silo. they are looking at it as if nothing else happens following the repeal of the affordable care act. and so if you look at the whole constellation of things that will occur, i believe, in working with every member of congress, should i be given the privilege of serving as a secretary, we will make certain that it addresses the health care challenges that exist out there that are very, very real, and we look forward to working with you in committing to work with you on being as fiscally responsible as we can possibly be, because the debt on the deficit is a real challenge. >> with respect, and i have a lot for you, with respect, that is what every politician says about the cbo, it says the numbers aren't true, and then we just run up the debt and run up the debt and run up the debt. you know, almost the entire theory of case here, i think, from the republican party on the subject, has been that the health care law has increased cost, that the health care law has increased our deficit,

increased our debt, and i would hope that you could take a pledge today that would say that nothing you would advocate for that would pass or have the president-elect signed into law would add $1 to our deficit or our debt. >> i certainly hope that is a case, and again look forward to working with you to ensure that it is. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield my time. >> thank you, senator bennett. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. price, welcome. i come into, very much enjoyed our discussion on a wide range of health care issues in my office. many of us have expressed concern about what would happen to the millions of americans who are in the individual market of the aca on the exchanges. but there has been remarkably little today on what would

happen if congress took no action with regard to the individual market. could you give us your answer and as far as what you would see happening to the individual market if we do nothing? >> i appreciate that, and i appreciate the opportunity to come visit you, we had a wonderful conversation about the many, many different areas. the american people know this. they appreciate that the individual and small-group market where many of the millions, as the chairman pointed out, gain their coverag coverage, is breaking in many, many ways. we are in a downward spiral on being able to provide individuals the, any opportunity at all, so one-third of the counties in this nation have just one insurance provider. there are five states that have only one insurance provider. the premiums are going up for folks, the deductibles. i get calls almost weekly from my former fellow physicians, who

tell me that their patients are making decisions about not getting the kind of care that they need because they can't afford the deductible. if you are an individual author making 30, 40, $50,000 a year and your deductible is now $6,000 or $12,000 for a family, which is not unusual on the exchange, you may have an insurance card, it may have in a wonderful name of an insurance covenant, but you don't have any care because you can't afford the deductible. so people are denying themselves the kind of care that they need, and those are the things that we ought to be addressing, and again, i hope that in a bipartisan way we will be able to do that. >> thank you, i think that is very important point to clarify. that in the individual market, we are seeing double digit increases in premiums, higher deductibles, larger co-pays, and we are also seeing far fewer choices as more and more insurers give up and flee the

market. the co-ops have failed dramatically. all 23 of them are in financial trouble. only five are still operating. so for us to say that everything is going well with obamacare is just not accurate, and that is why i feel that we do need to fix the flaws of what is a well-intentioned but deeply-problematic law. i want to clarify another issue on the aca. there has been much debate on whether we should repeal the law with no replacement. i think most people rejected that idea. as you said, we don't want to pull the rug out from under people who are relying on the insurance that has been provided through the aca. another group has advocated repeal with a two or three year delay, i think that approach also doesn't work because it

creates a great anxiety for consumers. insurers would be unable to price their policies if they don't know what the rules are going to be. it's my understanding that your goal is to quickly pass a reform package that would provide access to affordable health insurance for all americans with more choices then we have now. is that accurate? >> absolutely. it is vital. we oftentimes don't talk also about the 20 million folks that still don't have any coverage out there. there are a lot of people that don't, and if we are responsible policymakers and administrators of policy, it's incumbent upon us to step back and say, why is that? what is going on that is making that happen for those 20 million who don't have coverage in spite of all these green things that were done. i would suggest that it's because the structure of what was done actually makes it

virtually impossible for many individuals to gain that kind of coverage. we, on the other hand, i believe it's important that we work together to put forward a system that actually allows come again, every single american to have the opportunity to purchase that kind of coverage they think is best for themselves and their family. >> so -- >> they call this the senate health committee, health, education, labor, and pensions, and the members of that committee quizzing dr. tom price, congressman, the republican congressman from georgia, and his nomination to be donald trump's secretary of health and human services, obviously an office i would have a lot to do in the reshaping of what is known as obamacare. >> and we should point out it's not a confirmation hearing, it's an important hearing because we are hearing for the first time potentially some indication about what un-new health care system or plan would look like from tom price, but his actual confirmation hearing is exacting a squeak, in the meantime we have a series of other hearings happen, so a lot to watch as we watch this team come together

ahead of the eggnog ration on friday. >> a very busy time that we will keep you updated on as best we can as they proceed in washington, and we will see you back here in an hour. >> "outnumbered" starts right now. >> fox news alert, four hearings underway on capitol hill, as senate committees grill president-elect's trump's cabinet picks, they include mr. trump's choice to lead the epa, oklahoma attorney general scott pruitt. as well as south carolina governor nikki haley, nominated to be the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. second of commerce pick, billionaire investor wilbur ross, and congressman tom price, mr. trump's choice for secretary secretary of health and human services. under especially intense scrutiny, as republicans work to repeal obamacare that we are monitoring all of these hearings and we will bring you breaking news as it develops. fox news alert, we are looking alive at the white house, where