By Marc Dann and Chris Geidner

It would be absurd, if it didn't make so much sense: a candidate who lost his race talking about why the winners should work to implement his plan.

Over the past months, we went to meetings and gatherings of all sorts, knocked on thousands of doors and visited every McDonald's in two counties for coffee. Everywhere we went, senior citizens offered their concerns and fears about the future impact of the high cost of prescription drugs.

Right now, we have a backward system. Seniors who can afford their prescriptions the least pay the most.

In response, we proposed P.S.-Ohio as a solution. This plan is modeled after the decade-old successful Pennsylvania program that makes prescriptions available to eligible seniors at a drastically reduced rate. Statistics show that 35 percent of Ohio's seniors have household incomes under the level that would entitle them to $6 prescriptions under the Penn. PACE program's requirements.

We took P.S.-Ohio out into the community and asked that people consider it.

People did consider it. Many people praised the program as "a real step" toward solving this problem. This dialogue brought out the best in people. Seniors who had good prescription coverage and people who weren't even old enough to participate in P.S.-Ohio were among the most enthusiastic about the program. Those people knew full well that there would be a cost to the state.

As the community began talking, the political criticisms began. Senior citizens are a dedicated voting population, and cynics claimed that such "pie-in-the-sky" plans were just election-time ploys. Others questioned the expense of such an undertaking. Some said we should wait for the federal government to solve the problem.

Despite the critics' cries, however, most running for the Ohio General Assembly heard the voters' concerns loudly and clearly. Nearly every candidate ended up talking about how we need to help senior citizens and address their out-of-control prescription drug costs.

The primary elections are over now, and candidates' concerns about seniors' drug costs seemed to end on Election Day. If we do not work now to address this problem, will we ever?

A plan does remain. P.S.-Ohio is neither too expensive for the state of Ohio to implement nor is it anything other than a realistic program that our state legislators should work to pass into law. And while it may be true that the federal government should address this problem, they don't look ready to act anytime soon.

We don't need state legislators waiting for the federal government to act. We don't need to hear divisive, partisan debates. We don't want to see seniors' needs passed over until the next campaign.

We want solutions. Ohio's seniors need solutions now. Other states saw this problem and dealt with it long ago. It is time that our legislators step up to the plate and do right by our senior citizens. P.S.-Ohio would be a good starting point for discussions.

When you see your candidates for the General Assembly, stop them and ask how they plan to help solve this problem. We have a responsibility to hold officeholders and candidates accountable for taking positions and working on specific plans to provide prescriptions to seniors at prices they can afford.

It's the right thing to do.

-----
Please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] with your opinion about this letter.