For the better part of the last decade, the Congress has grappled with how best to modernize the Medicare program so that it could provide seniors with better, affordable access to health care and with a prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, the Medicare modernization legislation enacted in 2003 did not provide an adequate solution.

The bill included a $250 deductible, an estimated $35 monthly premium, 25 percent coinsurance, and a “donut hole” that forces seniors to pay all of their drug costs between $2250 and $5100. In short, under this plan seniors are still responsible for 50 to 70 percent of their drug costs. This is not the kind of benefit seniors deserve, which is why I voted against the legislation creating the prescription drug benefit.

The prescription drug benefit should provide seniors with a wide variety of prescription drugs from which to choose. Physicians – not CMS employees charged with devising formulary standards – should make the ultimate decision on the type of drug prescribed to seniors. Further, I oppose efforts to allow prescription drug plans the ability to change the price of a drug without notice, or drop a drug from its formulary altogether. If seniors must commit to a prescription drug plan for a year, the plan should maintain coverage levels for that entire year.

Primarily, my opposition to the new Medicare law stemmed from provisions prohibiting Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug costs. The Veterans Administration currently has this negotiating authority, which has significantly lowered drug costs for veterans. For this reason, I supported legislation passed by the House of Representatives, H.R. 4, that would require the Medicare program to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug costs. I will continue to work to improve the Medicare prescription drug benefit to provide Medicare beneficiaries with comprehensive and reliable prescription drug coverage.

 to return to entire Issue list

Print this page