Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006.'' This bill is necessary to address some of the major problems in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that took…
Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006.'' This bill is necessary to address some of the major problems in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that took effect on January 1 of this year. As we all know, the reaction of our seniors has been widespread disappointment, mass confusion and downright anger.
Let me describe some of the problems that I am hearing from people in Michigan about this new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
First, many drug companies have previously issued discount cards and are currently providing drugs to low-income people and seniors at a nominal or no cost. These are individuals usually at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is 19,600 for a single person or $26,400 for a couple, while to qualify for the Medicare low-income subsidy, their income must be $14,700 for a single person or $19,800 for a couple. Many of these programs are being discontinued, and seniors are losing a vital method of obtaining low cost prescription drugs.
Second, prescription drug plans can drop a drug from its list of covered drugs with 60 days notice at any time during the calendar year. This is particularly egregious for a senior who relied on a particular medication being available and covered when the senior chose that particular plan.
Third, the situation of so-called ``dual eligibles'' is clearly worse now than before enactment of the prescription drug benefit. These are former Medicaid beneficiaries who are being forced into Medicare prescription drug coverage, often putting them in plans with more restrictive formularies and higher co-payments, in other words leaving them worse off.
Fourth, many Michigan residents are retirees from good paying jobs and currently have a good prescription drug plan. This has changed for the worse with the creation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit because many companies have decided to scale back or eliminate that retiree coverage. As a result, many of those retirees are worse off than they were before the bill became law.
Fifth, Medicare is specifically barred from negotiating lower drug prices for all of its beneficiaries.
Finally, the coverage gap from $2,250-$3,600 in prescription drug expenses per year, commonly referred to as the ``doughnut hole,'' is unconscionable. Many seniors do not yet understand that this huge coverage gap is looming in their future and that during this gap, they are still expected to pay their monthly premiums, although they are getting no prescription drug coverage assistance.
To address many of these concerns I, along with my colleague Senator Stabenow, today am introducing the Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006, and I hope the Senate will immediately consider these positive reforms. My legislation has four goals and I will briefly outline them.
First, this legislation would prohibit prescription drug plans from removing drugs from the plan's list of covered drugs until January 1 of the following year. This will give seniors the opportunity to make an informed decision during open enrollment at the end of each year if one plan decides to remove a particular drug from the plan.
Second, my legislation clearly states that the discount cards that pharmaceutical companies are providing to our lower income seniors are permissible and that seniors should be allowed to participate in these programs. There has been some confusion as to whether companies can legally continue these programs and, if companies do continue their assistance, questions have arisen as to whether that assistance will count towards the ``true-out-of-pocket'' costs for that beneficiary, which plunges them into the ``doughnut hole'' when they reach $2,250. My legislation mandates that there will be no negative consequences for pharmaceutical companies continuing to provide discount cards to our low-income seniors.
Third, my legislation would allow former Medicaid beneficiaries now receiving their medications under Medicare to continue to receive their prescription drugs even if they cannot meet the worsened co-payment requirements.
Lastly, the legislation would specifically give the Federal Government the authority to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors. Current Medicare law prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices, as we do for veterans in our VA health programs. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries do not have the benefit of the bargaining power of Medicare.
All of us are hearing from our constituents that we need to improve Medicare Part D. Congress needs to fulfill the promise it made that Medicare Part D would lower prescription drug prices, not increase them. This bill will help us begin to keep that promise.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.