Turner Supports Protecting Current Drug Benefits for Seniors

Turner Supports Protecting Current Drug Benefits for Seniors

In November 2003, one of the most significant votes I cast was for the Medicare Modernization Act. That legislation provided every Medicare recipient with the opportunity to voluntarily participate in Medicare's prescription drug benefit.

The options provided to participants in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs) are designed to provide seniors with a plan tailored to their individual medical needs and prescription drug choices. In Ohio there are currently 60 Medicare Prescription Drug Plans. Competing private plans deliver access to a broad range of medications, while keeping costs in check.

Further, the Medicare prescription drug benefit has cost both seniors and taxpayers less than originally projected when the program was created. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) originally projected the average monthly premium would be $37. In fact, the average monthly premium was $23 in 2006, and CMS estimates the average monthly premium for 2007 will be approximately $22 for beneficiaries, based on strong competitive bids by health care plans, if the current system remains in place. On average, beneficiaries are also saving nearly $1,100 annually on the cost of their medicines.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt recently announced that independent estimates for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit show that it is costing fewer taxpayer dollars than predicted when the program was created in 2003. The drug benefit cost nearly $13 billion less than expected in its first year, 30% below the $43 billion that had been budgeted. Long term savings are even greater, $189 billion less during budget years 2004-2013 than the actuaries originally anticipated before the Medicare drug benefit was implemented.

This past week the U.S. House debated the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 (H.R. 4). The legislation would repeal a provision in current Medicare prescription drug law, which prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from "interfering" with the existing private-sector negotiated prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

Drug prices are currently negotiated between the Prescription Drug Plan provider with each drug company. Having the federal government negotiate instead, would not lower seniors costs, but could limit seniors choices. The Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) is a model compared as an example, because it currently negotiates the prices of medications for those covered by its plan. The result is fewer options for veterans. Specifically, the VA offers 1,300 drugs, compared with 4,300 available under Part D, prompting more than one-third of retired veterans to enroll in Medicare drug plans. Approximately two-thirds of the most commonly prescribed brand name drugs used by seniors are not covered by the VA's national formulary, including Lipitor, the most commonly prescribed drug. Other drugs not covered by the VA formulary include: Actos, Advair, Ambien, Avapro, Celebrex, Cozaar, Crestor, Detrol, Flomax, Glucovance, Hyzaar, Lescol, Lotrel, Nexium, Pravochol, Prevacid, Protonix, Xalantan, and Zetia.

Furthermore, the VA contracts with just 332 pharmacies nationwide, and therefore 80% of VA prescriptions are dispensed via mail order. Seniors enrolled in a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan have the option to order their medicine via mail order and 2% choose to do so. The rest choose the convenience of accessing one of more than 55,000 nearby local, community pharmacies. In Ohio's Third District alone there are 127 participating pharmacies.
Finally, the evidence suggests that there will be little if any savings realized. The independent and bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, John Dingell, per his request, on January 10, 2007. The letter states: "CBO estimates that H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law…and as a result would lack the leverage to obtain significant discounts in his negotiations with drug manufacturers."
Because I believe the current Medicare Prescription Drug Plans are working and offering seniors the widest range of plans and medications at the lowest prices, I voted against H.R. 4. I could not vote for legislation that might reduce the current choices available to seniors, has the potential to reduce easy and convenient accessibility to the medicines, and has independent analysis from the CBO suggesting that there will be negligible savings.

http://www.house.gov/miketurner/news/columns/1.12.07.shtml