[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10850-S10851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2950. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
prohibit payments to States under the medicaid program for redispensing 
prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to 
double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs.
  As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health 
care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid 
patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These 
drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the 
prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs.
  Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense 
rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while 
some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that 
require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the 
State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has 
resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale 
and resale--of the restocked drugs.
  We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 
50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of 
skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal 
Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending.
  The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting 
this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this 
practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, 
had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged 
Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because 
there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, 
however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. 
Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a 
lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey 
legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were 
corrected.''
  My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal 
reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. 
Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs 
in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the 
pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide 
reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs.
  In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the 
Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I 
hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This 
practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the 
Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such 
fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort 
to do just that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2950

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S10851]]

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT FOR REDISPENSING 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (20), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) with respect to any amount expended for redispensing 
     a prescribed drug, other than in accordance with guidance of 
     the Secretary that--
       ``(A) specifies the circumstances under which redispensing 
     of a prescribed drug shall be permissible; and
       ``(B) allows for a reasonable restocking fee that takes 
     into account the costs of inspection and inventory processes 
     for redispensing.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year quarter 
     that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land 
Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels 
totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing 
of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the 
city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion 
measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the 
desk in the Senate.
  There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe 
merit some clarification and may even require future technical 
amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor 
changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get 
those clarifications on record.
  I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with 
Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee 
and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of 
this Congress.
  The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe 
of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the 
city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the 
Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to 
purchase land that has economic development potential.
  The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this 
parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the 
Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to 
the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private 
nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel 
of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the 
passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land 
was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more 
than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for 
nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The 
tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's 
offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the 
request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. 
However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance.
  The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land 
parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and 
Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first 
parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the 
United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh 
Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either 
owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more 
than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band 
Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, 
would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land 
has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally 
intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 
under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through 
an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for 
the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has 
formally requested correction of this error.
  The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be 
transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. 
The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held 
in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the 
Shivwits Band Community Center.
  Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current 
official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name 
which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern 
Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, 
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to 
the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''
  I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with 
regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city 
of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment 
directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the 
Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has 
a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 
17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify 
that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the 
reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land 
purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation 
without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing 
reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this 
legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land 
conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to 
such a conveyance.
  This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the 
dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its 
airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally 
important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use 
the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic 
development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the 
tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments 
and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, 
its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is 
why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer 
these four small Paiute trust land parcels.
  Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute 
Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over 
the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of 
their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the 
tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe 
Restoration Act, which I sponsored.
  I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 
108th Congress.
                                 ______