[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 156 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H11189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H11189]]
             PRESCRIPTION DRUG FLEXIBILITY ACT FOR SENIORS

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong 
support of the Prescription Drug Flexibility Act for seniors. You know, 
we ask an awful lot of our senior citizens, so many of whom, as Tom 
Brokaw has eloquently penned, are a part of the greatest generation 
ever.
  After traveling home this past Thanksgiving for the break and having 
an opportunity to conduct hearings throughout my district and speak to 
seniors directly, they did not realize that what we have asked of them 
in signing up for the so-called prescription drug plan under Medicare 
part D, that they are now required to be accountants, attorneys and 
actuaries in order to be able to fill out this form. It is a travesty 
that for so many of our seniors they find this not only confusing and 
complicated, but very difficult as well, and are unsure as to whether 
or not they are going to receive any specific relief.

                              {time}  1830

  That is why I have introduced legislation that I believe is both 
pragmatic and provides the opportunity for seniors to seek relief from 
the burdensome task that faces them.
  Specifically, this legislation would accomplish three things. First 
and foremost it would extend for 2 years the time period in which 
seniors have to sign up. I think it is incredible to think that we 
could get 42 million people to sign up for a program in 6 months where 
in the State of Connecticut they have 44 choices in options to choose 
from. In many States it is as many as 60, 65 choices that people have 
to pursue in order to make sure they are making the right decision. 
And, of course, if they have not signed up in time or they are given 
misinformation, they receive a penalty for that starting at 1 percent a 
month and accumulating forward. Just out of simple fairness to the 
people we are sworn to serve, we ought to make sure that we are 
extending the time period, and this legislation calls for a 2-year 
extension.
  The legislation further goes on to look at a provision that is 
commonly referred to as the ``lock-in provision.'' What that means for 
those that are struggling with this part D is that while the HMOs and 
insurance companies can opt out of their formularies or of their 
coverage, you are locked in for at least a period of a year. Well, 
common sense and fairness would say that if a company is covering you 
and say you are on Lipitor and then they opt out of that coverage, you 
ought to have the same right without penalty to opt out and get the 
kind of coverage that you need and desire.
  The third thing that this bill does is also recognize that in the 
State of Connecticut, more than 44 choices, unfortunately there will be 
some companies that give misinformation and, again, maybe 
intentionally, maybe not, but the only people who will pay a penalty in 
this circumstance are the elderly. We think it is only fair that if 
they give out misinformation, if they tell people that they have a 
credible plan and they do not, that they ought to be subject to a fine.
  In fact, the troubling thing about this whole piece of legislation, 
which I was proud to vote against, is that there are no fines for the 
HMOs or the insurance companies or the people that mislead the elderly. 
The only fine that this legislation seeks is to fine the elderly if 
they do not sign up for a program. So this legislation seeks a $10,000 
fine per incidence for those who provide misinformation to the elderly.
  Now, it is instructive, of course, as to how we got there. This vote, 
as many know, was passed on this House floor at 5:30 in the morning by 
one vote. The travesty of this legislation is that on page 59 of this 
700-page document, it specifically excludes the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services from negotiating directly with the pharmaceutical 
companies. Now, that, by the way, is exactly what the VA Commissioner 
does on behalf of our veterans. In the State of Connecticut, our 
veterans pay a $7 co-pay. When we look at our senior citizens and when 
we look at this bill and when we think of the cost that has been 
incurred without the creation of any new bureaucracy but simply by 
having the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate directly 
with pharmaceutical companies, not even having to travel outside to 
Canada and becoming refugees within their own health care system, 
Americans ought to be entitled to get the same kind of deep discounts 
that we provide our veterans.
  That, in fact, is exactly what other nations of the world see fit to 
do for each one of their citizens, which is why, as Mr. Emanuel pointed 
out earlier, in the United States we are paying on average 60 percent 
more for prescription drugs than our neighbors in Canada and Mexico 
and, in fact, in all the industrialized nations of the world. Why? 
Because they negotiate directly. And the pharmaceutical industry is not 
losing any money abroad. So I think it is morally incumbent upon this 
Congress to take up that legislation that will correct that process.
  But what passed that fateful day is law; so we must advise our 
seniors to proceed cautiously and hopefully providing them a window in 
time where they can make the correct decision. There will be, as some 
of the advertisements say that are paid for with Medicare and Social 
Security dollars, an opportunity for some to benefit; and I encourage 
them to do so.

                          ____________________