[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 59 (Monday, May 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4568-S4570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is another law that has an important 
milestone today and that is Medicare prescription Part D. I remember 
this bill when it was debated about 2\1/2\ years ago--2\1/2\ years ago 
on the floor of the Senate--and was passed and enacted by the 
President.
  So the administration had 2 years to get ready, 2 years to be 
prepared for the millions of people under Medicare who would become 
eligible for a prescription drug benefit.
  This is an important benefit, one that was not included in the 
original Medicare legislation. In those days, there were not that many 
prescription drugs, and they were not that good. Now we have quite a 
variety of very good drugs available to help the elderly and others 
stay healthy and strong and independent. So adding a prescription drug 
benefit to Medicare made sense.
  Keeping people healthy and at home rather than sick and in the 
hospital or in the nursing home is not only morally right, it makes 
sense financially. So we passed a bill 2\1/2\ years ago. But it was not 
a very good one. It was extremely complicated.
  Imagine, if you will, a bill written by the pharmaceutical industry 
and the insurance industry. And that is what we ended up with, a bill 
that allows those two industries to capitalize on opportunities for 
profit-taking, which they are going to do and already have done. 
Unfortunately, it is at the expense of senior citizens.
  In my State of Illinois, seniors who are trying to figure out which 
might be the best approach for their prescription drugs have 45 
different choices. Forty-five choices may sound like a holiday for 
some, akin to going to shop at a department store, but for many seniors 
it became overwhelming and confusing.
  They tried to get help. They called the Medicare hotline. That was 
supposed to be the 1-800 number that would answer their questions. If 
you could get through--after waiting for a long period of time--surveys 
of people who tried to get through found that many times they were 
giving out bad information.
  They also put out brochures. Medicare put out some written 
information for seniors, and people looked at it closely and said: 
Well, this is wrong. It is written poorly. It does not describe the law 
as it currently exists.
  So what was a senior to do? Many of them turned to family friends. I 
have had friends of mine whose moms and dads had to make this call. 
They sat down with them, worked through the paperwork. They went 
online. They helped them make the choice. But that was not always the 
case. Some people don't have a family member who is available or one 
who can understand the complexities of this choice. So they went to 
other places.
  They would go to their pharmacist. So many pharmacists--I want to 
salute them this evening--so many pharmacists gave up their time. 
Frankly, that is what they have to sell, their time and professional 
advice. And they gave it up for their customers to try to help them 
through this immensely complicated legislation.
  Where are we today? Well, today, as the enrollment deadline is 
reached on May 15, 6 million Medicare recipients have yet to sign up 
for prescription drug benefits. If you say: Well, being out of 40 
million or so, then you have done pretty well. It ignores the fact that 
over 25 million already had coverage. They were already covered with 
prescription drug protection. So we were setting out to sign up some 15 
or 16 million, and we did not get it done and fell short--fell short by 
about 40 percent or maybe more. The final figures will come in, in the 
next few days.
  Of the 6 million who have not signed up as of today, 3.2 million are 
low-income elderly and disabled. They are eligible for extra help in 
paying for their medicine.
  In my home State, approximately 478,000 eligible beneficiaries have 
yet to sign up. That is about one-third of the eligible people in my 
home State of Illinois.
  Despite the best efforts of all the senior citizen groups, all of the 
traveling by the President, and all of the information that has been 
given, a third of the eligible people have not signed up for Medicare 
prescription Part D in my State.
  That is an indication of the tough choice that many have to make. 
According to the latest numbers available from Social Security, only 21 
percent of seniors in Illinois eligible for extra help have been 
enrolled. Millions of beneficiaries need more time. Many beneficiaries 
are simply overwhelmed by the unnecessary complexity and confusion of a 
program that could have been so simple and straightforward.
  Even if they take appropriate steps, they don't always get good 
information, and many of these people will not sign up by the deadline. 
The Government Accountability Office completed a study last week that 
found that Medicare's written promotional materials used too much 
technical jargon, that the call waiting times lasted from a few minutes 
to close to an hour, and the Government Web site was so confusing that 
many people gave up before completing the process.
  Someone wrote in the New York Times today that this is clearly a 
situation where a program was designed and written by people who don't 
view Government as a solution to a problem, they view Government as a 
problem. So they created a program that is entirely too complicated and 
confusing.
  Investigators at GAO posed as seniors or individuals helping seniors 
and they placed 500 calls to 1-800-MEDICARE and found that about a 
third of them resulted in bad information being given to seniors. These 
mistakes just added to the confusion. So what happens? If somebody 
fails to sign up today, when they were supposed to, unfortunately, 
there are going to be some dire consequences. First, they will not be 
able to enroll in a prescription drug plan under Part D until November 
15 for coverage that starts in January of 2007. So for the remainder of 
this year, they will not have the protection of a

[[Page S4569]]

prescription drug plan, even if they explained it to them and they 
could make their choice.
  In addition, if they didn't sign up by today, under current law, as 
written and passed by this Senate and signed by the President, these 
seniors are going to face a significant penalty, an increase in monthly 
premiums of 1 percent for every month past the deadline. That means 
they will automatically be subject to a 7-percent minimum penalty tax 
for the rest of their lives. This is not a one-time penalty. They are 
stuck, branded. They came in too late, and they are supposed to pay the 
price.
  I cannot tell you how many times we Democrats have come to the floor 
and said this is unfair. We need to extend the deadline and lift the 
penalty on those who otherwise would face the 7 percent indefinitely, 
for the rest of their lives, and we need to change this program.
  Time after time, the Republican majority said: No, we are going to 
stick with this. It is tough, but that is the way it has to be.
  It is my understanding that come tomorrow there will be an effort 
made--a bipartisan effort--to extend the deadline and lift the penalty. 
We are not sure. But delaying the penalty would be a good start. 
Without delaying the enrollment deadline, however, 6 million seniors 
will be left without coverage between now and November. Countless more 
will be left in limbo if they say there is no penalty if you didn't 
sign up by May 15, but you cannot sign up until November. Some people 
will be stuck with no opportunity to seek and to have the coverage they 
need for their prescription drugs.
  In addition to the millions of seniors who have not yet signed up, 
there are many awaiting decisions from Medicare after filing complaints 
about various enrollment problems. They need more time.
  Let me tell you about this afternoon. My office received a call from 
a couple in Illinois. They are enrolled in the Illinois Cares Rx 
program, a program for low-income seniors. This couple also had 
supplemental insurance through a former employer. Under the Illinois 
Cares Rx program, they could only enroll in one of two plans. They 
enrolled last December and until last week had been successfully 
filling prescriptions covered by the plan. Then, unknown to them, their 
former employer also signed them up for a plan. So the couple has been 
enrolled in two plans since January. Rather than giving the couple a 
choice of plans, Medicare now has automatically disenrolled them from 
the plan they had originally selected. They just learned this. The plan 
chosen by their former employer is not one of the two participating 
Illinois Cares Rx plans, which means the couple is now ineligible for 
the Medicare Part D Program and are paying nearly half of their monthly 
income for premiums and copays.
  So this is an example of the complexity of this system. When you let 
all of these different entities bombard seniors who are doing their 
best to understand what is best for them--in my office, my staff 
assistant, Christa Donahue, received a phone call last year from a 
woman who said she wasn't sure which plan to take. We asked her: Can 
you tell us what prescription drugs you are currently taking? She gave 
us a list of four or five drugs. We decided, for our own knowledge, to 
take those five drugs and go after the 45 different plans in Illinois 
and see what happened to them. I will tell you what happened. Day after 
day, and week after week, the protection that had been promised in each 
of those plans changed. On any given day, the plan could drop one of 
the drugs they originally said they would cover or it could increase or 
decrease the price of the drug.
  So seniors who believed they had signed up for something they could 
count on could not be sure. They could not be certain their drug would 
be covered when they needed it to be covered. They could not be certain 
new drugs would be covered, and they could not be certain of the price.
  It was written in a way that always gave the advantage to the drug 
company and the insurance company at the expense of the senior citizen. 
Now, this couple thought they had done the right thing and it turns 
out, because of this bureaucratic glitch, they have been denied 
coverage for their prescription drugs and won't have a chance to sign 
up until November for the next year. Meanwhile, nearly half of their 
monthly income is going into premiums and copays.
  So this is a situation that could have been avoided with a simpler 
bill, one designed to help seniors, one they could understand. It 
wasn't written that way; it was written to protect profits.
  Even more surprising about this couple is, when they called Medicare 
and requested that they be switched back to the original plan that 
saves them the most money, they were told the change was impossible to 
make because they had already used up their one opportunity to switch 
plans during their initial enrollment period. Talk about bureaucratic 
muckity-muck. These poor folks are going to be stuck because the law we 
wrote was so complicated and because the bureaucracy decided to 
penalize them. I hope they will get by--at great sacrifice--until we 
can clear up the problem and straighten up this law.

  Unless Medicare resolves this couple's problems today--and we tried 
during the course of the day--they are going to be stuck in the wrong 
plan until November, forced to pay higher premiums and higher drug 
prices, through no fault of their own.
  That is one story. Seniors need more time. We certainly should extend 
the enrollment deadline until the end of the year. We should suspend 
any penalty during that period of time, and we also should do something 
I think is critically important: we ought to acknowledge the obvious. 
We should have allowed Medicare to offer an option under this plan--
yes, one Medicare option that people could turn to as the standard 
option.
  I am not saying private insurance companies could not compete with 
the Medicare option, but if Medicare was negotiating for the lowest 
drug prices for seniors, we know what would happen.
  The Veterans' Administration negotiated to help seniors bring costs 
down and that brought the cost of drugs down. It made more drugs 
available for the veterans who served our country. The same could have 
happened for seniors under Medicare. The pharmaceutical companies and 
insurance companies knew that. They didn't want Medicare's bargaining 
power to bring it down to the lowest prices. So they stopped our 
efforts--repeated efforts--to allow Medicare to offer an option under 
Medicare prescription Part D.
  It is time to change that. It is time to allow Medicare to negotiate 
for seniors, to bring down costs even at the expense of profit taking 
by the drug companies.
  If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is what Canada does. They have 
done that to protect their seniors and others living in their country. 
They have said to the drug companies: You are entitled to a profit but 
not profiteering. You are entitled to make money for additional 
research but not at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people 
in Canada.
  So they limited the amount of increase each year in the cost of the 
prescription drugs. That is why even today many people--even people in 
my family--are going to Canada to buy drugs. They are much cheaper 
there than in the United States. The difference between Canada and the 
United States is not a difference in culture, it is a difference in 
leadership--leadership where their Government stood up for seniors and, 
in this case, our Government stood up for pharmaceutical companies and 
insurance companies, so drugs would be more expensive than they should 
be and seniors will pay more and the benefit will not be as good as it 
should be.
  We have problems with this bill, a doughnut hole. Wait until the 
middle of the year when it reaches 2,200. At that point coverage stops. 
People still will pay monthly premiums for their prescription drug 
plan, and in addition they are going to have to pay out of pocket 
almost $3,000 before the coverage kicks in again. It is going to be a 
time of awakening and reckoning.
  I think that many who supported the plan and voted for it--I did 
not--will have to explain to their seniors how this makes sense. May 15 
will come and go. The efforts to extend the deadline, to lift the 
penalty and change the plan, despite being made many times on the floor 
of the Senate, have been rejected.
  By tomorrow, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will put 
aside

[[Page S4570]]

their loyalty to this flawed plan and be more loyal to the seniors who 
count on us every day.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________