[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Page 25824]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator and I thank the Senators 
from South Carolina and Michigan for giving me the privilege to share 
with the Senate what I have experienced since I have returned from a 
meeting in West Palm Beach with senior citizens concerned about the 
implementation of the prescription drug benefit for Medicare which 
starts tomorrow.
  This prescription drug benefit, which many in this Senate opposed 
because it was faulty, it was a meager benefit, and it broke the 
principles of free enterprise economics by not allowing the Federal 
Government, through Medicare, to negotiate the prices of prescription 
drugs downward by bulk purchases, as has been the case in Government 
for the past two decades through the Veterans' Administration, as well 
as the Department of Defense. Veterans today pay $7 per month for their 
prescription drugs. Part of that is subsidized. But a large part of 
that is the fact that the Veterans' Administration buys prescription 
drugs in huge quantities and therefore negotiates a lower price.
  Not so with the prescription drug benefit passed for Medicare in this 
Senate, of which almost half--maybe not quite half of the Senate, 
including this Senate--voted against. But, nevertheless, it is the law. 
It is being implemented tomorrow.
  The current law says the senior citizens of this country have until 
next May in order to make a determination which one of these plans--
often they may be through an HMO or they may be through some 
organization created for the dispensing of the drugs--but which one of 
these plans they will choose, or choose nothing, especially if their 
former employer, now that they are retired, is providing under their 
retirement a prescription drug plan.
  It sounds, on the surface, that a decision could be made. But the 
fact is a senior citizen in West Palm Beach this morning told me there 
were 103 plans that senior citizens were trying to choose between. 
There is confusion. There is concern. There is fear that if they do not 
choose the right plan, then they are not going to be able to change for 
a whole year.
  There is all of this confusion and additional concerns. Maybe the 
senior citizen lives in a small town that has only one or two 
pharmacies, and naturally the senior citizen wants to continue to get 
their prescription drugs from that pharmacy. But what happens if the 
plan they choose does not use that pharmacy? Again, concern for 
instability, concern for not being able to get the kind of drugs they 
want and need.
  Another concern voiced to me this morning in that meeting in West 
Palm Beach was, What if I choose a plan that, in fact, provides the 
drugs my doctor prescribes for me now, but what happens if the doctor 
changes the prescription to a drug that is not covered by that 
particular plan? They are stuck, and they are stuck for a year, until 
at the end of that year when they can change plans.
  These are the questions senior citizens are asking all around this 
Nation. And they are asking these questions in my State of Florida.
  What should we do? A very practical approach is to extend the 
deadline so senior citizens will have more time to make up their mind, 
to evaluate the plans, to be counseled in order to get the right plan. 
Remember, with the advances of modern medicine through the miracles of 
prescription drugs, so often the quality of life is dependent upon the 
right prescription and that prescription being available to the person 
and especially so to the senior citizen. It is my hope the Senate will 
recognize we need to buy some time for our seniors.
  I have filed a bill that extends the deadline from May until 
December. That legislation would also allow, in the course of that 
year, up to the end of 2006, if the senior citizen makes a mistake and 
chooses the wrong plan and then realizes their mistake, they will be 
able to change their plan. Furthermore, for those with the great 
uncertainty of whether they are going to stick with their former 
employer-based prescription drug plan, that if they choose and make a 
mistake and want to go back to their employer, they have that grace 
period of 1 year up to the end of December of next year in order to be 
able to go back to their employer-based plan.
  Is this too much to ask for our seniors? Out of all of the confusion, 
out of all the concern and what is now turning into fright for our 
seniors, this is, after all, what was enacted, and was supposed to help 
senior citizens.
  The Department of HHS, so you can clarify this, Mr. Senior Citizen, 
says you can go on our Web site. Senators, I bet you all have a number 
of senior citizens who are not accustomed to using the computer and 
going on the Web. We need to give them some relief.
  Now, the bill I filed, I am looking for the legislative vehicle to 
attach it to as an amendment.
  I wanted the Senate to know, directly expressed to me in this meeting 
this morning, the great confusion and consternation that is being felt 
out there among many of those in what Tom Brokaw labeled the ``Greatest 
Generation,'' those who have helped us to enjoy the freedoms we have. I 
think for us to do less than to help them out would certainly be less 
than the honor we should pay to our seniors.
  At an appropriate time, with an appropriate legislative vehicle, I 
will offer this bill as an amendment.
  In the meantime, I thank the leadership of our Senate Armed Services 
Committee for the great job they have all done in handling this 
legislation. And I thank them for the privilege of serving on that 
committee. It has been a great blessing to me to work with people of 
the caliber we have on our Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________