Note 1:  At the end of the news release is a link to a "calculator" that permits a comparison of the potential prescription drug savings under the Democratic and Republican plans. 

Note 2: The text of Congressman Stupak's proposed amendments to the Prescription Drug Bill, which are discussed in the news release, as well as key discussion points on the goal of each amendment, follow the text of the news release.
 
 

WASHINGTON — A bill wearing the label “prescription drug reform” passed the House in the wee hours of the morning Friday on a party line vote. Opponents of the bill, including Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, said the bill offers no real reform and has no chance of being signed into law.

Emerging from the marathon House session, Stupak expressed anger and disappointment that the issue which tops the list of concerns of most seniors — the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs — was converted by the House Republican leadership into grist for campaign messages.

Stupak said he was especially frustrated, because his own amendment to the bill, one labeled by House colleagues as “perhaps the most sensible amendment” to the prescription drug bill, was shot down in a committee hearing on a party line vote.

Other amendments shut out by the closed process included a proposal by Stupak to exempt the iron ore and steel workers from the drug plan, because they may be covered in a separate health plan being created by legislation to address the legacy costs of bankrupt and financially ailing steel companies. 

Another amendment kept off the bill,  also supported by Stupak, would have compelled American drug makers to sell drugs in the U.S. market at the same prices they are sold in Europe and Canada.

“The bill we were given to vote on early today was brought to the floor with no substantive amendments from Democrats allowed to be attached in committee, with no amendments from Democrats allowed on the floor, and with no opportunity to offer a Democratic alternative — a shocking and partisan break from tradition.

“The bottom line,” Stupak said, “is that seniors themselves, who have been vigorously supported and represented by Democrats in the prescription drug debate, were completely shut out of the process of shaping legislation on what is a major health issue for many seniors and even a life-and-death matter for some.

Outlining key differences between the two bills, Stupak said  the Republican plan has a $250 annual deductible, a $35 minimum copayment, and gaps in coverage, while a Democratic plan — one not permitted to be brought to the floor for a vote — has a $100 per year deductible, a $25 per month premium, 20 percent copayment on all drugs, and universal coverage.

The greatest flaw in the Republican plan, Stupak said,  relies on the participation of private insurers, who have been telling members of Congress and the president for several years they don’t plan to participate in the program. 

The real corporate participants in the plan, he said, are the pharmaceutical companies, whose contributions helped the Republican party raise almost $30 million last week, and who participated in the writing the GOP legislation. 

The difference in the plans comes alive, Stupak said, when actual drugs costs supplied by district residents — as calculated from random letters — are plugged into the two plans. 

“A woman from Vanderbilt told me her annual drug costs are $6,288,” Stupak said. “Under the Democrats’ plan, her prescriptions would cost her $1,637.60. She would save $4,650 or 74 percent.

Under the Republican plan, the constituent would pay $4,096 and would save $2,192 — 35 percent.

A Traverse city couple who reported a yearly drug cost of $3,240 would pay $1,028 under the Democratic plan, saving $2,022, or 68 percent of their prescription drug costs. Under the GOP plan, they would save only 22 percent, paying $2,536 and saving $704, Stupak said.

Stupak’s own amendment, a version of a prescription drug plan he has advocated since 1998, would harness the volume purchasing power of the federal government to cut the cost of drugs approximately 40 to 50 percent. His plan also provides universal coverage and needs no new federal bureaucracy for its implementation. 

Because it would have used the government’s purchasing power and required no new federal staff, Stupak’s plan wouldn’t have cost the billions of dollars estimated as required to implement either the Republican or Democratic plan.

Praised in committee as a common sense approach by Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Stupak’s amendment  died on a party line vote in a Commerce Committee bill mark-up, and Stupak was denied an opportunity to offer the amendment in the House Rules Committee.

“This bill was a sham and a shame,” Stupak said. “We can only hope that the outcry from seniors — and groups that speak for seniors — is loud enough and strong enough that moderate Republicans will press their leadership for a chance to shape a genuine Medicare reform prescription drug bill.”
 

Seniors who want to compare what they would save under the Democratic and Republican plans can access a “calculator” to make this determination. 
 
 

1.         FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE PRICING FOR DRUGS 

 Description:

• The might of the federal government’s purchasing power should be directed at purchasing drugs for Medicare beneficiaries by using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS).

• This amendment would allow any individual enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug plan or with a Medicare+Choice drug plan, to obtain prescription drugs at the prices specified in the Federal Supply Schedule

• Other payers and purchasers, such as health plans and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), employ different approaches in paying for or purchasing drugs that may be instructive for Medicare. In general, they make use of the leverage from their volume and competition to secure better prices. The federal purchasers, furthermore, use that leverage to secure verifiable data on actual market transactions to establish their price schedules.

• Medicare should adapt the FSS to use to lower the prices it pays for prescription drugs, and pass those savings on to the beneficiary.

Text:

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STUPAK
(Amendment to Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002)
(Page & line nos. refer to Print of June 14, 2002 9:14 PM)
Add at the end of section 1860B(d) of the Social SecurityAct (as proposed to be inserted by section 101(a)(2)) [page 19, after line 5] the following new paragraph:
 

‘‘(3) ACCESS TO FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE 1 PRICES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any individual who is enrolled with a prescription drug plan under this part, or with a Medicare+Choice organization under part C, shall be eligible to obtain prescription drugs  through at the prices specified in the Federal Supply Schedule. 
 

June 18, 2002 (1:56 AM)
 
 

2.         COAL ACT AMENDMENT

Description:

• In 1992, the Coal Act was passed, which mandates that prescription drug coverage be provided to workers covered under the Act.  Most coal companies provide prescription drug coverage to retirees under self-insured plans.  Plan coverage is dictated by federal law and cannot be changed by employers:
                        - maximum out of pocket is $50 per year per family

• Coverage is guaranteed for life for all beneficiaries, most of which have low incomes and live in rural areas.

• The Coal Act has been a boon to retired coal workers, and should not be altered, nor should the beneficiaries be forced into a Medicare prescription drug benefit that would substantially and drastically reduce their coverage while increasing their cost-share.

• The Stupak Coal Act Amendment would ensure that these workers would not be forced into a plan they do not want. 

• The Stupak Amendment would also prospectively cover all future steel workers in the event a deal is struck with steel companies and the federal government to cover their legacy costs.

Text:

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STUPAK
(Amendment to Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002)
(Page & line nos. refer to Committee Print of title I of June 17, 2002)
At the end of section 1860A of the Social Security Act [page 7, after line 29] (as proposed to be inserted by section 101(a)(2)) add the following new subsection:
 

‘‘(e) TOTALLY VOLUNTARY NATURE OF PROGRAM.—Enrollment in a prescription drug plan under this title shall be totally voluntary and no individual shall be required to enroll in such a plan as part of any contract with any employer or under any collective bargaining agreement or otherwise (including any revision made to any benefit or pension plan or agreement referred to in section 9701 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, relating to coal industry health benefits). 
 

June 18, 2002 (7:30 PM)