Thank you Mr. Chairman. For many years, I supported efforts to establish a meaningful, comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. However, I voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) for several reasons. I believed that the bill was extremely complicated. It contained lapses in coverage, and included burdensome means tests and a provision that will cost taxpayers huge sums of money that will largely go into the pockets of drug companies.
The negative impacts of this new law will be even more troublesome given the disturbing trend of decreasing benefits for retirees over the past few years. Many seniors are being forced to rely on Medicare, which is providing a less generous benefit than what seniors currently enjoy. If Medicare beneficiaries lose their employer-based coverage, they may have to pay more for a Medicare drug benefit that provides less comprehensive coverage. It is estimated that approximately 2.5 million people will lose their coverage and be forced to depend on a benefit that is not as good as their existing coverage. The intent of having a Medicare prescription drug benefit should be to expand and improve coverage for seniors, not merely shift the financial burden of existing coverage to the federal government.
The prescription drug benefit is complicated. In October, Medicare beneficiaries will find out which Medicare drug plans are available in their area, and face a confusing set of questions. Beneficiaries will have to decide whether to enroll in the Medicare drug benefit and, if so, which drug plan to select. Those with existing coverage must first determine how their current drug coverage will be affected and, if continued, whether their current coverage will be more or less comprehensive than the Medicare drug benefit. Also, the implementation of this benefit will be difficult due to the complex design of the prescription drug benefit plans and low-income subsidies.
In particular, I am worried that seniors will not have access to the information they will need to make informed choices between private plans that would provide them with the best benefits. Further complication this arduous task is meeting the different needs and challenges of communities to make sure that no one will be unfairly denied access to assistance seniors are entitled to under the law. In crafting the law, I wanted seniors to have the option of participating in a Medicare administered drug plan rather than having to choose from private plans that will offer different benefits.
Furthermore, the new Medicare drug benefit plan includes a major gap in coverage for drug spending between $2,251 and $5,100 for some beneficiaries. This is often called Medicare's "doughnut hole." According to the Congressional Budget Office, more than on in every four of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to have drug spending that falls in the range of the doughnut hole. I disagreed with the inclusion of the doughnut hole. No other insurance program that I know of operates like this program. Despite paying premiums, beneficiaries will not receive any help with their drug costs when they are in the doughnut hole.
I also found the assets test used to determine the low-income subsidies for the prescription drug benefit to be unrealistic. According to Families USA, the assets test will deny subsidies to 2.8 million low-income seniors with even a small amount of assets. Additional assistance should not be unfairly denied to deserving low-income seniors.
I also opposed the legislation's imposition of a means test for Medicare Part B, which I did not believe was appropriate for an entitlement program. This will complicate the process for seniors and create administrative difficulties for the CMS.
It is hard to imagine that, as the federal government has assumed the cost of helping seniors obtain their prescription drugs, Medicare would be prevented from using the bulk purchasing power of the millions of its beneficiaries to lower drug costs for the program. This onerous prohibition was also included in the MMA.
In addition to ensuring adequate and affordable prescription drugs for the nation's senior citizens, we need to bring about massive reform of drug patent laws so that generic drugs can be made available more quickly in an attempt to slow the massive increases in drug costs. Too often drug companies are allowed to artificially extend the length of their patent protections on their products through the creative exploitation of loopholes in prescription drug patent laws. We must act to slow the increasing costs of prescription drugs.
Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to recognize the work of all the individuals in Hawaii who help Medicare beneficiaries understand their options. I also wish to recognize Mary Rydell, the CMS Pacific Area Representative, Christine Messner, the Social Security Administration Pacific Area Public Affairs Area, and Pamela Cunningham from the Hawaii Department of Health's Sage Plus program, for their outstanding efforts in promoting the understanding of Medicare Part D. I greatly appreciate the efforts of Barbara Kim Stanton and the AARP who help increase the awareness of the choices that beneficiaries will soon have to make. I was delighted to take part in several events during the August recess with these dedicated individuals.
Mr. Chairman, I remain committed to improving and simplifying the Medicare prescription drug benefit so that all seniors are able to obtain all of the medications that they need. Our seniors deserve no less. I look forward to working with my colleagues to correct the mistakes of the MMA and fulfill the promise to seniors that the federal government will help beneficiaries get the drugs they need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
