Bill Introduced to Begin Rollback of High Medicare Drug Prices

[Triana]

. . .

The bill is called the “Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2013? and it works like this, according to the press release from Senator Rockefeller’s office (my emphasis):

The bill would save $141.2 billion, helping to responsibly reduce the deficit, and avoid reckless proposals to cut Medicare benefits.

The Medicare Drug Savings Act would eliminate a special deal for brand-name drug manufacturers that allows them to charge Medicare higher prices for prescription drugs for some seniors and people with disabilities. The bill would require drug companies to provide rebates to the federal government on drugs used by dual eligibles – people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, who are predominantly low-income seniors and people with disabilities – just as was done for dual eligibles on Medicaid before Medicare Part D was created in 2006.

With the exception of Medicare Part D, all large purchasers of prescription drugs negotiate better prices, including Medicaid and private insurers. This bill simply restores negotiated prices for low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

This bill would correct excessive payments to drug companies, while also saving taxpayers and the federal government from footing the unnecessary cost. Over the past ten years, the 11 largest drug companies alone took in $711.4 billion in profits, including a 62 percent increase from 2003 to 2012.

MORE:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15829-bill-introduced-to-begin-rollback-of-high-medicare-drug-prices

[LonePirate]

1. The low number of sponsors of this legislation is shameful

Of course, it's all Democrats and Independents who are sponsoring this. As usual, the hypocritical Republicans are nowhere to be seen on a measure that saves the government money and reduces the deficit.

[Triana]

4. . . .

"the hypocritical Republicans are nowhere to be seen on a measure that saves the government money and reduces the deficit"

That tells you right there that the rat bastards don't give a shit about the deficit. Pretentious hypocrisy is the Hallmark of Republicans -- and a sure signal they're lying about their objectives. As usual.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Imagine if all the Dems sponsored the bill ...

then we could just blame the Repubs.

Truth is this was talked about during the HC debate and the WH put pressure on the Dems to drop the issue because they had made a deal with the drug companies to support their bill in exchange for negotiated for all Medicare patients.

Of course this was totally opposite from what was outlined in the published Obama/Biden HC plan (and the great speeches) but who pays attention to that?

Sorry to say that the liberal media dropped the ball and got in line with whatever the administration was currently proposing.

Is 2009 so long ago that we forget what transpired?

[Skidmore]

2. So perhaps it is time to hold Congress' feet to the fire and raise a little hell???

[Triana]

5. I'd say! Call the rat bastids..

..if they're so all-fire worried about the deficit and this thing will save billions, then they have no reason NOT to support it. Right?

[blue neen]

3. I'll have to give my Senators a call on Monday.

Casey and Toomey.

K & R.

[Triana]

6. +1 YES! n/t

[snappyturtle]

7. I wonder why the exemption on Medicare Part D? ???? nt

[Triana]

10. It looks like the bill is meant to only restore negotiated prices for low-income seniors

Maybe they thought they couldn't pass one that included Medicare Part D wholesale, though I'd love to see that!

EDIT: just guessing here, obviously I don't know.

[snappyturtle]

13. I think you're probably right. It was the only thing I could think of too and

yet you'd think it would be easier just to settle on a negotiated pricing
schedule for all. Medicare D is blackmail in my book.

[Triana]

14. "Medicare D is blackmail in my book"

Ditto that.

[snappyturtle]

15. .......

Me too!

[ljm2002]

8. And why does it only restore negotiated prices...

...for "low-income Medicare beneficiaries"? Why can't the government negotiate prices for all drugs that it purchases, like any other big purchaser would be doing?

It is certainly a step in the right direction, but we still seem to accept a lot of weirdly wrong thinking on these issues.

[Thinkingabout]

9. This way a Republican spend the money program but they only complain about spending money on

Entitlements such as Social Security. Brainless Congressional members will probably vote against this.

[loudsue]

11. This makes way too much sense. It'll never pass.

Not that I've lost faith in my congress critters, mind you.

Well...yah, I have.

[Triana]

12. Probably not - unless Americans raise holy hell over it...

...most probably don't even know about it.

[slipslidingaway]

17. "most probably don't even know about it."

Never heard very much about in 2009 in the media, even the "liberal media" when they were negotiating the HC bill.

[slipslidingaway]

16. 2009, Senator Carper Publicly Defends Secret PhRMA Deal In Exchange For Support Ads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6622945

Carper, Baucus and Menendez voted to uphold the prior deal with Pharma.

The reported deal was that if Pharma supported health care reform and kicked in 80 billion over the next ten years the administration would not push to negotiate drug prices in the Medicare program. Carper, Baucus and Menendez voted to uphold the prior deal with Pharma.

When you look back at the Obama/Biden Health Care Plan the proposal was to negotiate prices for ALL Medicare recipients, not just dual eligible seniors. The figure mentioned in the Obama/Biden plan references a study and states that this could save up to 30 billion per year, that number was based on VA rates.


Senators vote down plan to cut drug costs

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/60197-senators-reject-proposal-to-lower-drug-costs

"The Senate Finance Committee rejected a Democratic amendment to its healthcare bill that would have expanded prescription-drug coverage to people on Medicare.

During the third day of the committee’s markup of the legislation, the vote on the Medicare amendment introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) provided the most awkward political moment yet for committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) — not to mention the White House, which made a deal with drug makers to limit their exposure.

...Nelson told reporters Wednesday night that he and other committee Democrats were getting leaned on by the White House and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists to back off.

“Everybody’s asking me to withdraw it except the senior citizens,” Nelson said. Nelson first raised his amendment Tuesday night but committee action was postponed until Thursday.

“Why wouldn’t we want to save the dollars?” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). “This is not about a deal or an agreement made by the White House. This is a separate issue.”

[Triana]

21. Baucus is not a Dem. He's a dirtbag DINO.

This all just proves that the budget isn't an issue. And no one gives a damn about our seniors. Pleasing big corporate overlords/owners and protecting their goddamn profits is priority #1 in DC. Nothing else matters. Nothing.

[slipslidingaway]

28. Exactly, the Dems buried this issue when they made the deal with Pharma ...

[msongs]

18. half baked...get lower prices for ALL medicare recipients. doh nt

[Hekate]

20. This sounds promising -- very promising

[reformist2]

22. Flawed, but a great start. Spread the word!

[spanone]

23. i predict this will NEVER get thru this utterly useless congress...

[Dalai_1]

24. Kick &R n/t

[RiffRandell]

25. Not optimistic. n/t

[ProSense]

26. The Senate needs to

also consider this:

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043

[In_The_Wind]

27. Kick!