Dems may find it difficult to change Part D anti-negotiation provisions
It sounded simple enough on the campaign trail: Free the governmentto negotiate lower drug prices and use the savings to plug a big gap inMedicare’s new prescription-drug benefit. But as Democrats prepare totake control of Congress, they are struggling to keep that promisewithout wrecking a program that has proven cheaper and more popularthan anyone imagined.
House Democrats have vowed to act quicklyafter taking power in January to lift a ban on Medicare negotiationswith drugmakers, which they hope will save as much as $190 billion overa decade. But House leaders have yet to settle on a strategy andacknowledge that negotiation is, in any case, unlikely to generatesufficient savings to fill the “doughnut hole,” the much-criticized gapin coverage that forces millions of seniors to pay 100 percent of drugcosts for a few weeks or months each year.
Drug-company lobbyists, Bush administration officials and manycongressional Republicans are preparing to block any effort to increasefederal control over drug prices, saying the Medicare benefit isworking well. They contend that instead of saving money, governmentnegotiations could raise drug prices for all consumers while limitingchoices for people on Medicare.