Order Code RL31084
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Medicare: Selected Prescription Drug Proposals
in the 107th Congress
Updated October 30, 2001
Jennifer O’Sullivan
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
Medicare: Selected Prescription Drug Proposals
in the 107th Congress
Summary
Medicare, the nationwide health insurance program for the aged and disabled,
does not cover most outpatient prescription drugs. On several occasions, the
Congress has considered providing coverage for at least a portion of beneficiaries’
drug costs. The issue received renewed attention in the 106th Congress. However,
there was no consensus on how the coverage should be structured.
The issue has again received attention in the 107th Congress. The FY2002
Budget Resolution provides $300 billion over the FY2003-FY2011 period for a
Medicare reserve fund for Medicare reform and prescription drug coverage. A
number of bills have been introduced, though at this writing no bill has been
introduced or acted on by any of the three committees of jurisdiction (House Ways
and Means, House Energy and Commerce, and Senate Finance). Given the events of
September 11, 2001, it is unclear what action, if any, the Congress will take on this
issue this year.
The drug provisions of Medicare proposals introduced in both the 106th and 107th
Congresses contain a number of common themes. In general, they would make
coverage available to all Medicare beneficiaries on a voluntary basis. They would
place a limit on the amount of federal spending for the new benefit, thereby requiring
beneficiaries (or their supplementary insurance) to pay the remaining costs. Further,
they would provide assistance for low-income persons. However, there are a number
of significant differences between the bills. These include the degree of reliance and
financial risk placed on the private sector versus the public sector, the scope of
benefits, and the federal administrative structure.
It is generally agreed that if Congress were to enact a drug benefit, it would take
several years before the program could be implemented. As an interim measure,
President Bush announced June 14, 2001, the creation of a Medicare Prescription
Drug Discount program. This program would provide for the endorsement by
Medicare of qualified privately-administered prescription drug discount cards.
Beneficiaries could obtain these cards either free or for a nominal enrollment charge;
the card would provide access to discounts on prescription drugs. While this plan
would not establish a Medicare drug benefit, it was designed to give seniors access
to similar kinds of discounts as are available to the under age 65 population under
private insurance plans. However, on September 6, 2001, a federal district court
judge issued a temporary injunction against implementation of the card program.
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of
bills introduced in the 107th
Congress that have received the most attention. To date these are S. 358, introduced
by Senators Breaux and Frist, and S. 1135, introduced by Senator Graham et al. This
report is a companion report to CRS Report RL30819,
Medicare Prescription Drug
Coverage for Beneficiaries: Background and Issues; that report includes a discussion
of the major benefit design questions that would need to be addressed as the Congress
develops a drug benefit. This report will be updated to reflect any legislative action.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Major Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Private vs. Public Sector Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Scope of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Low-Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
President Bush’s Medicare Drug Discount Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Summary of Major Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Eligible Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Program Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Plan Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Relationship to Medicare+Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Information for Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Nature of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Scope of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Premium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Deductible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Cost-Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Updates to Deductible and Coverage Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Drug Pricing and Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Access to Negotiated Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Covered Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
New Federal Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Federal Advisory Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Federal Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Definition of Eligible Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Establishment of Plans/Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Payments to Plans and Benefit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Assumption of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Cost Controls/Formularies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Beneficiary Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Pharmacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Relationship to Private Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Relationship to Medigap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Low-Income Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Relationship to Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Accounting Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
CBO Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
List of Tables
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Prescription Drug Bills
Introduced in the 107th Congress and H.R. 4680, the House-passed bill
from the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Medicare: Selected Prescription Drug
Proposals in the 107th Congress
Introduction
Medicare, the nationwide health insurance program for the aged and disabled,
does not cover most outpatient prescription drugs. The absence of an adequate
prescription drug benefit has been of concern to policymakers since the enactment of
Medicare in 1965. On several occasions, the Congress has considered providing
coverage for at least a portion of beneficiaries’ drug costs. The issue received
renewed attention in the 106th Congress. However, there was no consensus on how
the coverage should be structured.
The issue has again received attention in the 107th Congress. A number of bills
have been introduced, though at this writing no bill has been introduced or acted on
by any of the three committees of jurisdiction (House Ways and Means, House
Energy and Commerce, and Senate Finance). Given the events of September 11,
2001, it is unclear what action, if any, the Congress will take on this issue this year.
One of the key concerns in designing a drug benefit is the potential cost and how
costs would increase over time. Another issue is the appropriate role of both the
federal government and the private sector in assuming the financial risk of coverage
and administering the benefit. Some observers suggest that a drug benefit should be
added directly to Medicare while others recommend alternative approaches for
assuring coverage for the target population. A further consideration is whether a
major new benefit should be added until structural reforms are made to the Medicare
program as a whole.1
It is generally agreed that if Congress were to enact a drug benefit this year, it
would take several years before the program could actually be implemented. As an
interim measure, President Bush announced June 14, 2001, the creation of a Medicare
Prescription Drug Discount program. This program would provide for the
endorsement by Medicare of qualified privately-administered prescription drug
discount cards. Beneficiaries could obtain these cards either free or for a nominal
enrollment charge; the card would provide access to discounts on prescription drugs.
While this plan would not establish a Medicare drug benefit, it was designed to give
seniors access to similar kinds of discounts as are available to the under age 65
population under private insurance plans. However, on September 6, 2001, a federal
1For a discussion of the major issues that would need to be addressed as Congress considers
policy options, see: CRS Report RL30819,
Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage for
Beneficiaries: Background and Issues, by Jennifer O’Sullivan.
CRS-2
district court judge issued a temporary injunction against implementation of the card
program.
Legislation
106th Congress
A number of bills were introduced in the 106th Congress which would have
established a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Some measures
added a new benefit to the Medicare program itself. Other proposals provided a new
drug benefit through another federal or state program. Still other measures focused
on private insurance coverage. Some other bills focused on the prices seniors pay for
drugs.
The House passed the Medicare Rx 2000 Act (H.R. 4680, as amended) on June
28, 2000. The House bill relied on private insurance companies and other private
sector entities to provide coverage. These entities were to be partially subsidized for
assuming the risk of prescription drug costs. At a minimum, plans would have had
to provide “qualified coverage.” “Qualified coverage” was defined as “standard
coverage” or coverage that was actuarially equivalent (i.e., had an equivalent dollar
value). “Standard coverage” was defined as having: 1) a deductible ($250 in 2003),
2) then 50% cost-sharing up to an initial coverage limit (the next $2,100 in 2003,
accounting for $1,300 in total out-of-pocket costs ($1,050 plus $250 deductible) and
$2,350 total spending)); 3) then no coverage until the beneficiary had out-of-pocket
costs of $6,000 ($7,050 in total spending; and 4) once the beneficiary reached the
$6,000 catastrophic limit full coverage would be provided. Low-income seniors
would receive assistance for premiums and costs not paid by the new benefit. The
drug benefit and the Medicare+Choice program were to be administered by a new
Medicare Benefits Administration.
Several other measures received considerable attention in the 106th Congress.
These included proposals offered by President Clinton (S. 2342) and similar
Democratic bills (S. 2541 and H.R. 4770), measures introduced by Senators Breaux
and Frist (S. 1895 and S. 2807), and a bill introduced by Senators Graham and Robb.
The Senate Finance Committee held a number of hearings but did not report a bill.2
107th Congress
Status of Legislation. The issue of prescription drug coverage has again
received considerable attention in the 107th Congress. The FY2002 Budget
Resolution provides $300 billion over the FY2003-FY2011 period for a Medicare
2For discussion of major bills considered in the 106th Congress see: CRS Report RL30584,
Medicare: Selected Prescription Drug Proposals in the 106th Congress, by Jennifer
O’Sullivan; and CRS Report RL30593,
Medicare: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected
Prescription Drug Bills, by Jennifer O’Sullivan and Heidi Yacker.
CRS-3
reserve fund for Medicare reform and prescription drug coverage.3 The three
committees of jurisdiction have worked on bills which would address both drug
coverage as well as other reform items. As of this writing, committee bills have not
yet been introduced. Given the events of September 11, 2001, it is unclear what
further action, if any, the Congress will take on this issue this year.
Several bills have been introduced. To date the two that have received the most
attention are: 1) S. 358, the “Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of
2001 (Breaux and Frist, also known as “Breaux-Frist 2"); and 2) S.1135, the
Medicare Reform Act of 2001 (Graham et al.). Both are similar, but not identical, to
measures introduced in the 106th Congress.
Overview of Major Proposals
Proposals introduced in both the 106th and 107th Congresses contain a number
of common themes. In general, they would make coverage available to all Medicare
beneficiaries on a voluntary basis. They would have a limit on the amount of federal
spending for the new benefit. Beneficiaries would be expected to assume specified
costs of the new benefit in the form of premiums and cost-sharing charges. The bills
generally would pay most or all of these charges for the low-income (generally
persons below 135% of poverty). Other individuals would have a limit on out-of-
pocket costs (a “catastrophic limit”).
There are, however, a number of significant differences between the bills. These
include the degree of reliance and financial risk placed on the private sector versus the
public sector, the definition and scope of benefits, the federal administrative structure,
and implementation of low-income subsidies.
Private vs. Public Sector Responsibility. Virtually all proposals would
place some measure of responsibility on the private sector for administration of a drug
plan. It is the degree of reliance placed on the public versus the private sector that is
one of the key areas of difference among the various proposals.
Last year’s House-passed bill would have provided access to a drug-only benefit
through private insurance companies and other entities who wished to offer the
benefit. This year’s Breaux-Frist 2 plan would also provide access to a drug benefit
through private entities or Medicare+Choice plans. Under these proposals, most of
the financial risk for the cost of covered benefits would be placed on the entities
administering the benefit.
Under the House-passed bill, the Administrator of the new Medicare Benefits
Administration would have administered the program in a manner such that eligible
individuals would be assured access to at least two plans. If necessary to ensure
access, the Administrator would have been authorized to provide financial incentives.
The Breaux-Frist 2 bill specifically requires the Commissioner of a new Competitive
3For a further discussion of Medicare financing and other structural reform issues see: CRS
Report RL31058,
Medicare Structural Reform: Background and Options, by Jennifer
O’Sullivan, Hinda Ripps Chaikind, and Sibyl Tilson.
CRS-4
Medicare Agency (CMA) to develop procedures for the provision of standard
prescription drug coverage to each beneficiary residing in an area where there were
no private entities providing coverage. The Commissioner could establish procedures
that permitted partial risk-sharing arrangements if the Commissioner determined that
this would generate bids in areas with no Medicare Prescription Plus plans or
Medicare+Choice plans providing coverage. Under both bills, the private plans would
be at risk for any costs in excess of federal subsidy payments and federal reinsurance
payments. Reinsurance payments are made to cover a portion of the costs paid by
plans for individuals exceeding the catastrophic out-of-pocket limit.
Under the Graham bill, the new benefit would be administered at the federal level
like other Medicare benefits and the federal government would bear most of the
financial risk of coverage. The actual operation of the benefit would be through
contracts with private entities such as pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs).
PBMs currently administer the drug benefit, including negotiating price discounts, for
many private insurance plans. Under the Graham bill, a portion of the administrative
fees for these entities would be put at risk; specifically, an adjustment would be made
in administrative payments to ensure that entities complied with requirements relating
to performance goals.
Scope of Benefits. Another key difference among proposals is the scope of
benefits. Under the Graham bill there would be
one specific benefit available to all
enrollees nationwide. Conversely, under last year’s House-passed bill and Breaux-
Frist 2 there would be a
minimum benefit level established. Under the House-passed
bill and Breaux-Frist 2, the minimum benefit (referred to as “qualified coverage”)
would be either specified “standard coverage” or alternative coverage, provided it was
actuarially equivalent to standard coverage and had the same limit on out-of-pocket
spending.
Administration. Medicare is currently administered by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Prior to June 14, 2001, this agency was known as the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA). Several of the proposals would establish a new
entity to administer the drug benefit at the federal level. Under the last year’s House-
passed plan, a new Medicare Benefits Administration (MBA) would have been
established (outside of HCFA, but within HHS) to administer the drug benefit and
Medicare+Choice. Under Breaux-Frist 2, a new Competitive Medicare Agency
(outside of HHS) would be established to administer the drug benefit and
Medicare+Choice; an independent Medicare Competition and Prescription Drug
Advisory Board would be set up to advise the Commissioner of this agency. Under
the Graham bill, the benefit would be administered by CMS; an advisory committee
would be established to advise the Secretary on policies related to the drug benefit.
Low-Income. Under current law, some low income aged and disabled
Medicare beneficiaries are also eligible for drug coverage under Medicaid. Those
persons
entitled to full Medicaid protection generally have prescription drug
coverage. Some groups receive more limited Medicaid benefits. Qualified Medicare
Beneficiaries (QMBs) are persons with incomes below poverty and resources below
$4,000; these persons receive Medicaid assistance for Medicare cost-sharing and
premium charges. Specified Low Income Beneficiaries (SLIMBs) meet the QMB
CRS-5
definition except that their income limit is above the QMB level; the SLIMB limit is
120% of poverty. QMBs and SLIMBs only receive drug benefits if they are also
entitled to full Medicaid coverage. Under a temporary program, the SLIMB level can
be extended to certain persons under 135% of poverty who are not otherwise eligible
for Medicaid.
All of the major proposals would provide significant assistance to persons below
135% of poverty – in terms of premiums that would have to be paid for coverage
and/or cost sharing once persons used benefits. The plans provide for no, or very
limited, beneficiary liability for covered services for this population group. Some of
the proposals would extend the low-income assistance protections to persons at
slightly higher income levels. The proposals differ in what portion of the costs of
low-income subsidies would be paid under the current federal-state Medicaid program
and what portion would be fully paid by the federal government.
President Bush’s Medicare Drug Discount Program
On July 12, 2001, the President announced the
President’s Framework to
Strengthen Medicare. This document included the outlines for Medicare reform and
prescription drug coverage. It did not include statutory language; instead the
Administration intends to work with the Congress in developing legislation.
On the same day, the President announced a new national drug discount program
for Medicare beneficiaries. The Administration intended to implement the program
administratively; that is, no legislation would be requested. This discount program
was viewed as an interim step until a legislative reform package, including both a drug
benefit and other Medicare reforms, was enacted.
Implementation of the drug discount program is on hold. On July 17, 2001, the
National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the National Community Pharmacy
Association filed a suit against HHS stating that the Administration violated the
Administrative Procedures Act in the way it established the program. On September
6, 2001, a federal district court judge issued a temporary injunction against
implementation of the card program. The judge stated that HHS exceeded its
authority in establishing the program and did not follow normal rulemaking
procedures in implementing it. On October 9, 2001, the Justice Department filed a
motion for a stay of the proceedings telling the court that HHS intended to publish a
proposed rule for a new discount proposal that could differ from the original
proposal. On October 11, 2001, the pharmacies asked the court to reject the stay.
As of this writing, the Court has not ruled on the issue.
The drug discount program outlined by President Bush was intended to give
seniors access to similar kinds of discounts as are available to the under age 65
population under private insurance plans. Under the discount plan, Medicare would
endorse and promote qualified privately-administered prescription drug discount
cards. Approved card sponsors (PBMs and similar entities) would make the cards
available either free or at a one-time enrollment charge (not to exceed $25).
CRS-6
Beneficiaries could enroll in only one Medicare-endorsed card program at a time; they
could change enrollment on a semi-annual basis.
Under the discount card proposal, approved card sponsors would be required
to enroll all Medicare beneficiaries willing to participate. They would be required to
provide a discount on at least one brand and/or generic drug in each therapeutic class.
They would also be required to offer a national or regional pharmacy network,
providing strong retail access. Applicants would be urged to include a mail-order
service as part of their program; however, mail-order only plans would not be
approved. Medicare would require approved card sponsors to publish the discounted
prices. Approved plans could not charge fees to CMS for any activities related to the
card program.
The discount program was to be a private program; it would not be financed by
federal dollars. The federal oversight role was to be limited to annual certification of
plans based on specified criteria including membership thresholds, pharmacy network
thresholds, and the inclusion of all therapeutic classes in the discount program.
Card sponsors were to be required to participate in and help finance a
Consortium to handle all enrollment and eligibility functions as well as publicize
comparative information on the different discounted drug prices and quality
enhancements available from various card sponsors. Under the proposal, the
Consortium was to be required to implement a system, by October 1, 2001, to permit
seniors to compare card programs on such factors as formulary content, networks and
discounts. By October 1, 2002, the Consortium would be expected to help
consumers comparison shop by providing them with the actual discounted prices
associated with various card programs, including information on generic and
formulary alternatives.
CMS intended to launch a major education campaign in the fall of 2001. On July
16, 2001, CMS published the requirements for endorsement of card sponsors.
Medicare’s endorsement was to be based on qualification requirements relating to
experience, customer service, discounts, and access. The endorsement was to be for
14 months. CMS intended the first endorsement cycle to be effective November 1,
2001-December 31, 2002.
Applications for endorsement were due by August 27, 2001. CMS received 28
applications. However, the program is on hold following the preliminary injunction
issued September 6, 2001. CMS reports that it is working with the Department of
Justice to consider all legal options.
CRS-7
Summary of Major Proposals
Table 1 is a side-by-side comparison of
bills introduced in the 107th Congress
that have received the most attention to date. As noted earlier, no committee bills
have been introduced to date. However, House committees are reportedly developing
a bill modeled on H.R. 4680, the 106th Congress bill passed by the House on June 28,
2000. Therefore, this side-by-side also includes last year’s bill. The summary is
limited to the prescription drug provisions, though the bills may contain other
Medicare provisions.
The summary highlights the major features of the bills. The first items provide
a broad overview (Title, General Approach, Previous Versions, and Effective Date).
This is followed by beneficiary coverage items (Eligible Populations, Program
Enrollment, Plan Enrollment, and Information for Beneficiaries). Next is a discussion
of benefits (Nature of Benefits, Scope of Benefits, Premium, Deductible, Cost-
Sharing, and Updates to Deductible and Cost-Sharing Amounts). The next items
relate to drugs (Drug Pricing and Payment, Access to Negotiated Prices, and Covered
Drugs). The next items relate to administration (New Federal Agency, Federal
Advisory Body, Federal Administration, Definition of Eligible Entity, Establishment
of Plans/Benefits, Access, Federal Payments to Plans or Benefit Administrators, and
Assumption of Risk). This is followed by plan requirements (Plan Requirements, Cost
Controls/Formularies, Beneficiary Protections, and Pharmacies). The next items
relate to existing programs which supplement Medicare benefits (Relationship to
Medicare+Choice, Relationship to Private Plans, and Relationship to Medigap). Then
the low-income provisions are reviewed (Low-Income Subsidies and Relationship to
Medicaid). Finally, other administrative and financing items are outlined (Reports,
Accounting Mechanism, Financing, and CBO Cost Estimate).
CRS-8
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Prescription Drug Bills
Introduced in the 107th Congress and H.R. 4680, the House-passed bill from the 106th
Congress
Title
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Medicare Prescription Drug and
Medicare Reform Act of 2001
Medicare Rx 2000 Act
Modernization Act of 2001
General Approach
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner of the newly established
A new voluntary benefit would be established
A new optional benefit would be established
Competitive Medicare Agency (CMA) would
under a new Part D. The benefit would be
under a new Part D. The bill would rely on
be required to establish a Prescription Drug
administered by the Secretary of Health and
private plans to provide coverage and to bear
and Supplemental Benefit program under
Human Services (HHS). Enrolled
most of the financial risk for drug costs;
Title XXII of the Social Security Act.
beneficiaries would obtain coverage through
federal subsidies would be provided to
Eligible beneficiaries would voluntarily enroll
either a Medicare+Choice plan or through
encourage participation. Coverage would be
and receive access to covered outpatient drugs
enrollment in a plan offered by an eligible
provided through prescription drug plans
and, in certain cases, other supplemental
entity under contract with HHS. The federal
(PDPs) or Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans.
benefits through enrollment in either a
government would bear most of the financial
Beneficiaries could purchase either a standard
Medicare Prescription Plus plan offered by a
risk of coverage. A specified benefit would be
plan or an actuarially equivalent plan.
private entity or a Medicare+Choice plan. At
available to all enrollees nationwide.
Individuals with incomes below 135% of
a minimum, drug coverage would be standard
Medicaid would cover Part D premiums,
poverty would have a premium subsidy equal
coverage or actuarially equivalent coverage.
coinsurance, and deductibles for persons with
to 100% of the value of standard drug
The entities would assume most of the risk of
incomes below 135% of poverty. (The bill
coverage. A new Medicare Benefits
benefit costs. All persons would receive a
also includes other Medicare provisions; these
Administration (MBA) would be established
minimum of a 25% discount on that portion
would expand coverage of preventive
within HHS to administer the benefit and the
of their premium related to qualified
benefits, create an independent panel to make
Medicare+Choice program. (The bill also
prescription drug coverage. Persons with
coverage decisions, set up a demonstration
includes provisions that would establish the
incomes below 135% of poverty would
program to improve Medicare+Choice,
MBA, modify the Medicare+Choice program,
receive a 100% discount. All current
provide for management improvements to the
modify the Medicare coverage and appeals
Medicare benefits would be guaranteed and
traditional Medicare program, and income-
provisions, and establish a demonstration
be unaffected by the new program. (The bill
relate the Part B premium.)
project for disease management for severely
also includes provisions that establish the
chronically ill beneficiaries).
CMA, modify the Medicare+Choice program,
and establish Medicare Consumer coalitions.)
CRS-9
Previous Versions
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
This bill, is frequently referred to as “Breaux-
The drug portion of this bill is similar to S.
This is the 106th Congress bill which was
Frist 2". It is similar, but not identical to S.
10 (Daschle), though there are a number of
passed by the House June 28, 2000.
2807 (Breaux and Frist) from the 106th
differences between the two bills. S. 10 is
Congress which was also known as Breaux-
very similar, but not identical to, S.Amdt.
Frist 2. “Breaux Frist 1" (S. 357 in the 107th
3598 (Robb) to H.R. 4577, submitted on June
Congress, S. 1895 in the 106th Congress)
22, 2000 (106th Congress) and not agreed to
provides for more extensive Medicare
on the same date by a 44-53 roll call vote.
reforms.
The Senate amendment was very similar, but
not identical to S. 2758, the Medicare
Outpatient Drug Act (the MOD Act)
introduced on June 20, 2000, by Senators
Graham, Bryan, Robb, et.al.
Effective Date
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
January 1, 2004
January 1, 2004
January 1, 2003
Eligible Populations
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
All Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in both
All Medicare beneficiaries (enrolled in Part
All beneficiaries enrolled in Part B who
Parts A and B who elected to enroll.
A, Part B, or both) who elected to enroll.
elected to enroll in a Medicare+Choice plan
with prescription drug coverage or in a
PDP.
CRS-10
Program Enrollment
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner would establish an
The Secretary would establish an enrollment
The Administrator of the new MBA would
enrollment process which would be similar to
process which would be similar to that for
establish an enrollment process. An initial
that established for Medicare Part B.
Medicare Part B (including provisions
election period would be established. For
Beneficiaries would have a
one-time
deeming persons enrolled when they first
current Part B beneficiaries this would be the
enrollment opportunity. For current
become eligible). An individual’s initial
6-month period beginning November 2002;
beneficiaries this would be the 6-month
enrollment opportunity would generally occur
for future beneficiaries it would be the same
period beginning November 2003; for future
when an individual first became eligible for
7-month period applicable for initial Part B
beneficiaries it would be the same 7-month
Medicare.
enrollment. Special election periods would
period applicable for initial Part B
apply for persons who involuntarily lose other
enrollment. A special enrollment period
The Secretary would establish an initial open
drug coverage. A one-time enrollment period
would be established for persons involuntarily
enrollment period for current enrollees. Late
would be established for Part A-only
losing other drug coverage under Medicaid, a
enrollment penalties, similar to those
beneficiaries. (Such persons could not enroll
group health plan, Medigap, a state
applicable under Part B, would apply for
in a Medicare+Choice plan unless they also
pharmaceutical assistance program, or
persons who did not enroll during their initial
enroll in Part B.)
veterans coverage; persons would be required
enrollment period. Late enrollment penalties
to enroll within 63 days of losing other
would not apply in cases where an individual
Persons electing coverage at the first
coverage.
was 1) previously covered under a group
opportunity and maintaining continuous
health plan (including a qualified retiree
coverage would be guaranteed the protection
prescription drug plan) which provided
of community rating. Persons who delayed
coverage at least equal to the value of Part D
enrollment (and who did not maintain
coverage; and 2) such coverage terminated, or
alternative drug coverage through such
ceased to provide or reduced the value of
sources as Medicaid, group health plans, or
coverage below the Part D level within the
state programs) could be subject to increased
previous 60 days. Late enrollment penalties
premiums or a pre-existing condition
would also not apply for persons losing their
exclusion.
eligibility for drug coverage under Medicaid,
a state pharmaceutical assistance program, or
veterans coverage within the previous 60
days.
CRS-11
Plan Enrollment
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner would establish a process,
The Secretary would establish a process
The Administrator, acting through the new
consistent with that established for
through which beneficiaries enrolled in Part
Office of Beneficiary Assistance would be
Medicare+Choice, for individuals to make an
D, but not in a Medicare+Choice plan, would
required to establish and maintain a plan
annual election to enroll in a Medicare
make an annual election to enroll in a plan
election process consistent with that now
Prescription Plus Plan offered by an entity
offered by an eligible entity. The rules would
provided for the election of Medicare+Choice
serving their geographic area.
be similar to, and coordinate with, those for
plans. The process would include the
Medicare+Choice enrollment.
conducting of annual coordinated election
periods, the active dissemination of
comparative plan information, and the
coordination of elections.
Relationship to Medicare+Choice
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
A Medicare+Choice enrollee would obtain
Medicare+Choice plans would be required to
A Medicare+Choice enrollee would obtain
benefits through the Medicare+Choice plan if
offer Part D drug benefits. Enrollees electing
benefits through the Medicare+Choice plan if
the plan provided qualified drug coverage. A
the drug benefit would receive these benefits
the plan provided qualified drug coverage. A
Medicare+Choice plan could not offer drug
through the plan. Capitation payments to the
Medicare+Choice plan could not offer drug
coverage (other than that already required
plans would be adjusted accordingly with a
coverage (other than that already required
under Medicare) unless the coverage was at
separate calculation made for Part D benefits.
under Medicare) unless the coverage was at
least qualified prescription drug coverage and
Medicare+Choice enrollees could not be
least qualified prescription drug coverage and
the plan complied with the beneficiary
required to pay deductible or coinsurance
the plan complied with the beneficiary
protections required for Medicare
charges that exceed those specified under Part
protection requirements for PDP sponsored
Prescription Plus plans. Medicare+Choice
D.
plans. Medicare+Choice plans would be
plans would be required to compute and
required to compute and publish: a) a
publish: a) a premium for drug benefits that
premium for drug benefits that is separate
is separate from other coverage; b) the ratio
from other coverage; b) the ratio of the
of the actuarial value of standard drug
actuarial value of standard drug coverage to
coverage to the actuarial value of drug
the actuarial value of drug coverage offered
coverage offered under the plan; and c) the
under the plan; and c) the portion of the
portion of the premium attributable to
premium attributable to standard benefits.
standard benefits. Medicare+Choice
Medicare+Choice organizations would be
organizations would be permitted to reduce
permitted to reduce the amount of premiums
the amount of premiums charged.
charged.
CRS-12
Information for Beneficiaries
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner would establish a process,
The Secretary would conduct activities to
The required active dissemination of plan
s i m i l a r t o t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d f o r
broadly disseminate information regarding
information, including information on price
Medicare+Choice to broadly disseminate
drug coverage. To the extent practicable, this
and quality, would be conducted in a manner
information. The information activities
information would be made available 30 days
consistent with and in coordination with the
would be coordinated with other required
prior to a beneficiary’s first enrollment
dissemination of information regarding
information activities, including those for
period. Information would include
Medicare+Choice plans.
Medicare+Choice. The Commissioner could
comparative information for each eligible
establish Medicare Consumer Coalitions
entity on: 1) benefits provided, including
(nonprofit entities primarily composed of
prices beneficiaries will be charged, preferred
beneficiaries) to help provide information to
pharmacies used, formularies, and appeals
beneficiaries; such sums as may be necessary
processes; 2) quality and performance; 3)
would be authorized for this purpose.
beneficiary cost-sharing; 4) results of
consumer satisfaction surveys; and 5)
additional information as determined by the
Secretary. The information activities would
be coordinated with other required
information activities including those for
Medicare+Choice. The Secretary could
contract with Medicare Consumer Coalitions
(nonprofit entities made up primarily of
beneficiaries) to conduct information
activities; such sums as may be necessary
would be authorized for this purpose.
Nature of Benefits
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
CRS-13
“Qualified coverage” would be either
A specified benefit would be available to all
“Qualified coverage” would be either
“standard coverage” or “actuarially
enrollees nationwide.
standard coverage or actuarially equivalent
equivalent coverage” (i.e., having an
coverage. Plans could offer more generous
equivalent dollar value). Plans could offer
drug coverage, if approved by the MBA
more generous drug coverage; they could also
Administrator.
offer supplemental non-drug benefits. If an
entity offered more generous coverage, it
would also be required to offer a Medicare
Prescription Plus plan in the area meeting
minimum coverage criteria only.
Scope of Benefits
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
CRS-14
“Standard coverage” would be defined as
The benefit would be subject to a deductible
“Standard coverage” would be defined as
having a deductible ($250 in 2004), 50%
($250 in 2004), 50% coinsurance until
having a deductible ($250 in 2003), 50%
cost-sharing up to the initial coverage limit
beneficiary out-of-pocket costs reached a
cost-sharing up to the initial coverage limit
(the next $2,100 in 2004 (accounting for
specified level ($3,500 in 2004), and then
(the next $2,100 in 2003 (accounting for
$1,300 in total out-of-pocket costs and $2,350
25% coinsurance until out-of-pocket costs
$1300 in total out-of-pocket costs and $2,350
total spending)), then no coverage until the
reached the out-of-pocket limit ($4,000 in
total spending)) then no coverage until the
beneficiary had out-of-pocket costs of $6,000
2004).
beneficiary had out-of-pocket costs of $6,000
($7,050 in total spending); once the
($7,050 in total spending); once the
beneficiary reached the $6,000 catastrophic
beneficiary reached the $6,000 catastrophic
limit full coverage would be provided. Plans
limit full coverage would be provided. Plans
could offer a package that was actuarially
could offer a package that was actuarially
equivalent to the standard package, subject to
equivalent to the standard package, subject to
certain conditions, including having a limit
certain conditions including having a limit on
on out-of-pocket costs the same as that under
out-of-pocket costs the same as that under
standard coverage.
standard coverage.
A Medicare Prescription Plus plan could
Plans could also offer additional drug
provide more generous drug benefits. It could
coverage.
also offer coverage of non-drug benefits. If
these non-drug benefits included coverage of
any Medicare cost-sharing charges and
related charges specified as core benefits
under Medigap, the plan would have to cover
at least all such charges that would be
covered under Medigap Plan A. If an entity
offered more generous coverage, it would also
be required to offer a Medicare Prescription
Plus plan in the area meeting qualified
coverage criteria only. Further, the
Commissioner would have to find that the
benefits were not designed to result in
favorable selection of beneficiaries.
CRS-15
Premium
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
A plan would be required to charge a uniform
Beneficiaries would pay a monthly premium
The plan sponsor would establish the
premium for individuals enrolled in the plan
equal to 50% of estimated average per capita
premium amount. The premium for a
in the same service area. Beneficiaries would
program costs; premiums paid by former
prescription drug plan could not vary among
pay the premium amount (less any discount)
employers would equal two-thirds of the total.
individuals enrolled in the plan in the same
in the same manner as Part B premiums are
The remaining 50% would be paid by the
service area, unless the individuals were
paid (generally as a deduction from an
federal government. Premiums would be
subject to penalties for late enrollment.
individual’s social security check). All
collected in the same way as Part B
Premiums would be paid to the plans.
beneficiaries would receive a discount of at
premiums; for most persons this is a
least 25% of the value of standard coverage.
deduction from social security checks.
(The low income would receive a larger
discount, see below.) This discount would be
Higher income persons would receive a lower
included as taxable income to the beneficiary.
government premium contribution.
Individuals with adjusted gross incomes
between $75,000 and $100,000 and couples
with adjusted gross incomes between
$150,000 and $200,000 would have the
government premium contribution reduced
from 50% to 25%, calculated on a sliding
scale basis. (These income amounts would be
adjusted for inflation as measured by the
consumer price index for years after 2004.)
All beneficiaries would receive a minimum
25% government subsidy.
Deductible
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
In 2004, the deductible for standard coverage
The benefit would be subject to an annual
In 2003, the deductible for standard coverage
would be $250.
deductible ($250 in 2004). An entity could
would be $250.
waive the deductible for generic drugs if: 1)
the Secretary determined that the waiver was
tied to performance goals established by the
Secretary; and 2) it would not result in an
increase in federal costs. Any coinsurance
paid with respect to such a generic drug
would be credited toward the deductible
applicable for other drugs.
CRS-16
Cost-Sharing
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
“Standard coverage” would be defined as
In 2004, beneficiary cost-sharing would equal
“Standard coverage” would be defined as
having 50% cost-sharing up to the initial
50% of costs until out-of-pocket costs totaled
having 50% cost-sharing up to the initial
coverage limit (the next $2,100 after the $250
$3,500. At this point, beneficiary cost-
coverage limit (the next $2,100 after the $250
deductible in 2004, accounting for total
sharing would be reduced to 25%. There
deductible in 2003, accounting for total
spending of $2,350), and full coverage after
would be no cost sharing once out-of-pocket
spending of $2,350), and full coverage after
an annual limit in out-of-pocket spending
costs reached $4,000. Thus, assuming no
an annual limit in out-of-pocket spending
($6,000 in 2004). Thus in 2004, the
waiver of the deductible, the beneficiary
($6,000 in 2003). Thus in 2003, the
beneficiary would pay the first $250, $1,050
would pay 100% of the first $250, 50% of the
beneficiary would pay the first $250, $1,050
of the next $2,100 (with the plan paying the
next $6,500 ($6,750 total, $3,500 total out-of-
of the next $2,100 (with the plan paying the
other $1,050), and all costs for drug spending
pocket), and 25% of the next $2,000 ($8,750
other $1,050), and all costs for drug spending
between $2,350 and $7,050. The plan would
total, $4,000 total out-of-pocket). The
between $2,350 and $7,050. The plan would
pay in full for all costs over $7,050 ($6,000 in
program would pay any remaining costs.
pay in full for all costs over $7,050 ($6,000 in
out-of-pocket costs). Out-of-pocket costs
Entities could reduce cost sharing if the
out-of-pocket costs). Out-of-pocket costs
counting toward the limit would include costs
Secretary determined that the reduction was
counting toward the limit would include costs
paid by a state program but not those covered
tied to performance goals and such reduction
paid by another person including a state
as benefits under other third-party coverage.
would not increase federal costs. Entities
program or other third-party coverage.
could also require higher cost-sharing for
drugs not on their formulary (see below),
except that higher cost-sharing would not be
permitted if the drug was determined to be
medically necessary (based on professional
medical judgment, the medical condition of
the beneficiary, and other medical evidence)
to prevent or slow the deterioration of, or
improve or maintain, the health of an eligible
beneficiary.
Updates to Deductible and Coverage Limits
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
CRS-17
The annual dollar amounts would be
The dollar amounts would be increased in
The annual dollar amounts would be
increased by the increase in average per
future years (beginning in 2005) by the
increased by the increase in average per
capita aggregate expenditures for drugs by
percentage increase in average per capita
capita aggregate expenditures for drugs by
Medicare beneficiaries for the year ending the
expenditures under the program in the
Medicare beneficiaries for the year ending the
previous July.
preceding year over such expenditures in
previous July.
2004.
CRS-18
Drug Pricing and Payment
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The entity would determine payments and
The contracting entity’s bid would include a
The PDP sponsor would determine payments
would be expected to negotiate discounts.
proposal for the estimated prices for covered
and would be expected to negotiate discounts.
drugs and projected annual increase in prices.
The entity would be expected to negotiate
discounts.
Access to Negotiated Prices
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Both standard and actuarially equivalent
Plans would provide that beneficiaries would
Both standard coverage and actuarially
coverage would have to provide beneficiaries
have access to negotiated prices (including
equivalent coverage would have to provide
access to negotiated prices, even when the
applicable discounts) regardless of the fact
beneficiaries access to negotiated prices
plan was under no obligation to pay for the
that no or only partial benefits are paid
(including applicable discounts) even when
benefits. The entity or Medicare+Choice plan
because of the application of the deductible or
no benefits may be payable because the
would issue a drug discount card.
coinsurance.
beneficiary has reached the initial coverage
limit.
Covered Drugs
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
In general, coverage would be extended to
In general, coverage would be extended to
In general coverage would be extended to
outpatient prescription drugs meeting FDA
outpatient prescription drugs meeting FDA
outpatient prescription drugs, meeting FDA
criteria, biological products, and insulin.
criteria, biological products, and insulin.
criteria, biologicals, and insulin. Drugs
Drugs currently covered under Medicare
Prescription drugs and biological products
excluded under Medicaid would not be
would continue to be covered under the basic
meeting the criteria but also available over-
covered except those for smoking cessation or
program. Drugs excluded under Medicaid
the-counter would also be covered. Drugs
those specified by the MBA Administrator.
would not be covered, except those for
currently covered under Medicare would
Drugs currently covered under Medicare
smoking cessation.
continue to be covered under the basic
would continue to be covered under the basic
program. Drugs excluded under Medicaid
program.
would not be covered, except those for
smoking cessation.
All therapeutic classes of covered outpatient
drugs would be covered.
CRS-19
New Federal Agency
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
An independent agency, the Competitive
Not applicable.
The new MBA, within HHS, would
Medicare Agency would be set up in the
administer the new Part D drug benefit and
executive branch outside of HHS. The
the Medicare+Choice program. (HCFA, now
Agency would administer the Medicare
CMS, would retain responsibility for the
Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit
traditional fee-for-service program.) The
Program under the new Title XXII and the
head of the MBA would be an Administrator
Medicare+Choice program. (HHS would
appointed by the President, with the advice
retain responsibility for the traditional fee-
and consent of the Senate, for a 5-year term.
for-service program.) The head of the
The Secretary of HHS would assure
Agency would be a Commissioner appointed
appropriate coordination between the
by the President, with the advice and consent
Administrator and the Administrator of
of the Senate, for a 6-year term. The
HCFA (now CMS). The Administrator
Commissioner and the Secretary of HHS
would serve as a member of the Board of
would consult on an ongoing basis to ensure
Trustees of the Medicare trust funds.
coordination of programs and would
exchange data as appropriate. The
Commissioner would prepare an annual
budget for the agency that would be submitted
to the President and Congress without
revision, together with the President’s budget
for the Agency. The Commissioner would
serve as a member of the Board of Trustees of
the Medicare trust funds.
CRS-20
Federal Advisory Body
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
An independent 7-member Medicare
A 19-member Medicare Prescription Drug
A 7-member Medicare Policy Advisory Board
Competition and Prescription Drug Advisory
Advisory Committee would be established to
would be set up within the MBA to advise the
Board would be set up to advise the
advise the Secretary on policies related to
Administrator on policies related to the new
Commissioner on policies related to the new
development of: 1) guidelines for
program and Medicare+Choice. Three
program and Medicare+Choice. Three
implementation and administration of the
members would be appointed by the
members would be appointed by the President
benefit; 2) standards for contracting entities
President, two by the Speaker of the House,
(no more than two from the same party), two
for their Pharamacy and Theurapeutic (P&T)
and two by the President pro tempore of the
by the President pro tempore of the Senate
committees; 3) standards for entities for
Senate. The Board would submit reports to
(each from a different party) and two by the
determining if a drug is medically necessary
the Administrator and the Congress as
Speaker of the House (each from a different
to prevent or slow the deterioration of, or
determined appropriate. It would be required
party). The Board would submit reports to
improve or maintain, the health of an eligible
to submit reports directly to Congress; no
the Commissioner and the Congress as
beneficiary; 4) standards for defining
officer or agency could require that they be
determined appropriate. It would be required
therapeutic classes and adding new classes to
submitted to any federal officer or agency for
to submit reports directly to Congress; no
the formulary; 5) procedures to evaluate bids
prior review or approval.
officer or agency could require that they be
from eligible entities; and 6) procedures to
submitted to any federal officer or agency for
ensure that contracting entities are in
prior review or approval.
compliance with Part D requirements. The
Committee membership would be
representative of physicians (nine members),
pharmacists (four members), Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (one
member), actuaries, pharmacoeconomists,
researchers and appropriate experts (four
members), and emerging drug technologies
(one member).
CRS-21
Federal Administration
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner would establish a
The Secretary would: 1) establish a Part D
The Administrator, acting through the new
Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit
enrollment process for beneficiaries; 2)
Office of Beneficiary Assistance, would be
Program. The Commissioner would establish
establish an annual process for beneficiary
required to establish a plan election process
a program enrollment process and a process
enrollment with eligible entities; and 3)
including the dissemination of comparative
through which beneficiaries would enroll, on
conduct information activities. The Secretary
information. The Administrator would be
an annual basis, in a Medicare Prescription
would establish a competitive bidding process
responsible for entering into contracts with a
Plus plan. The Commissioner of the new
for the award of contracts to eligible entities
PDP sponsor; the contract could cover more
agency would have responsibility for: 1)
to administer and deliver the drug benefit. At
than one plan. The Administrator would have
coordinating determinations of beneficiary
least 10 different coverage areas would be
the same authority to negotiate the terms and
eligibility and enrollment under Title XVIII
established. The Secretary would consider
conditions of the plans as the Director of
and the new drug program with the
the comparative merits of each bid based on
Personnel Management has with respect to
Commissioner of Social Security; 2) entering
past performance and other factors. At least
Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB)
into and enforcing contracts with entities for
two contracts would be awarded in each area
plans. The Administrator would be required
the offering of Medicare Prescription Plus
unless only one entity met the bidding
to take into account reinsurance subsidy
plans; 3) disseminating comparative
requirements. Each contract would be
payments and the adjusted community rate
information regarding benefits and quality; 4)
awarded for 2-5 years. The Secretary would
for covered benefits in negotiating the terms
dissemination of appeals rights information;
approve marketing material and application
and conditions regarding premiums. The
and 5) establishing a Medicare beneficiary
forms.
Administrator could not require that a
education program. The Commissioner
particular formulary be used, institute a price
would also establish processes for
The Secretary could not award a contract
structure for drugs, or interfere in
determining the actuarial value of
unless the entity agreed to comply with terms
negotiations between PDP sponsors and
prescription drug coverage and for
and conditions specified by the Secretary
Medicare+Choice organizations with drug
determining the annual percentage increase
including those relating to: 1) quality and
manufacturers, wholesalers or other suppliers
in coverage limits. The Commissioner would
financial standards; 2) procedures to ensure
of drugs.
also administer the low-income cost sharing
proper utilization and avoidance of adverse
subsidy.
drug reactions; 3) patient protections; 4)
The Administrator would establish processes
procedures to control fraud, abuse, and waste;
for determining the actuarial value of
The Commissioner would review proposed
and 5) submission of reports; 6) approval of
prescription drug coverage and for
plans based on information submitted by
marketing material and application forms;
determining the annual percentage increase
eligible entities and approve or disapprove the
and 7) maintenance of records.
in coverage limits. The Administrator would
proposal. The Commissioner would have the
provide a process for administration of the
same authority to negotiate terms and
subsidy program including periodic
conditions of premiums and other terms of
reimbursement to the PDP sponsor or
the plans as the Director of the Office of
Medicare+Choice organization of the subsidy
Personnel Management has with respect to
amount.
Federal Employee Health Benefits plans.
CRS-22
Definition of Eligible Entity
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
An eligible entity would be any risk-bearing
An eligible entity would be any entity the
A PDP plan sponsor would be an entity
entity the Commissioner determined to be
Secretary determined to be appropriate to
certified under Part D as meeting the Part D
appropriate to administer the benefit
administer the benefit including: a pharmacy
standards and requirements.
including a pharmaceutical benefit
benefit management company (PBM); retail
management company; a wholesale or retail
pharmacy delivery system; health plan or
pharmacist delivery system; an insurer
insurer; a state (through mechanisms
(including an insurer that offers Medigap
established under a Medicaid state plan); any
policies); another entity, or any combination
other entity approved by the Secretary; or any
of these.
combination of such entities if the Secretary
determined that the combination increased
the scope or efficiency of the provision of
benefits and was not anticompetitive.
CRS-23
Establishment of Plans/Benefits
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Each entity intending to offer a plan would be
An entity’s bid (which could include multiple
Each PDP sponsor would be required to
required to submit to the Commissioner
areas) would include: 1) a proposal for the
submit to the MBA Administrator
information on benefits provided, actuarial
estimated prices for covered drugs, projected
information on the qualified drug coverage to
value of the coverage, monthly premium to be
annual increase in prices, including
be provided, the actuarial value of the
charged for the coverage, and the service area
differentials between formulary and
coverage, and the monthly premium to be
for the plan. The entity would have to
nonformulary prices, if applicable; 2) the
charged for the coverage. The PDP sponsor
include an actuarial certification of the
amount the entity would charge the
would have to include an actuarial
actuarial basis for the premium, the portion of
government for administering the benefit; 3)
certification of the actuarial basis for the
the premium attributable to benefits in excess
a statement regarding whether the entity
premium, the portion of the premium
of the standard coverage, and the reduction in
would waive the deductible for generic drugs
attributable to benefits in excess of the
the premium resulting from reinsurance
and how the waiver is tied to performance
standard coverage, and the reduction in the
subsidies. The Commissioner would review
goals; 4) a statement of whether there would
premium resulting from reinsurance
the submitted information for purposes of
be any coinsurance reduction and how that is
subsidies. The Administrator would review
conducting negotiations with the plan. Plans
tied to performance goals; 5) a detailed
the submitted information for purposes of
could not be elected by beneficiaries unless
description of performance goals; 6) a
conducting negotiations with the plan. Plans
the Commissioner had entered into a contract
detailed description of access to pharmacy
could not be elected by beneficiaries unless
with the plan sponsor; the contract could
services including whether the entity would
the Administrator had entered into a contract
cover more than one plan.
use a preferred pharmacy network, and if so,
with the plan sponsor; the contract could
whether the entity would offer access outside
cover more than one plan.
The Commissioner could approve a service
the network and what the coinsurance would
area only if the Commissioner found that it
be; 7) the procedures for modifying a
A PDP sponsor could not establish a service
was not designed so as to discriminate based
formulary, if one is used; 8) a detailed
area in a manner that would discriminate
on health status, economic status, or prior
description of any ownership or shared
based on health or economic status of
receipt of health care of eligible beneficiaries.
financial interests with other entities involved
potential enrollees. The Administrator could
Further, the benefit package could not be
in delivering the drug benefit; 9) a
terminate the contract of a PDP sponsor or
designed so as to lead to favorable selection of
description of the entity’s estimated
Medicare +Choice plan offering drug
beneficiaries.
marketing and advertising expenditures; and
coverage if the entity purposely engaged in
10) other information deemed necessary by
activities designed to result in favorable
the Secretary.
selection by eligible beneficiaries.
Eligible entities would be required to offer
drugs on a regional basis, except that the
Secretary could permit coverage on a partial
regional basis if the region was at least the
size of the commercial service area of the
entity and the area was not smaller than a
state.
CRS-24
Access
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner would develop procedures
The Secretary would develop procedures for
The Administrator would assure that all
for the provision of standard prescription
the provision of covered drugs to each eligible
eligible individuals would have a choice of
drug coverage to each beneficiary residing in
beneficiary that resides in an area not covered
enrollment in at least two qualifying plan
an area where there were no Medicare
by a contract. The Secretary would also
options (at least one of which was a PDP) in
Prescription Plus plans or Medicare+Choice
develop procedures to ensure that each
their area of residence. (The requirement
plans providing coverage. The
beneficiary that resides in different areas in a
would not be satisfied if only one PDP
Commissioner could establish procedures that
year is provided benefits throughout the year.
sponsor or Medicare+Choice organization
permit partial risk-sharing arrangements (that
offered all the qualifying plans in the area). If
is the government would share some of the
necessary to ensure such access, the
costs) if the Commissioner determined that
Administrator would be authorized to provide
this would generate bids in areas with no
financial incentives, including the partial
Medicare Prescription Plus plans or available
underwriting of risk, for a PDP sponsor to
Medicare+Choice plans providing qualified
expand its service area under an existing
drug coverage.
prescription drug plan to adjoining or
additional areas, or to establish such a plan
(including offering such plan on a regional or
nationwide basis). However, the MBA
Administrator would be directed to seek to
maximize the assumption of financial risk by
PDP sponsors and Medicare+Choice
organizations. The Administrator would be
required to report to Congress annually on the
exercise of this authority.
CRS-25
Federal Payments to Plans and Benefit Administrators
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The Commissioner would pay to each eligible
The Secretary would establish procedures for
The Administrator would provide for
entity the full amount of the premium for
making payments to eligible entities.
reinsurance payments to PDP sponsors,
each beneficiary minus administrative costs
Medicare+Choice plans providing qualified
levied on the plan. The Commissioner would
prescription drug coverage, and qualified
provide a process for notifying eligible
retiree drug plans. In 2003, reinsurance
entities of low-income persons eligible for
payments would be provided for individual
reduced cost-sharing and for reimbursement
drug costs exceeding $1,250. The percentage
of the amount of such reductions.
of costs subject to reinsurance payments
would be 30% for costs above $1,250 but not
The Commissioner would provide for
above $1,350, 50% of costs above $1,350 but
reinsurance payments to Medicare
not above $1,450, 70% of costs above $1,450
Prescription Plus plans, Medicare+Choice
but not above $1,550, and 90% of costs above
plans providing qualified prescription drug
$1,550 but not above $2,350. Reinsurance,
coverage, and qualified retiree drug plans. In
not to exceed 90% would also be provided for
2004, the reinsurance payment would cover
costs over $7,050 (total spending amount for
80% of costs exceeding $7,050 (the point at
beneficiaries reaching the out-of-pocket
which beneficiary out-of-pocket payments
limit). These amounts would be increased in
cease). This amount would be increased in
future years by the percentage increase in
future years by the percentage increase in
average per capita aggregate expenditures for
average per capita aggregate expenditures for
drugs by Medicare beneficiaries for the year
drugs by Medicare beneficiaries for the year
ending the previous July. The Administrator
ending the previous July. The payment
would proportionately adjust the payments so
method would be determined by the
that total reinsurance payments made during
Commissioner and could use an interim
the year equaled 35% of total payments to be
payment system based on estimates.
made by qualifying plans for standard
coverage during the year. The payment
method would be determined by the
Administrator and could use an interim
payment system based on estimates.
CRS-26
Assumption of Risk
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The entity would be required to assume full
A portion of an entity’s
administrative fees
The PDP sponsor would be required to
financial risk for the cost of covered benefits
would be put at risk. An adjustment would be
assume full financial risk on a prospective
except: 1) as covered by federal reinsurance
made in payments for administration to
basis for the cost of covered benefits except:
payments for high cost enrollees; and 2) as
ensure that the entity complies with
1) as covered by federal reinsurance payments
provided for under any partial risk sharing
requirements related to: 1) quality service
for high cost enrollees; or 2) as covered by
arrangements developed by the Commissioner
(including sustained pharmacy network
federal incentive payments (for encouraging
to encourage bids (see Access, above). The
access, timeliness and accuracy of service
sponsors to expand service areas for existing
entity could obtain insurance or make other
delivery in claims processing and card
plans or to establish new plans). The entity
arrangements for the cost of coverage
production, pharmacy and member support
could obtain insurance or make other
provided to enrollees.
services and timely action with regard to
arrangements for the cost of coverage
appeals); 2) quality clinical care (including
provided to enrollees.
notification to prevent adverse drug reactions
and specific clinical suggestions to improve
health); and 3) control of Medicare costs
(including generic substitution, price
discounts and other factors that do not reduce
access to necessary drugs). The Secretary
would determine the percentage of payments
that would be tied to performance goals;
however, the percentage could not be set at a
level that jeopardized the ability of an eligible
entity to administer and deliver the benefits in
a quality manner.
CRS-27
Plan Requirements
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
An entity would have to be licensed as a risk-
Entities would have to meet specified
A PDP sponsor would have to be licensed as
bearing entity in each state in which it offered
requirements including those relating to
a risk-bearing entity in each state in which it
a Medicare Prescription Plus plan.
quality and financial standards, beneficiary
offered a prescription drug plan.
Alternatively it could meet solvency and other
protections (see below), and procedures to
Alternatively it could meet solvency standards
standards established for entities not licensed
control fraud and abuse. The entity would be
established by the MBA Administrator for
by the state. It would also have to meet
required to submit annual reports on: 1)
entities not licensed by the state. It would also
beneficiary protection requirements (see
prices that the entity is paying for drugs; 2)
have to meet beneficiary protection
below).
prices enrolles will be charged;
requirements (see below).
3)administrative costs; 4) utilization of
An entity’s contract with the Commissioner
benefits; and 5) marketing and advertizing
Many of the plan requirements would be
could cover more than one Medicare
expenditures.
comparable to those imposed under
Prescription Plus plan. The Commissioner
Medicare+Choice. As is the case for
would establish standards for eligible entities.
Medicare+Choice, standards established for
As is the case for Medicare+Choice, the
plans and plan sponsors would supersede
standards established for plans would
state laws to the extent they were
supersede state laws to the extent they were
inconsistent. The following state standards
inconsistent. The following state standards
would be preempted: benefit requirements,
would be specifically preempted: benefit
requirements relating to inclusion or
requirements, requirements relating to
treatment of providers, coverage
inclusion or treatment of providers, and
determinations (including related appeals and
coverage determinations (including related
grievance processes), and establishment and
appeals and grievance processes).
regulations of premiums. States could not
impose premium taxes on plan premiums.
CRS-28
Cost Controls/Formularies
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
An entity offering a Medicare Prescription
Contracting entities could employ
Plans would be allowed to have formularies
Plus plan or Medicare+Choice plan could use
mechanisms to provide benefits economically
restricting coverage to certain drugs. Plans
cost control mechanisms customarily used in
including formularies, alternative distribution
electing to use a formulary would be required
employer-sponsored health care plans that
methods, and generic drug substitution. They
to establish a pharmaceutical and therapeutic
offer coverage for outpatient prescription
could use mechanisms to encourage
committee (that included at least one
drugs. These include formularies, tiered
beneficiaries to select cost-effective drugs or
physician and one pharmacist) to develop the
copayments, selective contracting with
less costly means of receiving drugs including
formulary. The formulary would be required
providers of outpatient prescription drugs,
use of pharmacy incentive programs,
to include drugs within all therapeutic
and mail order pharmacies.
therapeutic interchange programs, and
categories and classes of covered drugs
disease management programs. They could
(although not necessarily for all drugs within
Entities using formularies would be required
also encourage pharmacy providers to inform
such categories and classes). An enrollee
to include drugs within all therapeutic
beneficiaries of price differences between
would have the right to appeal to obtain
categories and classes of covered drugs
generic and nongeneric drugs and to provide
coverage for a drug not on the formulary if
(although not necessarily all drugs within
medication therapy management programs.
the prescribing physician determined that the
such categories and classes). Entities would
Any formulary would have to comply with
therapeutically similar drug that was on the
have a process for beneficiaries to appeal
standards established by the Secretary in
formulary was not as effective for the enrollee
denials of coverage based on application of
consultation with the Medicare Prescription
or had significant adverse effects for the
the formulary.
Drug Advisory Committee. The entity would
enrollee.
be required to use a pharmacy and
therapeutics committee to develop and
implement the formulary. The formulary
would be required to include at least two
drugs from each therapeutic class (unless only
one drug was available in the class) unless
clinically inappropriate, and a generic
substitute (if available) if more than two
drugs were available in a class and it was not
clinically inappropriate. Further, the
contracting entity would be required to
develop procedures for modification of the
formulary and to disclose to current and
prospective beneficiaries related information.
Entities would be required to cover
nonformulary drugs when determined
medically necessary (based on professional
medical judgment, the medical condition of
the beneficiary, and other medical evidence)
to prevent or slow the deterioration of, or
improve or maintain, the health of an eligible
beneficiary.
CRS-29
Entities could require higher cost-sharing for
nonformulary drugs except when such
nonformulary drug is determined medically
necessary. They could educate prescribing
providers, pharmacists, and beneficiaries
about the medical and cost benefits of
formulary drugs. Further, they could request
prescribing providers to consider a formulary
drug prior to dispensing of a nonformulary
drug so long as the requirement did not
unduly delay provision of the drug.
CRS-30
Beneficiary Protections
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
An entity offering a Medicare Prescription
Contracting entities would be required to
A PDP sponsor would be required to disclose
Plus plan would be required to disclose in a
comply with requirements relating to: 1)
in a clear, accurate and standardized form to
clear, accurate and standardized form to each
quality; 2) drug utilization review procedures
each enrollee information on access to
enrollee information on access to covered
to ensure proper utilization and compliance,
covered outpatient drugs, formulary
outpatient drugs, formulary provisions, cost-
and avoidance of adverse drug reactions; 3)
provisions, cost-sharing requirements and
sharing requirements and grievance and
p r o c e d u r e s t o g u a r a n t e e p a t i e n t
grievance and appeals procedures.
appeals procedures. Beneficiaries would have
confidentiality and timely transfer of records;
Beneficiaries would have the right to obtain
the right to obtain more detailed information
and 4) procedures for working with the
more detailed information on request. A PDP
on request. Plans would also be required to
Secretary to deter medical errors related to
sponsor would also be required to furnish
furnish beneficiaries information on benefits
the provision of drugs. Entities would be
beneficiaries information on benefits that
provided. Further, plans would be required to
required to ensure that covered drugs are
have been provided. Further, plans would be
provide access to negotiated prices, even
accessible and convenient to beneficiaries by
required to provide access to negotiated
when the plan is under no obligation to pay
1) offering services 24 hours a day and 7 days
prices, even when the plan is under no
for the benefits.
a week for emergencies; and 2) if a pharmacy
obligation to pay for the benefits.
network is used, the network complies with
Plans would be required to establish cost and
standards. The entity would be required to
PDP sponsors would be required to have in
drug utilization management, quality
have procedures to assure that charges for
place: 1) an effective cost and drug utilization
assurance, and fraud and abuse control
drugs do not exceed the negotiated price and
management program; 2) quality assurance
programs. Entities would be required to have
the retail pharmacy dispensing the drug does
measures and systems to reduce medical
meaningful procedures
not charge the beneficiary more than the
errors and adverse drug interactions,
for resolving grievances and protecting
beneficiary’s obligation. The entity would
including a medication therapy management
confidentiality and accuracy of enrollee
also be required to have procedures to
program; and 3) a program to control fraud,
records. Further they would be required to
determine if a non-formulary drug is
abuse, and waste. Medication therapy
provide enrollees access to expedited
medically necessary (based on professional
management programs would have to be
coverage determinations and a procedure for
medical judgment, the medical condition of
developed in cooperation with licensed
reconsideration and appeals of benefit
the beneficiary, and other medical evidence)
pharmacists and physicians. PDP sponsors
denials; these requirements would be the
to prevent or slow the deterioration of, or
would be required to maintain meaningful
s a m e a s t h o s e a p p l i c a b l e f o r
improve or maintain, the health of an eligible
procedures for hearing and resolving
Medicare+Choice plans. Entities would also
beneficiary. Further, entities would have to
grievances and protecting the confidentiality
assure that premiums charged are the same
have procedures (comparable to those
and accuracy of enrollee records. Further,
for all individuals enrolled in a plan.
applicable for Medicare+Choice) to ensure
they would be required to meet requirements
timely internal and external review and
for expedited coverage determinations,
resolution of denials of coverage and
reconsiderations, and appeals; these
complaints. Beneficiaries would be provided
requirements would be the same as those
with information on appeals procedures at the
applicable for Medicare+Choice plans.
time of enrollment.
CRS-31
PDP sponsors would provide that each
pharmacy or other dispenser of drugs would
inform the beneficiary at the time of purchase
of the price differential between the
prescribed drug and the lowest cost generic
drug that is therapeutically and
p h a r m a c e u t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t a n d
bioequivalent.
Pharmacies
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
No provision.
The entity would be required to ensure than
PDP sponsors would be required to secure
any retail pharmacy that it contracts with
participation of a sufficient number of
meets minimum quality and technology
pharmacies (which could include mail order
standards. If the entity uses a preferred
pharmacies) to make access to covered
pharmacy network, the network would be
benefits convenient for enrollees.
required to meet minimum access standards;
in establishing the standards, the Secretary
would take into account reasonable distances
to pharmacy services in both urban and rural
areas.
CRS-32
Relationship to Private Plans
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Qualified retiree prescription drug plans
The Secretary would be authorized to develop
Qualified retiree prescription drug plans
would be eligible for reinsurance payments.
an Employer Incentive Program under which
would be eligible for reinsurance payments.
Qualified coverage would be defined as
employers and other sponsors of employment-
Qualified coverage would be defined as
employment-based retiree health coverage
based retiree coverage that is at least
employment-based retiree health coverage
meeting certain requirements. The sponsor of
equivalent to that under the new Part D
meeting certain requirements. The sponsor of
the plan would be required to annually attest
would receive incentive payments. Such
the plan would be required to annually attest
to the Commissioner (and to provide such
payments would be made in behalf of
to the Administrator (and to provide such
other assurances as required by the
beneficiaries who obtained drug coverage
other assurances as required by the
Commissioner) that coverage met the
under the sponsors plan rather than
Administrator) that coverage met the
requirements for qualified prescription drug
Medicare. The incentive payment would
requirements for qualified prescription drug
coverage. The sponsor and the plan would
equal two-thirds of the premium amount the
coverage. The sponsor and the plan would
have to maintain and provide access to
beneficiary would otherwise pay if the
have to maintain and provide access to
records needed to ensure the adequacy of
individual were enrolled in Part D. Plan
records needed to ensure the adequacy of
coverage and accuracy of payments made.
sponsors would be required to provide certain
coverage and accuracy of payments made.
assurances and information to the Secretary.
Relationship to Medigap
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
No Medigap policy that provided coverage for
The three of the 10 standardized Medigap
No Medigap policy that provided coverage for
prescription drugs could be sold to an
plans offering drug coverage would have to
prescription drugs could be sold to an
individual after January 1, 2004, unless it
be revised to complement, not duplicate Part
individual after January 1, 2003, unless it
replaced a policy for an individual that
D. The revised drug packages could not offer
replaced a policy for an individual that
included drug coverage. Individuals enrolled
coverage for the Part D deductible or for more
included drug coverage. Individuals enrolled
in the new Title XXII program who
than 90% of the Part D coinsurance.
in a plan under the new Part D program who
terminated enrollment in a Medigap policy
terminated enrollment in a Medigap policy
with prescription drug coverage or another
with prescription drug coverage or another
policy with drug coverage would be
policy with drug coverage would be
guaranteed enrollment in a Medigap non-
guaranteed enrollment in a Medigap non-
drug policy if enrollment occurred within 63
drug policy if enrollment occurred within 63
days of the termination of prior coverage.
days of the termination of prior coverage.
CRS-33
Low-Income Subsidies
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Low-income persons would receive a discount
Medicaid would cover Part D premiums,
Low-income persons would receive a
on their premiums (based on the value of
coinsurance, and deductible for persons below
premium subsidy (based on the value of
standard coverage). Individuals with incomes
135% of poverty. (Coinsurance and
standard coverage). Individuals with incomes
below 135% of poverty (and assets below
deductible amounts would be based on drug
below 135% of poverty (and assets below
$4,000) would have a discount equal to 100%
payment amounts determined under Part D
$4,000) would have a subsidy equal to 100%
of the value of standard drug coverage
not Medicaid.) Beneficiaries between 135%
of the value of standard drug coverage
provided under the plan. Beneficiary cost-
and 150% of poverty would pay a reduced
provided under the plan. Beneficiary cost-
sharing for such individuals would be
Part D premium, calculated on a sliding scale
sharing for such individuals would be
nominal. For individuals between 135% and
basis.
nominal. For individuals between 135% and
150% of poverty, there would be a sliding
150% of poverty, there would be a sliding
scale discount on their premiums ranging
scale premium subsidy ranging from 100% of
from 100% of such value at 135% of poverty
such value at 135% of poverty to 0% of such
to 25% of such value at 150% of poverty.
value at 150% of poverty. There would be no
There would be no cost-sharing subsidy for
cost-sharing subsidy for this group.
this group.
The maximum amount of cost-sharing
The maximum amount of cost-sharing
subsidy that could be provided for an enrollee
subsidy that could be provided for an enrollee
under 135% of poverty could not exceed 95%
under 135% of poverty could not exceed 95%
of the maximum cost-sharing that could be
of the maximum amount of cost-sharing that
incurred for standard coverage. Beneficiary
could be incurred for standard coverage.
cost-sharing for these persons would be
Beneficiary cost-sharing for these persons
nominal as determined by the MBA
would be nominal as determined by the
Administrator. A plan could waive or reduce
Commissioner. A plan could waive or reduce
the amount of cost-sharing otherwise
the amount of cost-sharing otherwise
applicable.
applicable.
CRS-34
Relationship to Medicaid
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
The new Title XXII coverage would be
Low-income subsidies would be provided
The new coverage would be primary to any
primary to any drug benefits under Medicaid.
through Medicaid. The current federal-state
drug benefits under Medicaid. States would
States would be required to make eligibility
matching rate would apply for those below
be required to make eligibility determinations
determinations for low- income subsidies;
120% of poverty. The federal matching rate
for low-income subsidies; there would be a 5-
there would be a 5 year phase-in of increased
would be 100% for those between 120% and
year phase-in of increased matching rates for
matching rates for this activity so that there
135% of poverty. The federal matching rate
this activity so that there would be full federal
would be full federal funding beginning in
would be 100% for premiums for those
funding beginning in 2007.
2008.
between 135% and 150% of poverty.
Dual eligibles (i.e. persons eligible for
Dual eligibles (i.e., persons eligible for
Medicare and full Medicaid benefits,
Medicare and full Medicaid benefits,
including drugs) would have their low-
including drugs) would have their low-
income subsidy costs picked up by Medicaid.
income subsidy costs picked up by Medicaid.
Over a 5-year period the federal matching
Over a 5 year period the federal matching
rate for these costs would be increased to
rate for these costs would be increased to
cover 100% of what would otherwise be state
cover 50% of what would otherwise be state
costs. States would be required to maintain
costs. (For example, if the regular state
Medicaid benefits as a wrap around to
matching rate for Medicaid costs was 40%,
Medicare benefits for dual eligibles; states
the state matching rate for low income
could require that these persons elect Part D
subsidies would be 20% after 5 years.) States
drug coverage.
would be required to maintain Medicaid
benefits as a wrap around to Medicare
benefits for dual eligibles; states could require
that these persons elect Title XXII drug
coverage.
CRS-35
Reports
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
By January 1, 2003, the Commissioner would
HHS would be required to report, within 2
A State Pharmaceutical Assistance Transition
be required to submit a report on permitting
years of enactment, on the feasibility and
Commission (representative of each state with
Part B only individuals to enroll. The
advisability of: 1) establishing a uniform
a state pharmaceutical assistance program)
Commissioner would be required to submit
format for pharmacy benefit cards; and 2)
would be established to develop a detailed
an annual report on the administration of the
development of systems to electronically
proposal for addressing transitional issues
new drug benefit and Medicare+Choice.
transfer prescriptions.
facing such programs. The proposal would
be consistent with protecting the interests of
The annual reporting requirements for the
program participants and the financial
Board of Trustees of the Hospital Insurance
interests of the states. The Commission would
(Part A) and Supplementary Medical
be required to submit a report on the proposal
Insurance (Part B) trust funds would be
to the President and Congress by July 1,
expanded. The Board would be required to
2001.
submit a combined report on the two trust
funds as well as the Medicare Prescription
By March 31 of each year, the Administrator
Drug Account. The report would include
would submit a report to Congress and the
information on total amounts obligated from
President on the administration of the drug
the general revenues of the Treasury in the
program and Medicare+Choice during the
past year for benefits; a historical overview of
previous fiscal year. The new Medicare Policy
spending; 10-year and 50-year projections;
Advisory Board, within MBA, would submit
and overall spending from general revenues
reports to the Congress and the Administrator
in relation to GDP growth.
as it deemed appropriate. Within 90 days, the
Administrator would submit an analysis of
A report on the effectiveness of Medicare
the reports’ recommendations to the Congress
Consumer Coalitions (if the Commissions
and the President.
were established) would be due by December
31, 2004.
The annual reporting requirements for the
Board of Trustees of the Hospital Insurance
(Part A) and Supplementary Medical
Insurance (Part B) trust funds would be
expanded. The Board would be required to
submit a combined report on the two trust
funds. The report would include information
on total amounts obligated from the general
revenues of the Treasury in the past year for
benefits; a historical overview of spending;
10-year and 50-year projections; and overall
spending from general revenues in relation to
GDP growth.
CRS-36
Accounting Mechanism
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
A Medicare Prescription Drug Account would
A Prescription Drug Account would be
A Medicare Prescription Drug Account would
be created within the Part B trust fund.
created within the Part B trust fund. Funds
be created within the Part B trust fund.
Funds provided under the new Title XXII to
provided under the new program to the
Funds provided under Part D to the Account
the Account would be kept separate from all
Account would be kept separate from all
would be kept separate from all other funds
other funds within Part B. Program costs
other funds within Part B. Program costs
within Part B. Reinsurance payments, low-
would be paid from the Account.
would be paid from the Account.
income subsidy payments, and payments for
administrative expenses would be made from
The Commissioner could levy on Medicare
the account.
Prescription plans and Medicare+Choice
plans providing qualified drug coverage an
assessment to pay the estimated expenses of
the Commissioner for administering the new
Title XXII. The assessments would be
deposited in the Medicare Prescription Drug
Account.
Financing
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Appropriations would be made from the
Appropriations would be made from the
Appropriations would be made from the
general fund to cover program costs
general fund to cover program costs
general fund to cover program costs. (The
exceeding premium collections and other
exceeding premium collections.
FY2001 budget resolution earmarked up to
fees.
$40 billion over 5 years for a drug benefit.
Federal funds for the subsidies and
Appropriations for administrative expenses of
reinsurance payments would fall within this
the Competitive Medicare Agency would be
limit. The remaining costs would be paid by
authorized on a biennial basis. Such funds as
beneficiaries through premiums.)
may be necessary would be authorized to be
appropriated out of the Trust Funds to carry
out the purposes of the Agency.
CRS-37
CBO Cost Estimate
S. 358 (“Breaux-Frist 2")
S. 1135 (Graham et al.)
H.R. 4680 (106th Congress - Thomas et
al.)
Not available. However, on June 11, 2001,
Not available. However, on June 11, 2001,
On June 11, 2001, CBO presented an updated
CBO presented an updated estimate of S.
CBO presented an updated estimate of
estimate of H.R. 4680. The CBO’s updated
2807, “as introduced by Senators Breaux and
S.Amdt. 3598 to H.R. 4577 from the 106th
estimate, which presumes an implementation
Frist and modified in discussion with staff.”
Congress; the drug provisions of this bill (S.
date of 2004, is $156.9 billion for the
This bill from the 106th Congress is similar to
1135) are similar to that amendment though
FY2002-FY2011 period.
S. 358 from this Congress. The CBO’s
there are a number of differences between the
updated estimate of S. 2807, which presumes
two versions. The CBO’s updated estimate of
an implementation date of 2004, is $175.9
the amendment, which presumes an
billion for the FY2002-2011 period.
implementation date of 2004, is $318.2
billion for the FY2002-2011 period.