PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 15, 2009
Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2009 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to reduce the coverage gap in prescription drug coverage under SSA part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program), based on savings to the Medicare program resulting from the negotiation of prescription drug prices.
Grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority similar to that of other federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs.
States that the Secretary shall be required to: (1) negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan; and (2) participate in negotiation of contracts of any covered part D drug upon request of an approved prescription drug plan or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan.
Prohibits the Secretary from requiring a particular formulary or instituting a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs in order to carry out, and promote competition, under part D.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.266 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.266 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.266 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.266 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.