At exactly the same time that a bipartisan bill is making a great stride forward for Medicare in the House of Representatives, the Senate is poised to vote on a great step backward. Specifically, Senator Jack Reed is offering an amendment to the Senate budget resolution with the purpose of “making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors and for tax-payers by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug costs under the Medicare program.”

This is a shot at the “noninterference” clause in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, which bars the Secretary of Health and Human Services from intervening in negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and privately administered Part D drug plans.

This has been tried before – most recently an attempt last year by the Obama Administration – and the great mystery is WHY? The Congressional Budget Office has said again and again that the basic premise is just wrong. It won’t save money. Specifically, “the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by (Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs)) under current law.”

One might argue that a vote on an amendment to the budget resolution is harmless. But votes are often a preview of electoral fights. It is always a mistake to let political theater go unchallenged and lead to bad policy.