/PRNewswire/ -- Accuracy in Media analyst Roger Aronoff, in a special report on the White House "GateCrashers" scandal, faulted the Obama administration for refusing to allow White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and other staffers to testify before the Homeland Security Committee. He called on the national media to further investigate what White House officials might be trying to hide.
"One thing is certain: As Obama works feverishly to pass health care legislation, the White House doesn't want a growing scandal involving the President's staff to occupy the attention of the media and Congress. The Democrats who control Congress can be expected to fall into line. These are times that demand an investigative press unwilling to play lap dog to the White House," Aronoff wrote.
Aronoff gave credit to some members of the national press, who have generally been supportive of President Obama, for speaking out on the White House's lack of transparency. They include CNN's Anderson Cooper, David Gergen and Ed Henry, and The Chicago Tribune editorial board.
On the other hand, he pointed out that NBC's Matt Lauer failed to disclose a conflict of interest when he interviewed Tareq and Michaele Salahi on The Today Show. Though the Salahis stated on the air that they were not paid in any way for the NBC interview, in fact they were under contract with Bravo, a subsidiary of NBC Universal, which prevented them from appearing on other shows.
Though Aronoff expected most Democrats in Congress to fall in line with the administration, he did recognize Reps. Chris Carney (D-PA) and Al Green (D-TX) for asking tough questions and calling for transparency from the White House.
The report is available here: What is White House Covering Up in "GateCrashers" Scandal?
Accuracy in Media is a citizens' media watchdog organization whose mission is to promote fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting. Founded in 1969, AIM is the oldest non-profit press watchdog group in America. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, December 10, 2009
National Oncologist Group Warns: Current Health Care Reform Legislation Woefully Short in Addressing Cancer Care Crisis
/PRNewswire/ -- The Community Oncology Alliance (COA) today issued a statement warning that oncologists throughout the U.S. may face closing their practices if critical Medicare reimbursement fixes for treating cancer patients are not made as a part of health care reform.
"Current health reform legislation before Congress does not address major inadequacies in Medicare reimbursement and substantial cuts coming in January to cancer care," said Patrick Cobb, M.D., president of COA and managing partner of Hematology-Oncology Centers of the Northern Rockies in Billings, Montana. "These problems are impacting oncologists now. Many have had to let staff go, and some have already closed practices in communities across the U.S."
"Released this week, the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer highlighted the progress made in treating cancer over the past 30 years. This country's cancer care system deserves much of the credit for helping cancer patients receive high quality treatment near home, in their own communities," continued Dr. Cobb. "But this system is under threat if President Obama and Congress do not act before January. These January cuts threaten the viability of the nation's community cancer care delivery system, where 84% of Americans with cancer are treated, and jeopardize patients' access to care."
In separate letters to President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, COA president Dr. Cobb submitted a statement approved by the COA Board of Directors, including a six-part recommendation on solving the cancer care crisis. COA noted that the recent financial crisis has exposed the fragility of the health care payment system, with more Americans unable to afford cancer care and falling between the treatment cracks.
In a national call to action, the organization is encouraging oncology professionals and the entire cancer community to contact Members of Congress to request action on these recommendations, starting with the prevention of planned severe Medicare cuts to cancer care. These cuts start in January and continue to increase over the next four years.
"As a nation, we have watched the health care reform legislation evolve over the past year. One issue we have not heard much about -- and not through lack of trying -- is legislation for the reform of cancer care," continued Dr. Cobb. "Although there are certain positive aspects of reform relating to insurance coverage, the proposed legislation comes up woefully short in addressing a growing cancer care crisis."
Prior to Congress embarking on health reform legislation, a national team of oncologists spent more than a year researching and developing a plan to improve the Medicare payment system for cancer care. This initiative resulted in collaborating with members of Congress, now embodied in the National Cancer Care Demonstration Project Act of 2009 (H.R. 3675).
Dr. Cobb noted, "Because of the timing of the health care reform debate, we're concerned that progress in funding and implementing this very specific national project is too slow to stop the impact of the upcoming January cuts."
The organization has issued a six-part recommendation, which includes immediate action:
1. Enact real-world solutions to enhancing quality cancer care while
controlling costs by including the National Cancer Care Demonstration
Project Act of 2009 (H.R. 3675) in health care reform legislation.
2. Stop implementation of Medicare reimbursement cuts to cancer care,
especially the payment reduction to cancer drug administration.
3. Stop the 2010 21.2% Medicare reimbursement payment cut affecting all
physician-related services and fix the broken Medicare payment system
based on the SGR formula.
4. Stop cutting cancer care reimbursement further by using cuts to pay for
primary care bonuses.
5. Fix the problem of artificially low Medicare drug reimbursement by
including the "prompt pay" solution in health care reform legislation.
6. Eliminate the 20% Medicare patient co-payment requirement for cancer
drugs.
A full statement is listed the organization's web site (www.communityoncology.org).
"The War on Cancer, declared almost 40 years ago, has resulted in increased survival for Americans with cancer and has transformed many cancers from a death sentence to a chronic disease," continued Dr. Cobb. "However, the cost of cancer is still in excess of $220 billion annually and it claims the life of one American every minute. Congress must act now as health care reform legislation is being debated because the risk of getting this wrong is too great, both as measured in medical costs and the lives of Americans."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Current health reform legislation before Congress does not address major inadequacies in Medicare reimbursement and substantial cuts coming in January to cancer care," said Patrick Cobb, M.D., president of COA and managing partner of Hematology-Oncology Centers of the Northern Rockies in Billings, Montana. "These problems are impacting oncologists now. Many have had to let staff go, and some have already closed practices in communities across the U.S."
"Released this week, the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer highlighted the progress made in treating cancer over the past 30 years. This country's cancer care system deserves much of the credit for helping cancer patients receive high quality treatment near home, in their own communities," continued Dr. Cobb. "But this system is under threat if President Obama and Congress do not act before January. These January cuts threaten the viability of the nation's community cancer care delivery system, where 84% of Americans with cancer are treated, and jeopardize patients' access to care."
In separate letters to President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, COA president Dr. Cobb submitted a statement approved by the COA Board of Directors, including a six-part recommendation on solving the cancer care crisis. COA noted that the recent financial crisis has exposed the fragility of the health care payment system, with more Americans unable to afford cancer care and falling between the treatment cracks.
In a national call to action, the organization is encouraging oncology professionals and the entire cancer community to contact Members of Congress to request action on these recommendations, starting with the prevention of planned severe Medicare cuts to cancer care. These cuts start in January and continue to increase over the next four years.
"As a nation, we have watched the health care reform legislation evolve over the past year. One issue we have not heard much about -- and not through lack of trying -- is legislation for the reform of cancer care," continued Dr. Cobb. "Although there are certain positive aspects of reform relating to insurance coverage, the proposed legislation comes up woefully short in addressing a growing cancer care crisis."
Prior to Congress embarking on health reform legislation, a national team of oncologists spent more than a year researching and developing a plan to improve the Medicare payment system for cancer care. This initiative resulted in collaborating with members of Congress, now embodied in the National Cancer Care Demonstration Project Act of 2009 (H.R. 3675).
Dr. Cobb noted, "Because of the timing of the health care reform debate, we're concerned that progress in funding and implementing this very specific national project is too slow to stop the impact of the upcoming January cuts."
The organization has issued a six-part recommendation, which includes immediate action:
1. Enact real-world solutions to enhancing quality cancer care while
controlling costs by including the National Cancer Care Demonstration
Project Act of 2009 (H.R. 3675) in health care reform legislation.
2. Stop implementation of Medicare reimbursement cuts to cancer care,
especially the payment reduction to cancer drug administration.
3. Stop the 2010 21.2% Medicare reimbursement payment cut affecting all
physician-related services and fix the broken Medicare payment system
based on the SGR formula.
4. Stop cutting cancer care reimbursement further by using cuts to pay for
primary care bonuses.
5. Fix the problem of artificially low Medicare drug reimbursement by
including the "prompt pay" solution in health care reform legislation.
6. Eliminate the 20% Medicare patient co-payment requirement for cancer
drugs.
A full statement is listed the organization's web site (www.communityoncology.org).
"The War on Cancer, declared almost 40 years ago, has resulted in increased survival for Americans with cancer and has transformed many cancers from a death sentence to a chronic disease," continued Dr. Cobb. "However, the cost of cancer is still in excess of $220 billion annually and it claims the life of one American every minute. Congress must act now as health care reform legislation is being debated because the risk of getting this wrong is too great, both as measured in medical costs and the lives of Americans."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
NCPA Backs New Amendments to Senate Health Reform Bill; Expresses Concern over Revised Public Option’s Pharmacy Benefit
(BUSINESS WIRE)--The National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) today endorsed three amendments recently proposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and raised questions about an emerging public insurance option that would be administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM). NCPA Executive Vice President and CEO Bruce T. Roberts, RPh, issued the following statement:
“NCPA strongly supports an amendment by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) that allows pharmacies to continue providing Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) and Part B drugs to Medicare beneficiaries without purchasing a surety bond. Like the 14 other types of medical professionals that Medicare exempted from the surety bond requirement, pharmacists are licensed and regulated by the states. Requiring surety bonds is duplicative and may lead to loss of patient access to valuable health care services, such as diabetes testing supplies, canes and crutches.
“We continue to work with Congress on both a permanent pharmacy exemption from DMEPOS accreditation requirements, as well as an extension of the current moratorium, which is scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2009.
“Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) added important language to the Senate ‘Freshmen Value and Innovation Package’ amendment to codify Medicare’s medication therapy management (MTM) program. MTM utilizes community pharmacists to help patients adhere to, and maximize the benefits of, their medicine. The programs have been shown to improve outcomes while lowering health care costs.
“An amendment by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct the first detailed study in more than 10 years of pharmacists’ cost of dispensing in the Medicaid program. Private studies have shown community pharmacists to be compensated well below their cost of dispensing and a GAO study could give Congress and the states needed information for measuring the adequacy of the dispensing fees they pay and the impact upon patient access to pharmacy services.
“Various news reports indicate Senators are considering an OPM-administered health plan for the uninsured. Under such a model, we urge lawmakers to utilize a pharmacy benefit administrator (PBA) to manage drug coverage, rather than a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM).
“PBMs have a history of inflating health care costs through bloated administrative fees and questionable practices that are hidden from patients and plan sponsors. OPM’s inspector general told a House subcommittee investigating the PBMs’ effect on the federal employee health plan that ‘there’s a good chance we’re not getting a good deal because of the lack of transparency.’
“A PBA, such as those employed by Medicaid and the Pentagon, would give patients and taxpayers the best bang for their buck by passing through all rebates, discounts, and price concessions. PBM transparency requirements in the current bill should continue to apply to any plan that operates within the exchange, including the public option.
“NCPA is grateful for Congress’ bipartisan support of community pharmacy in health care reform and we will continue to work with lawmakers as the legislative process continues.”
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
“NCPA strongly supports an amendment by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) that allows pharmacies to continue providing Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) and Part B drugs to Medicare beneficiaries without purchasing a surety bond. Like the 14 other types of medical professionals that Medicare exempted from the surety bond requirement, pharmacists are licensed and regulated by the states. Requiring surety bonds is duplicative and may lead to loss of patient access to valuable health care services, such as diabetes testing supplies, canes and crutches.
“We continue to work with Congress on both a permanent pharmacy exemption from DMEPOS accreditation requirements, as well as an extension of the current moratorium, which is scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2009.
“Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) added important language to the Senate ‘Freshmen Value and Innovation Package’ amendment to codify Medicare’s medication therapy management (MTM) program. MTM utilizes community pharmacists to help patients adhere to, and maximize the benefits of, their medicine. The programs have been shown to improve outcomes while lowering health care costs.
“An amendment by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct the first detailed study in more than 10 years of pharmacists’ cost of dispensing in the Medicaid program. Private studies have shown community pharmacists to be compensated well below their cost of dispensing and a GAO study could give Congress and the states needed information for measuring the adequacy of the dispensing fees they pay and the impact upon patient access to pharmacy services.
“Various news reports indicate Senators are considering an OPM-administered health plan for the uninsured. Under such a model, we urge lawmakers to utilize a pharmacy benefit administrator (PBA) to manage drug coverage, rather than a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM).
“PBMs have a history of inflating health care costs through bloated administrative fees and questionable practices that are hidden from patients and plan sponsors. OPM’s inspector general told a House subcommittee investigating the PBMs’ effect on the federal employee health plan that ‘there’s a good chance we’re not getting a good deal because of the lack of transparency.’
“A PBA, such as those employed by Medicaid and the Pentagon, would give patients and taxpayers the best bang for their buck by passing through all rebates, discounts, and price concessions. PBM transparency requirements in the current bill should continue to apply to any plan that operates within the exchange, including the public option.
“NCPA is grateful for Congress’ bipartisan support of community pharmacy in health care reform and we will continue to work with lawmakers as the legislative process continues.”
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Perkins: Senate Would Rather Mandate Abortion Funding Than Enact 'Health Care Reform'
/PRNewswire/ -- This evening, the Nelson-Hatch abortion anti-funding amendment to the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was "tabled" by a vote of 54-45, thus killing any hope to make the health care bill abortion neutral. The Nelson-Hatch amendment would have prevented government funding for elective abortion in the public option or subsidies for health plans in the government run exchange that cover elective abortion. Of all the concerns in the legislation, abortion is the one issue that the Democrats are afraid to have a straight up-or-down vote on.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins responded with the following comments:
"In rejecting the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion senators have broken the three decade-long truce over government funding of abortion and have demonstrated they would rather mandate federal funding for abortion than enact comprehensive 'health care reform.'
"With the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion groups have won an unfortunate victory in their quest for unhindered government funding for abortion-on-demand. Rather than maintain current policy to prevent government funding for abortions in this health care bill, senators voted to placate the abortion industry and, in some cases, a desperate allegiance to abortion as a central tenet of their public policy vision. The Senate health care bill would force American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion-on-demand in both the public option and in private plans.
"We know that abortions increased when the government funded it in the 1970's before the Hyde amendment was passed. Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, says that abortions would increase by 25 percent if the government funds it.
"FRC Action urges every Senator who supported the Nelson-Hatch amendment to now oppose any vote to end debate on this abortion expansion bill," Perkins concluded.
In response to today's Senate vote, FRC Action will expand its grassroots campaign in opposition to the health care overhaul bill. Over the next eight weeks, FRC Action will call all household phones in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana to survey each household on provisions of the Senate health care bill. These include abortion funding, rationing, higher taxes, and government-run health care, or the public option. Additionally, FRC Action will be calling pro-life households in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Survey participants who express opposition to the so-called health care reform will be given contact information for their senators.
FRC will also launch a TV ad in Arkansas that will again point out that abortion funding remains in the Senate health care bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins responded with the following comments:
"In rejecting the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion senators have broken the three decade-long truce over government funding of abortion and have demonstrated they would rather mandate federal funding for abortion than enact comprehensive 'health care reform.'
"With the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion groups have won an unfortunate victory in their quest for unhindered government funding for abortion-on-demand. Rather than maintain current policy to prevent government funding for abortions in this health care bill, senators voted to placate the abortion industry and, in some cases, a desperate allegiance to abortion as a central tenet of their public policy vision. The Senate health care bill would force American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion-on-demand in both the public option and in private plans.
"We know that abortions increased when the government funded it in the 1970's before the Hyde amendment was passed. Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, says that abortions would increase by 25 percent if the government funds it.
"FRC Action urges every Senator who supported the Nelson-Hatch amendment to now oppose any vote to end debate on this abortion expansion bill," Perkins concluded.
In response to today's Senate vote, FRC Action will expand its grassroots campaign in opposition to the health care overhaul bill. Over the next eight weeks, FRC Action will call all household phones in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana to survey each household on provisions of the Senate health care bill. These include abortion funding, rationing, higher taxes, and government-run health care, or the public option. Additionally, FRC Action will be calling pro-life households in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Survey participants who express opposition to the so-called health care reform will be given contact information for their senators.
FRC will also launch a TV ad in Arkansas that will again point out that abortion funding remains in the Senate health care bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
AUL Action: Senate Health Bill Now Leads to Unprecedented Federal Abortion Funding
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, which would have maintained existing law by prohibiting both federal funding of abortion and government-mandated abortion coverage. Without the explicit ban on abortion funding, Americans United for Life Action will now oppose the final health care bill.
Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, "A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby's goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care."
The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
Dr. Yoest continued, "The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House's lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions. Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:
1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.
3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions. The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions.
4) Abortion as "preventive care": The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care. For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, "A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby's goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care."
The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
Dr. Yoest continued, "The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House's lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions. Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:
1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.
3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions. The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions.
4) Abortion as "preventive care": The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care. For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Liberals Examine Immigration Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- Progressives for Immigration Reform has released a new policy brief: "The Economic Impacts of Mass Immigration into the United States and the Proper Progressive Response." The publication was authored by Philip Cafaro, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University with a long history of progressive political activism. This study examines the impact that uncontrolled immigration has on America's poor and argues that Democrats need to address their plight rather than swelling their ranks by importing less-skilled, low-wage foreign labor. The article reveals that current immigration policies widen income inequalities and concentrate immigration's harms upon those Americans least able to afford them.
Among the article's key findings:
-- Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with
less-skilled, less-educated workers, driving down wages for
working-class Americans.
-- Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages
in some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower
than in 1980.
-- Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of
immigration are poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older
immigrants. There is no evidence of a labor shortage at the lower end
of the labor market.
-- Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.
"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens, rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro. "Although the United States is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor, basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Among the article's key findings:
-- Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with
less-skilled, less-educated workers, driving down wages for
working-class Americans.
-- Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages
in some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower
than in 1980.
-- Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of
immigration are poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older
immigrants. There is no evidence of a labor shortage at the lower end
of the labor market.
-- Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.
"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens, rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro. "Although the United States is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor, basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, December 4, 2009
Congress Has Allowed Most Previous Medicare Cuts to Take Effect, New Study Shows
/PRNewswire/ -- Despite claims that the pending health reform bills aren't really paid for because Congress never lets Medicare savings take effect, Congress has allowed the vast majority of Medicare cuts that it enacted in the past two decades to take effect and produce significant savings, a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows.
The analysis, by James Horney and Paul Van de Water, former senior CBO officials now at the Center, examines the history of every significant Medicare cut that Congress has enacted in the past 20 years - specifically, cuts included in deficit reduction legislation enacted in 1990, 1993, 1997, and 2005.
The authors found that virtually 100 percent of the 1990 savings survived; virtually 100 percent of the 1993 savings survived; virtually 100 percent of the 2005 savings survived; and nearly 80 percent of the 1997 savings survived.
"Today's conventional wisdom is wrong," said Horney. "Medicare savings have been a big part of all major deficit-reduction packages that Congress has enacted since 1990, and lawmakers have allowed the vast majority of those cuts to take effect. Given that history, there is every reason to believe that Congress will allow the Medicare savings in the pending bills to take effect as well."
Main "Example" of Failure to Implement Cuts Rests on Misunderstanding
In arguing that large Medicare cuts never "stick," many critics focus on Congress' repeated refusal to let the reductions in doctor reimbursement rates under Medicare's "Sustainable Growth Rate" (SGR) mechanism to take full effect.
But, as the report explains, Congress didn't intend the SGR to produce large savings. In fact, the SGR represented only 3 percent of the total ten-year Medicare savings in the 1997 deficit-reduction bill - only $12 billion of the $394 billion in total Medicare savings over ten years, as CBO estimated at the time.
Because it was badly designed, however, the SGR would actually have cut payments to physicians much more than had been anticipated and well below the level needed to keep pace with doctors' costs. Congress' decision to forestall these unintended cuts was therefore justified on policy grounds.
But, Congress did not simply cancel the SGR and let physician reimbursement rates grow willy-nilly. In fact, although Congress has since 2002 prevented the full SGR cuts from going into effect, it has cut physician reimbursement rates substantially below what was needed simply to keep pace with inflation. Even if Congress blocks the next scheduled SGR cut and freezes the rate at current levels, the rate next year will be 17 percent below the rate in effect in 2001, adjusted for medical inflation.
The Medicare savings provisions in the House and Senate health bills are very different from the poorly designed SGR cut. Instead, they are similar in both size and design to the past Medicare cuts that Congress has allowed to take effect.
Bills Contain Wide Range of Cost-Containment Measures
Claims that the House and Senate health reform bills lack serious cost-containment provisions also do not withstand close scrutiny, the report explains.
"These bills contain just about every reform that health policy experts have proposed to slow health care costs over time," notes Van de Water. "While we will ultimately have to do much more, the bills take most of the steps that we know enough about to pursue now in the areas that experts view as promising."
In Medicare, the bills would scale back overpayments to private insurers, reduce annual payment updates for hospitals and other providers, and, in the House bill, lower prescription drug costs. To reduce costs across the entire health care system, the bills would promote competition among insurers by creating an insurance exchange, cut insurers' administrative costs, invest in preventive care, penalize hospitals with high readmission rates, and establish pilot projects in various areas to help determine the best approaches to controlling health care costs (while giving federal health officials some new authority to implement some changes in Medicare based on the knowledge gained without having to enact new legislation). In addition, the Senate bill would impose an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans to discourage overuse of health care and would create an independent board with the power to implement cost savings in Medicare.
"Lawmakers can strengthen the final bill by combining the strongest cost-control elements of the House and Senate bills," Van de Water said.
Bills Are Fully Paid For and Would Begin to Rein in Long-Term Health Costs
A third major claim by critics -- that, in the near term, the House and Senate bills would raise the nation's total health care expenditures -- is correct but not a meaningful argument against health reform, the report explains. Covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans will necessarily raise total health care spending in the short term.
"There are two fundamental tests for any health reform bill: does it expand coverage without increasing the deficit, and does it begin to slow health cost growth so total health spending will be lower over the long term than it otherwise would be? The House and Senate bills meet the first test and hold real promise for the second," Horney said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that both bills would reduce deficits over the first ten years (the House bill by $138 billion, the Senate bill by $130 billion) and for at least a decade after that. Moreover, under the Senate bill, the total federal cost for all health care spending and tax subsidies in the decade after 2019 would be no higher than if we continued current law, according to CBO. This is a major accomplishment for a bill that extends coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured, the report notes.
Finally, some critics complain that the CBO cost estimates showing that the bills would reduce the deficit are misleading and rest upon a gimmick -- specifically, that neither the House nor the Senate bill includes a measure to permanently eliminate the SGR mechanism. Since Congress likely will continue to prevent the SGR from taking effect, critics say, Congress and CBO should consider the cost of such action as part of the cost of the health reform bills. Once that cost is added, they argue, the contention that the bills do not increase the deficit is false.
Indeed, Congress likely will never let the full SGR cuts take effect, and it probably won't offset the cost of scrapping them. But that cost is neither part of, nor in any way a result of, health care reform -- the federal government will incur this cost regardless of health care reform, not because of it. This fact is undeniable: if health reform legislation were to die tomorrow, the full SGR cost would remain. To be sure, it would be better if Congress offset the cost of cancelling the SGR cuts. But that issue is separate from the question of whether the health care reform bills themselves add to the deficit or not.
The full report is available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The analysis, by James Horney and Paul Van de Water, former senior CBO officials now at the Center, examines the history of every significant Medicare cut that Congress has enacted in the past 20 years - specifically, cuts included in deficit reduction legislation enacted in 1990, 1993, 1997, and 2005.
The authors found that virtually 100 percent of the 1990 savings survived; virtually 100 percent of the 1993 savings survived; virtually 100 percent of the 2005 savings survived; and nearly 80 percent of the 1997 savings survived.
"Today's conventional wisdom is wrong," said Horney. "Medicare savings have been a big part of all major deficit-reduction packages that Congress has enacted since 1990, and lawmakers have allowed the vast majority of those cuts to take effect. Given that history, there is every reason to believe that Congress will allow the Medicare savings in the pending bills to take effect as well."
Main "Example" of Failure to Implement Cuts Rests on Misunderstanding
In arguing that large Medicare cuts never "stick," many critics focus on Congress' repeated refusal to let the reductions in doctor reimbursement rates under Medicare's "Sustainable Growth Rate" (SGR) mechanism to take full effect.
But, as the report explains, Congress didn't intend the SGR to produce large savings. In fact, the SGR represented only 3 percent of the total ten-year Medicare savings in the 1997 deficit-reduction bill - only $12 billion of the $394 billion in total Medicare savings over ten years, as CBO estimated at the time.
Because it was badly designed, however, the SGR would actually have cut payments to physicians much more than had been anticipated and well below the level needed to keep pace with doctors' costs. Congress' decision to forestall these unintended cuts was therefore justified on policy grounds.
But, Congress did not simply cancel the SGR and let physician reimbursement rates grow willy-nilly. In fact, although Congress has since 2002 prevented the full SGR cuts from going into effect, it has cut physician reimbursement rates substantially below what was needed simply to keep pace with inflation. Even if Congress blocks the next scheduled SGR cut and freezes the rate at current levels, the rate next year will be 17 percent below the rate in effect in 2001, adjusted for medical inflation.
The Medicare savings provisions in the House and Senate health bills are very different from the poorly designed SGR cut. Instead, they are similar in both size and design to the past Medicare cuts that Congress has allowed to take effect.
Bills Contain Wide Range of Cost-Containment Measures
Claims that the House and Senate health reform bills lack serious cost-containment provisions also do not withstand close scrutiny, the report explains.
"These bills contain just about every reform that health policy experts have proposed to slow health care costs over time," notes Van de Water. "While we will ultimately have to do much more, the bills take most of the steps that we know enough about to pursue now in the areas that experts view as promising."
In Medicare, the bills would scale back overpayments to private insurers, reduce annual payment updates for hospitals and other providers, and, in the House bill, lower prescription drug costs. To reduce costs across the entire health care system, the bills would promote competition among insurers by creating an insurance exchange, cut insurers' administrative costs, invest in preventive care, penalize hospitals with high readmission rates, and establish pilot projects in various areas to help determine the best approaches to controlling health care costs (while giving federal health officials some new authority to implement some changes in Medicare based on the knowledge gained without having to enact new legislation). In addition, the Senate bill would impose an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans to discourage overuse of health care and would create an independent board with the power to implement cost savings in Medicare.
"Lawmakers can strengthen the final bill by combining the strongest cost-control elements of the House and Senate bills," Van de Water said.
Bills Are Fully Paid For and Would Begin to Rein in Long-Term Health Costs
A third major claim by critics -- that, in the near term, the House and Senate bills would raise the nation's total health care expenditures -- is correct but not a meaningful argument against health reform, the report explains. Covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans will necessarily raise total health care spending in the short term.
"There are two fundamental tests for any health reform bill: does it expand coverage without increasing the deficit, and does it begin to slow health cost growth so total health spending will be lower over the long term than it otherwise would be? The House and Senate bills meet the first test and hold real promise for the second," Horney said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that both bills would reduce deficits over the first ten years (the House bill by $138 billion, the Senate bill by $130 billion) and for at least a decade after that. Moreover, under the Senate bill, the total federal cost for all health care spending and tax subsidies in the decade after 2019 would be no higher than if we continued current law, according to CBO. This is a major accomplishment for a bill that extends coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured, the report notes.
Finally, some critics complain that the CBO cost estimates showing that the bills would reduce the deficit are misleading and rest upon a gimmick -- specifically, that neither the House nor the Senate bill includes a measure to permanently eliminate the SGR mechanism. Since Congress likely will continue to prevent the SGR from taking effect, critics say, Congress and CBO should consider the cost of such action as part of the cost of the health reform bills. Once that cost is added, they argue, the contention that the bills do not increase the deficit is false.
Indeed, Congress likely will never let the full SGR cuts take effect, and it probably won't offset the cost of scrapping them. But that cost is neither part of, nor in any way a result of, health care reform -- the federal government will incur this cost regardless of health care reform, not because of it. This fact is undeniable: if health reform legislation were to die tomorrow, the full SGR cost would remain. To be sure, it would be better if Congress offset the cost of cancelling the SGR cuts. But that issue is separate from the question of whether the health care reform bills themselves add to the deficit or not.
The full report is available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
