California Healthline Highlights Opinions on House GOP Medicare Reform Bill

A number of newspapers, columnists and organizations have issued opinions on the GOP-sponsored, $350 billion Medicare reform bill (HR 4954), which includes a prescription drug benefit, which the House passed last Friday. The legislation would allow Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drug coverage from private insurance companies. Under the bill, seniors would have to pay a $250 annual deductible and a $33 monthly premium. The legislation would exempt low-income seniors from the premiums and deductible. The bill would cover 80% of seniors' annual prescription drug costs up to $1,000, 50% up to $2,000 and no costs between $2,000 and $3,700, after which a catastrophic benefit would begin (California Healthline, 6/28). A summary of the opinions on the legislation appears below.

• AARP: AARP Advocacy Director Chris Hansen writes that although the bill represents a "step toward" a Medicare prescription drug benefit, "improvements are needed in the funding adequacy, structure and benefit viability of this plan." The "large gap in coverage" in the bill would serve as a "disincentive to enrollment," he adds. To "ensure the viability of the program," Hansen concludes that "[m]ore funds are needed" to close the coverage gap (AARP release, 6/28).
  
  
• Jay Ambrose, syndicated columnist: The bill represents the "least egregious of the congressional plans," Ambrose writes in a Scripps Howard News Service/Nando Times opinion piece. He adds that Congress should restructure Medicare to allow beneficiaries to "choose from dozens of health insurance plans all of which would include prescription drug coverage," rather than establish a separate prescription drug benefit, to help reduce costs. Passage of the "wrong plan" to reform Medicare could lead to increased costs and "hasten the day" when Congress would have to reduce Medicare benefits or raise taxes, he concludes (Ambrose, Scripps Howard News Service/Nando Times, 6/29).
  
  
• Consumers Union: The bill represents a "major disappointment" that "would be doomed to fail because its basic design is flawed," according to Gail Shearer, the director of health policy analysis for Consumers Union. As a result of high out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, few seniors would enroll in the program, she adds. "[T]he insurance industry cannot deliver an affordable prescription drug benefit in a voluntary marketplace where those with little need for medicine can simply pass up coverage," Shearer concludes (Consumers Union release, 6/28).
  
  
• Families USA: According to Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, the bill "provides precious little assistance and keeps prescription drugs unaffordable for millions of seniors," and only offers "political protection for House incumbents." Pollack adds, "The bill fails to deal with skyrocketing costs, provides no guaranteed drug coverage and requires seniors to pay the lion's share of unaffordable drug costs" (Families USA release, 6/28).
  
  
• Federation of American Hospitals: FAH President Chip Kahn praises the prescription drug coverage provisions in the bill as a "major contribution toward improving the health care security of America's seniors." In addition, he points out that the bill would provide "significant relief to hospitals." The Senate should "ultimately ... approve similar legislative relief," Kahn concludes (FAH release, 6/28).
  
  
• HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson: The "strong, effective" legislation would serve as an "important step" in efforts to "achieve Medicare prescription drug coverage this year," Thompson writes. President Bush hopes to have a prescription drug benefit "enacted into law this year," and seniors "should not have to wait any longer," he adds (HHS release, 6/28).
  
  
• Healthcare Leadership Council: The Bush administration should "support and ... sig[n] into law" the bill, which "takes some very important steps" toward Medicare reform and has a "realistic price tag", according to HLC (Healthcare Leadership Council release, 6/28).
  
  
• National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: NCPSSM President and CEO Barbara Kennelly "expressed strong disappointment" about the bill, which she calls "not a good deal for consumers." She also questions the "reliance" on prescription drug-only private insurance policies in the legislation. "Past history has shown that a purely market-based approach doesn't work. We learned that lesson with Medigap and with Medicare managed care plans, where premiums increased and benefits were cut over time," Kennelly concludes (NCPSSM release, 6/28).
  
  
• Senior Coalition: The Senior Coalition predicts that the bill would provide seniors with "real and immediate relief from the high cost of prescription drugs." The group adds that the legislation would protect seniors from catastrophic out-of-pocket costs and would "safeguar[d]" the private health coverage that "many seniors already have" (Senior Coalition release, 6/28).
  
  
• United Seniors Association: The legislation would provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors "without bankrupting Medicare and future generations," according to USA. In addition, the bill would protect prescription drug coverage for seniors "who are satisfied with their current coverage," the group concludes (United Seniors Association release, 6/28).
  
  
• Wall Street Journal: A Journal editorial calls the legislation a "political loser: more complicated and less generous, but not fundamentally different from what Democrats are offering." With the passage of the legislation, which includes an "add-on" Medicare prescription drug benefit, Republicans "are debating on the Democrats' terms and giving away the only carrot that might induce Congress to pass Medicare reform." Although Democrats have criticized the bill as the "first step in a Republican plan to privatize Medicare," the editorial concludes, "We wish" (Wall Street Journal, 6/28).
  
  
• Washington Post: Although "theoretically appealing," the bill "is also dicey," according to a Post editorial. Competition in the private health insurance market could "spur efforts to control costs" through negotiations with pharmaceutical companies, but insurers also may control costs "at the expense of patients' welfare." The editorial concludes, however, that Congress must pass a prescription drug benefit in some form to prevent "poor retirees [from] having to go without medicines that could improve their lives substantially" (Washington Post, 7/1).
  
  
• Washington Times: House passage of the legislation has "kicked off a political bidding war" that could result in the "largest new entitlement program" since the establishment of Medicare in 1965, according to a Times editorial. The program would "trigger a vast upsurge in demand" for prescription drugs that could lead to price controls. The Times concludes, "President Bush would be well-advised to veto any prescription-drug entitlement measure that reaches his desk" (Washington Times, 7/1).