Editorials, Opinion Pieces Examine Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Debate
Several editorials and opinion pieces published recently address the congressional debate over a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Summaries of the editorials and opinion pieces appear below.
Editorials
-
Akron Beacon Journal: Although lawmakers have compromised on several provisions in the House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills, "many more compromises will be needed" to ensure that legislation reported by the conference committee is "relevant to the needs of seniors," according to a Beacon Journal editorial (Akron Beacon Journal, 6/30).
-
Des Moines Register: The passage of Medicare prescription drug benefit bills by the House and Senate last week "means America is one step closer to having a drug benefit for seniors that doesn't control costs, leaves gaps in coverage, promises a financial burden for generations to come and will be of no help to millions of seniors," according to a Register editorial (Des Moines Register, 7/1).
-
Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Although both the House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills contain provisions that would expand the availability of less-expensive generic medications, the bills "contain senseless gaps" in coverage that would require beneficiaries to "pay more than if there were no system in place at all," according to a Star-Bulletin editorial (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 6/29).
-
Louisville Courier-Journal: Congress, "in the name of solving a problem that's hurting about a quarter of the nation's elderly," appears "headed toward paying a needlessly high price and engaging in a needlessly grandiose experiment, both of which could leave Medicare worse off than better," a Courier-Journal editorial states. Passage of a Medicare prescription drug benefit would move President Bush "closer to his political goal of enacting a drug benefit and some semblance of market-based 'reform'" in the program, but the nation would move "no closer to -- and perhaps even further away from -- any realistic solution to its looming Medicare crisis," the editorial concludes (Louisville Courier-Journal, 6/30).
-
Memphis Commercial Appeal: Although both the House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills "have serious flaws" and lack "broader Medicare cost reforms," they have "enough valuable features" for lawmakers to "select the best of both -- and discard the rest -- in melding a compromise," according to a Commercial Appeal editorial. The editorial adds that the "product won't be great, but it will be better than nothing" (Memphis Commercial Appeal, 7/1).
-
St. Petersburg Times: The House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills have differences, but lawmakers "shouldn't let partisanship or ideology get in the way of an agreement that helps relieve the financial burden and health concerns of millions of older Americans," according to a Times editorial (St. Petersburg Times, 6/30).
-
Tennessean: The "delight" of beneficiaries over the House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills "is bound to sour" because the bills "both have complicated formulas with huge gaps in coverage" and would deny beneficiaries "the most generous drug coverage," a Tennessean editorial states. According to the editorial, the conference committee "must take a breath, remove itself from the political atmosphere that produced these measures and focus on the best elements of both. Only then can it surface with legislation that is an undeniable net plus for Medicare" (Tennessean, 7/1).
-
Virginian-Pilot: The House and Senate bills "will be difficult to reconcile" as the chambers "have such different ideas" about the details of the legislation, a Pilot editorial states. It adds, "Delay to find a compromise, one can only hope, will allow reason to surface" and defeat the bill as written (Virginian-Pilot, 7/1).
-
Washington Times: "If there is any hope for final passage" of a Medicare prescription drug benefit bill, "the Senate -- which traditionally does not tend to yield much to the House -- will have to accept many" of the provisions in the House bill as the "close vote in the lower chamber actually strengthens the bargaining position of its leaders," according to a Times editorial (Washington Times, 7/1).
-
Washington Times: In a second editorial, the Times states that as with "most legislative matters in Congress, the devil is in the details," and the House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills -- which differ on the role of private insurers, the extent of coverage, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses -- are "no exception" (Washington Times, 7/1).
Opinion Pieces
- Jon Talton, Arizona Republic: The economics of the House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills "don't add up" because the benefit, estimated to cost $400 billion over 10 years, would cost "many times more," columnist Talton writes in a Republic opinion piece. He adds that the legislation is "complicated, no doubt larded with giveaways arranged by drug industry lobbyists," and would continue the "creep of taxpayer-funded benefits to the well-off" (Talton, Arizona Republic, 7/1).
- Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe: The decision by presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) to support the Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bill, which none of the other Democratic candidates support, "was one of the few strategic, even presidential, moves that have been made in this tactics-dominated campaign thus far," columnist Oliphant writes in a Globe opinion piece (Oliphant, Boston Globe, 7/1).
- Jeffrey Birnbaum, Fortune: The House and Senate Medicare prescription drug benefit bills "are as shortsighted as they are beloved," as the cost of the benefit "is grossly underestimated" and the "extra burden is the last thing Medicare needs," Birnbaum, a senior writer at Fortune, writes in an opinion piece (Birnbaum, Fortune, 7/7).
- Marie Cocco, Long Island Newsday: The House Medicare prescription drug bill would establish a new form of Medicare "under the guise of granting prescription coverage," and the Senate bill is "flawed" and "doesn't anticipate the wholesale revamping of Medicare," columnist Cocco writes in a Newsday opinion piece. Cocco adds that beneficiaries asked for "insurance to cover prescription drugs, not a cover-up for killing Medicare" (Cocco, Long Island Newsday, 7/1).
- Diane Archer, New York Times: The "sad truth" about the Medicare prescription drug benefit legislation "is that it is likely to provide no relief to millions of older and disabled Americans who struggle to pay for the medications they desperately need," and beneficiaries "will quickly see that they would be better off buying their drugs from Canada rather than paying for this new benefit," Archer, founder of the Medicare Rights Center, writes in a Times letter to the editor (Archer, New York Times, 7/1).