Senate Medicare Action: Read Between the Lines

by Mike Hall, Mar 20, 2006

It shouldn’t really come as shock that things aren’t always what they seem to be when it comes to congressional action. So before you start to believe some news reports that the U.S. Senate voted to fix a couple of serious problems with the troubled, new Medicare prescription drug law, take a closer look and check your dictionary for the difference between “allow” and “require.”

Here’s the background. Several Medicare amendments were offered to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution during last week’s debate (more on that later). They addressed two major problems plaguing the drug program:

• The prohibition against Medicare’s using its huge bargaining power to negotiate with drug companies for lower drug costs, which would save both the government and seniors money; and
• Extending the May 15 enrollment deadline for seniors. If they are not enrolled by then, it will cost them more because of penalties for late enrollment. Of course, the program is so complicated, many seniors have given up out of frustration or been afraid to try to navigate the hundreds of plans and rules they must follow. For some inexplicable reason, President Bush says he won’t allow Medicare to change the deadline.

One amendment from Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. A second offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) would have, among other improvements, required Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies. The Bush administration is on record saying even if Medicare is allowed the authority to negotiate, it won’t. Now if the administration were required to, who knows, they might even follow the law and do so.

The Snowe/Wyden version passed and Stabenow’s failed.

Knowing the depth of the flaws in the Medicare drug program, let alone the real headaches and heartaches the nation’s seniors and their families are facing, it’s hard to imagine why senators would, in effect, give the drug companies a free pass. Some might point to the more than $80 million in campaign contributions the pharmaceutical and health industries have funneled to federal candidates since 2000.

To fix the enrollment deadline, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) offered an amendment that would have extended the May 15 deadline. It would have required Medicare to give seniors some extra time. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) amendment would have allowed the deadline to be extended.

On the day Grassley’s amendment passed and Nelson’s failed, Bush, during an appearance in Silver Spring, Md., vowed once again to stand firm on the deadline.

So, it may look like the Senate voted to make some real needed changes in the Medicare prescription drug program. But don’t hold your breath. As one labor lobbyists said, “The Senate passed two completely useless amendments they will claim to address problems in Medicare.”  

Come this fall, you can be sure the shortcomings and failures of the Medicare prescription drug program will be front and center. Maybe last week’s votes will give senators come catchy campaign slogans or ads, but they won’t do a darn thing to help seniors.
 
As the Byrds sang on “Sweetheart of the Rodeo” nearly 40 years ago, “Nothing Was Delivered.”

Meanwhile, the budget resolution, which in a nutshell mirrors Bush’s budget plan of huge spending cuts in working and low-income family programs while handing over huge tax cuts for the wealthy, passed March 16 by 51–49. Here’s the AFL-CIO’s letter to senators about the budget resolution.

The budget process is far from over. The House has to pass its budget resolution, which then must be reconciled with the Senate’s. Appropriations bills have to be passed. It’s very likely the budget debate will run deep into the year.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (0)