Opinion Pieces in The Hill Address New Medicare Rx Benefit

The Hill on Wednesday published a number of opinion pieces about the new Medicare prescription drug benefit by lawmakers and other Medicare experts. Summaries appear below.

Michael Cannon: Members of Congress should approve a proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to delay implementation of the new drug benefit, in part because the U.S. cannot afford to begin the program on Jan. 1, 2006, as scheduled, Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, writes. In addition to the fact that the drug benefit makes Medicare's financial outlook "worse" in both the short- and long-term, it does not do enough to help low-income beneficiaries, provides too many benefits to employers, "invites price controls" and was passed by lawmakers who did not know the true cost of the program, Cannon says (Cannon, The Hill, 11/9).

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.): It appears "obvious" that the new drug benefit "would be one of the first places that Congress would look to for savings" -- with increased spending on hurricane relief and plans for a possible flu pandemic -- but "as is often the case, what is obvious to taxpayers is rarely obvious to those of us spending their money," Flake writes. He says, "We need to ask ourselves if we want to move ahead with an expensive new entitlement at a time when we are running huge deficits" (Flake, The Hill, 11/9).

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): "I intend to see [the Medicare drug benefit] train leave the station on time and run according to schedule," Grassley, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, writes. He says that lawmakers who negotiated the language of the 2003 Medicare law were "conscientious about reducing the federal [budget] deficit" and included cost-saving measures such as coverage of new preventive care services. In addition, Grassley notes that the Senate Finance Committee is working to reduce federal spending by cutting $10 billion from Medicare and Medicaid and says he is "making it [his] business to watch for signs of telemarketing fraud, misleading information or any other monkey business that meddles with Medicare" (Grassley, The Hill, 11/9).

Robert Hayes: The launch of the new prescription drug benefit "should be a moment of celebration," but "[i]t's not" because those who created it "ignored the lessons of what has made Medicare great," Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center, says. He writes that the principles that made Medicare a "success story" from its inception were reliability and affordability, and "[w]hat Congress enacted," by contrast, "is a cottage industry of for-profit drug plans competing for the business of people with Medicare," Hayes adds. He says that a "more enlightened Congress" should enact a program that bans telemarketing and advertising, allows beneficiaries to change plans as often as plans can change the drugs they cover, suspends for one year premium penalties for late enrollees and extends the financial subsidy to all U.S. residents who meet income guidelines (Hayes, The Hill, 11/9).

Marilyn Moon: "Despite the substantial challenges that lie ahead" for the new drug benefit, "it would be a mistake to cancel these benefits" because Medicare beneficiaries "have waited a very long time for improvements in Medicare coverage that most other insured individuals and families enjoy," Moon, vice president and director of health at the American Institutes for Research, writes. Still, she adds, "a number of issues need to be watched carefully," particularly those related to dual eligibles, education of beneficiaries and the effectiveness of drugs (Moon, The Hill, 11/9).

Reps. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.): The 2003 Medicare law "did not sufficiently address the high cost of prescription drugs" and "included language expressly forbidding the secretary of [HHS] from negotiating" with pharmaceutical companies to reduce the price of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, Moore and Emerson write. They add that allowing the HHS secretary such negotiating skills could reduce drug prices under the program by 50% and "substantially offset the tremendous expense of recovering from Hurricane Katrina" (Moore/Emerson, The Hill, 11/9).

Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.): Nelson and Murray note that, in response to concerns about the financial penalties beneficiaries will face if they enroll in the drug benefit after the May 15, 2006, deadline, they are cosponsoring a bill (S 1841) that would delay late-enrollment penalties and give beneficiaries the opportunity to "change plans once during the first year." They say that the bill is a "small, time-limited step that will help ease the pressure of the first year of this new drug program" and will be "critical" for helping Medicare beneficiaries (Nelson/Murray, The Hill, 11/9).