Cicilline Spearheading key comeback?

Rep. Wants to Reestablish House Select Committee on Aging

Published in Woonsocket Call on December 20, 2015

Four years after the Rep. Claude Pepper, (D-Florida) died in 1989, the former Chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging, would be turning in his grave with the elimination of his beloved Aging Panel three other House Select Committees in 1993.  Serving as its chair for six years, the nation’s most visible spokesperson for the elderly, put the spotlight on aging issues in his chamber.

In 1973, the House Select Committee on Aging was authorized by a House whopping vote of 323 to 84.  While in lacked the authority to introduce legislation (although its members often did so in their standing committees), the House Aging panel begin to conduct comprehensive studies on specific aging issues to identify issues, problems and trends.  It was not limited by narrow jurisdictional boundaries of the standing committees but looked broadly at the targeted aging issue.

Congressional belt-tightening to match President Clinton’s White House staff cuts and efforts to streamline its operations would seal the fate of the House Select Committee on Aging. House lawmakers supporting the elimination of the House Aging panel viewed its $1.5 million a waste because 12 standing committees had jurisdiction over aging issues. Those opposed to putting the House Select Committee on Aging on the chopping block to rein in Congressional spending charged that the standing committees staff did not have time broadly investigate issues of the nation’s seniors as this select committee did..

Even with the mobilization and lobbying efforts of a coalition of aging groups including AARP, National Council on Aging, National Council of Senior Citizens, and Older Woman’s League to save the House Select Committee on Aging, House leadership ultimately chose to “put the nails in the coffin.”  No vote was scheduled to continue its existence on March 31, 1993 when its authorization automatically expired.

But did the House Select Committee on Aging really have an impact on the development of aging policy crafted by Congress as its supporters contend?   In 1993, with the demise of this select committee staff, writer Rebecca H. Patterson reported on March 31, 1993 in the St. Petersberg Times (p.8A)that Staff Director Brian Lutz noted that during its 18 years, the House Aging panel “has been responsible for about 1,000 hearings and reports.” This writer believes that the House Select Committee on Aging’s advocacy role prodded Congress to act abolishing forced retirement, investigating nursing homes, monitoring breast screening for older woman, improving elderly housing and putting the spotlight on elder abuse and the issues nation’s caregivers face when caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Bringing the Aging Panel Back from the Ashes

After the disbandment of the House Select Committee on Aging in 1993, a brief effort was undertaken by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) when she became House Speaker to bring back the Aging panel but this attempt was not successful.  Last month, Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-Rhode Island), representing the State’s First Congressional District, urged newly elected GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan in November 6th  correspondence to bring back the Aging Panel to the House Chamber.  There were 63 cosigners out of 435 lawmakers, all of them democrats, says the Democratic Lawmaker, who noted that many who did not sign wanted “additional time to review the proposal with their staff.”

It was extremely obvious to Cicilline and his cosigners as to the House Aging panel’s importance to today’s Congress.  “The considerable challenges that face our nation’s seniors, including Social Security and Medicare solvency, the rising cost of prescription drugs, poverty, housing issues, and location term care and other important issues, deserve dedicated attention from lawmakers, said Cicilline in his correspondence to Ryan and House GOP leadership.

Furthermore, Cicilline stressed the select committees relevant today as America’s baby boomers face the struggles of growing old.  “The addition of this demographic to the senior population will require thoughtful policy development and a focused effort to meet the many challenges by the increasing senior population”. He added that “Strains on resources for America’s seniors not only impact the elderly, but also those who support them, including family and professionals who provide care to seniors.”

A Quick Legislative Process

Cicilline notes that the House can readily create a temporary ad hoc select committee by approving a simple resolution that contains language establishing the committee – giving purpose, defining members and detailing other issues that need to be addressed. All standing and select committees of the House (except Appropriations) are authorized by a House resolution, and funding is then provided through appropriations, he adds.  “If the Speaker is supportive of the initiative, we would like draft and introduce a House Resolution establishing the committee, says Cicilline.

Robert Blancato, the longest serving staff member on the House Select Committee on aging, knows that the cost issue may be brought up to derail Cicilline’s efforts to reestablish the House Aging panel in 2016.  “There are certainly costs involved but an effective committee can be operated with a reasonable budget,” he says.  Now with Matz, Blancato and Associates, a strategic consulting and public relations firm, he is firmly behind Cicilline’s efforts.

“The aging population and its issues from chronic care to care giving have grown dramatically since the end of the House Select Committee on Aging in 1993.  No [Congressional] committees and defined Congressional champion has emerged since that time.  A new Aging panel would be very relevant for the future,” notes Blancato.

As an eye-witness to the legislative activities of the Aging panel for 17, Blancato’s keen political observations must be heard by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  The House Select Committee on Aging, with its bipartisan approach to crafting sound aging policy, is sorely needed now with a House divided and “compromise” being touted by some in the chamber as a “dirty word.” By bring this select committee back to life, House lawmakers can send a powerful symbolic message that they are ready to roll up their sleeves and tackle issues of concern to the nation’s seniors. Cicilline along with his letter’s cosigners calling for bringing by the Aging panel are definitely on the right track.

 

 

 

New Budget Deal Protects Seniors’ Pocketbooks

Published in Woonsocket Call on November 1, 2015

Just days after a Republican-controlled House passed legislation with a vote of 266-167 to prevent the U.S. government from going into default on its debt obligations on Nov. 3, also averting a potential federal government shutdown next month, on Friday, Oct.30, the Republican-led upper chamber followed suit.  Just after 3:00 a.m., the Senate voted 64-35 to approve a two-year bipartisan budget plan sending the bill to President Obama for his signature.

Before Friday’s Senate vote, on Thursday afternoon GOP Presidential contender Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)’s 20 minute filibuster fizzled, with Senate leadership moving forward for the budget bills consideration.  The measure had strong support for passage.  Retiring House GOP Speaker John Boehner with Congressional leaders from both political parties and President Barack Obama pulled together, putting aside differences, to craft the bill.

.           Before the companion legislation was taken up by the House and Senate, in a statement AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins, representing 38 million baby boomers and seniors, called on Congressional leaders and their members to support the bipartisan agreement, one that financially protect older Americans.   Jenkins detailed a number of provisions within the 144 page bill that would “reduce skyrocketing Medicare Part B premiums and alleviate the challenges faced by the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Trust Fund.”

Rhode Island Lawmakers Give Thumbs Up

U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), called the bipartisan budget agreement “a credible compromise,” noting that “It is only a two-year patch, but it puts us on a much better path forward.   Reed, who sits on the powerful Appropriations Committee, called on the House and Senate Appropriations committees to “quickly reach consensus and produce a detailed omnibus spending package by the Dec. 11 deadline.”

“This budget deal will provide much-need relief from harmful sequester cuts and give the nation a measure of certainly we have lacked amid the patchwork of stop-gap spending bills in recent years,” added U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Whitehouse noted the bipartisan budget deal provides “much-needed relief from harmful sequester cuts and gives the nation a measure of certainty it has “lacked amid the patchwork of stop-gap spending bills passed in recent years.”

With 37,000 Rhode Islander’s relying on the SSDI program it was easy for Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) to support the bipartisan compromise budget plan because it “prevents a 20 percent cut to SSDI benefits and extends the solvency of this critical program an additional seven years, as well as protecting thousands of Rhode Island seniors from an increase in their Medicare premiums.”

“We need to do more to protect Social Security benefits for seniors, ensure cost-of-living adjustments are calculated in a way that accounts for their needs, and lift the cap on payroll taxes so millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share,” said Rhode Island’s Democratic Congressman.

On the side line, aging advocates were also closely watching the action in both chambers, too.  “We are glad that the Budget passed by Congress this week lets people who rely on Medicare breathe a bit easier – knowing their premiums and deducible will not skyrocket next year,” said Judith Stein, founder and executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “However, we still have concerns about the way in which the Part B cost-sharing resolution is paid for, and concerns about the expenses underlying the original Part B increases.”

“The Center continues to urge law-makers to join Congressman Courtney (CT-2) in asking Secretary Burwell to investigate and fix the underlying reasons for the huge increase in Part B costs,” said Stein. “Much of the increase seems to come from parallel increases in billing inpatient hospital care to Part B – which was never meant to pay for such care – through the use of so-called ‘outpatient’ Observation Status.”

Older Americans Protected by Enacted Budget Plan

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 would raise the nation’s debt ceiling through March 2017, allowing the government to borrow to pay its debt. During these two years it allow Congressional lawmakers to lift budget caps for defense and domestic programs by $80 billion.

The passed budget plan derails a 52 percent Medicare Part B premium increase to 30 percent of beneficiaries, which would have hit millions of seniors in their wallets next year. Similarly, the deductible was projected to increase for these individuals to $223 next year.  But thanks to the budget agreement passed this week, the deductible will instead have a more modest increase from the current amount of $147 to approximately $167.

A general fund loan to the Medicare trust fund lessens the premium and deducible increases. Beneficiaries will repay this loan by a $3 per month premium surcharge over a five-year period.

According to the enacted budget plan, next year, only the 30 percent of the beneficiaries hit by the premium increase would pay this $3 premium surcharge.  In 2017 and beyond, all Medicare beneficiaries not subject to the hold harmless provision in a given year would pay a $3 monthly surcharge theoretically until the general fund loan is repaid..

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is expected to announce final premiums for 2016 by the beginning of November.

Keeping SSDI Afloat

The enacted budget plan also prevents a 20 percent cut in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits that would have occurred in late 2016 impacting 11 million recipients nationwide.  The enacted law now ensures at least 7 years of certainty that SSDI will pay full benefits.  Now, the passed budget measure “reallocates” a small percentage of the Social Security payroll tax to the SSDI program.  This has occurred 11 times.  But, GOP lawmakers have blocked recent efforts to transfer funds as a bargaining chip to force Congress and the Obama Administration to make cuts to Social Security benefits.

The new law would also tightens up the SSDI review process by requiring a physician or psychologist to review applications before a decision is made.  It ensures that application reviews are uniform nationally.  Finally, it requires the Social Security Administration to reject medical evidence presented in a disability application that was provided by “unlicensed” or “unsanctioned” physicians.

It also attacks Social Security fraud and abuse by providing additional funding to contact case reviews ensuring the applicants are entitled to the benefits, improves the fraud-fighting capacity of the SSA’s Office of Inspector General and increases penalties for those physicians, lawyers, translators who perpetuate fraud.

Finally, the bipartisan budget agreement closes loopholes in the current SSA law that allows higher-income recipients to exploit the rules for applying for benefits, with the goal of receiving large pension checks than Congress intended, and which most retirees are able to receive.

The savings made in the Social Security and SSDI programs remain in the Social Security trust funds and can only be used to pay for future benefits.

With Representative Paul D. Ryan now becoming the 62nd speaker of the House, the nation waits to see if the Wisconsin lawmaker has the special political skills to rein in the ultra-conservative wing of his party.  With only 374 days before the upcoming 2016  presidential and congressional elections America’s federal lawmakers must begin to work together to craft laws that will enhance the quality of life of the nation’s retirees.  Compromise is not a dirty word to those residing outside the Washington, DC beltway.  Gridlock is.

Social Security Recipients Thirsty for COLAs

Published in Pawtucket Times on October 19, 2015

With Christmas fast approaching, almost 65 million people who collect Social Security checks will get hit hard in their pocketbooks. On Thursday, the Social Security announced that there will be no cost of living adjustments (COLA) for 2016. It’s the third time this has happened in over 40 years. .

Unless Congress promptly acts to change the law to give COLAS, Medicare premiums will also be increasing dramatically for almost one-third of Social Security recipients. “The average American senior simply can’t afford a triple-digit increase for their Medicare coverage, says Max Richtman, President/CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) in a statement. The Washington, D.C.-based organization has lobbied Congress to pass legislation to address this urgent policy issue. “For millions of seniors, this large Medicare hike is devastating and a result of a well-intended “hold harmless” provision that left out too many Medicare beneficiaries,” he says.
.
According to Richtman, “All of this was triggered by a zero COLA increase in Social Security for 2016, confirming yet again, that the current Social Security COLA formula isn’t accurately measuring seniors’ expenses. Seniors across this nation understand how important having an accurate measure of the increase in their real costs is to their day-to-day survival.”

House Democrats Rally for a COLA

Just one day before SSA’s announcement of no COLA next year, Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), and 55 Democratic House members had sent a letter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) calling for the federal agency to find a way to provide a COLA for 2016. Not surprisingly Cicilline was not joined by House GOP lawmakers. Only Congressional action can revise this decision.

In the Ocean State, there are 153,349 beneficiaries who received $266,541,000 in total benefits in December 2014. In January 2015, beneficiaries received a 1.7% COLA, which averaged $29.55 per month, or $354.58 per year.

“Seniors, who are relying on Social Security for their retirement, have seen the costs of everything go up and deserve a COLA so they can have their basic needs met,” said Cicilline. “I hear from Rhode Islanders every day who are living on Social Security about their struggles with the rising costs of housing, food, and medicine. In fact, it seems everything is going up, except their Social Security check and this is dead wrong.”

SSA’s announcement on October 14 clearly shows that the current method of calculating COLA’s for Social Security beneficiaries negatively impacts the recipients, says Cicilline. The Democratic Congressman calls on Congress to quickly fix this problem now. The lawmaker has co-sponsored H.R. 1811, the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, to do just that.

Cicilline charges that the Social Security Administration has used the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) to determine whether the cost-of-living has increased. According to the Washington Post, the “biggest reason retirees aren’t getting a raise” is due to lower fuel prices, even though medical, housing, and food costs have increased.

It’s time to change the way COLAs are calculated, says Cicilline. Critics to the existing formula charge that fuel prices are less important in determining cost of living for the nation’s seniors – individuals ages 65 and older make up only 16% of all licensed drivers in the United States. To fix formula glitch, Cicilline has signed on as a co-sponsor of the CPI-E Act, which would replace CPI-W with the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly. CPI-E more accurately reflects cost of living for today’s older persons by weighting the cost of housing and medical care more compared to CPI-W. It also de-emphasizes fuel and transportation costs.

Blunting the Pain of Medicare Premium Hikes

Promptly responding to SSA’s double whammy of no COLA for 2016 and hikes in Medicare premiums, AARP, the nation’s largest aging advocacy organization in a letter called on Congress to “pass a fix.”

In her correspondence, Nancy LeaMond AARP’s EVP and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, asks Congress to protect all Medicare beneficiaries from sharply increased out-of-pocket costs in light of the COLA announcement, requesting specifically that Congress “reduce. the impact of the sudden, sharp increases in the Part B premiums and deductible as soon as possible. Ideally, all Medicare beneficiaries should be held-harmless in the face of no Social Security COLA adjustment.”

LeaMond’s letter notes that 16.5 million Americans face sharp premium increases and that “all Medicare beneficiaries will see their Part B deductible increase 52 percent…from $147 to $223.” Additionally, AARP reiterates its opposition to the Chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), noting that “the Social Security COLA would be even more inaccurate and benefits would be even less adequate if recent proposals to adopt a Chained CPI had been enacted.

AARP has opposed all Administrative and Congressional attempts to enact a Chained CPI, and says it will continue to do so, says LeaMond, because the Chained CPI would further under reported inflation experienced by Social Security beneficiaries, and further erode their standard of living, cutting an estimated $127 billion in Social Security benefits from current and near retirees in the next ten years alone.”

With Capitol Hill polarized by political a House and Senate captured by ultra conservatives, Social Security beneficiaries will have to find ways to stay financially afloat until Congress can reduce the damaging impact of the Part B premium increases with no COLA increase to reduce the pain. Aging groups push for holding beneficiaries harmless to Medicare premium increases. With the election over a year off, law makers might just listen or face the wrath of older Americans who just exercises their right to vote at the polls.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12 is a Pawtucket writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.