Tag Archives for Congressional Budget Office

GOP Health Care Proposal Pulled at Last Moment

Published in Woonsocket Call on March 26, 2017

Days ago, unified Democratic lawmakers combined with a deep philosophical wedge between the conservative House Freedom Caucus and moderate Republicans over policy details of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), forced the Trump Administration and House Speaker Paul Ryan to pull the AHCA proposal minutes from a floor vote to steer it away from a humiliating legislative defeat last Friday. Interestingly, the seventh anniversary of President Barack Obama signing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), his signature health care law, took place one day before the House vote.

A day before Friday’s scheduled vote to dismantle and repeal Obama’s ACA, President Donald Trump taking a high-risk negotiation tactic straight out of his bestselling book, “The Art of the Deal,” gave a late-Thursday night ultimatum to the House GOP lawmakers. Trump told to them to vote up or down on AHCA or he would be prepared to move on to other legislative agenda items.

As to Trump’s ultimatum to GOP House lawmakers, CNN Presidency Historian Timothy Naftali noted on CNN Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield, “He played chicken and he blinked.”

House GOP Making Legislative Sausage

In a report issued on March 13, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), detailed the drastic impact of the initial AHCA legislative proposal. CBO, a federal agency that provides budget and economic information to Congress, found that AHCA would result in 24 million losing health insurance coverage by 2026, Medicaid would be cut by $880 billion over the next ten years, and premiums and out-of-pocket costs would skyrocket increase, particularly for older adults and individuals with lower incomes.

Earlier this week, on Monday, Ryan and his House GOP Leadership team made eight amendments to AHCA to pull in skeptical GOP moderate and conservative lawmakers, including the controversial speeding up tax cuts while whittling down the Medicaid program. Later, on March 23, CBO confirmed that these amendments would lead to essentially the same level of coverage losses, about 24 million people and cost increases for individuals and would yield $187 billion less in savings than the original GOP health care proposal.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Senator Wyden and Congressman Pallone revealed that the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ independent Actuary “estimated that the repeal of the tax on prescription medications, known as the ‘pharma fee,’ beginning January 1, 2017 would increase Medicare Part B premiums by $8.7 billion through fiscal year 2027.” noted the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

On Thursday, three more amendments were offered to sway GOP House critics. One would strip the requirement that insurance companies cover essential health benefits (EHB). This amendment would effectively eliminate annual out-of-pocket caps, reinstate annual and lifetime coverage limits, and gut protections for pre-existing conditions. Another would delay – but not remove – the Medicare payroll tax cut that will undermine Medicare’s financing and its future stability.

After the defeat of AHCA, Trump blamed the Democrats for the House GOP’s failure to pass its health care proposal to scrap Obamacare. “The Democrats were not going to give us a single vote,” he said, warning that “Obamacare will explode” forcing the opposition party back to the negotiation table to craft a better health care law.

House Speaker Ryan also noted that “We are going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.”

“We just really did not get a consensus today,” say Ryan. “That’s why I thought the wise thing to do was not proceed with a vote but to pull the bill. When asked if he was going to try “to prop it up, Ryan responded by saying “it is so fundamentally flawed, I don’t know that that is possible.”

Sighs of Relief from Aging Groups, Democrats

“The American Health Care Act is not American in spirit or health care in substance. In fact, it’s a tax cut bill for the wealthy, not a health care bill for the people. It will make America sicker. Congress should reject this charade and this disaster of a bill today,” states Judith Stein, Executive Director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

“The House Congressional leadership was destined to lose on their disastrous American Health Care Act, which would have effectively repealed Obamacare and hurt seniors, including beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid. It doesn’t matter whether they pulled or failed to pass the bill,” says Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare in a statement. “It needed to go down and we thank the millions of National Committee members and supporters – and those of other senior advocacy organizations – whose protests were loud, numerous, and furious.”

“No one knew’ that health care could be so complicated. Hopefully, he has learned a lesson… that health legislation is built on a complex foundation that considers the real human needs – and costs – of changes to the system. A common refrain from Donald Trump during the campaign was, ‘What do you have to lose by electing me?’ Now we know what’s at stake: affordable health care for older Americans, Medicare, and Medicaid,” says Richtman.

“The leadership’s decision to withdraw the bill from consideration proves that the voices of Americans are very powerful. This harmful legislation would have added an Age Tax on older Americans and put vulnerable populations at risk,” says AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, in a statement.

LeaMond calls on Congress to focus on the issues important to older Americans and their families, including: protecting and improving Medicare’s benefits and financing; providing access to affordable quality coverage; preventing insurers from engaging in discriminatory practices; lowering prescription drug costs; providing new incentives to expand home and community based services; and strengthening efforts to fight fraud, waste, and abuse.

Adds, Justice in Aging Executive Director, Kevin Prindiville, “Congress tried to rush this disastrous bill through Congress without regard for the health and safety of older Americans and their families, and such a bill cannot and should not be revived. Older adults and their families rely on Medicaid and Medicare and these programs must be protected.”

Compromise might well be the way to make sound changes to the nation’s health care law, says Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. “The Affordable Care Act is a good law, and Republicans and Democrats should be working together to make it even better. If Republicans ever decide to come to the table, we should work together to increase competition, expand coverage, and bring down premiums. That’s a decision that Republicans have to make – whether to work with Democrats or continue down the path they’re on,” he says.

Rep. James Langevin (D-RI) also stresses the importance of reaching over the aisle to create a better health care law and getting away from partisan bickering. “It’s time for Republicans to move on from their misguided crusade to dismantle the ACA. The health care law has brought insurance coverage to millions of Americans. Its consumer protections, premium assistance, essential health benefits, and countless other provisions that were at risk of elimination have improved our nation’s health and saved lives. We must work together in a bipartisan manner to strengthen and improve the ACA, not risk the health and wellbeing of everyday Americans for an empty, partisan victory,” he says.

Congress is Close to Passing Prescription Drug Legislation

Published in Pawtucket Times on June 23, 2003

Within days of the July 4th congressional recess, the House and Senate continue their debates on enacting legislation to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals for the nation’s elderly.

The AARP will kick off a media blitz to get a point across to lawmakers that while they may take a short break during recess, the nation’s elderly don’t get a break when it comes to affording the costly medications they need.

“There’s no recess [for seniors] from high prescription drug costs,”  AARP declares in a press release sent to the nation’s media outlets.

In a written statement, Lt. Gov. Charles J. Fogarty, who chairs the state’s Long-Term Care Coordinating Council, calls on Rhode Island’s congressional delegation to pass meaningful Medicare drug benefits, rather than the legislative proposals being debated in the House and Senate chambers.

“While it is nice that after many years of promises Congress has finally taken on this issue these proposals will cause nothing but heartburn and headaches for seniors if passed,” said Fogarty, noting that many seniors will pay more for the program than they will get back in benefits. He charged that others will even be left without prescription drug coverage when they need it the most.

Under the Senate proposal, seniors would pay a $ 35 monthly premium and then have to meet a $275 deductible before Medicare starts to kick in to pay for half of the drugs costs.  Once senior’s reach a cost cap of $ 4,500 for the last year, they would then have to pick up the entire cost until they reach yet another cap of $ 5,800 in total drug spending. At this point, Medicare would then pay 90 percent of the covered drug costs.

Fogarty noted the Congressional Budget Office found that one-third of seniors would pay more money to enroll in the plan than they would actually get back in benefits.

That’s because a senior with $ 1,000 in annual drug costs would actually end up

$ 1,057 annual for the benefits ($420 in premiums, a $ 275 deductible and half of the drug costs).  A senior with $ 2,000 in drug costs would pay $ 1,557 out-of-pocket for the benefits.

Fogarty also called attention to the major gap in coverage for those whose costs exceed the $ 4,500 limit until they reach that $ 5,800 mark.

Furthermore, Fogarty, who authored the state’s expanded prescription drug program, said a study by Columbia University found that only those annual drug costs about $ 1,100 would benefit through the plan.  

In the House chamber, the Republican proposal also calls for monthly premiums of $ 35 along with a lower annual deductible of $ 250 with Medicaid paying 80 percent of the cost of drugs up to $ 2,000.

There is a gaping hole in coverage (in this legislative package).” Fogarty warned “Seniors would then have to spend at least another $ 1,500 depending on their income, on medications before coverage would again begin.”

According to Fogarty, Consumer Union, the publisher of the widely-read magazine, Consumer Reports, noted the “skimpy benefits [in the House and Senate proposal] and the historically high growth of prescription drug costs means that most who lack coverage today would wind up paying more for prescription drugs in four years than they do now.”

Will seniors see a prescription drug proposal enacted this year?

Probably, said Jason Ormsby, director of policy at the Washington, D.C.-based Allilance for Health Reform.

“There is a tremendous drive that I have not seen in the last there years [to enact a prescription drug bill],” said Ormsby.

He noted the House passed a legislative proposal to assist seniors in paying for costly pharmaceuticals, but it died in the Senate.

“The somewhat similar House and Senate bills will have a good change to pass by the July 4th recess,” Ormsby predicted.  Once passed, the legislative proposal will go to conference committee to iron out the differences between the 600-page House and 350-pshr Senate bills,” he said.

The prescription drug benefits are just a small portion of these massive legislative proposals, he noted.

Robert Greenwood, vice-president of public affairs for the National Pace Association, added: “Many Democrats see the limitation of these bills.  This legislation passed presents a historic opportunity to get this law on the book so it can be amended and improved in future years.”

While not a meaningful drug prescription proposal, it’s the first step in the right direction.

Once enacted into law, the Rhode Island congressional delegation must begin their efforts to improve the law – improve access for all: make out-of-pocket costs and cost sharing affordable; lessen gaps in coverage; more important, put the breaks to the steady increase in high-cost drugs.

Bush’s “just guns, no butter” policy hurts senior programs

Published in the Pawtucket Times on March 31, 2003

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Guns and Butter” policy is not in fashion today.

In a recent Washington Aging Report, radio commentator Bill Benson predicted future federal funding of program and services for seniors will take a back seat to President Bush’s worldwide fight against tourism, the high-tech war against Iraq and tax breaks for the upper income Americans.

In his Marh 24 commentary, Benson, a former assistant secretary with the U.S. Administration on Aging and now a principal at Health Benefits ABC – sees tough times ahead for the federal funding of programs and services, especially the creation of a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program.

“Guns and Butter” was coined nearly 40 years ago, describing President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two-front war. Back then, a large infusion of federal dollars allowed the Democratic president to fight a war abroad – in Vietnam – along with a war on the domestic front, against poverty and social ills, especially those facing the elderly.

“By the end of 1965, with Vietnam escalating, we had the Medicare program and the Older Americans Act,” noted Benson, adding Medicaid was also created at this time to help millions of low-income older people afford the cost of nursing home care.

Benson’s radio commentary charged the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are fully committed to funding the “guns” but not “butter” policy initiatives.

“It would be one thing if the commitment to guns over butter was for the president while we topple Saddam and occupy Iraq, and combat terrorism everywhere. “Instead, it looks like the Bush administration is committed to making butter a scarcer commodity for years to come,” said Benson.

According to Benson’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year suggests it won’t be both “guns and butter,” especially in light of the president’s efforts to pursue large tax cuts for upper-income Americans.

What about the spending for guns?

According to the Washington Post, Bush’s proposal for the fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, calls for defense spending that is 16 percent more than the combined total of all other discretionary spending excluding what he would spend on homeland security.

And that figure does not take into account the cost of the war in Iraq, nor expenditures to combat terrorism, Benson says.

Meanwhile, Benson said the Washington Post noted secretary of defense Donald Rumford has proposed a $20 billion increase for defense for each of the next six years, would follow what have been six straight years of real increases in defense spending. The result by 2010 would be annual spending for defense of more than half a trillion dollars.

Combine increased defense with the cost of the Iraq war.

Benson noted the White House estimated the cost for Iraq and related matters will be nearly $75 billion over the next six months.

Benson said that by 2011, the first baby boomer s will turn age 65, and will begin placing huge demands up on Medicare, Social Security and other services for the elderly.

“President Bush’s FY 2004 budget calls for $ 400 billion spread over 10 years for a prescription drug plan for senior,” said Benson.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare beneficiaries will in fact spend more than $1.8 trillion over the same 10 years for prescription drugs.

That means, said Benson, the president’s plan would cover only a bit more than 20 percent of wat seniors will actually spend. And that is if the $ 400 billion actually goes for drug coverage when there will be many other demands for additional Medicare dollars.

Bush also purposes to cut funding for the Older Americans Act – a federal program that supports such services as Meals on Wheels, transportation for the elderly and ombudsmen to investigate problems in nursing homes -by $24 billion, Benson said.

With a worldwide war on  terrorism combined with the ongoing war in Iraq, the debate regarding “guns and butter” spending must begin in earnest.

Hard choices must be made in times of war, but seniors must continue to press both the Bush administration and Congress for adequate federal funding to create a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program, and to shore up the ailing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

In this new era of huge defense spending, the Bush administration and Congress will have to make very painful choices in allocating its limited discretionary funds to support a wide variety of domestic policy initiatives.

Only an intense lobby of aging advocates and seniors will keep programs and services benefiting the nation’s elderly on the radar screens of federal officials and lawmakers.