Tag Archives for Medicare beneficiaries

Aging Programs Get Slashed in Bush’s War Budget

Published in Pawtucket Times on February 18, 2002

In the shadow of the horrific terrorist attacks on Sept. 11th, domestic programs take the backseat in President Bush’s $ 2.13 trillion fiscal year 2003 budget, released in early February, with significant funding increases being targeted for both military and  homeland defense.

As 77 million baby boomers approach their 65th birthdays within the next decade, aging groups say the President’s wartime budget does not go far enough in many areas to meet the aging baby boomer’s needs in the coming years.

One of the most hotly debated Congressional issues is affordable prescription drugs. With the Congressional election looming next year, this is certain to be a key issue in every state. Don’t look for this issue to lose importance to seniors or to the aging groups who call for meaningful Medicare drug benefits.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 years, Medicare beneficiaries will spend about $1.6 trillion out-of-pocket on prescription drugs. But the recently released Bush budget proposal only contains $ 190 billion over 10 years for Medicare reform, including $ 77 billion to assist seniors with prescription drugs.

The National Council on Aging (NCOA), a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, estimates that on average, the Bush administration’s proposal would cover less than one out of 10 dollars spend on drugs by seniors.

Martha A. McSteen, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, agreed that Bush’s budget proposal shortchanges seniors and the disabled in providing needed health care and services.

In his State of the Union address, the president restated his campaign promise to provide prescription drug coverage for every senior, noted McSteen, who added, “That is an empty promise if the budget does not contain these needed resources.

“At least $ 450 billion is needed over the next 10 years to provide a comprehensive and affordable prescription drug benefit as part of the Medicare program,” McSteen says.

John Rother, AARP’s Policy and Strategy Director, said, “Although federal budget constraints are greater than last year, so too is the need for affordable prescription drugs for Americans age 65 and over. Unfortunately, disease and pain did not disappear with the budget surplus.”

However, U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, said he believes the President’s budget request recognizes the precarious state of the Medicare system, as well as other challenges faced by the nation’s seniors.

“The president has acknowledged the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit as well as [the need] for a significant increase in funding for disease research conducted by the National Institutes of Health,” he said.

While Chafee said he will push for legislation that will create more comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefits than the legislation proposed by the president, he warned the deficit created by the combination of the economic slowdown, the war on terrorism and last year’s tax cut will make enactment of any new spending programs more difficult to accomplish.

Meanwhile, programs under the Older Americans Act, are provided with less funding in Bush’s budget proposal than they were last year.

“Around the country, people are on waiting lists for meals-on-wheels programs and congregate meals programs,” said McSteen.

“There are state and local programs that need additional federal funds to counter the increasing problems of elder abuse. The administration’s funding request for these programs is woefully inadequate.”

Other federal programs get sliced and diced under the Bush administration’s FY 2003 budget, according to U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, who pointed to an 8 percent cut for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget for chronic care.

The four-term Congressman and member of the House Aging Caucus said he finds this cut troubling due to the significant gains that have been made in efforts to prevent and treat diseases that effect an aging population.

With a growing number of families caring or loved ones with Alzheimer’s Disease, Kennedy said he strongly opposes the Bush administration’s axing of the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program, which helps protect and locate missing patients with the devastating disease.

The program has assisted in the return of more that 5,700 wanderers and increased its data base to 67,000 persons with Alzheimer’s,” said Kennedy. “It has succeeded in its many efforts on a budget of $ 898,000 in fiscal year 2002.”

While prescription drugs comes up a loser in the Bush budget, some aging initiatives are clearly on the White House’s radar screen.

Bush’s budget proposal provides about $ 3 billion in additional funds toward research and is the final installment in a five-year effort to double the size of the National Institute of Health budget, says McSteen. She said she believes increased federal funding would assist in “producing breakthroughs in the prevention, treatment, management of conditions associated with aging.”

The Administration’s budget also provides a personal exemption to home caretakers of family members and the funding of respite and direct care worker demonstration projects.

Now Bush’s Budget proposal moves to Congress, where a Republican-controlled House and Democratic Senate will make major revisions, ultimately hammering out a final road map to federal spending.

The funding of federal programs to meet the needs of older Americans is crucial as our nation’s population ages.

Furthermore, with an increasing federal budget deficit, Republican and Democratic lawmakers must not get tied down to partisan wrangling as they attempt to iron out differences in creating a Medicare benefit to make prescription rugs more affordable to seniors.

As the Congressional elections get closer, seniors will call for concrete legislative action, not political rhetoric or fancy words.

Bipartisan Support Key for Passage of Aging Proposals

Published in Pawtucket Times on March 19, 2001

The operative word in national legislative circles these days in bipartisianship.

Both sides of the political aisle working together will have to be part of the picture if the long-term care field is going to see any significant legislative changes, policy sources indicate.

Why is that so? In the Senate, “there’s a 50-50 split between the two major political parties,” notes Bill Benson, President of Benson Consulting Group, a Maryland-based organization. What’s more, the division “has resulted in an unprecedented agreement between Senate Democrats and Republicans to share power,” according to Benson, a former top official with the U.S. Administration on Aging.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been following the failing health of Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, 98, of South Carolina.

If Thurmond retires or dies before the end of this term in 2002, it’s likely that his state’s Democratic governor would appoint a Democrat, a move that would shift the majority in the Senate to the Democratic Party.

Yet, Benson says that any legislative proposal would still need bipartisan support to get out of the Senate. “To get a Republican proposal enacted, you will either have to get lots of Democrats to cross party lines, or bring in Vice President Cheney to be a tie breaker,” he noted.

Meanwhile, in the House, the Republican majority holds but a razor thin margin.

“Like in the Senate, if both parties don’t work together in the House, you’re looking at legislative gridlock,” he says.

Benson notes that the Bush Administration is also moving to stall the lengthy regulatory and administrative actions taken by Clinton toward the end of his administration.

One such item that is temporarily halted is Clinton’s guidelines for managed care organizations that serve Medicare beneficiaries.

President Bush campaigned on Medicare reform and wants to bring his proposal to Congress.

His proposal provides a private sector alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare by offering block grants to states to help seniors pay for their pharmaceuticals.

This approach may be derailed by the Democratic Party, which added to its seats in Congress during the recent election, Benson explains.

He notes that Senator Charles Grassley (IA), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has declared that he will not push Bush’s Medicare or prescription drug plans because they lack votes for passage.

Yet, Benson also predicts that the fact that Congress is closely divided increases the chance that something will be done about providing prescription drug coverage to seniors through Medicare. Otherwise, Benson adds, Medicare reform will amount to nothing more than talk this year.

Meanwhile, Robert Greenwood, American Health Care Association for Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA), says that bold, revolutionary proposals won’t be forthcoming from the nation’s evenly divided Congress.

Instead, legislators will take an incremental approach toward program development.

“A long term care agenda has not emerged yet,” Greenwood observes. “We don’t even have an administrator for the Health Care Financing Administration, the agency that manages the Medicaid program.”

Greenwood says, in the long run,” We’re hopeful that the Bush Administration will take seriously its responsibility to provide long-term care providers with the needed resources to provide quality of care and to fund a regulatory system that allows providers to do their job while still protecting vulnerable residents.”