Tag Archives for Roll Call

Women 50+ may well control who wins in midterm election, polls say 

Published on in RINewsToday on October 17, 2022

Almost three weeks away, and Democrats are scrambling to gear up their get-out-the-vote efforts before the upcoming midterm elections. Can the Democratic party that fights to financially strengthen and expand Social Security, and avoid cuts to funding for Medicare, and put the brakes on skyrocketing prescription costs, count on older woman voters to support their candidates to keep control of Congress?

Maybe not a sure bet, says a newly released AARP poll, “She’s the Difference – Survey of Likely Voters Aged 50 plus,” that finds that while woman aged 50 and older are energized to vote, they are still weighing their options on which party to support.  

AARP’s poll findings should cause a  concern to Democratic candidates. According to voter file and census data, older woman voters are one of the largest, most reliable group of voters. They make up a little more and then one-quarter (27 percent) of registered voters and cast nearly a third (30 percent) of all ballots in both the 2020 and 2018 elections. In 2020, 83 percent of registered women voters in this age group turned and in 2018, the last midterm election, they were 15 percent more likely to vote than the population at large. 

 “As the largest bloc of swing voters heading into the midterms, women voters 50+ can make the difference in 2022 and decide the balance of power in Congress and state houses across the country,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, in a statement releasing the 18-page poll results Oct. 4, 2022.

AARP commissioned the bipartisan polling team of Lake Research Partners, GBAO Strategies, Echelon Insights and Bellwether Research & Consulting to conduct a national survey of voters aged 50 and over. 

“The biggest bloc of swing voters for both parties is women over 50 who are still undecided, frustrated that candidates are not in touch with their lives, and looking to hear that elected officials will protect Social Security from cuts,” said Celinda Lake, founder and president, Lake Research Partners. 

“Increasingly, it isn’t just that voters of different parties that want different solutions to problems – they don’t even agree on what the biggest problem is. But a few issues, like concerns about political division and the future of Social Security and Medicare, do cross party lines with women over 50,” added Kristin Soltis Anderson, founding partner, Echelon Insights.

“Neither party can say they have “won” the votes of women over 50 yet. Older women are evenly divided on the generic ballot and two-in-five say they will make their final decision in the remaining weeks. They will be watching messaging on Social Security, and many will be focused on threats to democracy and gun violence, while others will more closely track inflation and rising prices,” says Christine Matthews, president, Bellwether Research.

A Warning to Congressional Candidates 

Researchers found that an overwhelming majority of older women voters say they will vote on Nov. 8th, (94 percent), however 51 percent of this swing voter group has still not made up their mind as to which candidates to support. Among these voters in a generic congressional ballot, Republican and Democrat candidates are tied, notes the poll’s findings.

The poll findings indicate that Latinas and Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women voters 50 and over are more undecided on who they will vote cast their vote for, with 77 percent of Latinas and 68 percent of AAPI women saying they have not made up their minds yet.

Reflecting other polls on senior support of Social Security, AARP’s poll found that women voters 50 and over are unified in their support for protecting Social Security from budgetary cuts, with three-quarters saying that this would personally help them a lot. However, half of the respondents think that the economy is not working for them. 

Additionally, two-thirds (66 percent) of women aged 50 and over say they are cutting down on non-essential purchases, four in 10 (41 percent) have cut back on essentials and 40 percent are saving less as ways to financially survive the increased costs of living.

The poll findings report that specific actions that would help older women the most financially include lowering the cost of food (66 percent), lowering the cost of gas (58percent), lowering the cost of health care (57 percent), and expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision (57percent). 

Over 80 percent of women voters rate their motivation to vote on Nov. 8th at a 10 on a 0 to10 scale, with economic and social issues being key issues for them. The tops issues for Republican women aged 50 and over include: inflation and rising prices (60 percent); crime (51 percent); immigration (49 percent); and election security (49 percent). On the other hand, Democratic women aged 50 and over say voting rights (63 percent) and threats to democracy (62 percent) are their top concerns, followed by gun violence (54 percent) and abortion (54 percent).

Independent women aged 50 and over rank division in the country (46 percent), voting rights (43 percent), threats to democracy (42percent), and inflation and rising prices (41 percent) as their biggest concerns.

AARP’s survey also found that older women voters are unimpressed with the job elected officials have done on “understanding the everyday challenges of people like me,” with three-quarters (75 percent) saying they have done just a fair (32 percent) or poor (43 percent) job.

“Social Security may be a consensus issue with women 50+, yet among Democrats, threats to democracy and voting rights are very much top tier. And across all groups of women 50+, “jobs” are bottom tier. That’s not surprising given not many women have said they have gone back to work or taken on extra shifts in order to make ends meet,” said Margie Omero, principal at GBAO.

A Final Note…

As early voting begins, “Roll Call” notes that there are 81 House races listed as competitive, meaning they are rated as Toss-up, Tilt, Lean, or Likely. Ten Senate seats are considered Leaning or Toss-Up, says the Cook Political Report. With these numbers Democrat and Republican candidates should heed the results of AARP’s poll reporting the older woman voters remain uncommitted to supporting candidates before the upcoming mid-term elections. With weeks to go, how do you bring them back into the fold?

Whoever takes control of Congress on Nov. 8th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled 17 days between the election until Dec. 15, 2022, to finish business before the closing of the 117th Congressional session. During this time frame, if the House Democrats lose control Pelosi has an opportunity to set a Democratic policy agenda before the next Congress.  She might consider allowing markup and a floor vote on Congressman Larson’s H.R. 5723, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust Act.  This landmark legislation would strengthen and expand Social Security.  Even with President Joe Biden and 202 Democratic House lawmakers calling for a House vote, it was pulled from markup, reportedly over cost concerns. Passage of this bill would set the stage for the Democrats becoming the protectors of Social Security if the GOP considers making cuts to the program, raising the eligibility age or privatizing the program. 

At press time, the Democratic House Speaker has also not allowed a vote in the House Rules Committee on Rhode Island Congressman David Cicilline’s H.R. 583, Reestablishing the House Select Committee on Aging (HSCoA) in the House Rules Committee. Passage in this Committee would almost ensure passage on the House floor with Pelosi’s support.  Cicilline’s resolution would bring back this investigative committee that put the spotlight on House aging policies over 30 years ago, but was eliminated in 1994. It’s a winning policy issue for America’s seniors and this group has traditionally been the highest turnout age group in previous elections.  

If the GOP takes control of the House and Senate, it sets the legislative agenda for these two legislative chambers during 118th Congress. For the next two years Democrats will not be able to move legislation to the House and Senate floors that improve the financial health and expansion of Social Security benefits or to bring back the HSCoA.  Congressional Democrats, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, and other aging advocacy groups, would be put in the defensive position to defend Social Security, Medicare, and other federal programs that enhance the quality of life of America’s seniors. 

According to AARP, the national survey (“She’s the Difference…”) was fielded by phone and online between Sept. 6 and Sept. 13, 2022, using landline, cell and text to web data collection. The final survey included interviews with 800 women voters aged 50 and over who are likely to vote in 2022, with oversamples of 100 Black, 100 Hispanic/Latina English speaking, 100 Hispanic/Latina Spanish speaking, and 100 Asian American and Pacific Islander women voters aged 50 and over. Weighting resulted in an effective sample size of 800 likely women voters aged 50 and over with a margin of error of +/- 3.5percent. 

To view the full poll findings, go to https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/politics/2022/shes-the-difference-likely-voters-50-plus-survey-october-2022-polling-memo.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00570.003.pdf.

For further information, contact Rachelle L. Cummins, Research Director at AARP, go to  Research at rcummins@aarp.com, research@aarp.org. 

Herb Weiss, LRI’12, a Pawtucket writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. To purchase his books, Taking Charge: Collected Stories on Aging Boldly, and a sequel, go to herbweiss.com

Ahead of Midterms, Trump Unveils His Proposal to Slash Prescription Drug Costs

Published in Woonsocket Call on October 28, 2018

With mid-term elections looming, President Trump moves to block Democrats tying the high cost of prescription drugs to an unresponsive Republican-controlled Congress and to GOP efforts to undo health care protections for people with preexisting medical conditions, one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act, referred to as Obamacare.

According to recent Roll Call poll, health care is a top issue for Democratic and Independent voters in key battle ground states while the GOP tout’s immigration and the economy and jobs as its priority.

Last Thursday, afternoon, at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with Secretary Alex Aza, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and CMS Administrator Seem Verman standing by President Trump, he announced major changes as to how Medicare pays for prescription drug to bring down costs by making prescribed medications more affordable to seniors, making pricing of U.S. drugs fairer relative to costs paid by other countries.

Bringing Down Medicare’s Skyrocketing Drug Costs

“We’re taking aim at the global freeloading that forces American consumers to subsidize lower prices in foreign countries through higher prices in our country,” said Trump at the Oct. 25 press conference in his 14-minute speech. He noted that the costs for the same pharmaceutical drug in some countries are 20 percent less than those purchased in the United States even though it was made by the same manufacturing company.

“At long last, the drug companies and foreign countries will be held accountable for how they rigged the system against American consumers,” says Trump.

Trump rattled off specific examples of how Medicare pays higher prices for the same pharmaceutical drugs that are cheaper in other developed countries. For instance, one eye medication that prevents blindness would annually cost about $187 million rather than $1 billion dollars if Medicare paid the same prices other countries pay, he said.

Another example, a highly used and very effective cancer drug is nearly seven times as expensive for Medicare as it is for other countries, said Trump, noting that “this happens because the government pays whatever price the drug companies set without any negotiation whatsoever.”

Under Trump’s unveiled proposal, a new Medicare model, the International Pricing Index (IPI), is created to bring down Medicare drug costs to ensure seniors get a “more fair deal on the discounts drug companies voluntarily give to other countries.”

Currently, Medicare sets payments for physician-administered drugs at the average sales price in the U.S. market—plus a price-based add-on fee. Trump’s proposal would allow Medicare to set the payment of these drugs at a Target Price, based on the discounts drug companies give other countries. With the model fully implemented, it is estimated that total payment for these drugs would drop by 30 percent.

Under the IPI model, described in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Medicare’s payments for select physician-administered drugs would shift to a level more closely aligned with prices in other countries. Overall savings for American taxpayers and patients is projected to total $17.2 billion, with out-of-pocket savings potentially totaling $3.4 billion over five years.

Medicare beneficiaries not covered by the IPI model could also see their drug costs lowered, because the average price used to calculate traditional Medicare reimbursement will drop.

Trump’s drug pricing proposal still needs to be refined and put though a federal rule-making process and its impact may not be seen for years.

Is Trump’s Efforts to Lower Drug Costs Just Election Year Posturing?

“It’s hard to take the Trump administration and Republicans seriously about reducing health care costs for seniors two weeks before the election when they have repeatedly advocated for and implemented policies that strip away protections for people with pre-existing conditions and lead to increased health care costs for millions of Americans,” says U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck E. Schumer in a statement.

“Once again, the President’s plan doesn’t go far enough to bring down the costs of prescription drugs. Democrats have proposed letting the HHS Secretary negotiate the prices of all drugs covered under Medicare, as well as new tools to ensure transparency and accountability when companies try to raise their prices. Without these critical steps, the President’s plan is just more words with little substance,” says Rhode Island Congressman David N. Cicilline.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) president and CEO Stephen J. Ubl, opposes Trump’s proposal to lower Medicare’s drug costs, warning that it would “jeopardize access to medicines for seniors and patients with disabilities living with devastating conditions such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases.” Trump’s proposal severely alters the Medicare Part B program by reducing physician reimbursement and inserting middlemen between patients and their physicians,” charges Ubl.

Adds, Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA, in his statement: “The data is clear. The way we currently pay providers and pharmaceutical companies for drugs administered in doctors’ offices and hospitals creates perverse financial incentives for providers to select extraordinarily expensive drugs that may not be best for their patients. “

“Medicare Part B is the perfect example of misaligned incentives, and the proposed rule, if implemented, could pilot significant new ways to pay for drugs that align incentives so that patients get the highest value care, they have the best outcomes possible, and costs come down, says Isasi.

Like many, Isasi hopes that Trump’s proposal of using the power of the federal government to reduce Medicare drug costs is “not just election year posturing” but truly reflects a policy shift to using federal negotiating power to get unstainable prescription drug prices under control.

Next year, after the dust settles after the mid-term elections, Congress must work together to hammer out a comprehensive legislative strategy to lower pharmaceutical drug costs and to provide health care to all Americans. Listen to the polls.

Bill Seeks to Soften Impact of Medicare Cuts

Published in Pawtucket Times on September 23, 2002

One week to go before the new federal Medicare cuts go into effect – cuts that will slash $1.7 billion in 2003 funding for the developmentally disabled and frail seniors in nursing facilities.

According to the American Health Care Association (AHCA), over the next two year’s cumulative Medicare cuts, called the “Medicare Cliff,” will total a whopping $5.2 billion.

Meanwhile, AHCA, representing 12,000 nonprofit long-term care providers, has been lobbying Congress for federal relief from the draconian reductions.

A new ad appearing in the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, reminds lawmakers that the upcoming cuts could lead to reduced nurse staffing and puts residents at risk.

In the upcoming November elections, voters might just get riled up too, over Medicare being cut by 10 percent, says AHCA.

The Roll Call ad notes a recent national survey of 800 persons found that 84.6 percent of the respondents opposed cutting Medicare funding for nursing facility care by 10 percent.

Additionally, 64.1 percent were less likely to vote for a candidate running for Congress if they knew that the candidate “voted to cut Medicare funding for nursing facility for nursing facility care by billions.”

Charles H. Roadman, II, M.D., AHCA’s president and CEO noted that a recent study by the University of North Carolina School of Public Health confirms the devastating impact of the impending Medicare cuts.

The study says that cuts could lead to reduced numbers of staff caring for seniors in nursing facilities, thus jeopardizing quality of care.

“At a time when the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and nursing care providers are actively pursuing efforts to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities throughout the nation, new federal cuts to Medicare are inconsistent with achieving this important goal,” says Dr. Roadman.

Roberta Hawkins, executive director of the Alliance for Nursing Home Care and state ombudsman agree with Roadman’s assessment.

“Huge Medicare cuts pull the carpet from under the federal quality initiatives that take effect across the country in October,” she tells All About Seniors. “The right hand of the federal government does not seem to know what the left hand is doing.”

According to Hawkins, the staffing shortage in Rhode Island is having a drastic impact on the quality of care delivered to more than 10,000 residentes.

“The upcoming Medicare cuts combined with an outdated Medicaid payment system will only further compromise patient care in the Ocean State,” she says.

U.S. Rep. James Langevin and House colleagues today announced a legislative fix that would delay scheduled cuts for nursing facilities and assisted living facilities in Rhode Island.

Langevin is co-sponsoring the Medicare Skilled Nursing Beneficiary Protection Act, sponsored by Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME), that would extend Medicare reimbursement add-ons for three years, through 2005, to allow the Bush administration more time to implement an adequate reimbursement formula for skill nursing facilities.

Langevin and the other bill sponsors hope this new timetable will obviate the need for further cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates, which would place severe financial burdens on nursing facilities.

Langevin stated that unless Congress acts this year, Medicare funding for skilled nursing care will be cut by 10 percent in 2003 and 19 percent in 2004 – translating to cuts of nearly $ 35 per patient per day in 2003 and $68 in 2004.

The Rhode Island congressman believes that in the Ocean State, the Medicare cuts will be even greater than the national average totaling $ 38.81 in 2003 and $ 76.90 in 2004.

“Difficult decisions were made in 1997 with passage of the Balanced Budget Act, and some of the changes were not implemented as Congress intended,” Langevin said. “The Medicare Skilled Nursing Beneficiary Protection Act will postpone further cuts and ensure that critical funding remains available for thousands of Rhode Islanders who rely on skilled nursing services.”

According to Langevin in mid-1998, the new Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) was implemented for skilled nursing care, as mandated in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA).

He noted that the new system resulted in cuts far deeper than intended by Congress.

In 1999 and 2000, Congress temporarily restored some of the unintended cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA) and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA).

These temporary add-ons helped restore beneficiary access to care, but overall Medicare funding levels for skilled nursing facilities continue to be below BBA projections, Langevin said.

“I am wholly committed to making the restorations of 1999 and 2000 permanent,” he said.

“We cannot turn our backs on a generation who built and defended the very foundation of this nation. They answered the call of our nation -now we must answer theirs.”