Entitled to Know

Entitled to Know Has Moved

2008-08-11T07:13:00.002-05:00

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare’s award winning blog “Entitled to Know” has a new address and a new look. Bookmark us and join our growing list of email and RSS subscribers who receive the latest news, views, and policy analysis on Social Security, Medicare and other issues important to seniors and their families.

If you're an email or RSS subscriber you're feeds are already set up at our new location.

Join the conversation at:

http://www.entitledtoknow.org/

Celebrating Medicare’s Anniversary

2008-07-30T11:18:00.005-05:00

43 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare legislation into law not only for the elderly but also for younger generations who care for them. Before Medicare, half of all seniors had no health insurance and nearly 35% lived in poverty. Today senior poverty has dropped by two-thirds and all Americans 65 and older can get health insurance through the Medicare program. Medicare works.

But as Lynda Johnson Robb reminded us at our 25th Anniversary celebration in June, her father knew "Medicare would have to be carefully guarded and improved through the generations".

Unfortuntely, the privatization of Medicare has neither improved nor carefully guarded the program's core mission to provide equitable and dependable healthcare coverage for America's retirees and the disabled. In fact, massive industry subsidies to private insurers, means-testing, higher premiums and the unchecked costs of healthcare threaten the program.

But there have been some signs that the policy and fiscal truths of the Medicare Modernization Act can no longer be ignored. Our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly hopes next year's Medicare anniversary will be celebrated in a very different political landscape in Washington:

“The Congressional Medicare veto override and vote to delay arbitrary cuts show Congress has the courage to reconsider these destructive privatization provisions written by and for the drug and insurance industries. Our members hope that with a new Congress and President in the White House we’ll be able to celebrate next year’s anniversary and the end of Medicare privatization at the same time.

This privatization, which was accelerated by the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, has left seniors saddled with rising premiums, growing out of pocket costs and means testing at a time when they are already feeling the effects of an economic downturn. We must reverse the privatization politics of the past in favor of real policy solutions providing healthcare reform nationwide and strengthening our one universal healthcare plan – Medicare.” Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

Will Harry and Louise become healthcare bloggers?

2008-07-29T14:47:00.004-05:00

It's a provocative thought offered in jest at today’s Kaiser Family Foundation discussion on Health Bloggers and the role they play in policy debates.

For those of you who don’t remember (or would rather forget), Harry and Louise were the stars of the infamous television ad campaign launched by the health insurance industry to torpedo President Clinton’s healthcare reform proposals in 1993.

By most accounts, including this study by Duke University, this ad
campaign helped turn the tide of public opinion...leaving us without healthcare reform for going on 15 years. But as the nation finally appears ready to take another pass at reform, today's Kaiser panelists talked about the role “new media”, specifically blogs, will play in future healthcare debates.

Here’s a sampling of what some of today’s panelists opined:

“The one thing the blogs are very good at is getting the media to notice them. They’re going to be very influential...There will be much more careful conversation because so many partisans are waiting to jump so ferociously on any missteps on either side.” Ezra Klein...The American Prospect

“There will be a much better debate with this many eyes and voices.” Michael Cannon, Cato Institute

“I don’t know if there will be better debate just because there will be more debate.” Tom Rosenstiel, Project for Excellence in Journalism

“It will all happen much, must faster.” John McDonough, Senior Advisor to Senator Edward Kennedy and Former Contributor, A Healthy Blog

As we’ve said here many times, we see nationwide healthcare reform and strengthening Medicare as one in the same. There are clearly lessons to be learned from America’s only universal healthcare plan, lessons we hope policy makers will heed in any future reform debate.

You can also link to video of the full Kaiser session (it runs about 90 minutes).

Congress Does NOT Pull the Trigger on Seniors

2008-07-25T10:00:00.005-05:00

Congress once again did the right thing and cast a vote for seniors in Medicare by setting aside the Bush administration’s flawed Medicare trigger proposal (required in privatization legislation passed in 2003) and the mandatory cuts it requires. Chairman Pete Stark says the trigger was passed solely “to do a hatchet-job on Medicare”. He’s so right.

The 45 percent threshold at which the “trigger” is set is a completely arbitrary limit included in the Medicare Modernization Act. There has never been a public debate on whether it is appropriate to establish a cap on the federal revenue contribution to the Medicare program at any level, nor has any policy rationale been identified for selecting 45 percent as that federal contribution limit. The fact that more than 45 percent of Medicare financing may come from general revenues poses no more of a problem in itself than the fact that 100 percent of the financing for defense, veterans’ benefits, education or most other federal programs comes from general revenues. The problem facing Medicare is the cost of health care, not how the cost is allocated between revenue sources.

Here’s reaction from our President Barbara Kennelly, after last night’s House vote suspending consideration of the Medicare trigger: "The National Committee applauds Congress for postponing cuts which would have hurt millions of seniors who depend on Medicare while ignoring the real challenges facing our healthcare system nationwide. The 45% financing cap, mandated in Medicare privatization legislation passed 5 years ago, is arbitrary and meaningless in the larger debate of reigning in the high cost of healthcare. This healthcare crisis is crippling our nation and skyrocketing costs affect not only seniors in Medicare but Americans of all ages. This trigger is nothing more than a distraction from the true challenge facing Medicare: how will our nation provide high-quality health care for an aging population in an era of unchecked health care costs? We congratulate Congress for turning the tide away from arbitrary cuts and cost-shifting to seniors in favor of taking the longer view. Our National Committee members look forward to working with Washington to craft meaningful reform which will serve seniors in Medicare, their children and grandchildren as well."

New Social Security Estimator

2008-07-22T12:52:00.004-05:00

When should I retire?

Sounds like such a simple question...one asked by millions of seniors each year. Yet the answers are as unique as the individual asking them. To help future retirees sort through it all, the Social Security Administration has unveiled a new benefits calculator.

This isn’t a first for SSA but this latest version goes further than earlier models. The Baltimore Sun’s Eileen Ambrose provides a nice breakdown of how it works:

You won't be able to use it if you don't have enough credits to qualify for benefits - 10 years of earnings - or you are already receiving benefits.

You will need to plug in your Social Security number and mother's maiden name. The agency says the site is secure. And when you print out your information, it won't include these identifying details.

The calculator will ask when you plan to stop working and your average future earnings. It combines these with your earnings history so far.

With the click of the mouse, you can see what your monthly benefit will likely be at 62 - the earliest year to receive benefits - and at other ages. You can,for instance, calculate the difference in benefits by working one more year,something the annual paper estimates don't tell you. In my case, retiring at 63 instead of 62 would mean an extra $100 a month.

Our own senior policy analyst, Mary Jane Yarrington, says the more tools available to workers the better. She answers hundreds of questions from seniors and future retirees each year. Do you have a Social Security question? You can reach her at: “Ask Mary Jane”.

New Medicare Law is About More Than Just Doctors’ Pay

2008-07-21T10:06:00.007-05:00

Last week’s Medicare votes gave Congress and the President a simple choice: strengthen the Medicare program for seniors and their physicians or support billions in wasteful subsidies the health insurance industry has lobbied hard to protect. Ultimately, even those who’ve supported the billions of dollars of wasteful subsidies to private Medicare Advantage insurers for years realized this was a very important vote to seniors, doctors and their families.

While the major goal was to block scheduled cut in fees to doctors in Medicare there were many other important provisions, which didn’t get as much attention, yet will affect millions of seniors on Medicare, such as:

Provides lower out-of-pocket costs for mental health services

Offers new preventive benefits to Medicare beneficiaries

Some widely used anti-anxiety and sleep drugs will be added to Part D coverage

Increases funding for low income beneficiaries and extends the program
until December, 2009

Eliminates the Part D enrollment penalty for low income seniors

Provides incentives to doctors to encourage electronic prescribing

For more details, here’s our summary of The Medicare Improvements For Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA).

Seniors Applaud Congressional Veto Override

2008-07-15T16:29:00.005-05:00

Barbara B. Kennelly, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, issued the following statement to NCPSSM members and supporters today:

“Thanks to hard won bi-partisan support in the House and Senate, America’s seniors and their caregivers have averted physician pay cuts that would have severely limited healthcare access to millions receiving Medicare. The National Committee’s members and supporters applaud those in Congress who made the right choice today and voted to put seniors’ healthcare needs before insurance industry profits, by overriding President Bush’s veto. I hope this is just the first vote of many to come, which will reverse the destructive and costly privatization of Medicare, begin a serious bi-partisan debate about nationwide healthcare reform and strengthen the Medicare program for future generations.”

Bush Will Veto Medicare Bill Tomorrow

2008-07-14T13:52:00.002-05:00

The majority of Congress, including loyal Republicans, America's seniors and their physicians will be told once again where this administration's priorities lie...with the insurance industry. Congressional Quarterly reports this afternoon:

President Bush will veto the recently cleared Medicare bill Tuesday, a senior administration official said Monday on a conference call arranged by the White House. The administration is unhappy with the Republican senators who voted for the bill July 9, but appears to hold out little hope of being able to sustain the veto, or flip back GOP senators who deserted the president on the controversial measure. “If everyone votes as they did, we would not be able to sustain this veto,” said Tevi Troy, deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Speaking of the likely override, Troy said, “That is a real problem, but it’s not the Democrats who put us in that position. It’s the nine Republicans” who changed their votes in support of the bill.

They changed their vote in support of a bill which would prevent scheduled pay cuts for Medicare doctors, improve access to prevention and mental health services for all beneficiaries, and decrease the cost-sharing burden for low-income seniors who often forgo services because of expense. Of course, private insurers will lose some of their billions in government subsidies too and that's where the President will draw a line with his veto pen. However, this time it appears his allies in Congress won't be following his lead:

Both chambers have more than enough votes to override the president, assuming no members change their votes. In the case of a veto override, the House would vote first. A House vote on overriding the president’s veto could occur as early as Tuesday, with the Senate acting rapidly afterwards.

Sen. McCain Spins Social Security Comment

2008-07-10T14:09:00.005-05:00

You know it’s bad when even the “clarification” gets it wrong. Senator McCain’s explanation of his ‘Social Security is a disgrace’ comment shows he either doesn’t understand the system’s long-term financial picture or he’s just picking up where the President’s privatization campaign left off. Here is his clarification from The Trail:

McCain sought to clarify his remarks this afternoon on the Straight Talk Express. Young people, he said, "are paying so much that they are paying into a system that they won't receive benefits from on its present track that its on, that's the point."The Social Security trustees "have clearly stated its going to go bankrupt," he said, adding that this is what he meant when he called the system a disgrace. "I don't think that's right," he said. "I don't think it's fair, and I think it's terrible to ask people to pay in to a system that they won't receive benefits from. That's why we have to fix it."

And yet, the Social Security Trustees report actually shows young people are on track to receive 78% of current benefits, even if not a single thing is done to modify funding in the out years (and no one believes that will happen). Beneficiaries will receive full benefits for another 33 years! Let's not forget that the “Social Security is bankrupt” myth and this intergenerational warfare strategy were also the heart of President Bush’s failed attempt to scare the American people into privatizing Social Security 3 years ago. That campaign failed largely because the American people didn’t Buy the Lie.

Unfortunately, it appears Senator McCain is ready to begin that same privatization debate all over again. The Straight Talk Express is beginning to feel more like a time machine transporting us back to 2005.

Medicare Victory for Seniors and Their Doctors

2008-07-10T08:22:00.003-05:00

HR 6331 Stops Medicare Physician’s Payment Cuts and Trims Wasteful Insurance Industry Subsidies.

Reaction from National Committee President/CEO, Barbara B. Kennelly:

“Today’s vote provided a clear choice between sound policy to improve healthcare for seniors or funding massive giveaways to private Medicare insurers. We thank those Senators who made the right choice. We only hope President Bush will also put the needs of seniors and their physicians ahead of insurance industry profits. Make no mistake about it, Medicare beneficiaries, low income seniors and their physicians need this legislation. However, President Bush has threatened a veto in order to preserve billions in subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans which will put the healthcare of America’s seniors in jeopardy. The National Committee’s members and supporters nationwide urge the President to set aside privatization politics in favor of doing what’s best for seniors and their caregivers."

In addition to preventing the scheduled cuts for Medicare doctors, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (H.R. 6331) will improve access to prevention and mental health services for all beneficiaries, and decrease the cost-sharing burden for low-income seniors who often forgo services because of expense.

John McCain Says Social Security is a “Disgrace”

2008-07-09T12:47:00.006-05:00

Hard to imagine, right? Even the most hard-core, anti-Social Security flame throwers in town generally use less inflammatory (and fundamentally flawed) language to describe America’s most popular government program. Why then would Senator McCain go there? Good question.

Now, you might be thinking “he probably didn’t mean what he said...or it was just a slip of the tongue” (honestly, that was our first thought too). However, when a politician delivers basically the same message twice in 24 hours the “he didn’t mean it” theory just doesn’t work. Specifically, here is what Senator McCain has said about Social Security in the past two days, first at his Denver Economic Town Hall on Monday:

“Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.” John McCain, Denver Economic Town Hall, July 7, 2008

Well...Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system but that’s certainly not news, at least it shouldn’t be to someone who's been in Congress for more than 25 years. And while conservatives do want to fundamentally change the program through privatization, does that really make Social Security an absolute disgrace? Hardly.

Here’s the Senator’s second pass at the same message, pitting young versus old in an attempt to convince us Social Security is broken, this time on CNN.

“On the privatization of accounts, which you just mentioned, I would like to respond to that. I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money which is their taxes and put it in an account which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for younger people, it would not affect any present-day retirees or the system as necessary. So let's describe it for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it." John McCain, CNN American Morning, July 8, 2008

So, Senator McCain, not just once but twice this week, has objected to the very definition of Social Security. This is a very different argument than what has been posted on his website or presented to the American public during his campaign to date (which has been confusing enough as it is).

Our President, Barbara Kennelly, summed up our reaction this way:

“Since its inception, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go system. That’s not new and it’s certainly not a disgrace. To suggest that Social Security is fundamentally ‘broken’ because of this fact, shows a lack of understanding of the program, its traditional role and and the need to preserve and strengthen it for the future. Social Security is a successful intergenerational program that has served this country well. If Senator McCain wants to entirely restructure Social Security’s funding, through privatization or some other means, now is the time to say it directly. Calling Social Security a disgrace is anything but straight talk.”...Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

Improved Medicare Patient Care or Higher Insurer Profits?

2008-07-07T13:47:00.006-05:00

Sounds like an easy choice, right? Apparently, not for Republican Senators who voted against the Medicare bill last month. By all accounts, that Medicare vote, which preserved billions in insurance industry subsidies while requiring cuts in doctors’ payments, made for a tough July 4th recess for some Senators. You can certainly see why... casting a vote to protect billions in industry overpayments while cutting pay for doctors in Medicare has to be a tough sell to seniors, their families, and the doctors serving them. Especially as they're all feeling the pinch of this current economy.

The bill will come up again this week and National Committee members have added their voices to the debate by urging the Senate to cast the right vote this time around. We’re launching an internet ad campaign and have emailed our new :30 Medicare spot to our members urging them to contact their Senators before the mid-week vote:

As Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus told reporters today:

“It’s not often we get a second chance to do the right thing... This bill will do a lot more for seniors and that’s the point. Our job is to legislate good policy...that’s what we’re doing. “

Find out how your Senators voted and then use our Legislative Hotline at (800) 998-0180 to connect to them directly with one toll-free call. Ask them to support HR 6331-the Medicare mprovements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.

Statement from National Committee President on Senate vote against Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008

2008-06-27T13:59:00.002-05:00

Barbara B. Kennelly, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, issued the following message to NCPSSM members and supporters today:

“Once again we’ve seen the profits of the insurance industry take precedence over a call for help from America’s seniors and their doctors. The Administration’s allies in the Senate last night rejected HR 6331, a bill that would have preserved Medicare beneficiaries’ access to their doctors by averting a physician fee cut. Instead of approving important beneficiary improvements for the more than 44 million seniors and people with disabilities served by Medicare, a minority in the Senate once again blocked action on legislation that would have begun to reduce the overpayment of billions of tax payer dollars to Medicare Advantage insurers.

H.R. 6331 would have improved access to prevention and mental health services for all beneficiaries, and decreased the cost-sharing burden for low-income seniors who often forgo services because of expense. In addition, the bill would have preserved access to needed physical, occupational and speech-language therapy and prohibit many of the abusive marketing practices used to enroll beneficiaries in private Medicare Advantage plans and Part D prescription drug plans.

The momentum of the on-going privatization of Medicare continues to worsen the economic and healthcare outlook for the elderly. How ironic as the Presidential candidates discuss improvements to our nation’s healthcare system, the Congress continues to weaken our one universal healthcare plan – Medicare.”

John McCain and Social Security

2008-06-19T12:07:00.008-05:00

So whatever happened to the Straight Talk Express?

Watching John McCain parse words over Social Security private accounts during the past few months has left more than few people bewildered. Last week’s pronouncement that he is...

‘not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been, I never will be’

was the ultimate proof the straight talk express has jumped the track. Here’s Senator McCain on Friday:

But wait a minute, just 3 months ago conservatives were relieved to see Senator McCain promise the Wall Street Journal he still supports President Bush’s failed privatization plan, in spite of what his campaign website said at the time.

“Asked about the apparent change in position in the interview, Sen.McCain said he hadn't made one. 'I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts,' he says. When reminded that his Web site says something different, he says he will change the Web site. (As of Sunday night, he hadn't.) 'As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it -- along the lines that President Bush proposed.' "
In fact, here’s John McCain promoting the privatization of Social Security in 2004. So much for never have, never will:

While the American people overwhelmingly rejected President Bush’s plan to turn Social Security over to Wall Street, the privatization campaign did succeed in one way...most people now understand what private accounts and the privatization of Social Security really means. Senator McCain’s attempts now to redefine what privatization is in order to hide his past and present support for a failed and wholly unpopular strategy tells seniors and their families a lot about John McCain’s priorities.

They will, no doubt, have a lot to say in return come November.

To Engage or Not to Engage...on Social Security

2008-06-17T14:12:00.003-05:00

The Youth Entitlement Summit wraps up in Washington today and our President, Barbara B. Kennelly, addressed the group this morning. Given the clear anti-entitlement bent of the summit’s sponsors such as the Concord Coalition and the Peterson Foundation, some early supporters, like Rock-the-Vote, ultimately withdrew their summit sponsorship. Future Majority blogged about it here.

Barbara was in fact a very lonely anti-privatization voice in the room today. Even so, as a bi-partisan membership organization we felt strongly the National Committee’s message needed to be heard.

I’m here to tell you that my members are every bit as passionate about protecting their children and grandchildren as the organizers of this Summit. We oppose privatization because we want to protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations. Believe me, privatizers want to dismantle Social Security – not for this generation of retirees –but for the generations down the road.

Our difference of opinion is not about the ultimate goal – we are all here because we care about what happens to our younger generation. Where we strongly disagree is on how the goal is to be achieved. Organizations such as mine believe that our children will absolutely need programs like Social Security and Medicare when they reach retirement age. We believe that the best way to represent their interests is not to spend our time talking about how to cut these essential programs, but instead in finding ways to make sure Social Security and Medicare are still strong and vibrant decades into the future.

Because we are primarily focused on the needs of our children rather than shrinking the size of government, we are less likely to buy into the ‘sky is falling’ rhetoric that young people have been bombarded with over the years. I understand that combining Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all together into one huge catastrophe-waiting-to-happen makes for great theater, but it makes no sense to those of us who work with these programs every day. While all 3 are entitlement programs, that’s about all they have in common.

But combining them all together gives you very large and impressive numbers, particularly if you accumulate decades-worth of future projections into one present day number. In a way, it’s not that different than projecting the cost of a house today by adding together 30 year’s-worth of mortgage and interest payments into one lump sum. If we really shopped for housing that way, we would all still be renting apartments.
And as for all the sky-is-falling crisis rhetoric...
Many of the people who are complaining today about long-term spending on entitlements were largely silent when annual deficits were increasing and the debt was rising to its current record level. It wasn’t too long ago that we were running a surplus which was paying down debt, and economists were wringing their hands about what disasters might befall us if we actually paid all of our debt off. I wish we still had that kind of problem.

I also find it interesting that the only solvency solution presented by President Bush and so many of those who have opposed Social Security over the years is a combination of private accounts and dramatic benefit cuts. I was quite proud of my members, who have been vocal and active in their opposition to private accounts. But their passion was not born from a desire to protect their own benefits. It was an absolute determination to protect the benefits of their children and grandchildren.

Those who promote private accounts have never suggested privatizing Social Security for older people – in fact, they are quite careful to assure everyone over age 50 that they would not be affected by anything they propose.

Instead, those who promote private accounts suggest dismantling Social Security slowly so that it is nearly non-existent for future generations. These proposals take money out of Social Security to fund private accounts, making Social Security less solvent. They would cut Social Security benefits for future retirees; they would increase the public debt by trillions of dollars over the next half century or more, and they would transfer the risk of a secure retirement to the individual. This does not sound like a youth-friendly agenda to me.

We urge you to read Barbara’s entire speech for more details on the fiscal realities facing our children and grandchildren. It’s clear that groups like those sponsoring this summit understand they have to continue to undermine younger generations’ confidence in Social Security in order to convince them to give it up or destroy it through privatization.

We’ve also taken our “Don’t Buy the Lie” campaign to our YouTube Channel and MySpace page in an effort to reach this demographic with the truth about Social Security and Medicare.

Here's a New Social Security and Medicare Video

2008-06-16T11:37:00.005-05:00

Who is the National Committee anyway and why should you care?

We've produced a new video detailing our organization's 25 year history, the history of the Social Security and Medicare programs and the vital role they play in the lives of American Seniors.

Social Security and Medicare: Past, Present and Future

This is only the second video we've produced since buying basic video & editing equipment. Our first was a youth video created to take our message to younger generations via our new YouTube channel and MySpace page. It's certainly been a learning experience but we hope to produce many more over the coming months to help spread the word that together we can preserve Social Security and Medicare. After all, it's all about priorities.

Celebrating Social Security and Medicare’s Successes

2008-06-13T08:38:00.005-05:00

That's right, successes. Because that’s what our 25th Anniversary celebration was really all about, marking the all-too-often ignored truth that without Social Security and Medicare millions of seniors would face poverty in their retirement years.

Here’s video from yesterday’s celebration. We wanted to share some of the program with all of our friends and members who were with us in spirit but couldn’t be here in person.

First, here's Barbara B. Kennelly, National Committee President/CEO

James Roosevelt, Jr., son of our founder James Roosevelt, Sr. and grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Lynda Johnson Robb, daughter of President Lyndon Johnson

Celebrating Social Security and Medicare

2008-06-12T07:02:00.008-05:00

In these days of seemingly never-ending sky-is-falling entitlement rhetoric, today’s National Committee 25th Anniversary celebration offered a much-needed reminder of the critical roles Social Security and Medicare play in the lives of millions of Americans. Our 25th Anniversary celebration today was very much a “family” affair.

James Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of President Franklin Roosevelt and son of the National Committee’s founder, James Roosevelt reminded the several hundred advocates, policy experts, and leaders from the aging community assembled today, why it’s so important to continue fighting to preserve Social Security for future generations:
“My father believed as I do that Social Security was an essential part of maintaining the dignity of Americans throughout their lives. I’m pleased to say that, in spite of those who continue to misinform and advocate privatization (and they haven’t gone away), the dedicated Social Security funding mechanism and the dedicated delivery system has been very successful in raising the vast majority of our elderly citizens out of poverty. I’d even suggest the National Committee is even more needed today than when it was created 25 years ago.”

Lynda Johnson Robb accepted the National Committee’s 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award on behalf of her father, President Lyndon Johnson. She told the crowd:

“Medicare, completing FDR’s Social Security legislation, helps seniors weather the rigors of old age and was a jewel in the crown of the Great Society. Daddy knew that it was not perfect and would have to be carefully guarded and improved where necessary by coming generations. Medicare is not a monument to him. Although, I take great pleasure that his name is associated with it. It is a living monument to the spirit of the American people and I’m proud of that too.”
We also recognized two other award winners today. The National Committee’s 2008 Media Excellence Awards went to Saul Friedman from Newsday and Ronni Bennett, “Time Goes By” blogger.Friedman’s “Gray Matters” column covers the political, economic, and social issues affecting older Americans, and Ronni Bennett is one of the first bloggers to engage in an in-depth conversation on elder issues with her thought-provoking and entertaining blog “Time Goes By”.

National Committee President/CEO Barbara Kennelly summed up the day this way:

“All of us in this room care about Social Security and Medicare, not just for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren. We will always speak out to protect those already in retirement, because Social Security and Medicare are critical to their ability to get from day to day. But we also speak for their 45 year old sons and daughters, who are struggling to make ends meet so finding extra money to save for retirement simply isn’t in the picture. And we speak for the 20-somethings, who have their entire future in front of them and so they aren’t yet thinking about the challenges of life they will surely face someday.”
As our Anniversary speakers highlighted today,it’s all about family. Grandparents and parents ensuring the safety net they created will remain for their children and grandchildren. It’s a commitment the National Committee made 25 years ago and will continue for many more years to come.

Celebrating 25 years protecting Social Security and Medicare

2008-06-12T07:02:00.007-05:00

My how time flies when you’re fighting the good fight.

The National Committee is celebrating its anniversary today at a National Press Club ceremony. A few hundred of our closest friends and allies will join us as we mark a quarter of a century devoted to the singular and unique mission of preserving America’s two most successful social insurance programs.

We’re so pleased to have many special guests attending today including, Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Lynda Johnson Robb, daughter of President Lyndon B. Johnson and James Roosevelt, Jr., son of NCPSSM’s founder James Roosevelt, Sr. and grandson of President Franklin Roosevelt.

The National Committee will also present the 2008 Media Excellence Awards to Saul Friedman from Newsday whose column Gray Matters covers the political, economic, and social issues affecting older Americans, and Ronni Bennett, one of the first bloggers to engage in an in-depth conversation on elder issues with her thought-provoking and entertaining blog “Time Goes By”.

Our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly gave us a sneak-peak of some of her remarks today:
Some might ask, "Why join an organization like the National Committee when you can just write or call Congress yourself?" Well -- the answer is simple...there is power in numbers. We know -- first hand -- the power of millions of voices versus one voice. That’s why time after time, issue after issue, our National Committee members have been united in the fight for what they believe. We believe in the social insurance mission of Social Security and Medicare, which is why we strongly oppose privatization.

As FDR himself once said…"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth". That statement is as true today as it was when Social Security was created 73 years ago. Just because those who are fundamentally opposed to Social Security continue to say it’s a failed program, doesn’t mean it’s true. So, while we have had past successes in the battle over private accounts...the war over the long-term future of Social Security and Medicare continues. The same groups that want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street and Medicare over to private insurers, have been building the case that America "can’t afford" these programs...all under the guise of"entitlement reform". They’ve targeted young people in a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy to pit the young versus the old. Ultimately the hope is that our children and grandchildren will just give up on Social Security and Medicare because they’re been told these programs won’t be there for them anyway. Well, guess what? The National Committee won’t let that happen and we know neither will any of you.

So, here’s to another 25 years!

Whatever it takes to Protect Medicare Advantage Overpayments

2008-05-30T11:56:00.009-05:00

Once again the Bush administration is threatening to veto legislation which would prevent June’s scheduled pay cuts to doctors in Medicare because Congress wants to pay for it by trimming some of the billions of dollars in industry subsidies going to private insurers. Let’s see...doctor’s pay cuts or industry subsidies?

For many it’s seems obvious that supporting providers should take priority over government giveaways to an industry already seeing record profits thanks to the privatization of Medicare; however, for the Bush administration the priority continues to be to protect this industry slush fund above all else.

Congress Now quotes our Government Relations and Policy Director, Maria Freese:

“Democrats need to get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster,but without the support of Republicans like Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who both oppose MA cuts, it will be difficult for them to be able to meet this threshold, Maria Freese, director of government relations and policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said.”They're going to be lucky" to get 60 votes, she said.”

So, once again Congress appears ready to protect these outrageous industry overpayments ($150 billion over ten years) even though they shave almost two years from Medicare’s solvency, and force all beneficiaries (not just those enrolled in MA plans) to pay $36 per year in higher premiums. Even MedPac continues to recommend their repeal.

Oh yes, don’t forget why Congress is even debating this issue now. Doctors serving Medicare patients will also face payment cuts in less than a month in order to protect this giveaway to insurers.

No Mystery in Medicare Marketing Abuses

2008-05-30T11:56:00.003-05:00

The May 21st New York Times’ editorial on Medicare Advantage Marketing Abuses is our selection for this month’s “Networthy Award” for outstanding coverage of elder issues on the net.

Entitled “Medicare’s Much-Too-HardSell” this piece narrows in on the unavoidable truth behind the inexcusable fraud and predatory marketing practices too often used to sell private Medicare Advantage plans. The Times writes:

“The Bush administration has proposed welcome new regulations to curb the deceptive, hard-sell tactics often used to foist private Medicare policies on unwary consumers. Unfortunately, it has been unwilling to eliminate the root cause of the problem: the high subsidies that prop up these plans and make them so attractive to high-pressure marketers.”

Also:

“The worst abuses have been committed by predatory marketers selling the comprehensive policies known as Medicare Advantage plans. The government pays these plans 13 percent more, on average, than the same services would cost in the traditional Medicare program. The subsidies are even more egregious — averaging 17 percent above cost — for the so-called private fee-for-service plans within Medicare Advantage. All told, the unjustified subsidies will cost the government more than $50billion from 2009 to 2012. Small wonder that plans use high-pressure tactics to market these lucrative policies.”

Our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly, commended the Times on its dead-on assessment in this letter to the editor:

“Rather than spending even more federal dollars policing private insurers in Medicare, why not remove the underlying incentive encouraging them to push these higher profit plans in the first place? How many dollars will we spend on investigations and enforcement for private insurers who want to maximize the financial incentives provided to them by Congress?”

Another Reason Why We Need Social Security

2008-05-15T09:24:00.004-05:00

One of the most frequently used arguments used to promote private accounts is the promise that “you can do better” by investing your Social Security money yourself.

Problem is...for too many people, that’s just not true. A new analysis of nearly 1 million retirement portfolios show the majority of savers are making costly errors in their 401(k)s. The Associated Press reports:

"...69 percent have inappropriate risk or diversification of holdings and 36 percent have worrisome concentrations of company stock. In addition, one-third of savers aren't putting enough aside to qualify for the full company matching contribution. The problems are especially pronounced among young and low-paid workers... When looking at risk and diversification of investments, 38 percent of the portfolios had very inefficient or very inappropriate investments. That could range from a young participant with a portfolio that's too conservative to an older worker with one that's too aggressive. An additional 31 percent had somewhat inefficient or risk-inappropriate holdings. The remaining 32 percent had good balance in their portfolios.”
The study was done by Financial Engines, an investment advice firm. It’s President, Jeff Maggioncalda says:

"Unfortunately, our study found that those who need their 401(k) the most look to be benefiting the least."

That’s why the role that Social Security plays as a secure source of retirement income is so critically important, especially as pensions disappear and investments in Wall Street continue to ride our current economic roller coaster. Retirees need to save and invest for their futures; however, they also need the stable income Social Security provides.

Social Security Can’t Continue to Do More with Less

2008-05-06T13:10:00.003-05:00

by Barbara B. Kennelly, NCPSSM President/CEO

I was on the Hill today testifying before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. At issue is legislation that requires the Social Security Administration to administer a national employment verification system. The National Committee has not taken a position on the underlying goals of any of the immigration bills before Congress. However, this employee verification issue demands our response.

I cannot say strongly enough what a serious disservice would be done to America’s seniors and others if Social Security was required to carry the burden of this enormous, costly and unrelated immigration workload. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost to SSA of one of the leading immigration proposals would be more than $1 billion in just the first year of implementation...an amount equal to nearly 10 percent of the agency’s administrative budget. Experts have concluded that the E-Verify process, with its millions of notifications about mismatches of employee information...would result in a deluge of phone calls and visits to Social Security field offices around the country, swamping other crucial SSA activities.

The Social Security Administration is already facing significant challenges, primarily because of years of insufficient funding which isn’t keeping up with the increasing workloads. Chief among these challenges is a disability claims crisis. Disability cases are piling up and needy people are waiting years to receive their benefits. At the same time, SSA is facing the retirement of 80 million Baby Boomers who will also be expecting swift and accurate processing of their retirement claims.

Historically, the Social Security Administration has the government’s best reputation of solid service to its beneficiaries. However, the strains of recent years have taken their toll. I say enough is enough.

Here are some important links on this issue: CBO and GAO Reports on verification legislation, our National Committee Viewpoint on SSA funding, and my full Congressional testimony.

Shedding Crocodile Tears for Medicare

2008-05-01T10:21:00.003-05:00

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt continues the entitlement crisis call, this time in an address to conservative think-tankers who’d rather see Social Security and Medicare just go away entirely. While using language like “drifting toward disaster” and “serious danger” to describe the program he’s overseen for almost 8 years, he conveniently ignores the role the Bush Administration has played in worsening Medicare’s financial condition.

It’s very hard to take these clarion calls very seriously when it was this administration that implemented and continues to fight to protect $150 billion in industry subsidies to insurance companies providing private Medicare coverage. These subsidies alone steal almost two years of solvency from the Medicare program. If Secretary Leavitt and the Bush administration are really worried about Medicare’s solvency...how about putting that $150 billion back into Medicare rather than private insurers’ pockets?

Secretary Leavitt also expressed concerns there could be a generational divide on funding entitlement programs:
“The kind of division I worry about is when we begin to see one generation pitted against another or when you begin to see economic classes pitted against each other. Those are the kinds of divisions that have classically divided and undermined nations.”
No kidding. Maybe this administration should’ve considered that before making a generational divide and conquer strategy a key component in the President’s failed Social Security road tour three years ago. Lamenting your own strategy, so long after the fact is disingenuous at best.

There’s also an interesting discussion of Medicare and the Secretary’s remarks, from a beneficiaries point of view, at Time Goes By. It’s definitely worth a read.

Social Security Avoids the Wall Street Roller Coaster

2008-04-25T14:31:00.007-05:00

For baby-boomers who’ve been watching their retirement investment income lose money week by week, the fact that Social Security remains stable and predictable while Wall Street is anything but is critically important. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich calls the failure to privatize Social Security “the best thing that didn’t happen during the Bush administration”:
“... had we privatized, they’d (retirees) be totally reliant on the stock market. And look what’s happened to the market: Compared to stock values ten years ago, the S&P 500 has risen a little over 1 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. Even Treasury bonds have done better. Go back nine years and there’s been no gain at all. Go back eight years and the market has been off an average of 1.4 percent a year.”

This isn’t a unique analysis. Even a member of President Bush’s own Social Security Commission and a private accounts supporter, co-authored an analysis for the National Bureau of Economic Research which showed promises of higher returns with private accounts just didn’t hold up to scrutiny:

“...the popular argument that Social Security privatization would provide higher returns for all current and future workers is misleading, because it ignores transition costs and differences across programs in the allocation of aggregate and household risk.” The paper states: “A popular argument suggests that if Social Security were privatized, everyone could earn higher returns. We show that this is false.”

Still not convinced? Here’s the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis:

“This paper explains the basis of findings that economists broadly agree upon — that the type of rate-of-return comparison that some Administration officials and other private-accounts proponents are using is not valid, and that when analytically valid comparisons are made, the supposed differences in rates of return essentially disappear.”

Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment vehicle. Social Security is not supposed to make you rich, it is supposed to prevent you from slipping into poverty. Social Security is the one insurance program that provides some measure of economic support for Americans if a family wage earner dies or becomes disabled. Privatizing Social Security turns a safety net for everyone into a golden parachute for a few.

Social Security Hodge Podge

2008-04-22T09:57:00.004-05:00

There are a number of Social Security items of note today...first this Wall Street Journal article regarding “payday lenders” and continuing attempts to take advantage of seniors who receive direct deposit payments from Social Security each month. The WSJ reports:

“Social Security recipients with direct deposit can effectively use future benefits as collateral for short-term, high-interest loans. Some lenders require borrowers to have their Social Security checks deposited directly into banks that partner with the lenders. Typically, the banks are in other states and provide no checks or ATM cards to the borrowers. Thus, borrowers can get their monthly Social Security benefits only by visiting the lenders to pick up what remains after loan payments, interest and fees are deducted. Some lenders 'attempt to exercise too much control' over payments sent to beneficiaries and
then automatically transferred to the lenders, Social Security said”.

You can expect lenders to fight any changes. So far, SSA has only asked for public comment in a Federal Register notice and the agency says it has not decided what changes to make.

It’s Not Too Late

A reminder to seniors...it’s not too late to file for a stimulus check. Even though the IRS April 15th tax deadline has come and gone you have until the end of the year to file for a stimulus check. The IRS Stimulus Information Center advises Social Security recipients:

“The sooner you file the sooner you can receive your stimulus payment. But if you are filing to establish your eligibility for the stimulus payment, filing by Oct. 15 means the IRS can process your return and issue a stimulus payment before the end of the year”

You can also download the 1040A form, all of the details you need to file a stimulus request from the IRS and free software to process an online filing here.

Social Security False Alarm

2008-04-09T11:41:00.004-05:00

While much has been written about this year’s Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report (we’ve already highlighted some of the coverage here ) there is another piece of recommended reading. This commentary highlights a constantly overlooked aspect of the “entitlement” debate...the fact that regardless of the “sky-is-falling” certainty expressed by those opposed to Social Social Security, the Trustees’ actuaries know solvency and the economic issues underlying the 2017/2041 dates are moving targets, especially in a 75-year or infinite window. Marketwatch economist Dr. Irwin Kellner writes:

“I would like to point out that this year, as has been the case every year in the past, the actuaries have made and released not one but three projections. They call them low cost, intermediate and high cost. The projection that has provoked these alarms is the intermediate projection. This reflects the trustees' consensus views regarding such inputs as economic growth, productivity, inflation, earnings, employment and interest rates.”

He continues:

“The intermediate projection assumes that the economy will grow by an annual rate of 2.3% per year between now and 2085. This may be higher than the 1.9% per year that was projected as recently as three years ago, but it is still well below the 3.4% that the economy grew on average between 1960 and 2005. The actuaries' own low cost projection assumes an average annual growth rate of 2.9% between now and 2085. This is higher than the 2.3% pace embodied in the intermediate projection, but it is still well below the 3.4% average of the past. Guess what? Under the actuaries' low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money!”

Does that mean we should ignore the Trustees’ annual projections? Of course not. But that really is the point here...these are estimates and projections that should be used in a responsible way to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, which millions of Americans and their families depend on.

CMS Actuary Sees No Savings in Private Medicare Plans

2008-04-01T14:50:00.003-05:00

Medicare’s chief actuary testified in the House today following last week’s release of the Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report. Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark highlighted some of the back-and-forth in a News Release issued at the conclusion of today’s event:

“When Secretary Leavitt appeared before the Subcommittee earlier this year, he made alarmist statements about the future of Medicare and told us to ‘call the government actuary’. Well, we did,” stated Chairman Stark, “and the Medicare Chief Actuary made it clear time and time again today that overpayments to private plans are a serious drain on Medicare’s financing that undermine the program’s financial health and raise costs for all beneficiaries. I think Secretary Leavitt is the one who needs to talk to his actuary.”

In today’s Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing on the 2008 Medicare Trustees report, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Chief Actuary Rick Foster made several important statements.

** Foster said that overpayments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans shorten the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund:

“If the law were changed such that benchmarks were set at fee-for-service rates, then it would extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by about 18 months.”

** He also indicated that overpayments increase premiums for all 44 million seniors and people with disabilities – even though almost 80 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are not enrolled in private plans:

“As of 2009, the additional premium associated with higher [MA] benchmarks is about $3 a month.”

** When directly asked if Medicare advantage ever costs less than fee-for-service, Foster flatly said:

“No, not under current law.”

** Foster also stated that hitting the “45 percent trigger” does not mean there is a crisis with the Medicare Trust Funds:

“Despite the title, the Medicare Funding Warning should not be interpreted as a finding that Medicare funding is inadequate.”

**When asked about the arbitrary nature of the nature of the trigger, he stated:

“I’m not aware of any specific technical rationale for it.”

** Foster confirmed that the 2008 Trustees report would not have triggered the “Medicare Finance Warning” had payment rates between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans been equalized:

“If [benchmarks were set at fee-for-service rates] as in the CHAMP Act, the trigger would not have been tripped in this report. General revenues would not have crossed the 45% threshold until 2016 rather than 2014.”

** When discussing the financial future of Medicare, it is important to remember that health projections are notoriously unreliable. For example, small changes in assumptions or experience with respect to productivity, utilization and other variables, can produce substantially different estimates. In discussing this volatility, the Chief Actuary warned against putting too much stock in long-term estimates:

“We should never kid ourselves or place too much reliance on what are inherently uncertain projections.”

Our Analysis of the 2008 Trustees Report can be found here and more details on Medicare Advantage Plans and the outrageous industry subsidies they depend on is linked here.

Starving Social Security

2008-03-27T12:13:00.002-05:00

Just when you think conservatives might have run out of new ways to destroy Social Security, columnist Robert Novak joins the discussion today urging Presidential candidate John McCain to cut the payroll tax. How ironic that just two days after all the political posturing by the administration and conservatives on the Hill about the need to reform entitlements to “save” Social Security, Novak now reports that one McCain advisor says it’s “not a big deal” to cut the very revenue needed to fund benefits for millions of retirees.

Senator McCain has already supported taking money out of Social Security to fund private accounts, which endanger the program enough, now conservatives want even more...to starve Social Security until it finally succumbs. Novak says: “
Cutting the payroll tax, which funds Social Security, would not be easy but would offer a rich economic prize in this lean Republican year.”

Really? A rich economic prize for whom? Certainly not the 34 million retirees and their families who need Social Security and will see the program starved in this never-ending quest for fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.

No Surprises in Trustees Report

2008-03-25T14:09:00.002-05:00

Social Security is fully funded for 33 years and Medicare is solvent for another decade. But don't be surprised if those details are buried in any coverage you might read about this year's Trustees Report. It just doesn't fit with this administration's "entitlement crisis" calls.

This year’s trustees report confirmed what we already know about the health of Social Security and Medicare...Social Security will continue to have a surplus for more than three decades while a nationwide healthcare crisis continues to escalate costs for seniors in Medicare. Here’s reaction from our President/CEO Barbara Kennelly: “This trustees report shows that Social Security is on track to pay full benefits for more than 3 decades. But the challenges of skyrocketing healthcare costs are threatening not just seniors in Medicare but Americans nationwide. No doubt, this annual report will have the sky-is-falling crowd calling for ‘entitlement reform’ again while they continue to ignore America’s healthcare crisis and fight to protect billions in insurance industry subsidies which steal years of solvency from the Medicare program”

Once again the trustees report included a Medicare funding warning designed to trigger massive and arbitrary program cuts like those proposed by the President this year. Kennelly says, "Mandating Medicare cuts based on an arbitrary funding level hurts beneficiaries, ignores the larger issue of skyrocketing healthcare costs, and will ultimately destroy this vital program just when our nation needs it most”.

Media Perpetuates Social Security Myths

2008-03-14T13:54:00.008-05:00

Social Security isn’t bankrupt. Unfortunately, too many in our national media just don’t seem to understand that basic truth.

We’ve written about this before so won’t rehash it again (not too much, anyway). But the latest oversimplified, sky-is-falling and propaganda-laden coverage from Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle just can’t be ignored. And we’re not the only ones who think so. End of the Echo blog has a nice response and so did our President, Barbara Kennelly. Here is her Letter to the Chronicle, since you probably won’t ever see it published.

Dear Editor,

If Debra Saunders really wants to have an honest discussion about our nation’s current fiscal mess (Everyman’s Mortgage Crisis, 3/11/08), let’s start with the facts. Comments like “Washington has promised benefits...without funding them” and “Washington continues to authorize...benefits without putting aside money for them” are certainly provocative but the problem is those statements just aren’t true. American workers (not Washington) have contributed $2 trillion dollars to the Social Security trust fund in the past two decades leading to a $187 billion surplus. Those contributions will continue to build the surplus to $4.2 trillion over the next decade.

Washington does face a crisis; however, it’s a budget crisis not an entitlement crisis. President Bush inherited a budget surplus and a Social Security trust fund built-up in preparation for baby boomers’ retirements. Now, after billions of dollars in tax cuts, an underfunded war in Iraq and six years of a Republican-led Congress following the President’s “borrow and spend” lead, we face record debt and budget deficits. These deficits are now being used as the primary argument for cutting programs like Social Security and Medicare, while tax cuts for the wealthy continue and billions in subsidies to the drug and insurance industry are protected.

Washington will have to make difficult choices to repair the fiscal damage done by this administration. But serious health care reform and strengthening Social Security for the long term should be the priorities rather than destroying the very programs so critically needed by millions of Americans.

Sincerely,

Barbara B. Kennelly, former Member of Congress
President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and he’s also written a wonderful piece on Media accountability, false information and its affect on political progress.

Medicare “Dis” Advantage

2008-03-13T14:45:00.005-05:00

“If you want to provide more benefits to Medicare beneficiaries, it is more efficient to do it through traditional Medicare” rather than private Medicare Advantage plans.”

Simple advice offered to the House Ways and Means Health subcommittee this week by Glenn Hackbarth, head of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an organization created to advise Congress on the Medicare program. But even though MedPAC has repeatedly warned about the wasteful and expensive industry-fueled juggernaut that is Medicare Advantage, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress still refuse to face facts: privatized Medicare provides inefficient coverage, steals years of solvency from the program, costs $10 billion more each year than traditional Medicare while passing more costs on to seniors.

Hackbarth again:

"When Medicare pays a lot more for private fee-for-service in Texas or in Michigan, a lot of that money is going to higher administrative costs. ... It's going to insurance companies. The problem with this payment system is we're rewarding inefficient private plans”.

In other words, we’re subsidizing the insurance industry to provide less efficient coverage for seniors at a higher cost. We’re paying $10 billion dollars a year in industry overpayments while also being told by this administration we “can’t afford” the Medicare program. And don’t forget, the Bush budget calls for a record $178 billion in Medicare cuts directly impacting healthcare access for millions of seniors, while at the same time preserving $150 billion in insurance industry giveaways. You can read more coverage of this week’s Congressional testimony in Kaiser’s roundup.

Maybe if We Don’t Call it Social Security Privatization No One will Notice...

2008-03-10T15:04:00.003-05:00

That appears to be the continuing strategy for Senator Jim DeMint and other congressional privatizers intent on passing Social Security private accounts, whether the American people support them or not. You have to wonder, if privatization is such a great idea why do supporters go to such lengths to hide their true goals?

The latest privatization ploy comes under the guise of "stopping the raid" on the Social Security trust fund. Senator DeMint says he’ll "force a vote" on his amendment creating a "reserve fund" in Social Security. What he doesn’t mention in his news release is that this newly created "reserve fund", actually just diverts money from the existing Social Security trust fund to a new fund to create private accounts. Senator Demint's amendment is really just a privatization sleight of hand. Rather than "stopping the raid" as promised, this legislation allows the trust fund to be raided for a different purpose...the creation of private accounts.

The truth is the DeMint amendment is just a rework of the failed Bush privatization plan. It would divert money out of Social Security to fund private accounts, increasing federal outlays and requiring significant cuts in Social Security’s guaranteed benefits to foot the bill. All of this, so that future retirees can take their stable Social Security benefits on a risky Wall Street roller coaster ride.

Our letter to Congress has more details about what this amendment really includes and our analysis on the same amendment when it was introduced three years ago is linked here.

Pulling the Trigger on Medicare

2008-02-26T14:30:00.003-05:00

Congress provided even more evidence of just how flawed the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act is this week when the leadership was legally required to introduce legislation, which experts agree, is doomed to fail.

As we’ve reported here before, there’s no economic or budgetary reason for the arbitrary 45% trigger provision, which will require massive budget cuts in Medicare. This trigger really is nothing more than a political device designed to convince Americans we “can’t afford” Medicare while also distracting attention away from the real crises; our national debt and skyrocketing healthcare costs. Kaiser has provided a good roundup of news coverage on this trigger legislation.

On Monday, House Majority leader Steny Hoyer, as required by law, introduced the trigger legislation, in spite of its certain death in Congress. He told Congress Daily, lawmakers can’t ignore the growth in Medicare and Medicaid costs but:
"Unfortunately, the Medicare trigger is ill-suited to such a process”, he said. "I am very skeptical that we can deal with the issue of entitlements in a bipartisan manner in the current environment, especially since the current administration has made it clear that it is not willing to discuss all options."

Let’s review those options not up for discussion. The administration still refuses to consider allowing Medicare to to negotiate for lower drug prices as the VA currently does. Why? It will cut into drug makers’ profits. But that provision could save Medicare an estimated $600 billion dollars over 7 years. The administration also refuses to consider eliminating the $149 billion dollar subsidies provided to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans. Why? It would cut into insurers’ profits. But that provision could save almost $150 billion dollars and add two years of solvency for Medicare.

See the common theme here? Triggers and cuts that hurt seniors and the programs that protect them in order to preserve profits and new privatized markets that help industry prosper.

Is it any wonder then that seniors are anxious to pull their own trigger come November?

Promises, Promises...Sub priming Social Security

2008-02-20T15:59:00.003-05:00

For years now, we’ve been encouraged to worship at the altar of “ownership”. Whether it’s sub-prime mortgages we can’t afford or risky Social Security private accounts riding the Wall Street roller coaster, Americans have been promised great things from an “ownership” society. As Providence Journal’s Froma Harrop wrote in a column this week:
How interesting that the buildup to the mortgage meltdown employed many of the same sales tactics as the Social Security privatization scheme. Resentment, fear, flattery and hype — plus scant details on fees and other costs — all went into the pitch.

And Harrop correctly draws yet another comparison.
If the folks now approaching retirement saw their private Social Security accounts suddenly lose 10 percent of their value — as have many conservative stock portfolios — we'd be hearing demands for a Social Security bailout on top of a mortgage bailout...As a taxpayer, I'm relieved that Americans who don't read their sales contracts and assume that prices can't fall didn't have an opportunity to hand their Social Security money over to Wall Street. This should be the deal: The workers may invest, spend or gamble their money as they please — but not before something gets taken out of their paychecks for a boring but reliable Social Security benefit that they can't mess with.

And that’s really the point, isn’t it? Social Security is reliable and guaranteed. It’s not supposed to make us rich; it’s designed to prevent us or our families from slipping into poverty during old age, disability or premature death.

Boring? Maybe. But it’s certainly better than the privatization myth peddled to American taxpayers by an administration determined to dismantle Social Security.

Stimulus Rebates for Seniors

2008-02-14T13:35:00.004-05:00

The lottery always says “You’ve Got to Play to Win”. Well, in Washington the stimulus version of that is “You’ve Got to File to Collect”.

For millions of seniors who wouldn’t normally file a tax return, this year will have to be different if they want to receive the $300 to $600 in economic stimulus now available to them. The IRS has begun its outreach campaign and will work with the Social Security Administration to get the word to seniors. Here is an audio link to yesterday’s IRS briefing on economic stimulus payments.

The IRS recommends low-income seniors living primarily on Social Security use IRS Form 1040 or 1040A. For those with at least $3,000 in qualifying income, meaning not just wages but also Social Security and veterans’ benefits (but not SSI), they’ll need to report those benefits on Line 20a on the 1040 or Line 14a on Form 1040A.

Now, seniors who have already filed a return reporting less than $3,000 in qualifying income may want to file an amended return to reflect their Social Security benefits, in order to be eligible for the rebate. Amended returns should be filed on Form 1040X.

Need help? The IRS’s Volunteer Assistance Programs are located in neighborhood centers and even shopping malls. You can call 1-800-906-9887 to find locations near you. The IRS also has a program called Tax Counseling for the Elderly at 1-800-829-1040.

President Signs Stimulus Bill

2008-02-13T15:14:00.003-05:00

So now what? The Internal Revenue Service will deliver rebate checks to those who qualify, starting in May. For the vast majority of Americans, they just need to file their usual 2007 tax return. But it could be a little trickier for some Social Security recipients and disabled veterans who wouldn’t normally file a tax return. They’ll need to file this year, even if they don’t owe any tax, to ensure they hit IRS’s radar. According to the IRS:
The IRS and Treasury will be working closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs and Social Security Administration along with beneficiary organizations to ensure that all eligible individuals know what to do to receive a stimulus payment.

The stimulus legislation also provided $31 million in addition funding to the Social Security Administration to provide staff and training to help seniors navigate the stimulus process.

The CCH group is a tax analysis firm which has provided a detailed description of the stimulus rebate and how the checks will be calculated. The Treasury Department also has a Fact Sheet describing the distribution formulas.

Unfortunately, scammers have already found a way to try and take advantage of seniors through a phone and email scam using the rebate at bait. The IRS never sends unsolicited emails and isn’t offering check “advances” so the IRS warns seniors to beware.

Stimulus and Seniors...Congress Gets It Right!

2008-02-08T14:29:00.000-05:00

by Barbara B. Kennelly, NCPSSM President/CEO

Many a cynic said it couldn’t be done. But last night the House and Senate compromised on an economic stimulus package that improved with time. Thanks to the foresight and hard-fought efforts of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Senator John Kerry and others who took up the cause, more than 20 million seniors who otherwise would have been excluded will now receive stimulus checks.

When the talk of an economic stimulus plan first began, it was clear that once again seniors would be ignored in any Washington efforts to jump-start the economy. The same had happened in 2001 and 2003, so this administration’s blind spot to seniors really wasn’t a surprise.

But this year was clearly different. American seniors are sick and tired of policies that have left them with dwindling COLA’s, skyrocketing healthcare costs and massive budget cuts in programs they desperately need. They’re feeling the pinch of this economy as much as anyone so the suggestion that a retired person living on $3,000 of Social Security doesn’t need or deserve an economic boost as much as someone earning $70,000 was the proverbial last straw.

Congress heard from America’s retirees on this one because the fundamental unfairness of ignoring more than 20 million seniors in a stimulus plan, which was supposed to be “timely, targeted, and temporary”, could not be ignored. National Committee members visited, emailed and called their Congressional representatives. In all, there were more than 3,000 contacts to Capitol Hill made by NCPSSM members and supporters in a just a couple of weeks.

Grassroots efforts still work. Individual voices raised together can get Washington’s attention. Something we should all remember during this election year...you can be sure your members of Congress do.

Stimulus Stalls...Seniors Cast Aside Again

2008-02-07T12:12:00.000-05:00

The spin cycle is in overdrive this morning as the Senate tries to find a way to do the right thing in a stimulus package. Most Senate Republicans, pushed hard by the White House, refused to budge in last night’s vote by allowing seniors to be included in any stimulus plan .

Today’s Roll Call summed it up this way:

“’I think it’s decided. I think the Senate will just pick up the House plan,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who ripped the GOP. 'They don’t blink to spend an extra dollar in Iraq, but if you ask them to spend an extra dollar in America they all cave.’ Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), whose home state has been hard hit by unemployment, blamed last-minute pressure from the White House for the defeat. ‘The White House put incredible pressure on them,' she said. Stabenow said it would be 'very difficult to come up with a new package this week given the need for unanimous consent to avoid restarting time-consuming procedural maneuvers.’”

So, now the Senate will have to punt. Members can take the President’s way and vote only on the House stimulus plan, leaving seniors out once again. It can take up last night’s Senate version one more time or consider only amendments to give seniors and veterans another shot at being included in this economic stimulus plan.

Senate leaders are meeting this morning while 20 million seniors sit in stimulus limbo rethinking their votes come November.

A Budget of Misplaced Priorities

2008-02-06T12:34:00.000-05:00

Reviewing the Administration’s FY 2009 budget was deja vu all over again...but for seniors this budget is even worse than in previous years...and that's hard to believe. Here's our analysis from National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare’s President and CEO Barbara B. Kennelly.

“While health care costs soar, millions of Americans remain uninsured and baby boomers approach retirement, the last thing this nation needs is more of the same from the Bush administration. Proposing $178 billion in Medicare cuts which will directly impact healthcare access for millions of seniors, while at the same time preserving $150 billion in insurance industry giveaways, is outrageous and indefensible.”... Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

Once again, the President’s priorities are clear. This FY 2009 budget proposes draconian cuts in healthcare programs, which would touch the lives of millions of seniors, the disabled, and poor while allowing billions of dollars in insurance industry subsidies to continue. This budget proposes:

Massive Cuts to Mandatory Spending Programs of $16 billion in 2009, $208 billion over the next five years, and $619 billion over 10 years.

Medicare Cuts Beyond Reason. In response to the arbitrary 45% cap created in the flawed Medicare Modernization Act, the President’s budget proposes legislation to reduce Medicare spending by $556 billion over the next 10 years and more than $10 trillion over the next 75 years.

More Budget Deficits and Record Federal Debt. This budget proposes making tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans permanent. Both debt held by the public and gross federal debt are estimated to reach all-time highs in FY 2009, totaling $5.856 trillion and $10.413 trillion, respectively.

Protecting Insurance Industry Profits. Once again, private insurers in Medicare will collect $150 billion over ten years in taxpayer-supported subsidies while also reporting record profits due to the privatization of Medicare.

Privatizing Social Security. The President’s budget proposes spending $30 billion in FY 2009 and $647 billion over the next 10 years to create Social Security private accounts.

America faces a Budget crisis not a Social Security crisis. Without the Social Security surpluses, the federal government would be running larger deficits. Based on OMB estimates, $204 billion dollars of Social Security surpluses will be used to mask the true size of the federal deficit in FY 2009. OMB expects the FY 2009 deficit will reach $407 billion. However, without the Social Security surpluses the FY 2009 would be approximately $611 billion.

“The President’s Budget does not reflect Americans’ current needs or their future priorities. The nation’s most vulnerable populations cannot continue to pay the price for this administration’s ruinouseconomic policies. Continuing to slash vital programs that serve millions in need to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and billions in insurance industry subsidies is clearly not working”...Barbara B.Kennelly

A Social Security Icon Dies

2008-01-30T13:20:00.000-05:00

Robert M. Ball died last night at the age of 93.

Washington is a town full of public servants and political appointees but Bob Ball was unique. Few in government invest their entire lives toward a single goal but that’s exactly what Bob did. From his youngest days as a Social Security field assistant, to ultimately becoming the Commissioner of Social Security under three Presidents, Ball worked for decades to strengthen America’s social insurance programs for our nation’s elderly, disabled, survivors and their families.

Even in “retirement” Ball served on commissions and advisory boards, including the 1983 Greenspan Commission. He wrote books and crafted proposals for new Social Security reforms, including a three-point plan many consider a good blueprint for the future. Just a few months ago he took the Washington Post to task in a Letter to Editor in October. You just have to love someone who was still so engaged in an issue that at 93 he felt compelled to rattle off a letter to the Post to correct one of their (all too common) Social Security mistakes.

Our President & CEO, Barbara Kennelly, served on the Ways and Means committee during the 1983 Greenspan Commission and has known Bob Ball for decades. Here are her thoughts:

“It is not an understatement to say that generations of Americans owe their retirement security and wellbeing to Bob Ball’s tireless ommitment to preserve, protect and strengthen Social Security. Not only did he serve as Commissioner of Social Security under three Presidents, he was actively involved in virtually every Social Security development over the past 60 years. His firm belief in social insurance programs, including Medicare, helped to ensure that seniors, the disabled and their families would continue to thrive in spite of health
challenges and financial constraints.

Bob understood the balance between policy and politics. He mentored, educated, and encouraged so many of us, inside and outside of government, to remain committed to strengthen Social Security for future generations. He was one of my personal heroes.

Bob Ball’s voice will be missed but his legacy will continue to motivate us to ensure America’s seniors, survivors and the disabled will not be forgotten in Washington.”

The Senate and Stimulus

2008-01-28T16:29:00.000-05:00

by Barbara B. Kennelly, NCPSSM President/CEO
and Social Security Advisory Board Member

The rush to pass a stimulus package is not reason enough to ignore the millions of American seniors who can help make this stimulus effort a success. We congratulate the Senate Finance Committee for understanding this and working quickly to craft a package that considers all needy Americans, young and old alike. If timely, targeted and temporary really is the goal of this stimulus package, then seniors should not be left out. The Committee is scheduled to meet at 2:30 Wednesday to take up their version of a stimulus proposal.

Older Americans living on a fixed income feel the pressure of high prices and the slowing economy as acutely as anyone, yet the White House-negotiated stimulus package ignores almost half of our nation’s 65-plus population. Many of these seniors are in the direst need and most likely to spend any additional income on necessary resources such as medicine, utilities, food and clothing.

Even so, the Bush Administration acts as if including seniors in this package is a gift rather that what it really is, good economic sense and the perfect example of their stated goals (timely, targeted and temporary).

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans over 65 are responsible for 14% of all consumer spending. Seniors are also among the demographic groups most likely to spend any stimulus benefit they receive. The most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey by the Bureau of Economic Analysis says the average household headed by someone over age 65 spent 92% of their annual income, which is higher than any other demographic group with the exception of those under age 25. Seniors spend what they earn, especially as prices continue to rise, because they live on a fixed income.

But it won’t be that simple, of course. The administration is already making it clear it does not want seniors included in this proposal. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called it "political gamesmanship) and we expect to hear more of the same in the President’s State of the Union address tonight.

So much for those 3 T’s.

A Champion in the Senate

2008-01-25T11:32:00.001-05:00

Senator John Kerry (DMA) has sent a letter to his fellow Senate Finance Committee members urging they include seniors living on fixed incomes in the economic stimulus package negotiated in the House. Kerry says:

“As you develop the legislative language of the economic stimulus package, I urge you to structure the rebate so that we do not unfairly penalize millions of seniors who are faced with the same economic strains as young families, but do not have the ability to increase their incomes.” Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

Seniors owe Senator Kerry a debt of thanks for his willingness to try and reverse a Washington legacy of ignoring millions of American seniors when crafting economic recovery plans.

So, now the race to passage begins. The Senate has begun work on its version of the stimulus package and the full House hopes to vote next week. Why the rush? Even if this package stays on the fast-track most don’t expect any of this stimulus to make it to Americans before June. All the more reason, we say...Why leave out seniors, when they could receive their stimulus sooner and, studies show, they will spend it faster?

“The people who need a stimulus check the most will spend it the fastest. Why, then, is the Administration abandoning millions of seniors in an economic stimulus package? Senior households currently spend 92% of their income each year. Many retirees live check to check and would immediately spend any rebate they receive. This should be the first step in any plan to pump billions of dollars into the economy as quickly as possible.” Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO The National Commitee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and Member of the Social Security Advisory Board

Stimulus, Seniors & Social Security

2008-01-25T11:32:00.000-05:00

Here we go again...

Just as we saw in stimulus packages in 2001 and 2003, America’s seniors living on fixed incomes are once again the forgotten constituency. The stimulus plan negotiated in the House ignores millions of retired Americans who live on their savings, pensions and Social Security and feel the pressure of high prices and the slowing economy as acutely as anyone. These seniors are in the direst need and most likely to spend any additional income on necessary resources such as medicine, utilities, food and clothing. They are literally the demographic poster-child for the stated stimulus goals:

Timely - Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue says checks could be delivered in 6 weeks, compared to the IRS’s 10-12

Targeted- Social Security databases allow easy access to Social Security beneficiaries. Americans 65+ spend 92 percent of their annual income, which is more than any other demographic group with the exception of those under age 25.

Temporary-One time checks would be issued to seniors (through Social Security) just as currently planned for workers (through the IRS).

Including retirees in any effort at economic recovery makes good sense yet the administration treats seniors as if they’re just asking for a handout. Consider Treasury Secretary Paulson’s answer to a reporter’s question about including Social Security beneficiaries. Clearly the Secretary believes stimulus for millions of seniors is merely a “gift”: “
The Christmas season has come and gone. We're not trying to decorate a Christmas tree here”... Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
The good news is Senate Democrats have made it clear they have some ideas of their own to strengthen this stimulus package. But seniors will have to make their case quickly as this package is moving on the fastest track we’ve seen on Capitol Hill in years.

Social Security and Stimulus for Seniors

2008-01-18T15:19:00.000-05:00

While Congress and the President start work on legislation to stimulate our slowing economy, it appears America’s 23 million seniors will once again be overlooked. This, in spite of the undeniable truth that the economic downturn and rising prices have hit older Americans especially hard since many live on a fixed incomes with little ability to increase their earnings.

Once again, legislative proposals are focusing on tying stimulus to tax relief or rebates. However, millions of retirees do not earn enough to require filing a tax return and therefore are not eligible for a tax rebate, yet they are also not poor enough to qualify for low-income programs being considered for increases.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans over 65 are responsible for 14% of all consumer spending. Seniors are also among the demographic groups most likely to spend any stimulus benefit they receive.

The most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey by the Bureau of Economic Analysis says the average household headed by someone over age 65 spent 92% of their annual income, which is higher than any other demographic group with the exception of those under age 25. Seniors spend what they earn, especially as prices continue to rise, because they live on a fixed income. Why should America’s fastest growing demographic continually be ignored in these economic recovery measures?

We’ve sent a letter to Congress today, and will provide testimony to the Senate Finance Committee next week, urging Washington to use Social Security as the vehicle to distribute to American retirees the same stimulus checks being considered for younger Americans.

It’s a boost for seniors and our economic recovery.

What’s in Your Wallet? Social Security Tries Debit Cards

2008-01-16T12:44:00.000-05:00

The new debit card program, “Direct Express”, is scheduled to debut this spring. In the next few months, applications will go to beneficiaries in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana and ultimately, the Treasury department hopes a large percentage of Social Security’s 49.3 million beneficiaries and 7.4 million Supplement Security Income recipients will sign on.

The debit card is Treasury's latest attempt to convince recipients to get away from paper checks. A few years ago, the department started direct deposit. The feds say not only will going electronic save money...since each check costs about 89 cents to print, compared with 9 cents to load a payment onto a debit card...it also protects seniors from fraud and check theft.

Currently, four million beneficiaries do not have bank accounts and Treasury predicts that if each of them signed up for the debit card, the government would save $44 million a year. But of course, there is a flipside to this convenience. Depending on how and where beneficiaries use their cards they could be charged usage fees.

Cardholders who use one of 56,000 designated ATMs, including those at 7-11’s and PNC banks wouldn’t be charged a fee for their first withdrawal from each government payment. However, additional ATM withdrawals will cost 90 cents. Like other debit-card holders, users may also face surcharges at many ATMs.

Let’s hope the potential savings for the government won’t increase the financial drain on beneficiaries.

Medicare is healthcare...you can’t fix one without the other

2008-01-11T11:53:00.000-05:00

The Kaiser Family Foundation has issued a new Medicare brief worth a read. It’s a comprehensive look at Medicare’s financing and long-term solvency issues, which thankfully goes way beyond the “we can’t afford entitlements” crisis calls so popular within the Bush administration.

Financing Medicare: An Issue Brief draws many of the same conclusions offered by the Congressional Budget Office and which we’ve offered here in the past. Kaiser researchers say:

“Tackling the challenge of slowing growth in overall health care costs will require changes throughout the health care system rather than in Medicare alone. The federal government could play a leadership role in addressing national health care spending trends through its obligations to finance health care for the elderly and disabled through Medicare.”

We’d take it a step further to say the word “could” really must be “should” because the next administration needs to tackle health care reform in a serious way, if we hope to be prepared for an increasing population of aging Americans.

Iowa Caucuses & Seniors Issues

2008-01-03T12:47:00.000-05:00

Presidential candidates are making their final push in Iowa today before heading to New Hampshire but do you know where they really stand on issues affecting seniors?

It can be hard to keep track. The National Committee surveyed each Presidential candidate with 14 questions on issues such as Social Security, Medicare, pensions, healthcare reform, long-term care, prescription drugs, and the federal budget.

Five Democratic presidential candidates provided detailed responses to our questionnaire; Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee declined to respond while the remaining candidates have not replied to date.

It certainly is discouraging that two candidates specifically declined to answer our questions about policies affecting millions of seniors and their families. Our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly, says:

“The next President will need to lead Congress as they shape the policies that will impact the long term outlook for our retirement and health security. As the nation’s leading organization advocating on behalf of Social Security and Medicare we know we may not agree with every candidate’s position; however, our members deserve straight forward answers on these issues. Ultimately, we hope every presidential candidate will offer detailed responses to these key policy questions”

That’s really not too much to ask, right?

Wall Street Celebrates, Seniors Pay

2008-01-02T13:20:00.000-05:00

Unlike many of us, Humana, a private Medicare Advantage insurer, doesn't have the post-holiday blues.

According to the Associated Press , one Wall Street analyst has upgraded shares of health insurer Humana Inc. today saying it will be at least three years until Congress can make any cuts in Medicare Advantage programs. Carl McDonald with CIBC World Markets predicts:
"There will be no Medicare Advantage cuts in 2009, and unless cutting Medicare is the first priority of the new administration, it will be difficult to enact any cuts in 2010, either," he said. "This will give Humana and the Medicare industry three more years of strong enrollment and earnings growth."

Ultimately, this is what last month’s Congressional Medicare debate really was about...protecting the private “Medicare industry’s” profits. But at what price? Seniors will continue to help foot the bill for massive Medicare subsidies to these private insurance companies, while companies like Humana report record annual profits.

MedPAC has estimated that every Medicare beneficiary pays $24 a year in higher Part B premiums just to fund these excess payments to private plans. Because subsidies are projected to continue rising, all Medicare beneficiaries can expect to pay dramatically higher premiums in the future, and can expect increasing portions of those premiums to be diverted to private plan subsidies.

According to CBO, paying private plans at the same rate as traditional Medicare would save $54 billion over the next five years and $149 billion over the next ten years. Not only would eliminating these large overpayments save billions of dollars, it would also add two years of solvency to Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund.

While Wall Street investors may be giddy with predictions of the status quo in Medicare Advantage, seniors and taxpayers aren’t likely to quietly or happily continue to foot this bill for three more years.

Medicare's Night Before Christmas

2007-12-19T13:44:00.002-05:00

by Alison Bonebrake, NCPSSM Policy Analyst

'Twas the night before Christmas, yet the Senate and the House
Have yet to fix Medicare due to a political louse.

Seniors were hoping that government would care,
That insurance industry subsidies made their premiums flare.

Those in traditional Medicare couldn’t get it through their head,
why they had to pay subsidies that were so widespread;

Those in private plans felt completely entrapped,
with high out of pocket costs and benefits severely capped,

Seniors wanted Congress to resolve this matter,
and prevent insurance company profits from getting even fatter.

But insurance industry lobbyists began doling out cash,
to preserve the subsidies they’ve collected en masse.

Negotiations received a deadly blow,
When Bush said MA savings are a no-no.

He threatened to veto legislation this year,
that reduced subsides the insurance industry held dear.

Without MA savings, the bill was pared down quick,
And Medicare improvements were no longer a policy pick.

All-in-all the Medicare bill looked pretty lame;
In fact, it was really more of the same.

No preventive, no mental health, no low-income protections!
Only future growth in insurer subsidy projections!

Seniors were astounded, they couldn’t believe the gall,
Bush’s allies in Congress didn’t eliminate subsidies, or reduce them at all!

They passed a short-term doc fix that was incredibly shy
of achieving the priorities the House laid out in July.

The one thing that seniors know is true
is their monthly premiums will increase in dollars of two.

They are charged more to fund MA plans, and if you need proof
The Medicare Modernization Act engorged this illogical goof.

MA subsidies give all taxpayers a reason to frown,
and the 150 billion dollar price tag is sure to confound.

The Medicare HI trust fund is also asked to foot,
the bill for these subsidies which are so hard put.

Subsidies place the trust fund further under attack,
It loses two years of solvency unless they are rolled back.

The unfairness of the situation made seniors anything but merry!
How could Congress pass a bill with public opinion so contrary?

Despite receiving subsidies, didn’t Congress know,
MA plans offered inferior coverage for services seniors couldn’t forgo?

Sure they might give you glasses or even some new teeth,
But hospital stays are costly and other tricks lurk underneath.

Their marketing handbooks must have been written by Machiavelli,
Because sales tactics can be unethical, illegal and just plain smelly.

Unfortunately for seniors, this year no Angel or Christmas elf,
will correct the situation since the issue has been shelved.

As they pay rising premiums with a bit of dread,
they look forward to 2008 and the election ahead.

Politicians who do not address this overpayment quirk,
may very well find themselves in 2009 out of work.

Perhaps the holiday season can convince our foes,
that traditional Medicare is not something they should oppose.

We should preserve social insurance, not arrange for its dismissal,
as we’ve discovered private plans are as thorny as a thistle.

As we approach the holiday, Medicare beneficiaries unite to say
"Happy Christmas to all, and next year we’ll win the fight."

Social Security COLA’S Can’t Keep Up

2007-12-19T13:44:00.000-05:00

Seniors nationwide are watching their Social Security checks shrink before their eyes ...

as rising premiums for healthcare and drug coverage eat away more and more of their limited monthly income. And each year it’s getting worse.

Skyrocketing healthcare costs are triggering rising Medicare premiums that reduce the amount of money left in seniors’ Social Security checks each month. In fact, the average retiree will lose 25% of their Social Security COLA in 2008 due to higher Medicare premiums. Many seniors enrolled in more expensive prescription drug plans will see even larger reductions in their COLA. Those with lower incomes (and smaller Social Security benefits) can lose their entire COLA due to the rising health care costs reflected in the Medicare premiums.

It’s easy to see why seniors’ Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are shrinking away at such a fast pace. That’s why we’re especially pleased to see new legislation introduced this week to limit the bite premiums can take from retirees’ monthly Social Security check. The “Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2007” would guarantee that no more than 25% of a retiree’s annual COLA could be taken by the combined increases in Part B and Part D Medicare premiums. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) are the bill’s sponsors.

Medicare Bill is a Disappointment

2007-12-18T16:25:00.000-05:00

by Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

"The debate over Medicare legislation has been a true disappointment to millions of seniors tired of paying more in premiums so that insurers offering private Medicare Advantage plans can keep their billions in government subsidies. While everyone in Washington talks about fiscal discipline, the President’s veto threat with support from his allies in Congress, shows the influence of the insurance lobby once again ruled the day.

This legislation offers only a band-aid fix to the doctor’s fee cut and clearly puts insurers’ profits ahead of Medicare’s solvency and seniors’ needs. The National Committee will continue to work with House and Senate members next year on legislation to eliminate these outrageous and wasteful subsidies to Medicare Advantage insurers, strengthen aid for low income beneficiaries and improve Medicare’s long-term solvency.”

Social Security and Medicare Did Not Cause The Deficit

2007-12-18T14:50:00.000-05:00

The Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget have released their FY 2007 US Financial Report. This report shows that by using the same accounting methods as private companies, the federal budget deficit is actually 69% higher than the administration reported two months ago, putting the deficit at $275.5 billion for this fiscal year. The Bush administration will proudly tell you that this is 38% less than last year’s deficit. But who would’ve thought seven years ago we would be expected to celebrate a $275.5. billion dollar deficit?

Rather than focusing on the tax and spend policies which created this deficit, this report touts the “healthy economy” and continues to issue more dire warnings of an “oncoming fiscal train wreck” of entitlement spending.

Let’s be clear here, entitlement costs did not create our current budget deficit. The challenges facing each of these programs are different and they’ll require unique solutions, yet the Bush administration continues to lump Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid together in an attempt to persuade older Americans and their families to foot the bill for this administration’s irresponsible budget policies. The long-term challenges facing Social Security are modest and manageable and should be addressed -- but there is no need to buy into this “crisis” campaign designed to persuade Americans this program must be eviscerated in order to be fixed.

Medicare, on the other hand, faces a shortfall in 2019 in large part because it suffers from the same skyrocketing healthcare costs Americans are seeing nationwide. We can’t continue to ignore national health care reform if we want to control federal spending. Yet the administration’s supporters continue to ignore the real issues in favor of their rhetoric designed to erode Americans’ deep faith in social insurance programs.

Americans want fiscal discipline returned to Washington; however, the challenges facing Medicare and Social Security are different. A one-size-fits-all ‘let’s cut entitlements’ approach won’t work no matter how hard the Bush administration tries to sell it.

Forgotten in the Medicare Debate

2007-12-14T11:53:00.000-05:00

More than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries live at or near the poverty line but it’s been hard to get much attention for reforms that could ease their burden.

House and Senate conferees appear bogged down in negotiations of a Medicare reform bill. Of course, the focus of Congressional wrangling so far has been on cuts to wasteful subsidies to private Medicare Advantage insurers and a fix to prevent a 10% pay cut to Medicare physicians, which is scheduled for the New Year.

Now, Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) are sending a letter to Medicare negotiators, signed by more than 30 of their Senate colleagues, urging them to support reforms in three other areas:

· Increase the asset allowance for the Part D low income subsidy so that those with very limited incomes, but modest retirement savings, can obtain the assistance the Medicare Modernization Act was intended to deliver in paying premiums and coinsurance under the drug benefit

· Update the income and asset allowances for the Medicare Savings Programs, and provide continuing inflationary adjustment for those limits. Today many fail to receive needed assistance due to an asset test which has been unchanged for two decades

· Improve outreach and enrollment in both programs

Here’s more information on the Medicare Savings Program and the Low-Income Subsidy.

Social Security Can Afford the Boomers

2007-12-13T11:03:00.000-05:00

Yes, you read that correctly. Unfortunately, it’s a statement that is less likely to be included in any news coverage thanks to a 7-year propaganda campaign created to convince Americans that “Social Security won’t be there when today’s younger workers retire...baby boomers will bankrupt the system and you can make more money if you trade your Social Security for a Wall Street account.”

These myths are simplistic and wrong. The facts, unfortunately, are more complicated to understand. Maybe that’s why the mainstream media has bought the Social Security “crisis” claims so easily and completely? Until lately, that is.

The Dallas Morning News has among the most comprehensive articles we’ve seen in months describing the truth of Social Security. Bob Moos talked to a broad range of economists, actuaries, and advocates. He also summarizes the Presidential candidates’ positions. It’s definitely worth a read.

Thank You...Thank You Very Much

2007-12-11T13:43:00.000-05:00

The Association of Marketing & Communications Professionals has honored the National Committee’s website and blog for outstanding achievement among public service and charitable organizations. “Entitled to Know” received MarCom’s Gold Award and the redesigned website received an Honorable Mention.

As baby-boomers age and an increasing number of older Americans turn to the internet for their news and information, the need for thorough and thoughtful analysis on issues affecting seniors is also growing.

That’s why, as the nation’s leading advocate for strengthening Social Security and Medicare for future generations, the National Committee launched it’s blog “Entitled to Know” earlier in 2007 to positive reviews from senior bloggers:

“I write about these issues frequently, but I can’t keep up as thoroughly and with as much detail as the people who write for this blog. I urge you to bookmark “entitled to know”. It’s important stuff you need to know”...Ronni Bennett, Time Goes By
The National Committee’s website also continues its tradition of providing detailed briefing papers, policy analysis, and advocacy tools to help seniors understand the issues and communicate their positions directly to their elected leaders on Capitol Hill. The Wall Street Journal has recognized the National Committee’s “Ask Mary Jane” advice column as “the best source of help for questions about Social Security”.

“I Thought Medicare was For Seniors”

2007-12-06T12:02:00.000-05:00

by Max Richtman, NCPSSM Executive Vice President

That simple sentiment sums up my trip to Iowa this week perfectly. I met with National Committee members and supporters who are organizing for the Iowa Presidential Caucuses,which are just a month away. We have more than 38-thousand supporters in Iowa and these seniors want to be sure that the Presidential candidates don’t ignore issues critical to retirees and their families.

We talked about so many different issues of concern to seniors including, the continuing preoccupation by some in Washington with privatizing Social Security and the inadequacy of the Medicare drug benefit. But nothing raised the hackles of this group of National Committee activists as much as our discussion about the Medicare Advantage Program or, as one participant characterized it, the Medicare Disadvantage Program.

They resent the fact that all Medicare beneficiaries, including the 81% of beneficiaries who have not signed up for Medicare Advantage, are paying more in premiums ($2 per month) to help finance this outrageous subsidy of the insurance companies selling Medicare Advantage Plans.

They were outraged that $149 billion dollars will be spent, or more accurately wasted, over the next 10 years on government subsidies to these plans while so many health care needs of seniors go unmet – supposedly due to lack of money in the Medicare budget.

The participant who said, “I thought Medicare was for seniors – not the insurance industry”, summed up the tone of our meeting perfectly. The Medicare law passed nearly 4 years ago had a different set of priorities and forgot that Medicare is for seniors. The National Committee is doing every thing we can to change this and is urging the Congress to eliminate this wasteful spending on subsides to the insurance companies.

It is time to get our priorities in order. It is time to devote theses precious resources to those in need -- not those motivated by greed.

So Much for Fighting Waste

2007-12-05T12:21:00.001-05:00

The huge irony of watching President Bush accuse Congress of “wasteful Washington spending” while at the same time threatening to veto a Medicare bill which could trim billion dollar subsidies to the insurance industry might make us chuckle...if only it weren’t so harmful to seniors.

According to Congressional Quarterly today:

“One of the key demands (by the administration) is that the legislation use only cuts to Medicare providers,like hospitals or nursing homes, to pay for one of the bill’s most expensive provisions,instead of using money that currently goes to health insurance companies paid to run private Medicare plans, known as Medicare Advantage.”

In other words, this administration says it’s O.K. to cut providers directly serving vulnerable seniors but don’t even consider touching a penny of the estimated $149 billion in overpayments currently going to insurance companies. Overpayments that also cut two years from Medicare’s solvency, by the way.

Let’s be clear about this, these overpayments are subsidies above and beyond what is needed to provide coverage currently being offered in traditional Medicare. In fact, the government pays an average of 12 percent more to cover a beneficiary in a private Medicare Advantage plan than it would cost to cover that same beneficiary in traditional Medicare. All of this, while the insurance industry reaps record profits thanks to this new Medicare market created by the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act.

Once again, this administration’s priorities are clear. Protect insurers above all else. Clearly “wasteful government spending” doesn’t apply to government giveaways to political friends and allies in the insurance industry.

$2 Here, $2 There...Seniors Are Tired of Footing the Bill

2007-12-05T12:21:00.000-05:00

Throughout the year, seniors nationwide have been urging Congress to reform the Medicare Advantage program. National Committee members have mailed about 73,000 letters to Capitol Hill on this issue and have now delivered 48,000 petitions to the Senate. It appears the Senate Finance committee is finally ready to consider its Medicare legislation, and a mark-up is scheduled for any day now.

Seniors from the National Committee and the Alliance for Retired Americans delivered the latest batch of Medicare reform petitions to the Senate on Tuesday. You can link to video of the event here. Beneficiaries also waved $2 bills symbolizing the extra money they pay each month in Medicare premiums, whether they’ve signed up for Medicare Advantage or not, to fund these industry subsidies.

Sadie Coleman is a Medicare beneficiary with 10 children, 46 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. She told the Capitol Hill crowd she stayed with traditional Medicare because, like many other seniors, she’s found private insurers in Medicare Advantage “tell you one thing, then they do another”.

Seniors like Sadie want private plans to compete on a level playing field with Medicare. Private insurers have promised they can provide better Medicare coverage for less...reforms to Medicare Advantage let’s them prove it.

New Report Finds Drug Plan Premiums Up Almost 25%

2007-11-29T10:32:00.001-05:00

A new issue brief from the Center for Economic and Policy Research confirms the bad news that seniors who get their prescriptions under Part D already feared...their costs for drugs are skyrocketing.

According to "Changes in the Costs of Medicare Prescription Drug Plans, 2007-2008" , the average Part D premium will rise by 24.5 percent from 2007-08 meaning an average premium price of $293 per year, or $57.70 more than last year.

The report also finds that an average of 20% of the private plans offering doughnut hole coverage last year are dropping that coverage in 2008...leaving more seniors vulnerable to huge out-of-pocket costs. Combine all of this with increases in co-pays, ever-changing formularies, and pricing tiers and it’s easy to understand why seniors find the Part D morass so hard to navigate.

And without fundamental reforms to the prescription drug program, these problems will only get worse over time.

Wow...

2007-11-29T10:32:00.000-05:00

What a difference a week makes! There has been more discussion and debate about this administration’s phony Social Security crisis in the past 9 days than we’ve seen since 2005.

Thank goodness.

We’ve been talking about it for years (although it felt more like a monologue sometimes than a dialogue) including most recently here, here and here. Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research has also written many good pieces on the administration’s phony “entitlement crisis” propaganda.

Even so, the Washington Post continues its Social Security obsession. As we sat down to write another composite of this week’s debate we found this wonderful post at The Economist’s View which sums it all up wonderfully.

More of the Same

2007-11-20T11:20:00.001-05:00

And in the same vein, Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has been winning praise from the media for “doing something” on Social Security. Doesn’t anyone care about what his plan actually does?

Here are some of the basics of Thompson’s Social Security proposal:

· Divert money out of Social Security and into private accounts.
· Make huge cuts in Social Security benefits.
· Increase the public debt by billions of dollars.
· Shift risk to individual retirees.

Thompson’s plan would even go beyond the President’s failed Social Security proposal by:

· Making larger reductions in Social Security benefits by completely indexing benefits to prices rather than using a combination of wages and prices
· Raise the Social Security retirement age for those with private accounts, effectively reducing their Social Security benefits further.
· Require workers, through an automatic but reversible wage reduction, to contribute 2 percent of their wages to a private investment account.

We’ve posted a full analysis of the Thompson plan on the National Committee’s website.

A Counterfeit Crisis

2007-11-20T11:20:00.000-05:00

Finally, we’re no longer feeling like a voice in the wilderness.

It’s certainly not popular in Washington to buck the administration’s well publicized and financed “entitlement crisis” propaganda campaign. Over the years, the Bush administration has created a mythology of impending doom for Social Security that just doesn’t exist. Their script casts anyone who doesn’t buy their bull as gutless or afraid to make “tough choices”. Anyone who doesn’t pledge allegiance to this doomsday scenario is deemed a political coward. In this world of black hat villains and white hat heroes, only politicians willing to slash entitlements are tough enough to be sheriff.

However, over the past few weeks there have been growing signs of independent analysis and critical thinking by some in the mainstream media (certainly NOT the Washington Post or Tim Russert) and even some presidential candidates.

Here are links to some of the best conversations on the counterfeit “entitlement” crisis:

Higher premiums, Growing Out of Pocket Costs & Doughnut Holes

2007-11-15T10:48:00.000-05:00

It’s Medicare Open enrollment time again. A painful annual ritual for American seniors who, in order to receive prescription drug coverage under Medicare’s privatized Part D program, must wade through pounds of statistics, charts and cost analyses just to determine if their current plan will even serve their needs next year.

Why, is this so complicated? Welcome to the world of privatized Medicare where each year most of these private insurers switch their formularies (in other words, drop drugs), require generics and increase premiums and co-payments. 75% of seniors will face a premium increase this year if they don’t switch plans.

However, it truly could be hazardous to beneficiaries’ fiscal and physical health if they don't shop around rather than stick with their current plan out of loyalty, confusion or fear of the unknown.

According to the National Seniors Law Center, the premium for the least expensive plan in New York will go up 167%, 90% in Florida and 44% in Pennsylvania. More than 2.5 million low-income seniors must switch plans this year to avoid having to pay out-of-pocket costs for the first time.

A survey by the consulting firm, Avalere Health, reports that in many states Part D premiums are doubling for the second year in a row. The popular Humana PDP Standard Plan charged $6.44 a month in Maryland when it first marketed its plan to seniors, two years ago. Last year’s premium doubled to $13 and now the premium will more than double again to $27.20. More than 80% of Part D enrollees are in the top ten drug plans and all but two have raised their premiums. AARP’s Medicare RX Plan-Saver is the most popular plan and, according to Avalere’s research, will increase its premium an average of 65% in 2008.

But as the insurance industry knows very well, it’s human nature is to stick with what you know. So far, that has been true for Medicare beneficiaries even to their detriment. The increasingly daunting task of analyzing a myriad of private drug plans’ (52 drug-only plans nationwide in 2008) formularies, co-payment, and premium schedules each and every year is an absurd burden which benefits insurers not seniors.

It didn’t have to be this way. Seniors want and need a prescription drug benefit under Medicare which would provide stable and consistent coverage which manages costs with no gaps in coverage like the so-called “doughnut hole”. What they’ve gotten with this privatized program is an overly complicated process that puts insurers’ bottom lines ahead of seniors’ needs.

For more information on how to navigate the Part D enrollment maze here is a link to our Frequently Asked Questions guide.

You can also find out more about the privatization of Medicare and Part D on our website.

Political Gamesmanship Threatens SSA

2007-11-12T11:19:00.000-05:00

by Maria Freese, NCPSSM Government Relations& Policy Director

Congress and the President are beginning the final stages of a high-stakes political game of poker as the year winds down. With no compromise in sight on funding levels for any of our government agencies, this is the first time in recent memory that a President has categorically refused to negotiate on the total amount of spending by the federal government. His Administration picked a top-line number and he’s sticking to it no matter what – a tactic the American public has become all too familiar with during the past 7 years.

Included in this game of chicken is funding essential to operate the Social Security Administration. SSA is one of the few agencies that raises money for its own operations. A small portion of every dollar of payroll taxes covers administrative costs.

But because SSA funding is mixed together with funds for other agencies such as National Institutes of Health, SSA must compete for a limited pot of money. The result is that since 2001, SSA has suffered a $1 billion cut from its budget requests, leaving it without enough money to replace employees as they leave. This despite the new responsibilities Congress and the President have placed on the Agency, including verifying eligibility for the low-income subsidies in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program – and at a time when the agency is facing the beginning of benefit claims by the baby boom generation.

The result? Offices around the country are closing, and Americans are facing increasingly long waiting times for everything from getting a question answered to having an application for disability payments reviewed. The disability issue is especially critical, as the average wait for a hearing now stretches 18 months.

Congress added $275 million to the President’s request for the Agency’s funding in the 2008 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, for a total of $9.9 billion. This amount would help SSA tread water – it’s by no means enough to reverse the shortfalls of the past. But the President has threatened to veto this bill, and it’s not clear Congress will have the votes to override the veto. If Congress is forced to start cutting programs in order to meet the President’s demands, SSA funds are at risk just like any other agency’s – despite the program’s $190 billion surplus.

As the President pushes Congress into this game of political brinksmanship, we hope he will consider that more is at stake here than an arbitrary set of budget numbers. For seniors and the disabled who count on Social Security, their very survival may be at risk.

"Entitlement " Commission Hearing in Senate

2007-11-02T10:44:00.000-05:00

Entitlement hysteria is in full view on Capitol Hill this week as the Senate Budget committee held its first hearing on legislation proposed to create yet another bipartisan commission. We’ve already expressed our position on this commission, see here and here . Unfortunately, this first hearing proceeded down exactly the path we’ve expressed concern about before.

During this hearing there was virtually no acknowledgement that the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare are very different. A one-size-fits-all discussion of "entitlements" ignores the unique challenges facing Medicare (a healthcare program) and Social Security (a retirement and social insurance program). Lumping these programs together in search of policy solutions makes no sense. There was also little discussion of national healthcare reform and its role in this debate, even though skyrocketing healthcare costs are what is jeopardizing Medicare’s solvency.
Curiously missing from the Budget Committee’s table of experts was CBO Director Peter Orszag who has said,

“We do a disservice by uniting the health care issue with the aging issue"

He has testified many times to other Congressional committees that the rising cost of healthcare represents a far more serious fiscal danger than aging baby boomers. Medicare, not Social Security, is what is driving up the costs of entitlements. Medicare costs are increasing so dramatically because of overall increases in the cost of health care, not because of our aging population.

Coincidentally two new studies also came out this week detailing just how critical the healthcare debate is for seniors and Americans of all ages. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that between 1997 and 2003, median out-of-pocket health spending increased by 50% while individual income rose by just 15%. Insurance premiums where the largest chunk of that increase. The Commonwealth Fund surveyed patients in seven industrialized nations and found Americans spend double what people in the other countries do on health care, but have more trouble seeing doctors, are the victims of more errors and go without treatment more often.

Focusing so much attention on "entitlements" while glossing over underlying issues such as healthcare reform is a fatal flaw in this commission approach.

Fires, Floods and the “Vicissitudes of Life”

2007-10-25T11:59:00.000-05:00

''We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life''...Franklin Delano Roosevelt

It was true 73 years ago and as this week’s devastating fires in Southern California remind us, it’s still true today. But whether it’s destructive flames on the West coast or devastating floods in the Gulf coast, we’ve seen just how quickly life’s circumstances can take a turn. One of the great untold stories during these times of national crisis is the Social Security success story.

8,700 Social Security checks have already been sent to residents in Southern California. Unfortunately, some of those checks will arrive even though residents have evacuated and their homes have been destroyed. But staff at the local Social Security offices will coordinate efforts to get those checks to California seniors, the disabled and their families who will need them. In its seven-decade history, Social Security has never missed a payment and it won’t this month either.

National tragedies like the California fires also remind us what a critical link SSA offices provide to a vulnerable population. But these offices have faced limited budgets forcing closures, low staffing and huge disability hearing backlogs. We’ve written to Congress urging support of increased funding for SSA administration.

In the wake of this disaster, the Social Security Administration is reminding beneficiaries to use direct deposit. It’s a simple process to enroll either directly with SSA or through the Treasury Department’s GoDirect campaign. As disaster victims in the Gulf coast and now those in Southern California have found, direct deposit allows Social Security beneficiaries access to their funds immediately without worrying if they even have a mailbox left or not.

COLA Can't Keep Up

2007-10-19T10:03:00.000-05:00

The Social Security Administration has announced a 2.3% cost of living adjustment for the more than 50 million Americans receiving Social Security in 2008. This adds about $24.00 to the average monthly Social Security check of $1,055 and is the lowest increase in four years.

“Rising healthcare costs, including Medicare Part B premiums and prescription drug costs, have outpaced Social Security cost-of-living increases for years. Part B premiums alone have more than doubled since 2000. Combine that with high energy and food costs and you can see why seniors are feeling the pinch.
COLA’s are critically important to help seniors maintain a basic standard of living. However, as long as we continue to ignore the need for system-wide healthcare reform, Social Security COLA increases will continue to fall short for America’s seniors, disabled and their families”. Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

We’re thankful to have a Social Security system that has any cost of living increases at all – most private pensions don’t, and buying inflation adjusted annuities with your savings is one of the most expensive retirement products around.

But the reality of this cost-of-living increase is that come January, beneficiaries will likely see it all spent and then some. The Arizona Republic summarized the dollars and cents realities of living on a fixed income. Our fall Newsletter also looks at how rising healthcare costs are eating away at the COLA.

Falling Down the Rabbit Hole...

2007-10-16T16:28:00.000-05:00

We have to admit to being more than just a little confused when we read press coverage of yesterday’s baby boomer event at the National Press Club. Just in case you missed it, the nation’s first baby boomer, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, filed online for Social Security benefits yesterday to much hoopla.

But what was truly unexpected about this event was the lack of the administration’s usual gloom and doom propaganda. In fact, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue was incredibly reasonable and definitely not singing from the same “sky-is-falling-the-baby-boomers-will-suck-us-dry” hymnal preferred by the Bush administration.

Here is what Commission Astrue said about Social Security’s financial outlook:

“There’s no reason for any immediate panic”
“It’s not catastrophic”
“There’s no factual basis for these ‘nuclear winter’ scenarios
many have described”

Wow. You have to wonder if the White House knows he’s sticking so closely to the facts.

But here’s where we find ourselves down the rabbit hole. While the Bush administration’s Social Security head is telling the straight story on the program’s long-term fiscal picture (unlike what we generally hear elsewhere from this administration), multiple news organizations virtually ignored it in favor of the White House’s crisis propaganda. Almost all of the coverage today parrots the administration’s “we can’t afford the Baby Boomers ” line even though that is not what the SSA Commissioner actually said at this event.

The Washington Post even went so far as to belittle the Commissioner and Casey-Kirschling for having the nerve to express their confidence in Social Security’s future. The media loves a crisis...this isn’t new. However, Social Security is too important to millions of American seniors and their families to play so fast and loose with the facts in the name of headlines.

The first boomer said it best yesterday when she said,

"I think the baby boomers will want to get this fixed...they're going to want to take care of their children and their grandchildren."

We agree. If only we could set aside the phony crisis calls to do it.

Building the Case for Privatization

2007-10-16T09:28:00.001-05:00

By Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare

The Bush administration continues its ongoing campaign to build a case for the same discredited Social Security “reforms” already rejected by Congress and the American people.

This second Treasury Department report on Social Security continues the administration’s intergenerational warfare propaganda by attempting to pitt baby-boomers against future generations by describing today’s retirees as receiving “excess benefits”.

These so-called “excess benefits” are actually about $1,000 a month for the average Social Security beneficiary. Two out of every three Social Security beneficiaries receive over half of their income from Social Security, and it's the only source of income for nearly one-in-five seniors. These are the realities beneficiaries’ face which receive little to no attention in this report.

While not offering proposals, this report does suggest private accounts as one of only two ways to pre-fund Social Security. Social Security is social insurance and should not be twisted to meet the Wall Street notion of what Social Security should be, a pre-funded system measured by investment rates of return. However, it is clear that this is exactly the case currently being built in these Treasury department reports

Seniors or Insurers?

2007-10-02T13:54:00.001-05:00

The Senate is currently searching for money from the Medicare program to prevent next year’s cut in doctors’ reimbursements. If you needed to cut billions of dollars from Medicare which of these options would you choose? Eliminate all or part of the $54 billion in government subsidies going to private insurers in the Medicare Advantage program (as proposed by the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission-MedPAC ) or cut healthcare benefits going to seniors making higher than average incomes?

Seniors or Insurers? A seemingly easy choice.

For the Bush Administration and their allies in Congress the choice, of course, is to cut benefits for seniors. According to Jonathan Weisman and Christopher Lee writing in the Washington Post today, Nevada Senator John Ensign is once again pushing his plan to expand Medicare means testing.

This is a perpetual favorite for those who believe the way to erode public support for Medicare is to turn it into a welfare program serving only the poor by driving wealthier seniors into private insurance. As we’ve seen with the SCHIP debate, the concept of providing healthcare for all drives some in Washington crazy.

The Post says:

Already, the section of Medicare that pays for outpatient care, including doctors' fees, imposes some means testing. Single seniors with incomes exceeding $82,000 and couples with incomes about $164,000 pay higher premiums on a sliding scale as their wealth rises. Those thresholds rise each year with inflation. The original Bush proposal would have frozen those thresholds at $82,000 and $164,000, so more seniors would have been affected by means testing over time. The same thresholds would have applied to the new prescription drug benefit. According to the White House budget office, the proposal would have saved more than $10 billion over five years.

But wait. Cutting government overpayments to private insurers in Medicare would save more than 5 times that amount! Even if you trimmed just half of these outrageous overpayments to insurers you would still save more than this means testing proposal.

Seniors who aren’t living paycheck to paycheck are an easy target. But means testing Medicare will not improve its long-term solvency. Driving healthier, younger and higher-income seniors away from Medicare will change the program from one providing universal coverage to all beneficiaries to a welfare program with increasingly unsustainable costs.

Maybe that’s their ultimate goal after all.

It’s More Than Just Nickels and Dimes

2007-10-02T13:54:00.000-05:00

So you probably saw the headline this morning... “Medicare Premiums Up 3.1%” ...and thought ‘hey that’s not so bad’. At least that what CMS hopes you think.

But Medicare premiums are just one part of the picture. Seniors are also facing higher co-payments, out of pocket costs, rising prescription drug fees and doughnut holes. In 2000, the Medicare Part B premium was $45.50. Next year it will be $96.40. This 112% increase is certainly not good news for seniors living on a fixed income. Social Security cost of living increases just can’t keep up with rising healthcare costs, which continue to grow unchecked. These programs aren’t flawed, healthcare costs are running amok.

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College has issued a new report describing the real challenges facing seniors...
The long-run solution is to control the costs not just of Medicare, but of the entire health care system. The United States spends a much higher share of GDP on health care services than other countries, yet in many instances produces less favorable outcomes.
Here is coverage of yesterday’s Medicare premium announcement. We also shouldn’t forget that this 2008 premium is artificially low. It assumes that Congress will cut payments to doctors, which is unlikely, meaning there's a possibility those costs will be passed on to beneficiaries in later years.

Bet He Won’t Be Invited Back...

2007-09-25T12:16:00.001-05:00

CBO Director Peter Orszag offered insurers some advice yesterday they probably didn’t want to hear. He told attendees at the American Health Insurance Plans conference on Medicare that insurers should present data showing what is working in Medicare’s overpaid and highly subsidized private Advantage plans.

Private insurers have been promising for decades they could provide cheaper and more efficient coverage for seniors than Medicare. But they’re currently charging Medicare $1,000 more a year to cover a beneficiary in a private plan than it would cost to provide care to that same beneficiary under traditional Medicare. So far, private insurers can’t (or won’t) show us what we’re actually getting for that subsidy. Here’s Congress Daily’s coverage:

CBO has determined through a review that disease management programs mightreduce some healthcare costs, but the savings are offset by the costs of preventative measures, such as screening. "I know a lot of private practitioners have a different view, and I would say, show us the data," Orszag said at an American Health Insurance Plans conference on Medicare...Because the
interventions are not backed up by evidence,they drive up cost without improving health or outcomes," Orszag said.

MedPac’s estimates, that in the case of Private Fee-For-Service plans, only about half of these excess payments are used to deliver extra benefits for enrollees. The rest finances administrative costs, marketing, and profits. This is the elephant in the AHIP conference room Orszag had the courage to acknowledge.

Don’t forget that CBO has also said we could save $54 billion over the next five years and $149 billion over the next ten years if we just paid private plans the same rate as Medicare. Not only would eliminating these large overpayments save billions of dollars, it would also add two years of solvency to Medicare’s trust fund.

What Part of “No” Don’t they Understand?

2007-09-25T12:16:00.000-05:00

Make no mistake about it...the Bush administration clearly understands the value of a well structured and financed public relations campaign. Yesterday’s release of the first in a series of Treasury department “issue briefs”, signals the start of another run at defining Social Security reform in a way that best suits this administration’s ultimate goals...the creation of private accounts and massive benefit cuts. What the White House doesn’t seem to get is that sometimes even the best PR and Marketing strategy can’t sell misguided policy goals.

Here’s our analysis of this first Treasury brief entitled "Social Security Reform: The Nature of the Problem".

The Brief overstates the problem repeatedly by using the discredited “infinite horizon” calculation. The American Academy of Actuaries, the leading professional organization of actuaries, has warned that infinite-horizon projections “provide little if any useful information about the program's long-term finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic, and actuarial aspects of the program's finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial shape than is actually indicated”.

Focuses on Benefit Cuts. Treasury Secretary Paulson says that Social Security can only be fixed by raising taxes or cutting benefits, yet he is focusing on benefit cuts.

Issue Brief Introduction: “Social Security can be made permanently solvent only by reducing the present value of scheduled benefits and/or increasing the present value of scheduled tax revenues.”

Secretary Paulson’s Statement : “While differences over personal accounts and taxes dominate the public debate over this issue, in my conversations I found that there are many other things on which people agree.”

Statement from the White House: The Associated Press reports, “But White House officials stressed that President Bush remains opposed to raising taxes."

So, while the Administration says tax increases and/or benefit cuts are the only solutions, they again propose only benefit cuts as the solution. To suggest that there are only “differences over personal accounts and taxes” (implying people agree on the need for benefit cuts) does not reflect the political reality.

Resurrects Privatization. The report makes it clear the Administration is interested in resurrecting privatization. However, rather than addressing it directly, the report uses “prefunding” as the code-word for privatization.

Issue Brief Statement: “Fairness to Future Generations Requires True Pre-Funding” and “Only if pre-funding is ‘real’ can this goal of fairness be achieved.

This is the setup to Social Security privatization. Remember when the White House renamed private accounts as “personal” accounts? The American people still understood this was the privatization of Social Security and they rejected it. The new buzz-word (for the same thing) appears to be “pre-funding”. Changing the terminology doesn’t change the fact that the political goals remain the same.

The Administration is merely resurrecting its arguments for privatization and laying the groundwork for President Bush’s plan for so-called progressive price-indexing of Social Security benefits, a plan which would cut benefits drastically affecting 70 percent of future retirees.

A "Must-Watch" Debate for Seniors & Their Families

2007-09-21T14:06:00.000-05:00

For 90 minutes last night 5 Democratic Presidential candidates focused on the issues nearest and dearest to our hearts...financial and retirement security and healthcare.

If you missed this debate last night (and we understand some may already be suffering from presidential campaign fatigue...just 15 months out no less) this is one worth watching even after the fact.

Kaiser has a very good coverage roundup here and Iowa Public Television has the video.

Bookmark it and make this one a must-watch. These issues will affect all of our lives for decades to come.

We Don't Need an Entitlement Task Force

2007-09-19T15:28:00.000-05:00

by Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

Here’s a letter I sent to Congress today urging members to reject efforts to turn over their legislative responsibilities regarding entitlement spending and tax reform to a new Budget Task Force. As a former Congresswoman, I understand how tough these issues can be for our elected leaders. But I just don’t believe our process is so broken that Congressional committees should be sidelined in a debate on issues which touch virtually every American family in such critical ways. Here is the full text of my letter: This week the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee renewed their plan to create a task force to write comprehensive entitlement and federal tax legislation.Under the plan, jurisdiction for long-term changes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal taxes would be handed over to a 16-member task force, divided equally between the majority and minority party. We understand Rep. Jim Cooper and Rep. Frank Wolf will introduce companion legislation in the House.

We appreciate the effort that both Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg have invested in their proposal. Despite their good intentions, however, we believe this plan contains many of the fatal flaws that have tainted similar bills over the years.

Social Security and Medicare are critical lifelines for America’s seniors. Seniors deserve to have changes to these programs receive substantive consideration by Members of the Committees who best understand their intricacies. Major changes to these programs also deserve to be considered by Congress under a normal, open legislative process. The Conrad/Gregg plan would bypass these important protections. If it is adopted, America’s seniors will be the big losers.

For these reasons, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare strongly opposes this measure.

Social Security Privatization Will Again Threaten America’s seniors. The President and many of his supporters in Congress have made it clear that they favor privatizing Social Security. Despite strong public opposition, they continue to press for diverting money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and into private investment accounts.

Despite the expressed opposition to private accounts by the current majority Congressional leadership, establishment of this task force would give supporters of privatization a new forum in which to resurrect privatization. In addition, it offers privatizers a voice and a vote significantly disproportionate to their representation in Congress.

In effect, while the Task Force appears to be structured in a neutral manner, in fact it will create a platform for those who support the privatization of Social Security which might not be available to them through an open legislative process.

Legislative Jurisdiction over Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Federal Taxes Will Be Handed to the Task Force. Major restructuring of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid has never been attempted in a single piece of legislation, and for good reason: these programs encompass significantly different economic issues and touch virtually every facet of American life. Under the Conrad/Gregg proposal, their future, as well as the construction of our entire system of federal taxation,would be placed in the hands of a group of only 16 people who may or may not have significant experience in the breadth of issues they encompass. Congressional Committees of jurisdiction, which have cultivated detailed knowledge of the programs and the needs of their beneficiaries over decades of hearings and education, would be relegated to being bystanders in the process.

We recognize the perspective of those who believe Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should all be treated as one, with a focus on their long-term budgetary impact. However, we strongly believe this approach is both inappropriate and counterproductive. While these programs are entitlement programs, they have little else in common, yet they would be treated under a single legislative umbrella.

Social Security and Medicare are distinct programs and need to be addressed separately. Contrary to popular rhetoric, Social Security’s funding gap is both modest and manageable. This gap is caused by a combination of demographics and the changing nature of income in our economy. Achieving Social Security solvency requires neither privatization nor deep cuts in benefits. If privatization were permanently and affirmatively rejected as part of the discussion, there is no reason to believe the Committees of jurisdiction could not devise a suitable plan to strengthen both the program and its long-term finances.

Medicare, on the other hand, is a health care program and most of its cost increase is being driven by the cost of overall health care, not demographics. As you know, solutions for our nation’s health care problems are elusive because they are extremely complex, and can hardly be expected to be resolved by a budget-oriented Task Force. In the absence of this type of comprehensive health care reform, any changes to Medicare standing in isolation are likely to simply shift costs onto the elderly.

The American People Will Be Left Out of the Discussion.Under the Conrad/Gregg proposal,a working group of current members of Congress and representatives of the current Administration would meet during 2008 and design the legislation that would address all of the long-term funding issues affecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Task Force’s recommendations would be issued on December 9, 2008. The legislation would then be forced through Congress under extremely short timelines with no opportunity for amendments.

This would result in legislation written by a group which is not representative of the composition of the current Congress and may be even less representative of the Congress elected in 2008. More importantly, the American people will elect a new President in the fall of 2008. The legislation written by the working group would be forced upon a President who may have been elected by the American people on a platform at odds with the legislation offered by the working group. As a result, the voice of the American electorate would be diluted.

The Conrad/Gregg proposal runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers that actions by Congress reflect the will of the people they represent. Creating restrictive timelines and prohibiting amendments to push through changes of this importance to millions of Americans, especially senior Americans, ultimately disenfranchises voters and hurts the political process. While we agree with the goal of strengthening Social Security and Medicare, we strongly disagree with the process created by the Conrad/Gregg bill.
Cordially,
Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

SCHIP UPDATE

2007-09-18T10:41:00.000-05:00

Not surprisingly, the insurance industry’s million dollar ad and lobbying campaign is paying off on Capitol Hill and it appears a Congressional compromise to re-authorize SCHIP won’t include needed reforms to Medicare.

Congress Daily summarizes the closed-door negotiations and Speaker Pelosi’s comments afterwards:

House Speaker Pelosi said “We are working on agreements between [the] House and Senate to take two proposals to our respective caucuses in order to see where we go from here." House leadership sources speculated she was referring to breaking the House measure into separate Medicare and SCHIP bills to avoid confronting the Senate with the House Medicare funding language, which Senate negotiators have called a poison pill.

Of course, the President promises a veto of anything other than his proposal anyway so that’s no small part of the political calculations here.

Both the Medicare overpayments to private plans and the doctor’s fix appear destined for “to be determined later” status. The Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review’s latest posts on this can be found here and here.

Even 2.8 Million Dollars Can’t Sell a Bad Idea

2007-09-10T14:08:00.000-05:00

According to a new GAO report, that’s the estimated price tag for the President’s failed Social Security Privatization Road Show two years ago. Most of those taxpayer dollars... $437,887...were spent for Air Force One and Air Force Two to shuttle the promoters in chief to 40 cities nationwide with another $370,000 in travel costs for Executive Office staffers. The kicker here is the GAO acknowledges these numbers probably aren’t complete...

“We could not test the validity of some of those costs because (the Executive Office of the President) withheld certain key information and Treasurydid not have supporting documentation for amounts it reimbursed EOP,’’ Comptroller David Walker wrote in the letter summarizing the review. “ We are, therefore, unable to provide reasonable assurance that the costs reported to us are complete and fully supported.’’

We can only imagine what the finally price tag would have been had the American people not made it abundantly clear that the more the President talked about his Social Security privatization scheme...the less they liked it. Too bad he didn’t figure that out a million dollars or so earlier.

The Swamp also has a good discussion of the GAO report.

The Senate Still Has a Hard Time Telling Insurers “No”

2007-09-07T10:01:00.000-05:00

The differences between Senate and House members trying to negotiate a compromise in their legislation to reauthorize and improve access to healthcare for children, SCHIP, remain. That, in our opinion, is a good thing. Not because we like gridlock but because this legislation is too important to seniors and children alike to take the easy way...which is to ignore the difficult issues tackled in the House bill but absent in the Senate version.

The House bill, called CHAMP, includes desperately needed reforms to private Medicare Advantage plans and is by far the better piece of legislation. Money currently being used to overpay insurers would go to improve health insurance access to children. More than a fair trade. Thankfully, House leaders are sticking to their guns...so far. Congress Daily describes yesterday’s closed door meeting this way:

"Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Majority Leader Hoyer, Senate Finance Chairman Baucus, and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Dingell attended the meeting in House Speaker Pelosi's office to discuss how to approach a conference report that would merge the bills. They made no decisions. 'We've got to find out how close are we. We know how far apart we are just without talking,' Rangel said. 'They cannot make commitments on their side, and we damn sure can't on ours, to say that we're compromising when we don't even know where we are.' From Rangel's perspective, ripping apart the House package might threaten its majority support. 'We put the baby together, and we made the baby with [Energy and] Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means committee, our caucuses, liberals, Democrats, pro-tax, anti-tax, cigarette people. We put this child together. And to split the child in half is very, very difficult to sell it to the parents,' he said."

While every major seniors and health advocacy organization (including the AMA and AARP) supports cutting millions in outrageous overpayments to private MA insurance companies and using that savings to improve insurance access for children...you can see just how much influence the insurance lobby still has on Capitol Hill...

“Before the meeting, Baucus said it would be very difficult to get the needed 60 votes for a conference report in the Senate if any Medicare provisions are added. Several Republican supporters of the Senate bill say they will not tolerate cuts to private Medicare Advantage programs that are part of the House bill.” Congress Daily AM, Sept 7, 2007

So in short, some in the Senate just "won’t tolerate" cuts to private plans which pay private insurers about $1,000 more than Medicare receives for the same beneficiary. They "won’t tolerate" cutting industry subsidies which will cost taxpayers $149 billion dollars over the next decade and cuts two years from Medicare’s solvency. And let’s not forget the extra $24 a year every Medicare beneficiary is paying to cover these subsidies...whether they’re in a private plan or not.

Clearly, the insurance industry does not want to lose the MA gravy train and it's lobbying hard to protect the sweetheart deal it wrote and passed through Congress in the 2002 Medicare Privatization...oops, we mean Modernization...Act.

That’s why we say in this instance...differences are a good thing. And we urge Senate to find the same courage their colleagues showed in the House and support SCHIP legislation that considers what’s best for children and seniors alike.

The Insurance Industry Hits a New Low

2007-09-04T11:52:00.000-05:00

No doubt, you’ve seen AHIP’s (America’s Health Insurance Plans) television ads designed to scare seniors into believing that cutting millions in industry subsidies is somehow the same as cutting Medicare. This weekend, their president penned a letter to the Washington Post continuing the intergenerational war refrain, which has become a popular marketing ploy used by the Bush administration whenever it wants to scare one age group or the other.

If you want to get beyond the rhetoric, check out Robert Laszewski’s post today at the Healthcare Policy and Marketplace Review blog. He contrasts AHIP’s main points with the truth, such as: “The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 3 million seniors—mostly rural Americans—will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage altogether if the House bill becomes law.” I am sure that is right. But the CBO is right more because the plans that have been gaming the Private Fee For Service payment system won’t any longer be able to do it and will leave those markets.

And then the big one: “There’s no justification for pitting children against seniors.” Damn right. So, why are you making this into a kids versus seniors issue?
While we don’t agree with all of Laszewski’s conclusions, it is refreshing to see someone looking past the PR to the actual truth of the matter. The post's discussion also provides more thoughtful insight into this "seniors versus children" propaganda.

The real question is...Can those who actually care about sensible healthcare options for seniors and children cut through this million dollar industry marketing blitz to persuade the Senate to take the House’s lead on SCHIP and MA reform?

Here’s a letter we’ve sent to the Senate urging they consider legislation that improves children’s healthcare access through SCHIP while also making desperately needed reforms to private Medicare Advantage plans.

Let’s Set the Record Straight…One last time

2007-08-22T10:06:00.000-05:00

Ask Mary Jane, NCPSSM Contributor: Mary Jane Yarrington, Senior Policy Analyst

“I’ve contributed 40 hours to Social Security but can’t collect my benefit”…Yes, you can.

Here’s a sampling of the different ways the myth surrounding the Windfall Elimination Provision comes to me from questioners:

“My wife heard that she won't be able to collect her own SS at retirement age because she will collect from a school retirement plan. Can that be true?”

or

“When I went to the Social Security office I was devastated to learn that I would never receive any social security benefits (even though I have a minimum of 40 credits). I never knew such a thing as the Windfall Elimination Provision existed”

In short, if you hear “you can’t collect any of your Social Security” because of the WEP then you have been misinformed. Any citizen or legal resident who earns 40 quarters of Social Security coverage is entitled to a retirement benefit at retirement age. There are no exceptions.

The Social Security Act’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) requires the determination of a Social Security benefit by a separate, lower benefit calculation. This applies if the wage earner contributed to a pension rather than Social Security, for example, some state, local and federal pensions. The benefit is reduced, but never to zero.

If you were given misinformation by the Social Security Administration, go to your local Social Security office and insist on filing an application dated retroactive to the date you were told you were ineligible for a benefit. There is no time limit on correcting administrative errors.Do you have questions about Social Security? If so, feel free to drop me an email at Ask Mary Jane.

Let’s Set the Record Straight…Again

2007-08-17T11:58:00.001-05:00

Ask Mary Jane, NCPSSM Contributor: Mary Jane Yarrington, Senior Policy Analyst

“Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme” …No it’s not.

Anyone who tells you Social Security is a Ponzi scheme either doesn't understand what a Ponzi scheme is or their mother’s didn’t teach them not to fib. This myth is a favorite of conservatives who just hate the idea of social insurance in general. The Social Security Administration has a good history describing why this is nonsense. But here’s my take on this myth.

A Ponzi scheme is that e-mail you receive inviting you to send a fancy guest towel to the top three names on a list and instructing you to cross off the first name, add your name and send the same e-mail to three others. Whoever starts the list likely will receive the towels, but ultimately, there is no one left to continue the chain. The final entrants won’t receive anything. The original Ponzi played the game with dollars but the principle is the same. He borrowed money from his first investors and paid them back with money obtained from subsequent investors. He quickly ran out of sufficient investors to keep his scheme going.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with the contributions of today’s workers going to today’s retirees or into the reserve to pay benefits to future retirees. The ratio of workers to retirees has changed over time, but unless this nation allows the system to be abolished, there will never be a time of no workers paying into the system. The most recent report of the Social Security Board of Trustees forecasts that even with no changes in the system, reserves will last through 2041 and even after that, 75% of promised benefits could be paid with incoming payroll taxes.

And don’t give any credence to the nonsensical comparison that in 1940 there were 40 workers to each retiree and today it is only three to one. Of course, there were fewer beneficiaries. 1940 was the first year a benefit was paid so millions of then-retired workers didn’t have the opportunity to contribute payroll taxes and earn benefits. Many of those ineligible for benefits in 1940 then relied on public assistance or their children to survive their retirement years. Hardly the “good old days” those who hate Social Security should be so eager for us to return to.

Do you have questions about Social Security? If so, feel free to drop me an email at Ask Mary Jane.

Let’s Set the Record Straight

2007-08-17T11:58:00.000-05:00

Ask Mary Jane, NCPSSM Contributor: Mary Jane Yarrington, Senior Policy Analyst

It’s been said a “lie told often enough becomes the truth”. How sadly true, especially for those determined to convince future generations that Social Security just won’t be there for them. Not a day goes by that I don’t see the same old myths about Social Security appear in news articles, speeches by elected leaders (who should know better) and seniors who’ve been scared by these malicious myths. For the next few days I’ll offer some Social Security Myth-busting…Mary Jane style.

“Members of Congress don’t contribute to Social Security”…Wrong

Congress got the message years ago and since 1983 all members of Congress, Executive Office appointees, the President, Vice President , the federal Judiciary and newly hired federal employees have been paying into Social Security. Unfortunately, here we are 24 years later and some just won’t let this one go (even though it’s just not true).

All Federal employees, including Members of Congress, pay the same FICA payroll tax as anyone else. Upon retirement, disability or death, Social Security benefits for a Member of Congress or his or her dependents is determined under the same rules and by the same calculations as any other worker who contributed to Social Security.

Do you have questions about Social Security? If so, feel free to drop me an email at Ask Mary Jane.

Have YOU ever given away $34 million?

2007-08-16T12:03:00.000-05:00

Apparently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has.
A new GAO report investigates CMS audits of private insurance providers offering Medicare Advantage plans. These private MA plans will collect billions in government subsidies while also charging $1000 more per beneficiary to provide the same coverage already provided by Medicare.

This latest GAO report finds: “CMS has not met the statutory requirement to audit the financial records of at least one-third of the participating MA organizations for contract years 2001-2005, nor has it done so yet for the contract year 2006 bid submissions.”

Even worse, the audits that CMS has performed turned up $34 million dollars which Medicare beneficiaries should have received in additional benefits, lower co-payments or lower premiums. Good news for seniors, right? Think again.

“However, in late May 2007,CMS officials told us they were planning to close out the audits without pursuing financial recoveries because legal counsel had determined that the agency does not have the legal authority to recover funds from MA organizations based on ACR audit results.“

In other words, private MA insurers get to keep another $34 million of our taxpayer dollars, because CMS won’t enforce its own contracts with the insurance industry.

Welcome to the world of privatized Medicare.

Time to go Part D Shopping...Again

2007-08-14T12:06:00.001-05:00

Only in Washington could a 14% increase in prescription drug premiums for seniors be "spun" to sound like good news. That’s CMS’s strategy in announcing next year’s Part D premium hike. The administration’s logic goes something like this: since Part D isn’t costing as much as we first predicted seniors shouldn’t really mind double-digit premium hikes.

Here are the basics on the 2008 Part D premium: starting January 1 seniors’ average Part D premium for basic coverage will increase from about $22 this year to $25 next year. What CMS doesn't tell you is that in addition to this premium hike, beneficiaries will also face higher deductibles and a growing “doughnut hole” which will remain unchecked as long as healthcare costs continue to skyrocket.

By 2014, the Medicare's Trustees expect monthly Part D premiums to increase to $64.26 , the deductible to rise 75% to $457, and the $2,850 “doughnut hole” to become a yawning gap of almost $4,983.75.

CMS is also quick to remind everyone that if seniors don’t want to pay more they can just go shopping for another plan. As if choosing a drug plan for each of the first two years hasn’t been confusing enough!

An Oldie but Goodie

2007-08-14T12:06:00.000-05:00

72 years ago today President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today, nearly 50 million seniors, the disabled, and survivors receive Social Security benefits and for many it will make the difference between living independently or in poverty.

No other government program in American history can claim the successes achieved by Social Security. Period. Attacks and misleading predictions about sustainability have been leveled against the program since its creation and still, Social Security checks go out on time and as promised. Whether you’re 72 or 22, it appears Social Security is poised to play an even larger role in your life.

A new report by the Center for American Progress details the decline in pensions, personal savings and median incomes, which increase the importance of the only, guaranteed retirement income…Social Security. These are especially important facts for our younger workers who have been told repeatedly that “Social Security won’t be there for you”.

What nonsense.

Here’s a great source for some historical perspective. “The Battle for Social Security—From FDR’s Vision to Bush’s Gamble”. Author Nancy Altman says Social Security’s most important champion has always been the American people.

“Through its many challenges, Social Security has always emerged victorious,because Americans have remained committed to this essential program. The large majority of Americans have supported Social Security because it embodies the best of American values, including reward for work, compassion, fairness, foresight, and prudent, conservative management. This unflagging support has permitted Social Security to eradicate much of the economic insecurity of the past and to transform society.”

Ultimately, it will be the next generation of workers who will have to see through the political hype and the privatization schemes, and come to the same conclusion generations before them have...Social Security can and must be strengthened for generations to come.

Too Silent on Social Security

2007-08-10T11:33:00.000-05:00

Kudos to Sen. Hillary Clinton for being the first presidential candidate to remind everyone about the continuing privatization threat to Social Security. Here is her answer to a pension question posed at the August 7th Democratic Candidates Forum in Chicago:

Clinton: “The pension system is broken. We’ve got to stop companies going into bankruptcy in order to get rid of theirpension responsibilities(Cheers, applause.) We have to have defined benefits pension plans again. We’ve got to make sure that nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security, something that
I’ve fought tooth and nail with many of you to prevent.”

While the Iraq war, healthcare and the economy have dominated presidential talking points so far, we certainly hope more candidates will remember that it wasn’t that long ago when Social Security was literally under attack by those who’ve never believed in the value of social insurance.

The privatization Social Security and Medicare is a core values debate which we hope more presidential candidates will take on in their campaigns.

MSNBC has video of the Chicago forum and the New York Times has the full transcript.

House Passes Historic Vote for Seniors & Children

2007-08-02T07:21:00.000-05:00

There were a lot of cheers in our office last night and celebrations today as families nationwide get the news of last night's House vote in support of the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act. Incredibly is was still a largely partisan vote with most Republicans and a few conservative Democrats voting against it. Here's a link to the roll call vote and last night's reaction from our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly.

“While everyone in Washington claims to care about seniors and children, tonight’s vote in the House forced members of Congress to prove it. A majority has chosen to return America’s healthcare priorities where they belong…on American families.

Government subsidies to private insurers providing Medicare Advantage have created a gaping hole that is draining the Medicare trust fund and imposing unfair costs on millions of beneficiaries across the nation. These outrageous overpayments were proposed by the insurance industry and passed into law by their allies in Congress, 4 years ago. That mistake was corrected in the House tonight.

By eliminating these government subsidies, private Medicare plans will have to compete on a level playing field with traditional Medicare. We’ve been told for decades industry can provide seniors cheaper and more efficient healthcare…this House bill gives insurers the chance to prove it.”

But the battle is far from over. The Senate's SCHIP legislation is still being debated on the floor and it does not include any of the House provisions to eliminate billions in government subsidies to private insurers. The Conference on these two very different bills will be very interesting indeed.

It Should Be an Easy Choice

2007-07-30T13:15:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of activity in the SCHIP/Medicare debate in the House last week and today in the full Senate. Kaiser Daily Health Report has a nice editorial roundup of the debate.

But we’ve also seen a number of blog discussions in which it’s clear even those who are paying attention to this debate are still confused about the players. So, here it is in a nutshell.

Virtually every major health and senior’s advocacy group (NCPSSM, AMA, Medicare Rights Center, AARP, Families USA, etc.) supports the House SCHIP/Medicare act called the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act or “CHAMP”.These organizations are supporting cuts in industry subsidies…not cuts to seniors. For advocates committed to senior and health issues this is a no-brainer. Here is the AMA/AARP ad.

The only "seniors group" fighting against CHAMP is an organization created by the insurance industry. Here’s their ad.

So, it’s easy to see how people are confused. But CHAMP does not take away seniors’ Medicare. It does require Medicare Advantage private insurers to be paid at the same rate as traditional Medicare, ending the industry gravy train, which has meant hefty profits to insurance companies collecting billions in taxpayer supported subsidies at the same time.

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, sums up the debate this way:

“The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage -- a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare. Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children's health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments. So what kind of philosophy says that it's O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?”

Industry subsidies or children’s healthcare…it should be an easy choice.

This is a Debate to Watch

2007-07-26T11:19:00.000-05:00

Two key House Committees are debating important "CHAMP" legislation which reauthorizes and improves the State Children’s Health Insurance program while also making desperately needed reforms to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, including the elimination of Medicare Advantage subsidies to private insurers.

This is very important legislation for seniors and children alike. You can watch the House Energy and Commerce Committtee hearing mark-up of this bill live at 11:30am and the House Ways & Means Committee at 1:00pm.

The House Ways & Means Committee has also created two wonderful "Truth Squad" reports which provide the facts about this legislation which you won't hear from tobacco companies afraid a tax might limit their sales and insurers worried about losing billions in subsidies. Here's the Tobacco Tax Truth Report and the Rural Care Truth Report on what this legislation really means for rural beneficiaries currently being targeted by an industry scare campaign which is threatening a loss of healthcare in rural America.

This is a critical debate for the future of healthcare of young and old alike. If Congress can't manage to do the right thing for seniors and children...one can't help but wonder how urgent system-wide reform will be possible.

Intergenerational Approach?

2007-07-24T14:12:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider legislation that would reauthorize and expand SCHIP and make revisions to Medicare. The House Ways and Means Committee is expected to take up the legislation on Thursday.

While the Senate SCHIP bill does not include Medicare provisions, Congress Daily reports that the House bill would increase SCHIP funding by $50 billion over five years while also tackling many of the Medicare reforms sought by healthcare and seniors’ advocates, including the National Committee. Congress daily reports:

“The bill would also: reverse a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to physicians and provide a modest increase in fees for each of the next two years,abolish a provision of the 2003 Medicare law that mandates the president propose changes in Medicare to limit the program's reliance on general revenue, give state insurance commissioners more power to regulate the marketing of private MA plans by agents and brokers, reduce payments to private MA plans, which are estimated to be 12% higher than payments to the traditional program for equivalent benefits, increase reimbursement rates for rural health providers in 2008 and provide larger subsidies to lower-income beneficiaries.”

Kaiser Daily Health Report provides a good roundup of the latest SCHIP/Medicare coverage today.

The Senate and House leadership say they want to pass SCHIP legislation before the August recess.

Clearing the Fog

2007-07-20T07:54:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for "Informing the Debate About Curbing Medicare Advantage Overpayments".

That's the name of a wonderfully simple primer on Medicare Advantage which answers all of the basic questions about these private Medicare plans and the multi-billion dollar price tag they bring.

If you're wondering what's really going on with these private Medicare plans this is a great place to start.

Insurer Profits Up (again) While Seniors & Taxpayers Pay the Price

2007-07-19T11:44:00.000-05:00

Not only are insurers receiving billions in government subsidies to operate private Medicare plans but new profit numbers out this week show business is very good if you’re an insurance company with a piece of the Medicare privatization pie.

“UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S. health insurer, said profit rose 22 percent on gains from government-sponsored medical programs.”… United Health Profit Rises on Government Medical Plans , Bloomberg 7/19/07

“Health insurer Humana Inc. on Wednesday reported higher-than-expected second-quarter profit, mainly because of improving cost trends, and its shares rose as much as 10.4 percent to a record high. The company,one of the largest providers of Medicare health plans for the elderly, also rasied its full-year earnings forecast, which easily topped Wall Street's forecasts.” … Humana Profit Beats Outlook, Reuters, 07/18/07

Remember that while private insurers collect these record high profits the government is also paying them $1,000 on average more per beneficiary to provide health care coverage already provided by traditional Medicare. And, a married couple on Medicare is now paying $48 more in annual premiums to help cover billions in overpayments to insurers. These overpayments have cut two years from Medicare’s solvency according to the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). MedPAC also estimates that in the case of Private Fee-for-Service plans only half of the excess payments to insurers are being used for extra benefits to seniors. It’s easy to see where the rest may be going…

“Humana has now raised its full-year forecast twice in the past two
months. However, the company's bullish outlook may not play well with U.S.lawmakers as they weigh whether Medicare Advantage reimbursements are too rich,CIBC's McDonald said. ‘If Congress is arguing already that they overpay you, and then you come out and you beat numbers and raise guidance on better Medicare margins, you wonder if that just gives Congress more ammunition to cut rates,’ McDonald said.”…Reuters

We can only hope.

Getting the Word Out on Medicare 'Disadvantage' Plans

2007-07-17T14:27:00.000-05:00

We've been talking and writing and writing and talking about the privatization of Medicare. While a lot of our outreach has been with our National Committee members, seniors nationwide and grassroots work, today we went straight to Congressional staff. Today's briefing focused on those policy influencers who need to understand what Medicare Advantage overpayments are all about and their effect on the Medicare program. Three of the nation’s leading healthcare advocacy organizations were joined by Health Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) who stated:

“The over-payments made to Medicare Advantage are a gaping hole that is draining the Medicare trust fund and imposing unfair costs on millions of beneficiaries across the nation. The time has come for Congress to put an end to end these subsidies to ensure that Medicare remains a reliable source of health care for the elderly and disabled for many years to come."

Thousands of letters from National Committee members calling on Congress to pass legislation, which would repeal billions in insurance industry overpayments, are being sorted for delivery to Capitol Hill later this month. The President of the National Committee and former Congresswoman, Barbara Kennelly told the audience:

“At a time when our nation is struggling with how to create affordable health care coverage for all Americans, it is simply incomprehensible to me why we would destroy the one affordable, universal health care system that already exists in Medicare. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries remain in the traditional program. But their voices are not as loud as the insurance industry’s”.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, private insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans will collect $75 billion dollars this year alone and $1.31 trillion over the next decade. That’s funding which could have gone to Medicare but is now going to the insurance industry instead. Judith Stein, Executive Director, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. says:

“Medicare wasn't broken. But because of the ever-increasing private Medicare options, it is. The solution for the Medicare crisis is not to increase the eligibility age or decrease benefits, but to stop privatizing the program at the expense of older people and taxpayers."

Rev. Sandra Butler-Truesdale, President of the Campbell Heights Resident’s Association, described how D.C. seniors became victims of a private insurer’s marketing pitch that puts sales ahead of seniors’ care. Campbell Heights seniors were promised the private plan wouldn’t replace Medicare, there were no co-pays and they could stay with their own doctors. None of that is true.

“We are now in limbo, waiting 45 days to be placed back in Medicare.What do we do if we need care within those 45 days? Most hospitals are in trouble financially and don’t want to admit patients without medical insurance. What do we do?”

Richard Deem, Senior Vice President of Advocacy with the American Medical Association says

“Congress can stop Medicare cuts to doctors and preserve seniors’ access to care by eliminating overpayments to private health insurers providing Medicare Advantage plans. These subsidies are making Medicare less sustainable as the baby-boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility”

If Medicare continues to fund large subsidies to private plans, the program will face even more pressure to cut benefits and increase out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare will be eroded while private plans continue to collect billions in subsidies and beneficiaries pay more of the high costs of healthcare.

It’s time to stop disadvantaging Medicare. End these costly subsidies to insurance companies and put that money to work for all of the 43 million Americans enrolled in Medicare not just the few enrolled in private plans.

Who Needs Health Care Reform...We Have ER's

2007-07-13T11:51:00.000-05:00

Breaking down President’s Bush words is always a mind-boggling task, in fact some would argue it could probably be a job unto itself. For that reason, we don’t usually go there.

This time however, the President’s view on healthcare reform...delivered before a friendly audience of Cleveland business leaders (the meeting wasn't open to the public) this week...can’t be ignored. You can read the full White House transcript but here's one key quote. He said:

“The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

There you have it folks. Forget skyrocketing health care costs, forget the millions who can’t afford insurance, forget the fact that this administration is unprepared and unwilling to make the investments necessary to prepare for an aging nation. After all, we have emergency rooms, right?

We highly recommend you watch the whole speech to appreciate the President’s single-minded “business-good, government-bad” approach to health care reform.

2007-07-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

by Barbara B. Kennelly, NCPSSM President/CEO

Imagine starting a business with a guaranteed 12 percent to 50 percent federal subsidy not available to your competition. The cost of that subsidy is then passed on to your competitor's customers. And finally, let's add restrictions to your competitors that don't apply to your new business. Sounds like a sweetheart deal, right? It is. It's called Medicare Advantage, the privatized Medicare plan created by the insurance industry, passed by Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and now enrolling millions of seniors nationwide.

Private insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans will collect $75 billion this year alone and $1.31 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's federal funding which could have gone to Medicare but is now going to the insurance industry instead. These private plans are paid $1,000 more a year for each beneficiary than the government pays for seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare. The independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates that every Medicare beneficiary is paying $24 more per year for their Part B premiums just to subsidize these private plans. So, even though 81 percent of Medicare's beneficiaries have chosen to remain in traditional Medicare, they are now paying extra premiums to cover the 19 percent who've chosen the private plans. These billions of dollars in overpayments have also cut two years from Medicare's solvency.

Insurers and privatization supporters in Washington defend Medicare Advantage plans claiming better service at a lower cost. The overpayment price tag certainly casts doubt on the cost argument. And, as we saw with the Part D prescription drug benefit, there are mixed results with the quality of service. MedPAC reports that in the case of private fee-for-service plans, only half of the excess payments to insurers are being used for extra benefits to seniors. The other half goes directly to insurance companies' bottom lines. And even though private plans are required to cover everything Medicare covers, they often impose higher cost-sharing requirements than traditional Medicare for benefits such as hospitalization, home health care and skilled nursing care. This means more out-of-pocket costs for seniors, many of whom don't even realize it until faced with a serious health crisis.

Congress is now reconsidering the future of these massive subsidies. Not surprisingly, the insurance industry lobby is geared up and launching its full assault to protect the spoils it won with the passage of MMA 2003. The industry's political case was slowed somewhat with recent news reports that seniors from coast to coast have been defrauded by Medicare Advantage salesmen luring them out of traditional Medicare into private plans their own doctors wouldn't accept or the seniors couldn't afford.

A recent survey of state insurance agencies found 39 of 43 states had received complaints about Medicare Advantage misrepresentations. While the industry claims the complaints are from "a few bad eggs" it promises to crack down on; in fact, the marketing abuses are inevitable in a system designed to reward enrollment numbers. And in an effort to persuade Democrats in Congress, the insurance lobby now claims low-income and minority seniors will suffer if these overpayments are stopped. Conveniently, their data ignore the large number of these beneficiaries currently receiving Medicaid.

A recent analysis by the economists at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that low-income and minority beneficiaries are far more likely to receive coverage through Medicaid than Medicare Advantage plans. In fact, only 14 percent of Asian Americans, 13 percent of African Americans, and 25 percent of Hispanics are enrolled in private plans. The lifeline for Medicare Advantage is the insurance lobby and the billions of dollars it has convinced Congress to pump into industry coffers at the expense of seniors. Insurers have threatened to cut their Medicare Advantage plans if Congress halts the flow of excess payments. However, if Medicare continues to fund large subsidies to private plans, the program will face even more pressure to cut benefits and increase out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare will be eroded while private plans continue to collect billions in subsidies and beneficiaries pay more of the high costs of healthcare.

Advantage ... insurers.

It's time to stop disadvantaging Medicare. End these costly subsidies to insurance companies and put that money to work for all of the 43 million Americans enrolled in Medicare not just the few enrolled in private plans.

This OpEd can also be seen in the July 10th Hartfort Courant.

Healthcare and Medicare...Inextricably Linked

2007-07-05T09:12:00.000-05:00

As the years pass and healthcare costs continue to skyrocket unchecked, it’s become clear we can’t fulfill our goal of preserving Medicare without system wide healthcare reform. So, that brings us to the universal healthcare debate. The Bush administration opposes this idea because, as we’ve seen with the privatization of Medicare and the on-going attempts to privatize Social Security, this administration’s basic philosophy can be summed up this way: Government oversight…bad. Private industry control…good. Economist Dean Baker says:

"The debate is silly, because the level of government involvement is not the issue. The real issue is the extent to which the health care industry – the insurance companies, the drug companies, and the medical equipment companies – will be allowed to rip off the public.

The government does not have to dictate anything. It can just give people a choice that they don’t currently have: specifically the option for every individual and employer to buy into a government-run Medicare type plan. Such a plan would likely offer care at a considerably lower cost than private insurers since it won’t have to pay high CEO salaries, marketing expenses, and dividends to shareholders. That is why the traditional Medicare program always wipes the floor when it competes on a level playing field with private insurers. (This is also the reason the private insurers insist on large subsidies from Medicare – they can’t compete.)"

Dean goes on to talk about the privatization of Medicare, Part D and industry subsidies which are speeding Medicare’s insolvency while pouring billions into insurers coffers. His full post is on TPM Cafe and is a must-read for anyone interested in healthcare reform, Medicare and the price we’re all paying for this administration’s privatization policies.

Remember Pensions?...Far Too Few Do

2007-06-29T11:04:00.000-05:00

by Maria Freese, NCPSSM Government Relations
& Policy Director

Senator Tom Harkin has introduced Pension legislation, the Restoring Pension Promise s to All Workers Act, which we hope will ultimately become law.

Social Security was never designed to be the only source of a person’s income in retirement – it was always intended to be one income stream out of 3 in retirement – the other two being income from traditional pensions and income from individual savings. This so-called 3-legged retirement stool is coming under increasing pressure.

Unfortunately, we all know that coverage in traditional pension plans is dropping as only about 20% of today’s workers in the private sector are covered by defined benefit plans. And although coverage in 401k plans is growing, the average balance in the 401k plans of workers in the last decade prior to retirement is only about $60,000. If it weren’t for the run-up in housing values – many workers would be facing retirement with few assets available to finance it.

Senator Harkin’s legislation addresses a number of inequities in our pension system. The provisions he includes won’t help everyone but for the people they do affect, his bill could represent the only thing standing between them and living a life of poverty in retirement.

For workers caught in the globalization wars who are pawns in the game of mergers and acquisitions, the Harkin bill could keep them from losing half their pensions as workers caught up in a recent Halliburton re-shuffling did. For widows and divorced spouses of federal workers, the Harkin bill would help take the gamble out of survivor and retirement annuities, closing several longstanding loopholes that wipe out the pension benefits of some spouses of federal employees.

While it seems as though these glitches in the pension system should be easy to fix because they are so egregious, in fact they are not. Getting them passed will take the commitment of someone like Senator Harkin who believes now is the time to finally right these wrongs.

The National Committee commends Senator Harkin for taking on this challenge. And we look forward to working with him to get the Restoring Pension Promises to All Workers Act signed into law.

Did You See?

2007-06-29T09:27:00.001-05:00

There's been some some good coverage of Chairman Stark's introduction yesterday of important Medicare Advantage legislation. We're regular readers of the "Medicare Monitor " blog and Larry Lipman describes this legislation, designed to prevent these private Medicare Advantage plans from charging more than traditional Medicare. You can also see coverage from Stark's home district in the Inside Bay Area blog called "Political Blotter".

Also, here's another Medicare privatization primer if you're interested in more details about Medicare Advantage plans and the privatization of Medicare.

It's Broke...So Stark Says Let's Fix It

2007-06-28T13:19:00.000-05:00

House Ways and Means Health subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) has introduced an important piece of legislation to prevent Medicare Advantage (MA) plans from charging seniors and people with disabilities more than traditional Medicare.

The Medicare Advantage Truth in Advertising Act would prohibit MA plans from charging higher cost-sharing. Stark says:

“Medicare Advantage plans don’t live up to their name. Though seniors and people with disabilities wouldn’t know it from the never-ending stream of insurance propaganda, Medicare Advantage plans charge more than traditionalMedicare for a large number of services – everything from home health care to hospital stays and chemotherapy drugs to durable medical equipment. The Medicare Advantage Truth in Advertising Act protects beneficiaries by ensuring they won’t face higher out of pocket costs in private plans than they do in Medicare.”

The Chairman's News Release also says:

"The bill would continue to permit flat co-payments – which private plans charge for certain benefits or services in lieu of deductibles or co-insurance in traditional Medicare – but those charges could never exceed Medicare’s charges.”

The National Committee supports this legislation because; as our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly says, beneficiaries aren't getting what they pay for with this privatized plan:

"Despite receiving substantial overpayments, private MA plans can provide inferior health coverage compared to traditional Medicare. While MA plans are required to cover everything that Medicare covers, they do not have to cover every benefit in the same way. For example, private plans may create financial
barriers to care by imposing higher cost-sharing requirements for benefits that protest the sickest and most vulnerable beneficiaries. Preventing private plans from imposing greater cost-sharing requirements than traditional Medicare would better protect beneficiaries from higher and unexpected out-of-pocket costs."

Here's another link to a Committe Chart detailing sample higher out of pocket costs in Medicare Advantage.