Entitled to Know

by Maria Freese, NCPSSM Government Relations
& Policy Director

Senator Tom Harkin has introduced Pension legislation, the Restoring Pension Promises 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.

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.

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.

by Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

How wonderful it is to finally hear the truth about what’s really happening with the privatization of Medicare expressed so clearly and persuasively in the halls of Congress. Specifically I’m talking about the House Budget Committee hearing on Medicare Advantage plans held this morning. As I testified to Chairman John Spratt and the rest of the Budget committee members today, our 4 million members and supporters are committed to the preservation of Social Security and Medicare.


At a time when Americans are being told we “can’t afford” Medicare and Social Security it’s ridiculous to continue paying private insurers billions of dollars in subsidies equaling approximately $1,000 more a year for each beneficiary than traditional Medicare currently pays. These insurance industry subsidies will cost taxpayers $149 billion dollars over the next decade and cut two years from Medicare’s solvency. These subsidies must go.

Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag and Mark Miller, the Executive Director of Medicare’s Payment Advisory Commission, offered compelling and indisputable evidence that the insurance industry has reaped the benefits of these massive subsidies yet there’s little evidence of the promised efficiencies and savings for beneficiaries. In fact, Medicare beneficiaries are paying $24 a year in higher Part B premiums just to fund excess payments to private plans.

Since the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003, Medicare has been undergoing a transformation into a privatized program. This legislation is a weapon aimed at the heart of traditional Medicare. It was designed to accomplish the goal expressed by former Speaker Newt Gingrich – to lure seniors voluntarily out of Medicare so that it would eventually wither on the vine. The overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans the committee explored today are just one of the tools in the MMA to achieve this end.

I cannot overstate the damage these Medicare Advantage overpayments will cause to the traditional Medicare program if they are not eliminated. Ultimately, overpaying MA plans will shatter the risk pool that makes Medicare work. Medicare Advantage plans tend to attract healthier seniors because of their benefits. As more of these seniors are lured out of traditional Medicare, they leave behind the frailest and most vulnerable to pay higher and higher premiums. Also, as MA enrollments grow, so do taxpayer subsidies. Over time, this cycle will cause Medicare to become unaffordable – for both taxpayers and beneficiaries.

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.

When the Bush administration first tried to sell the privatization of Social Security, the American people ultimately saw through the political marketing blitz and put a stop to private account plans designed to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. Unfortunately, by the time the President's Social Security privatization road show stalled out two years ago, the privatization of Medicare had already begun quietly and beneath the radar thanks to passage of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. Now seniors and taxpayers are paying the price for that privatization legislation.

With billions in subsidies going to the insurance industry, a substantial portion of which comes from premium hikes, and two years lost from Medicare’s solvency; many in Congress, the press, and the public finally understand what the privatization of Medicare really means. The Los Angeles Times has a good overview:

“Healthcare providers contended that the private sector was more efficient, so they could provide more for less. But as it turns out, the private Medicare Advantage plans provide more for more, costing the Medicare system 12% to 15% more than traditional government-run Medicare costs, said Maria Freese, director of government relations at the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a Washington advocacy group. Eliminating Medicare Advantage plans, in which about 20% of Medicare recipients have enrolled, would give the system about two additional years of solvency.”

The Senior-Spectrum also highlighted the issue and quoted NCPSSM President/CEO Barbara Kennelly:

“The Administration’s goal is clear … to stack the deck in favor of a Medicare program run by private insurance companies allowing the destruction of the traditional program seniors have depended on for decades,” said Kennelly. “Congress must level the playing field, and it can start by eliminating these corporate giveaways.”

Congressional hearings in the House and Senate continue and we expect there will be legislation on Medicare Advantage overpayments later this year.

The Washington Post continues its love fest for the so-called "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour", Comptroller General David Walker's traveling troupe of the "sky-is-falling-we-must-cut-entitlements" think tankers. Here's an excerpt from Thursday's article:

"The numbers make Joseph Farrell's head swim. Billions and trillions of dollars, numbers too immense to comprehend."

Of course they are. That's the whole point of lumping together Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in these presentations, even though the challenges facing each program are as different as the solutions. Let's be honest, the numbers just wouldn't be as incomprehensible or scary if we talked about Social Security (a retirement program facing long term issues) and Medicare/Medicaid (healthcare programs facing a more immediate crisis in concert with a national healthcare crisis) on their own terms. This shock and awe approach is clearly not designed to provide solutions. In fact it appears the end result is just the opposite:

"I knew there was a problem, but I didn't realize it was this bad," Farrell,25, marveled after a recent presentation at the University of South Florida, from which he is to graduate in August. "I didn't realize there was no solution in sight. My taxes are going to be huge."

No solutions in sight? You've got to be kidding. Is that really the message being left by these Paul Reveres for reform? There are scores of Social Security reform options out there. Some more politically viable than others. Here's just one example from Robert Ball, Social Security Commissioner under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. A simple Google search will lead you to countless more.

As for Medicare, here's an obvious solution offered yet again by Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag...nationwide health care reform. You can link to video of his testimony Thursday before the Senate Budget Committee and Congressional Quarterly's coverage. He said:

“The rate at which health care costs grow relative to income is the most important determinant of the long-term fiscal balance; it exerts a significantly larger influence on the budget over the long term than other commonly cited factors, such as the aging of the population.”

In other words, the President's claim that aging baby-boomers are sucking the nation dry through sky-rocketing entitlements does not tell the whole tale. But it certainly makes great headlines.

Friday the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Insurance industry lobbyists had their News Releases written, statements prepared and happy faces ready to announce their great news...7 insurance copanies which sell private Medicare "Advantage" plans have voluntarily agreed to stop marketing them. This is "spin" for we got caught with our hands in the cookie jar so we better propose a fix more to our liking than the one Congress will impose on us.

These insurers, many specifically accused of defrauding and manipulating seniors nationwide into private Medicare plans they can't use or afford, or worse illegally signing seniors up without their knowledge, say they'll now be take a voluntary marketing break until CMS is sure these plans are actually following the law. Shouldn't CMS have been doing this from the beginning? Shouldn't these "controls" have been in place and enforced before coast to coast headlines and Congressional hearings detailing thousands of cases of marketing fraud made this nationwide scandal too much even for the insurance industry to ignore? For seniors who were unwillingly shifted out of Medicare and into these private plans, those controls might have saved them untold grief and expense.

Is this voluntary (and temporary) marketing ban the only price these private companies will pay for this widespread con of American seniors? Here's what CMS said in it's release:

“While we note that most health insurance agents are helpful and responsible in describing and explaining choices to beneficiareis, there are a few bad actors that need to be removed from the system for good," said Leslie V. Norwalk, Esq., Acting Administrator of CMS. "This voluntary agreement demonstrates that CMS and the plans are stepping up to ensure that deceptive marketing practices end immediately, and that beneficiaries understand what they are purchasing."

Not surprisingly, this late awakening to the need for oversight isn't impressing everyone on Capitol Hill. Including Ways & Means Health Subcommitte Chairman Pete Stark who is quoted as saying:

"The administration's response is to allow private companies to determine which crimes they'll plead to and which sentences they'll serve. This will do virtually nothing to protect Medicare beneficiaries and is a pathetic attempt to pre-empt congressional action."

And so, seniors probably won't be sending out any "Thank You" cards to CMS and the insurance industry just yet.

As we've predicted, seniors enrolled in Medicare are feeling the affects of privatization legislation, called the Medicare Modernization Act, passed four years ago. We've released a new analysis today of how private Medicare Advantage plans are eroding traditional Medicare in favor of a privatized system subsidized by billions of federal dollars which go straight to insurers. Entitled: “Attack on Medicare: Private Health Plan Subsidies Windfall for Corporate America” this report finds:

· Even though they promised better benefits at lower costs than traditional Medicare; private insurers are actually being paid about $1,000 more for each beneficiary covered by private plans.

· These government subsidies will cost the federal government $149 billion dollars over the next decade. These overpayments will also cut two years from Medicare’s solvency.

· Not all of these subsidy dollars are being used to improve benefits. A significant portion goes straight to insurers rather than seniors. Meanwhile, every Medicare beneficiary (even those not in private plans) is paying $24 a year in higher premiums to pay for these industry subsidies, and that number will continue to rise.

Our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly, joined other senior's groups and Medicare advocates on Capitol Hill today urging Congress to repeal these unfair corporate overpayments and rollback the privatization of Medicare before it’s too late. She says:

“Rome is already burning. Our members nationwide are paying higher premiums, facing larger out-of-pocket costs and being aggressively sold private plans which often do not even provide the coverage they need. The administration’s goal is clear…to stack the deck in favor of a Medicare program run by private insurance companies allowing the destruction of the traditional program seniors have depended on for decades. Congress must level the playing field and can start by eliminating these corporate giveaways.”

This methodical destruction of traditional Medicare is happening with so little attention on Capitol Hill it's frightening. For groups like ours the challenge now is to wake up Washington to what seniors all over this country are painfully discovering...the privatization of Medicare is certainly good for business but not for seniors who need inexpensive and dependable healthcare.

...We sit down to write. However, before even getting our post together this morning we found Dean Baker's reaction to the same two articles, one in the Washington Post and the other in USA Today. Dean is an economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

Today he offers an excellent description of how often the mainstream media repeats this administration's spoon-fed assertions on Social Security as if they're incontrovertible facts. These articles perpetuate the phony crisis mantra first started (and rejected)in the privatization push two years ago and the "greedy geezer" myth used to fuel inter-generational warfare as part of a build-up to benefit cuts.

We know that writing about Social Security can be pretty dry stuff; however, this program is too important to the millions of Americans and their families who depend on it to live, to have reporters merely repeating political pablum rather than reporting the facts.

Jaw-dropping accounts of predatory and disgraceful tactics being used by some insurers selling Medicare Advantage (privatized and federally subsidized insurance) plans to unknowing seniors were center stage on Capitol Hill today.

The Senate Select Committee on Aging heard story after story from State insurance commissioners from Oklahoma, Georgia and Wisconsin detailing the cons being perpetrated nationwide to shift seniors away from traditional Medicare into privatized for-profit plans. Their offices have received thousands of complaints from seniors being preyed upon by insurers selling Medicare Advantage plans and these are not just the garden variety “hard-sell” tactics you might expect from salesmen. This is appalling, especially when you consider these companies are working under the auspices of our federal government and being paid handsomely to do so.

Here are a few examples: in Georgia, salesmen haved claimed to be from Medicare (they're not), they've promised free eye care and free dental care (which of course doesn’t exist), some seniors were told Medicare was “going broke” and they must sign up for an MA plan to continue coverage (not true), one salesmen falsified MA applications using information collected previously from seniors he’d sold Part D coverage to and one company targeted clients at a center serving mentally disabled and low-income seniors for MA coverage the seniors couldn’t afford.

Albert Sochor sells insurance in Oklahoma. He’s taken the training to sell Medicare Advantage plans and sums up the situation this way:

“I’ve found if agents do tell the senior everything, the customer won’t signup for the plan…it doesn’t fit their needs. Many salesmen are moremotivated by commissions than care.”

So we’ve got salesmen who work for marketing sub-contractors hired by private insurance companies, which are overpaid (111% more than traditional Medicare) by the federal government and taxpayer dollars to sell medical insurance which might not even fit a senior's healthcare needs. And all of this to lure seniors away from the existing Medicare program. As Mr. Sochor told the Senate Aging Committee:

“We can’t keep saying things are going well when they’re actually getting worse….these are our parents, our moms and dads. Is this how we want to treat them?”

We say that’s more than a fair question.

by Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO

More than one hundred congressional staffers and reporters joined us yesterday to talk about a wonderful new report prepared by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI)on Social Security and the pocketbook realities facing retirees, now and in the future.

I think this report, "Social Security and Retirement Income Adequacy", is incredibly important as the debate over "entitlement reform" moves from conservative think tanks thru the Bush administration to Congressional committees and soon presidential politics. For the past six years, the future of Social Security has been continuously framed as a crisis in the making. Dire macroeconomic projections make great headlines but ignore the dollars and cents truth facing retirees. This NASI analysis correctly shines light on retirement savings, Social Security's role for American seniors and how massive benefit cuts like those proposed by some in Washington could harm millions of current and future retirees, and their families.

Virginia Reno, VP for Income Security with NASI, told the audience yesterday that while private pensions wane and 401K's are still largely being utilized by higher-wage earners, Social Security continues to meet the description of what a successful retirement program should provide. This is from the report's conclusion:

"Social Security has many features of an ideal pension system. It delivers retirement income progressively, effectively, and efficiently. But its replacement rates are modest. To maintain Social Security replacement rates at levels experienced in the past two or three decades would require some increase in benefits. At the same time, steps are needed to bring the Social Security program into financial balance (Reno and Lavery 2005). As private pensions shift from defined benefits to individual savings accounts, a strong defined benefit in Social Security gains added importance. Policymakers who are concerned about securing adequate retirement income in the future – for boomers, their children, and grandchildren – will face choices. They will need to decide how much to build on the strength of the Social Security system, how much to expect from employer-sponsored pension plans, and how much to expect individuals to save for themselves."

Another panelist at yesterday's briefing was Nancy Altman, Social Security expert and author of “The Battle for Social Security: From FDR’s Vision to Bush’s Gamble”. She offered several suggestions to meet Social Security's long range shorftfall that don't involve large benefit cuts or private accounts. Those suggestions are detailed by former SSA Commissioner, Robert Ball, in his proposal "Meeting Social Security's Long-Range Shortfall".

The bottom line is there are more than enough options to preserve and strengthen the monthly benefit. Options which are currently being ignored by this administration's supporters in favor of crisis predictions and dire warnings... all part of a buildup to benefit cuts.

What a day it has been for private insurers reaping the profits of the Medicare Privatization…oops, we mean…Modernization Act. A new GAO report released to the Senate Finance Committee today confirms what many had already suspected. The privatization of Medicare might be good for business but it’s not serving seniors' needs. CMS got an earful from Senators on the Senate Finance Committee today, including Chairman Max Baucus:

I don’t get the feeling that CMS is looking out for seniors. I don’t get that feeling at all. These are basically renegade plans…my personal view is more needs to be done.

The GAO reports that, not only are taxpayers overpaying private insurers (at 111%) to do what Medicare already does, it’s now clear that millions of dollars paid to insurers to cover Medicare’s poorest beneficiaries was never even offered to the people these funds were earmarked for. Medicare paid insurers $100 million last year to provide retroactive coverage for poor seniors who qualify as “dual-eligibles”. However, the GAO says more than 400,000 beneficiaries who qualify for this money weren’t told it exists until after CMS saw a draft copy of this GAO report just over a month ago. $100 million to insurers…$0 to seniors.

Acting CMS administrator, Leslie Norwalk, objects to the “overwhelmingly negative tone” of the GAO report. We’re not quite sure what the positive side of this news would be.

Now, to the scamming seniors part of today’s news. The New York Times has followed up on Robert Pear’s excellent article on marketing scams being perpetrated nationwide by agents sellingMedicare Advantage plans to seniors. Today’s editorial focuses on the abusive sales tactics being used to push these privatized plans on beneficiaries who don’t want to leave their Medicare plans. Only to find out, after the fact, their doctors or treatment might not be covered under the new MA plan.

At some point don’t we all have to ask…why is our government pushing a privatized Medicare system designed to profit private industry, cost taxpayers more than what already exists and inflicts harm on the same beneficiaries the program was originally designed to serve?

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

It seems like such a simple question but a quick Google search this morning gave me 17 million links with answers to this single question. It’s a complicated topic to deal with -- even for the experts.

Generally, I don’t suggest applying for Social Security early in order to maximize lifetime benefits because that is betting against your own longevity. For some, that might be the right course but all too often taking benefits early will cost retirees who live longer than “average”.

The Motley Fool just posted an interesting discussion on this topic. Although the reference, “Its (Social Security) payouts are not guaranteed” was certainly arbitrary. As current retirees can attest, 401K and pension payouts these days are also far from “guaranteed.” In fact, I would argue benefits backed by the US government are far more reliable and predictable than struggling pension plans and the volatile Stock Market. I also think the number of years used in this discussion was too short. The starting point of benefits is only half the equation. The ending point (life expectancy) is equally important.

“Average” life expectancy from age 65 is about 19 years for women and 17 for men. The question is, where will you fall on a longevity continuum that runs from 62 or 65 to 100+? Live longer than “average” and you are on the losing side of that bet.

Applying early also bets against the longevity of your surviving spouse if you are the major wage earner. A surviving spouse inherits (or retains) whichever of their two Social Security benefit checks is the greater amount. You retire early and your widow(er)’s benefit is capped regardless of the age at which he or she begins a survivor benefit.

Early benefits might not look like such a great idea to a 90 year old widow struggling to get by on reduced Social Security benefits and, at best, half of your pension -- a pension that likely has not been cost-of-living adjusted since the day you retired.

The Social Security Administration lets you check the “break even” point for your own benefit. My best advice is do your homework and be skeptical of anyone who tells you taking benefits early is always the best way to go.

Got a question? Link to my Ask Mary Jane form, submit your question and I’ll be glad to help.

Barbara B. Kennelly, NCPSSM President/CEO says:

“The Medicare funding warning included in this year’s Trustees Report is just the latest of many ticking time bombs hidden in the pages of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. This warning is arbitrary and completely ignores the real challenge facing Medicare, which is the sky-rocketing cost of our nation’s healthcare system.

Arbitrary budget cuts, privatized healthcare plans and industry slush funds are just a few of the MMA provisions which significantly weaken Medicare’s financial outlook. The financing problems Medicare faces can not be solved by dismantling the program. Mandating cuts based on an unrealistic target will hurt beneficiaries and ultimately destroy this vital program.”

The projected dates for when the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will be exhausted have also been pushed back one year. Here is the link for the Social Security Trustees Report.

It's really been a good week for drug makers. Not so great for seniors facing high prescription drug bills. Consider this interestesting pair of stories today.

A new report by Families USA shows the prices for drugs in the Part D program are rising at four times the inflation rate. This mirrors earlier findings on what seniors enrolled in Part D are really facing.

Not so coincidentally, the Associated Press reports that first quarter profits for three top pharmaceutical companies showed double-digit jumps. One analyst, Steve Brozac with WBB Securities says, "The demographics lean toward the pharmaceutical industry, no doubt about it."

After this week's Senate negotiation vote it's clear Washington does too.

By Maria Freese, NCPSSM Policy Director

The failure of the Senate to take up S.3 today is another clear sign that the drug lobby still carries a lot of weight in Washington.

So great is their fear of the power of negotiations, drug companies and their allies pulled out all the stops to deep-six a bill that barely scratched the surface of improvements that need to be made to the Part D drug program. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on advertising and lobbying to kill a bill that does nothing more than repeal the current prohibition against Medicare negotiating with drug companies to get the best price for seniors. Since the Secretary has already said he will not exercise negotiating authority even if it is given to him, one has to wonder exactly why the drug companies are so afraid that they wouldn’t even allow the bill to come up for debate.

A profit-making enterprise doesn’t spend that kind of money unless a lot more is at stake – billions of dollars that come from the pockets of every single senior who has signed up for a drug plan. Seniors understand what’s at stake in this debate. They cast their votes in November against the status-quo, business as usual, business comes first thinking that says industry profits are more important than what’s best for American citizens and taxpayers.

A vast majority of voters want negotiation…a majority of the Senate does too. Unfortunately today, millions of dollars spent by the drug industry seemed to matter more.

Want to know how your Senator voted? Here’s a link to the final vote count. But don't be surprised to see Majority Leader Harry Reid's vote listed as "No" He switched his vote at the end as a procedural move to allow possible future consideration of S.3. Something our 4 million members and supporters will be working hard to ensure happens.

Hard to believe but it's true. The Senate won't even debate allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. Senate Republicans blocked this critical vote showing once again that Drug Industry lobbying trumps seniors' needs. Following is a statement from our President/CEO, Barbara Kennelly.

“The vast majority of Americans want Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. Seniors and their families know there is no logical reason the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating with drug makers except to preserve industry profits. Part D is legislation written by and for industry and drug makers have spent millions ensuring it will remain so. Senators were given a chance to correct their mistake and put seniors’ needs ahead of corporate profits. Unfortunately today, they made the same mistake twice and American seniors will continue to pay the price"

The National Committee and its 4 million members and supporters will continue to push Congress to make desperately needed reforms to the flawed Part D legislation. More than 200-thousand letters will go to Capitol Hill this week reminding lawmakers that this debate is not over and seniors will continue to fight for a prescription drug plan that works for its beneficiaries.

The Senate is debating the Part D Drug Negotiation bill, S.3, this morning. Chances are there won't even be a vote on this legislation because the GOP has threatened to block a full debate and vote. What a shame.

The Senate has a chance to fix a mistake made in the first Part D legislation which ties Medicares hands and prohibits negotiation for lower prices on prescription drugs. This is legislation written by industry and for industry and drug makers have spent millions making sure it stays that way.

We'll have more as the morning business continues.

The Senate Finance Committee passed the Part D drug negotiation bill late Thursday night allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prescription drug prices. The committee's vote was 13-8. The Associated Press has coverage of the debate. The full Senate is expected to vote sometime this week.

It will be a busy week with activities planned in advance of the Senate vote...more on that soon.