Entitled to Know

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.

Keep your eyes open for activity in the Senate over the next few days on Medicare drug negotiation legislation. The Senate Finance Committee will markup S.3, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 at 6:40p tonight and the bill is expected before the full Senate next week. Language in the Senate bill doesn’t go as far as HR 4, the House version (which the President says he’ll veto) and according to the New York Times today the White House is also working against this Senate bill.

The vast majority of Americans support allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices but the drug industry has spent millions in advertising and lobbying to stop any changes which might allow the government to use the purchasing power of 43 million seniors to lower their drug bills. Unfortunately, money talks…soon we’ll see who the Senate is listening to. Seniors or Pharma?

Here is our latest News Release and position paper on the importance of price negotiation to our members and beneficiaries nationwide. Medicare Monitor also has a number of posts detailing the latest activity in the Senate.

Kudos to columnist Marie Cocco for doing her homework and some good old fashioned digging in her coverage of the recess appointment of Andrew Biggs to the number two position at the Social Security Administration. Until Cocco's story, most reporters seemed content to provide only simplistic "Biggs is against private accounts" stories on his appointment. Unfortunately, Biggs' recess appointment is more meaningful than that and as Cocco correctly summarizes, could have far greater implications than much-discussed Swift boat nominee turned ambassador, Sam Fox:

"But the Fox appointment doesn’t have nearly the insidious potential to harm average Americans as the recess appointment of Andrew Biggs to be deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Biggs is more than just a proponent of Bush’s failed proposal to change Social Security from a system of guaranteed government insurance to an investment vehicle dependent on individual savings. He is an architect of the libertarian project to undermine public confidence in Social Security to clear the way for dismantling it."

And what better place to do that than from the inside? Cocco continues...

"It’s awfully hard to imagine that a Congress now controlled by Democrats—who resurrected their political fortunes in part by blocking Social Security privatization—would go along with a new private accounts scheme. But that doesn’t make Biggs harmless. “You’re putting a guy in as policy director who does not believe in social insurance,” says Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and a former counsel to the Social Security commissioner during the Clinton administration. “He can undermine the program from within.”

We consider this story a must-read, especially if you thought the fight against Social Security private accounts was over.

Andrew Biggs has certainly had his 15 minutes of fame (infamy?) this week as one of three indescribably bad recess appointments made by the President during the week-long Easter Congressional recess. It’s hard to know where to start with this one. So, let’s just start at the beginning.

Andrew Biggs has built a career pushing political strategies to destroy Social Security. However, contrary to much of the press coverage, the Senate considered him a bad nominee not JUST because he supported private accounts. The problem is Biggs doesn’t believe Social Security should exist. His views aren’t even complicated or nuanced. Here is one of his policy papers in which he lays out a political plan to destroy all New Deal programs, including Social Security:

"Indeed, market investment of payroll taxes sets the stage for a broader rapprochement between labor and capital and a new political culture that rejects government intervention in favor of individual and market freedom. In that way, Social Security reform featuring Personal Retirement Accounts doesn't send just one liberal sacred cow to the slaughterhouse. It sends the whole herd"

The SSAConnect blog provides an interesting look at Biggs’ other writings while at the Cato Institute and their no-so-coincidental timing during the Stock Market downturn in 2002. We wrote a letter to the Senate in the fall warning about this nomination and here is our latest News Release on his appointment.

Not surprisingly, the Senate isn’t too thrilled with a President who preaches “bi-partisanship” and expects compromises on Social Security while at the same time he’s plugging his nominee into the number two position at the Social Security Administration without Senate confirmation. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was quoted in the Washington Post saying:

"Prospects for getting real Social Security reform anytime soon just took a big hit with this recess appointment." Baucus added: "This administration is clearly not serious about leaving behind the failed schemes of the past."

But ultimately, the President has gotten his way. Someone who doesn’t even believe in Social Security is now the number two man in charge of its future.