Speeches & Floor Statements
Floor Remarks of U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) -- Medicare Brochure Sent at Taxpayer Expense is "Propaganda"
Posted on June 8, 2010
Madam President, I get a fair amount of mail. I received the other day a nice envelope from the Department of Health and Human Services addressed to Andrew L. Alexander, Jr., in my Nashville residence, with a nice brochure here: Medicare and the New Health Care Law; What It Means to You.
I am one of those 40 million Americans who is 65 or older, so I am a part of Medicare. I was very interested to read the brochure, because I spent a lot of time, as did the Senator from New Hampshire, and the Senator from Montana probably spent even more, on the new health care law.
As I read through this brochure, it did not bear very much relationship to the way I understood the law I voted on Christmas Eve at the end of last year when we passed this health care law.
This brochure, which has been mailed at taxpayer expense to more than 40 million Americans, is an attempt by the administration to explain that the health care law does what it does not do or does not do what it does. Let me be specific about why I say that. Throughout the debate, those of us on the Republican side of the aisle said the health care law would cut Medicare, raise premiums, raise taxes, pass Medicaid costs on to States, and add to our national debt. Those on the other side said we were wrong. Since they had the votes, they passed the bill. It is now law. But let me take two or three examples from the mail I got the other day. The brochure claims, in the first paragraph, that the new health care law will result in "increased quality health care."
Well, that would mean, to me, I would think, as I read that, that I, an individual on Medicare, or that any individual in the United States, would continue to have at least the coverage I am having today and hopefully more.
Yet Medicare's own Chief Actuary noted in an April 22 memorandum that without intervening legislation to correct a payment cut in the new law, some providers would "end their participation in the program" -- that is Medicare -- with the effect of "possibly jeopardizing access for beneficiaries."
It looks to me if you want to be accurate in writing 40 million Americans about what is happening with Medicare, you would add that in there and say there is another view by the Chief Actuary of Medicare in the Obama administration.
The Chief Actuary also concluded that 15 percent of Part A providers -- we mean by that hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospices, home health agencies -- may be unable to sustain their operation in the next 10 years as a result of drastic Medicare cuts in the new law. That does not sound like "increased quality health care" to me.
No. 2, the second paragraph of the brochure says: The new health care law will keep Medicare strong and solvent.
Here is the truth, at least as we see it. The $529 billion in cuts to Medicare -- no one disputes that we have those -- are being used to pay for a $1 trillion -- when fully implemented over 10 years -- health care bill, not to shore up Medicare.
According to the same people who put out this brochure, the CMS Chief Actuary, you cannot double-count the Medicare cuts as both paying for expanding the health care delivery system and increasing the solvency of the program. I mean, common sense says if you take $529 billion out of Medicare over the first 10 years, or $1 trillion out of Medicare over 10 years, when it is fully implemented, and you spend almost all of that on something other than Medicare, that is not the way to make Medicare more solvent, even if it is a new Medicare Program. Any savings from Medicare, we believe, ought to be spent on Medicare, rather than running up the fiscal deficit in Medicare.
No. 3, on the second page, the brochure says if you are in a Medicare Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits. This is one of the most disingenuous comments in the brochure. If you read that and are one of the more than 11 million people on Medicare Advantage, you would think: My Medicare Advantage must be OK. The truth is, Medicare Advantage plans will have less generous benefit packages, according to the CMS, the group that puts this out, according to the Chief Actuary. He says it will result in less generous benefit packages. The Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf testified that fully half the benefits currently provided to seniors under Medicare Advantage would disappear under the proposal in the earlier bills offered by the Senator from Montana, which were virtually the same as this bill.
Here is the difference. They will come back and say: But we said "guaranteed benefits." They would be right about that. But guaranteed Medicare benefits are what everybody has. If one wants Medicare Advantage, which they pay a little more for to cover dental, vision, and hearing, or other extra benefits, that is why they buy Medicare Advantage. The truth is, the Medicare cuts in the health care law will limit plan choices and reduce benefits for almost 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage on those extra benefits. That is relatively one-fourth of all seniors in Medicare, and there are 40 million of us in Medicare. In my State of Tennessee, there are nearly a quarter of a million on Medicare Advantage who will lose those benefits. So it is not true -- or at least it is disingenuous -- that benefits will not change. Guaranteed benefits won't, but extra benefits likely will.
Finally, it says the new law preserves and strengthens Medicare. That is also disingenuous, because the new law does not include paying doctors who serve Medicare patients proper compensation. We call this the sustainable growth rate, the SGR. Some people call it the doc-fix. One would think a comprehensive health care law would include proper compensation for doctors who serve Medicare patients, but it does not. Why? It would have, according to the President's budget, added $371 billion to the cost of the bill and made it add to the debt, which we said it would.
So what did we do instead? We simply passed a health care law, the majority did, and claimed it doesn't add to the debt, expand the health care delivery system -- which we all know costs too much already -- and went on our way. And we still have with us the big cut in payments to doctors which will increasingly create, for those on Medicare, a sort of health care bridge to nowhere or to the emergency room, as we find Americans who are on the big government programs, Medicare and Medicaid, unable, in the case of Medicaid or Medicare, to find doctors who are willing to serve them at the lower rates and, in the case of those who go to Walgreens in Washington State, a drugstore company that won't fill present description drugs for Medicaid patients because of the low rates.
I am disappointed that the administration, in its effort to make the health care law sound better, would send out what amounts to propaganda. There is a Federal law against propaganda. It says annual appropriations can't be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States. I know a little about that. When I was Education Secretary in 1991 and 1992, I sent out what I thought was a very carefully written article to teachers about President Bush's, the first, education program, and the Democrats in Congress hauled me up before the committee and had the General Accounting Office investigate me and castigated me for putting out publicity and propaganda in violation of the law. Some House Members have written the General Accounting Office and said this violates the law. I don't know whether it violates the law, but it doesn't tell the truth in the way we Medicare beneficiaries deserve to have the truth told to us about what the health care law does. I am disappointed in it. I hope the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will be more accurate in the future and present a more balanced characterization of the law. I am sure during the rest of this year there will be a great many Americans who will take a closer look at the law and agree with Republicans who said no to this because it will raise premiums, raise taxes, and it will send new costs to States and will cut Medicare.
I yield the floor.