| |
 |
| June 12th, 2008 |
|
Media Contact(s): Mark Eddington or Lindsey Stimpson, (202) 224-5251 |
|
Printable Version |
|
HATCH SAYS BAUCUS MEDICARE BILL IS FLAWED
Urges Bipartisan Effort to Craft Better Legislation |
| |
WASHINGTON – Republicans and Democrats are not that far apart on Medicare, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told colleagues today on the Senate floor.
But to avoid a 10 percent cut in Medicare payments scheduled for July 1, Hatch added, the Senate must work together to draft a bipartisan bill. He said the proposed Baucus Medicare bill falls short of that and will, if adopted, be vetoed by President Bush.
“We do not need to be wasting our time going back and forth on a bill that does not have a chance of becoming law,” Hatch said on the Senate floor. “In fact, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work immediately so we can get this legislation to the White House before the July 1st deadline. Otherwise, our Medicare beneficiaries and doctors participating in the Medicare program lose.”
Sen. Hatch’s complete statement follows:
Mr. President, I rise to oppose the cloture motion on the motion to proceed on the Baucus Medicare bill. I will keep my comments brief.
I want to make one point perfectly clear. I have said time and time again that I am willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get a bipartisan Medicare bill through the Senate. I have always prided myself as someone who is fair, honest and just wants to get the job done. Unfortunately, others in this body do not feel the same way. And that disappoints me more than most of you will ever know.
My biggest frustration is that we are not that far apart.
Both sides want to restore physician Medicare payments so doctors are not cut by 10 percent on July 1.
We also agree that we need to implement provisions on e-prescribing, electronic health records, where my home state of Utah is a leader, and value-based purchasing for Medicare providers and beneficiaries.
We both believe that a strong, robust rural health care package is necessary and, therefore, should be included in the Medicare package.
Both the Democrat and Republican Medicare bills include marketing reforms for Medicare Advantage plans in order to ensure that beneficiaries are treated with respect and are given truthful and helpful information so they may choose the Medicare Advantage plan that best suits their personal needs.
We include provisions that would allow both hospital-based renal dialysis centers and skilled nursing facilities to be a site for telehealth services. As a strong supporter of telehealth services, I am very supportive of this provision.
So, as you can see, we agree on a lot. Unfortunately, the two outstanding issues in my opinion are Medicare beneficiary protections and offsets.
The Baucus Medicare provision includes provisions that would increase Medicare beneficiary protections in the Medicare program. It would increase the low-income subsidies for beneficiaries, extends the availability of the Welcome to Medicare physical examination from six months to one year.
I want to make it clear that many on our side could support these beneficiaries changes but we are very concerned about the impact these changes would have on long-term entitlement spending. With 76 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, the Medicare program is already headed for a serious fiscal disaster. So we need to be thoughtful about these provisions.
Therefore, we believe it makes sense it makes sense to means-test the Medicare Part D beneficiary premiums for higher income beneficiaries.
Unfortunately, when we suggested this, colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and in fairness, some on our side as well objected to means-testing of Part D premiums.
And I just do not understand their objections.
We already means-test Medicare Part B premiums and that had bipartisan support. Making that change would not only have wealthier beneficiaries shoulder a greater share of their Part D premiums but it could also help pay for some of the beneficiary protections included in the Baucus Medicare bill.
It is greatly disappointing to me that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not willing to accept this offset. In fact, we have been told point blank that they cannot support increasing Part D premiums for rich Medicare beneficiaries in order to provide more assistance and benefits to lower-income seniors.
I am going to say it again -- I just do not understand it, especially since both sides supported means-tested Medicare Part B premiums. Hopefully, we will be able to change their minds when we begin our work to improve the Medicare program so that it will be a more efficient program for both beneficiaries and providers.
The second issue concerns the offset used in the Baucus bill to pay for its provisions. The White House has told us time and time again that the President will only be able to accept very minimal reductions to the Medicare Advantage program. Otherwise, he will veto the bill. That is why Senator Grassley and I have insisted that the White House be included in the Senate Medicare negotiations. We do not want to send a Medicare bill to the White House that is going to be vetoed and, therefore, put the physicians’ Medicare payments in jeopardy.
But that is exactly what is going to happen if the Baucus Medicare gets cloture today. It will probably pass the Senate and then be considered by the House of Representatives.
And the House will make changes to the bill, too, that will probably not be acceptable to the White House. Then the Senate will have to consider the Medicare bill with the House’s changes before it is sent to the White House for a certain veto.
And we will not have the votes to override the President’s veto of the Medicare bill. So we will be back to square one and will have wasted a lot of time.
I believe that the Grassley Medicare legislation, which I strongly support, would not suffer the same fate as the Baucus legislation.
That is why I believe that this bill should be considered by the Senate instead of the Baucus Medicare bill. It is a better bill. The President will sign it into law.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the major differences between the Grassley Medicare bill and the Baucus Medicare legislation.
First, the Grassley Medicare encourages e-prescribing sooner rather than later. The Grassley bill requires physicians to e-prescribe by 2010, while the Baucus bill delays mandatory e-prescribing until 2011.
In addition, the Grassley Medicare bill repeals the Deficit Reduction Act provision on the transfer of ownership of oxygen equipment to Medicare beneficiaries. The Baucus bill cuts Medicare payments for oxygen and oxygen equipment.
On durable medical equipment for competitive bidding, the Grassley bill includes a Sense of the Senate to delay competitive bidding for durable medical equipment for 18 months. The Baucus Medicare proposal does not even address competitive bidding.
The Grassley bill also has provisions on hospital value based purchasing. The Baucus Medicare BILL does not include a similar provision.
The Baucus Medicare bill reduces the Medicare reimbursement rates for power wheelchairs. The Grassley Medicare bill does not cut Medicare payments for power wheelchairs.
The Grassley Medicare bill provides continued relief for hospitals with high numbers of undocumented individuals. The Baucus bill does not include a similar provision.
Again, as you can see, the Grassley bill is the better option.
So I am going to conclude with one very valid and important point. My colleagues need to vote against cloture today so we can begin work on a bipartisan bill that will be signed by the President.
We do not need to be wasting our time going back and forth on a bill that does not have a chance of becoming law. In fact, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work immediately so we can get this legislation to the White House before the July 1st deadline. Otherwise, our Medicare beneficiaries and doctors participating in the Medicare program lose.
But you know who the biggest losers will be in this process? The United States Senate because we have failed to do our job, therefore letting down both Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare providers.
I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture to avoid this terrible situation.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
