Bush's Hapless Medicare Tour Stops In Missouri And Iowa

Today, while as many as 20 states still await reimbursement for the cost of covering prescription drugs, President Bush traveled to Iowa and Missouri to pitch his failed Medicare Prescription Drug plan during two different stops at seniors centers and a "Conversation" on Medicare.

Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney issued the following statement:

"What you didn't hear President Bush talk about today when he discussed his failed Medicare prescription drug plan is the fact that he let lobbyists write the law and used misleading cost estimates to get his plan through Congress. President Bush again put special interests above the needs of the American people. And, just like the President sent out Dick Cheney to mislead the American people about intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, current White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten peddled the Administration's misleading cost estimates while the Medicare plan was being debated. Democrats will continue to fight for real solutions that afford more Americans, not less, access to affordable health care and prescription drugs."

AMERICANS NOT BENEFITING FROM BUSH MEDICARE PLAN

In Missouri, 303,929 are enrolled in Medicare Part D, but 326,627 more who could be enrolled still do not have a satisfactory prescription drug benefit. [Kaiser State Health Facts]

In Iowa, 199,045 are enrolled in Medicare Part D, but 218,230 more who could be enrolled still do not have a satisfactory prescription drug benefit. [Kaiser State Health Facts]

Nationwide, 12,132,585 are enrolled in Part D, but 15,834,256 more who could be enrolled still do not have a satisfactory prescription drug benefit. [Kaiser State Health Facts]

WHICH WAS CREATED BY LOBBYISTS...

Lobbyists' Influence Led To Problems In Bush's New Drug Plan. "More than 1,200 pharmaceutical and health industry lobbyists did some of their best work on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Excellent work, that is, for their clients. The result hasn't been so hot for enrollees in Medicare's new prescription drug program so far, especially the so-called dual eligibles... Complaints reached a crescendo over the weekend for state Rep. Brian Kelsey, R-Germantown, who talked to one constituent who couldn't get a necessary phenobarbital prescription and another who waited on a Medicare help line for 3 1/2 hours. Kelsey wrote Gov. Phil Bredesen Monday asking him to approve temporary prescription payments for dual eligibles to help keep prescriptions flowing until the federal government gets its act together. Arkansas, California and 18 other states have taken similar action. A spokesman for Bredesen's office said Tuesday that the governor is 'watching this carefully to see how it's impacting the state.'" [Commercial Appeal (Tennessee), 1/18/06]

Medicare Plan "Bewildering"; Serves as "Bonanza" for Drug and Insurance Industries. "With its bewildering and useless 'choices' of dozens of plans and vendors, its additional costs to more than six million low-income elderly Medicaid patients, its 'doughnut hole' of huge out-of-pocket expenses, and windfall profits to the drug and insurance industries... the fragmentation, inefficiency, and burden to the elderly are the predictable consequence of Bush's treatment of his program as a bonanza for the drug and insurance industries." [The American Prospect, March, 2006]

RELIED ON MISLEADING ESTIMATES TO GET THROUGH CONGRESS...

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Drug Benefit Policy Driven Out of OMB Director's Office. "Republicans said Mr. Bolten's appointment probably meant that domestic policy would be largely driven out of the budget director's office, particularly the administration's plans to overhaul Medicare, provide prescription drug coverage and push for a new round of tax cuts this fall." [New York Times, 5/23/03]

Bush's Medicare Plan Will Cost Almost Double What He First Claimed. "The federal government plans to spend more than $700 billion during the next 10 years to provide drug coverage under Medicare as part of a landmark bill signed by President Bush in December 2003." Originally, Bush's prescription drug plan was to have cost $400 billion over 10 years. [Chicago Tribune, 2/26/06; Washington Post, 1/29/04]

Administration Officials Used Low Price Tag To Win Conservative Support; Threatened to Fire Top Medicare Actuary If He Revealed True Cost of the Drug Plan. "The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservatives. But in June of 2003, the chief Medicare actuary at HHS had concluded that the cost of the bill would be $551.5 billion over 10 years. Although Democrats had been asking for Mr. Foster's estimates for months, he refused to provide them, saying he could be fired. That is supported by an email to Mr. Foster from Mr. Scully's Chief of Staff Jeffrey Flick. In it, Mr. Flick stated that Mr. Foster should not share the new cost estimates until Mr. Scully authorized it, saying that 'the consequences for insubordination are extremely severe.' In a conversation with Democratic health staff, Thomas A. Scully, then the Medicare administrator, stated, 'If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast his head will spin.'" [New York Times, 3/18/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/18/04]

White House Likely Knew Of Higher Estimates Before January 2004. Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted they had underestimated the cost by $135 billion (35 percent). At the time, Bush claimed he had first learned of the estimate in early January 2004 based on calculations from the Medicare actuaries. But in an interview, Mr. Foster stated that it is likely that White House Senior Health Policy advisor Doug Badger was aware of the higher estimates. [Boston Globe, 1/30/04; LA Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; Knight Ridder, 3/17/04]

Bolten Defended Revised Medicare Prescription Drug Costs, Almost Double the Original Estimate. "A higher cost estimate for the Medicare prescription-drug program released in 2005 reignited an intense congressional debate over why Republicans pushed such an expensive program into law. ... In a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, White House budget director Josh Bolten defended the new numbers as 'completely consistent' with earlier estimates." [USA Today, 2/10/05]

...AND IS NOW FULL OF IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS

Appleton (Wisconsin) Post Crescent: "There Shouldn't Have Been Problems To Start With." "So the state government, under Gov. Jim Doyle, has decided to help its residents. Last week, Doyle announced the state would pay for the prescriptions of those people who were having problems getting them. In other words, the state is going to cover the costs associated with the federal government's blunders until they get fixed. Many other states are doing the same thing. That's a strong indictment of Part D. State officials said they don't know how much it's going to cost to pick up the tab, but they intend to get reimbursed from the federal government or, in some cases, from drug companies, which are supposed to provide 30 days of drugs when there's a gap because of a coverage shift. The state is doing the right thing. Now, it's up to the federal government to straighten out these problems quickly. There shouldn't have been problems to start with." [Appleton (Wisconsin) Post Crescent, Editorial, 1/19/06]

Beneficiaries Overcharged, Turned Away From Pharmacies Under New Drug Benefit. "Since the drug coverage took effect on Jan. 1, many low-income beneficiaries have been overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications because the pharmacies could not confirm their enrollment. The problems have been so widespread that more than 20 states have stepped in to pay drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program." [New York Times, 1/18/06]

Pharmacists and Seniors Struggle With New Prescription Drug Plan. "The new benefit has led to more paperwork, numerous phone calls to hard-to-reach plan managers and inconsistent information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the private drug companies. 'It's not the wholesaler or the retailer that's winning,' said [pharmacy owner Tom] Bartholomew. 'The insurance companies and the drug companies are in bed with each other.'" [Aberdeen American News, 3/12/06]