Medicare drug law becomes bitter pill

President Bush had hoped that the passage of the Medicare prescription-drug bill would be one of the crowning achievements of his administration, but so far it has turned out to be one of the messiest policies, being attacked on several fronts.

There are two ongoing investigations into matters surrounding passage of the bill: one by the House ethics panel into whether Republicans offered a bribe to one member to secure his vote, and another by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general into accusations that administration officials withheld higher cost estimates for the bill from lawmakers.

The administration has been hindered at every opportunity from making its case to the public, dogged by charges that its ad campaign is an illegal political strategy in a presidential election year.

And more bad news came this past week, when the annual Medicare trustees report estimated that the trust fund will go broke in 2019 — seven years sooner than they had predicted last year — partly because of the new Medicare prescription-drug entitlement.

“I think it probably has turned out messier than they thought it would be,” Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said of the new drug law.

“I tried to warn them. … I think we made a big mess. Instead of it being a plus, it’s becoming a negative,” said Mr. Lott, who voted against the measure because he thought it was too expensive and inadequate on reform.

Even some Republicans who voted for the measure agreed.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri said the situation is “a lot messier … than leadership and others who were espousing the virtues of the bill were expecting.”

“We’ll be lucky if it doesn’t end up being a net negative for passing the bill. It certainly hasn’t been yet a net positive,” said Rep. John T. Doolittle of California.

One of the main problems so far has been the discrepancy in cost estimates for the drug initiative. Congress used the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of $395 billion over 10 years, which it is bound by law to use.

But when Mr. Bush’s 2005 budget proposal emerged in February, administration officials put the Medicare law’s cost at $534 billion over 10 years — roughly a $140 billion difference —which angered many lawmakers.

“I think it makes us look bad as Republicans, and I think it makes us look foolish in Congress that our own administration, who is working hand-and-glove with us, basically blindsides us like this,” Mr. Doolittle said.

A coalition of conservative and fiscal-watchdog groups Thursday demanded that Congress halt the prescription-drug program from going into effect in 2006 because of its projected long-term costs.

Yet another bomb dropped when the administration’s top Medicare cost expert, Richard S. Foster, said his former superior, Tom Scully, who then headed Health and Human Services’ Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, wouldn’t let Mr. Foster provide lawmakers with higher cost estimates for parts of the Medicare bill as it was being crafted last summer.

Story Continues →