<<http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8164060.htm>>

Bush administration ordered Medicare plan cost estimates withheld 
By Tony Pugh

Knight Ridder Newspapers



WASHINGTON - The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned
that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush
administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional
passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan. 


When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by
five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by
the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the
first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that
the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that. 


Withholding the higher cost projections was important because the White
House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who'd
vowed to vote against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400
billion. 


Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, one of the 13 Republicans, said she
was "very upset" when she learned of the higher estimate. 


"I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered (voting for the
bill) because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line," Myrick
said. 


Five months before the November House vote, the government's chief
Medicare actuary had estimated that a similar plan the Senate was
considering would cost $551 billion over 10 years. Two months after
Congress approved the new benefit, White House Budget Director Joshua
Bolten disclosed that he expected it to cost $534 billion. 


Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, which produced the $551 billion estimate, told
colleagues last June that he would be fired if he revealed numbers
relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers. 


"This whole episode which has now gone on for three weeks has been pretty
nightmarish," Foster wrote in an e-mail to some of his colleagues June
26, just before the first congressional vote on the drug bill. "I'm
perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a
strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the
withholding of important technical information from key policy makers for
political reasons." 


Knight Ridder obtained a copy of the e-mail. 


Foster didn't quit, but congressional staffers and lawmakers who worked
on the bill said he no longer was permitted to answer important questions
about the bill's cost. 


Cybele Bjorklund, the Democratic staff director for the House Ways and
Means health subcommittee, which worked on the drug benefit, said Thomas
A. Scully - then the director of the Medicare office - told her he
ordered Foster to withhold information and that Foster would be fired for
insubordination if he disobeyed. 


Health and Human Services Department officials turned down repeated
requests to interview Foster. The Medicare office falls under the control
of HHS. 


In an interview with Knight Ridder, Scully, a former health-industry
lobbyist deeply involved in the administration's campaign to pass the
drug benefit, denied Bjorklund's assertion that he'd threatened to fire
Foster. He said he curbed Foster on only one specific request, made by
Democrats on the eve of the first House vote in June, because he felt
they'd use the cost estimates to disrupt the debate. 


"They were trying to be politically cute and get (Foster) to score
(estimate the cost of the bill) and put something out publicly so they
can walk out on the House floor and cause a political crisis, which is
bogus," Scully said. 


"I just said, `Look, (Foster) works for the executive branch; he's not
going to do it, period,'" he said. 


Otherwise, Scully said, Foster was available to lawmakers and their
staffs. 


" ... I don't think he ever felt - I don't think anybody (in the
actuary's office) ever felt - that I restricted access. ... I think it's
a very nice tradition that (the actuary) is perceived to be very
nonpartisan and very accessible, and I continued that tradition." 


Scully said Liz Fowler, the chief health lawyer for the Democrats on the
Senate Finance Committee, could confirm the actuary's independence.
Fowler didn't. 


"He's a liar," she said of Scully. 


At a Ways and Means Committee hearing last month, HHS Secretary Tommy
Thompson all but repudiated Scully's tactics. 


"I may have been derelict in allowing my administrator, Tom Scully, to
have more control over it than I should have. ... And maybe he
micromanaged the actuary and the actuary services too much. ... I can
assure you that from now (on), the remaining days that I am secretary you
will have as much access as you want to anybody or anything in the
department. All you have to do is call me." 


Democrats asked Thompson on Feb. 3 and March 3 for a complete record of
Foster's estimates. They've yet to get it. 


Said HHS spokesman Bill Pierce: "We respond to all inquiries in time and
we will do the same" with these. 





Scully left the administration and in January took a job with Alston &
Bird, an Atlanta-based law firm that represents numerous hospitals and
health insurers. He was exploring jobs in the private sector while he was
pushing for passage of the prescription drug bill, thanks to a waiver
from Thompson that allowed him to conduct job interviews while he was
still a federal employee. 


In February, the White House announced that President Bush's appointees
no longer would be permitted to job-hunt while on the federal payroll. 




Members of Congress and congressional staffers complained that Scully's
handling of Foster has deepened congressional mistrust of the Bush
administration and that withholding information makes it harder for
Congress to draft good legislation. 


Myrick didn't think the episode was an effort to "pull the wool over our
eyes." 


But Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California felt otherwise. "This `need
to know, our eyes only' stuff is getting too restrictive for us to do a
decent job," said Stark, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means
health subcommittee. 


For years before Scully's arrival in 2001, key lawmakers had direct
access to Medicare actuaries. 


In 1997, when Republicans were having trouble getting health-care cost
information out of the Clinton administration, Rep. Bill Thomas,
R-Calif., who's now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
added language to the Balanced Budget Act conference report to emphasize
the importance of free access to Foster. 


"The process of monitoring, updating and reforming the Medicare and
Medicaid programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial
information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees of
jurisdiction in the Congress," the report says. 


"When information is delayed or circumscribed by the operation of an
internal Administration clearance process or the inadequacy of actuarial
resources, the Committees' ability to make informed decisions based on
the best available information is compromised." 


------
I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted
Co-Conspirators of America
and to the Republicans for which I can't stand
one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud
Indefensible
with Liberty and Justice Forget it.

 -Life in Hell (Matt Groening)

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to