Newspapers, Columnists, Former Lawmaker Comment on Senate Action on Medicare Drug Benefit Bills

Several newspapers and policy makers have commented on the Senate's rejection of three proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The following summarizes recent commentary on the Senate debate.

• Chicago Tribune: The proposal by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and John Ensign (D-Nev.) to help seniors who have "the biggest, most overwhelming drug bills" first is a "logical [place] to start" on a Medicare drug benefit. But senators rejected the plan because "it does not appeal to a wide swath of voting seniors" the way a universal drug benefit does. The Tribune concludes that "it would be more courageous of lawmakers to say to seniors: We sympathize, but we can't afford to cover everyone right now" (Chicago Tribune, 7/25).
• Dayton Daily News: During the congressional debate on Medicare prescription drug benefits, it is "essential" to keep "the best [from] becoming the enemy of the good," according to a Daily News editorial. Even if a plan is "imperfect" when it is enacted, "it could be refined and improved over time," the editorial says. While the Senate Democrats' plan is the "best," the Daily News says that the House-passed plan "represents a serious start." In addition, if Congress engages in the type of "good-faith negotiations" needed on the issue, "consensus could be reached on a real prescription drug benefit," the editorial says (Daily Dayton News, 7/23).
• Denver Post: The Post favors the tripartisan plan "because it concentrates on seniors who really need such help" with their prescription drug costs, while the Democratic plan "offers incentives to providers to gouge and defraud the government." In addition, a Medicare prescription drug plan should include a "reasonable income test" to "provide prescription drugs to seniors who truly need them without overburdening the American taxpayer," the Post concludes (Denver Post, 7/24).
• Investors' Business Daily: With the failure of this Congress to approve a Medicare drug benefit thus far, "we can only hope the next Congress won't be so eager to add another program to the welfare state." The editorial says that "adding an expensive entitlement is not the cure for a sick program," which already is heading toward an "unsustainable contributor-recipient ratio" (Investors' Business Daily, 7/25).
• Newsday: Given that the Senate has rejected three proposals to add a drug benefit to Medicare, the Senate-passed legislation to allow drug reimportation from Canada "is not a bad stopgap," Newsday writes. While reimportation "is no cure for painfully high drug prices," it would put "downward pressure" on prices by offering "an alternative to the patent-protected monopoly pricing for drug manufacturers." The editorial notes that even though drug companies could "thwart reimportations" and wholesalers and retailers could "siphon off much of the savings," a reimportation plan "could mean slightly lower prices for cash-strapped sick people, and that's reason enough to give reimportation a try" (Newsday, 7/24).
• Richard Kirsch, executive director of Citizen Action of New York: "The Senate's vote to allow Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada only appears to be an act of political bravery. A real act of bravery would be to bring Canadian drug prices to the pharmacies of America," Kirsch, writes in a letter to the editor in the New York Times. In the letter, he advocates allowing Medicare to "demand" the "same low prices the Veterans Administration and the Canadian government get" from pharmaceutical companies. "But with 635 drug industry lobbyists in Washington, and tens of millions of drug industry campaign dollars, that would be an act of political bravery," he concludes (Kirsch, New York Times, 7/25).
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Prescription drug coverage under Medicare is an idea whose time has come, politically as well as morally," according to the Post-Gazette. Both Democrats and Republicans have a "vested interest" in compromising on a plan that will provide benefit without "break[ing] the bank," the Post-Gazette says, concluding, "Now that the parties have paraded their own preferences, it is time to start fashioning [an] agreement" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7/25).
• Mary McGrory: McGrory, writing a column in the Washington Post, says that while Medicare prescription drug benefits have been a "defining ... cause for Democrats," the Republicans have the "crowing rights on who cares more about seniors" because the House has passed a drug plan. Now that the Senate has rejected two proposals because of the divide on providing benefits either through Medicare or private insurance, McGrory notes that Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) has suggested "leaving the choice of agency up to consumers." McGrory concludes: "Considering the fundamental clash of ideologies inherent in the drug fight, it may not be a bad idea" (McGrory, Washington Post, 7/25).
• Former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.): In an opinion piece in the Washington PostWashington Post, Rostenkowski, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, writes that the "odds are very long ... against any of the [Medicare drug benefit] plans now on Capitol Hill actually becoming law." Given the fiscal health of Medicare, Rostenkowski said he would "be surprised to see any Medicare drug benefits paid until the latter half of this decade." Regarding the current situation, he concluded: "My fear is that we're witnessing an unrealistic debate that will, at best, yield nothing more than a crop of partisan and empty talking points" (Rostenkowski, Washington Post, 7/24).