Recent Opinion Pieces Examine Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Debate

Several opinion pieces published recently address the congressional debate over a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Summaries of the opinion pieces appear below.

• Dean Baker, New York Times: "Drugs are expensive because the government provides patent monopolies to drug companies," Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, contends in a New York Times letter to the editor. "If the government directly financed biomedical research and allowed all drugs to be sold in a competitive market -- as is currently the case with generics -- drugs would be affordable for all, not just the elderly" (Baker, New York Times, 7/7).
  
• Armstrong Williams, Washington Times: The Medicare bills currently in Congress "do not provide workable solutions" to reform the system, Williams writes in a Washington Times opinion piece, adding that the bills "are strictly political documents designed to appeal to baby boomers and corral more votes" (Williams, Washington Times, 7/8).
  
• Robert Bartley, Wall Street Journal: Having only "some hint of [Medicare] reform" in 2010 -- when the House bill calls for traditional Medicare to compete with insurers -- "is not a game worth the candle, and [a] deadlock [that keeps lawmakers from passing a Medicare bill] is a consummation devoutly to be desired," Bartley writes in Journal opinion piece. He concludes by asking, "Does the republic want government trying to play universal nanny, or does it want to build and maintain a society of independent and responsible individuals?" (Bartley, Wall Street Journal, 7/7).
  
• Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times: President Bush is a "surprising obstacle" to comprehensive Medicare reform because he has "removed himself as a player in an epochal battle over this country's health care" by "ma[king] clear" that he will sign any Medicare reform bill that comes from Congress, Novak writes in a Sun-Times opinion piece. The White House "gives the impression the president does not care" if market-oriented reforms included in the House bill are not enacted (Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, 7/7).
  
• Margaret Tempero, USA Today: While the bills are "laudable," they "decrease access to life-saving chemotherapy for some of the most seriously ill Medicare patients" by removing "hundreds of million of dollars [for oncology reimbursements] from the system," Tempero, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, says in a letter to the editor in USA Today (Tempero, USA Today, 7/7).
  
• Raymond Keating, Long Island Newsday: "The Medicare program, with its runaway costs, needs a good dose of privatization," but the Medicare bills in Congress would cause the program to "only grow more lavish," Keating writes in a Long Island Newsday opinion piece, adding that if the bill passes, the "government expands, taxpayer costs balloon and price controls loom, Republicans will be trying to figure out what happened, but they will have no one to blame but themselves" (Keating, Long Island Newsday, 7/8).
  
• Paul Guppy, St. Paul Pioneer Press: "There are smarter ways to reduce drug costs for seniors ... than reaching for the old model of entitlement spending," Guppy, research director at the Washington Policy Center, writes in a St. Paul Pioneer Press opinion piece (Guppy, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 7/7).
  
• Grace-Marie Turner, St. Paul Pioneer Press: "While much of the legislation is seriously flawed, there are nuggets that can be mined to transform the program for the better for seniors and taxpayers," Turner, president of the Galen Institute, states in St. Paul Pioneer Press opinion piece, adding that Congress should "throw the Senate bill out the window" and work with the House bill to add more choice and private competition to Medicare (Turner, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 7/7).
  
• Scott Holleran, Detroit News: If Bush signs the Medicare reform legislation into law, U.S. seniors "will lose the freedom to choose, pay for and control drug treatments" because the bill "lets bureaucrats control how, when, where -- and whether -- older Americans receive treatment," freelance writer Holleran writes in a Detroit News opinion piece (Holleran, Detroit News, 7/6).
  
• Craig Elmore, Kansas City Star: While some form of drug assistance for Medicare beneficiaries "makes sense," the benefit should use means testing to make sure the benefit is for "those truly in need of assistance" and not "to make life easier for all those older than 65," Elmore, a health care planning consultant, writes in a Kansas City Star opinion piece (Elmore, Kansas City Star, 7/5).
  
• Lois Aronstein, Albany Times Union: The means-testing provision in the House Medicare plan would "undermine Medicare" because varied insurance protection based on income "just doesn't make sense" and Medicare beneficiaries "deserve to be able to depend on Medicare's stable protection" regardless of their income, Aronstein, New York director of AARP, maintains in an Albany Times Union opinion piece. Aronstein adds that allowing HHS to get tax return information would be an "administrative nightmare" and an invasion of privacy (Aronstein, Albany Times Union, 7/6).
  
• Deroy Murdock, Manchester Union Leader: The Medicare reform legislation in Congress "offers a 100% solution to a 24% problem" because 24% of seniors do not have drug insurance, syndicated columnist Murdock says in a Union Leader opinion piece. "True reform would let seniors who like traditional Medicare keep it, while critics could drop it. Needy elders would receive payments relative to their incomes, to help purchase private plans with features ... to suit their tastes" (Murdock, Manchester Union Leader, 7/7).