Senators Reach Compromise on Stimulus Package, Clearing Way for a Vote

Senate Democrats on Friday reached an agreement to eliminate more than $100 billion in funds, some of which involve health care programs, from a $920 billion economic stimulus package, "virtually guaranteeing" passage of the legislation, the Washington Post reports (Murray/Montgomery, Washington Post, 2/7). The agreement likely will attract support for the stimulus package from three Senate Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Arlen Specter (Pa.), and Olympia Snowe (Maine)-- and provide Democrats with the 60 votes needed to end debate on the legislation (Hulse/Herszenhorn, New York Times, 2/7).

The agreement would reduce funds for federal subsidies for health insurance under COBRA by $5 billion and funds to help hospitals adopt electronic health records by $2 billion (Washington Post, 2/7). Under the agreement, federal subsidies for COBRA would cover 50% of health insurance premiums for 12 months, compared with 65% of premiums for nine months as called for in the original Senate legislation (Boles/Yoest, Dow Jones, 2/6).

In addition, the agreement would reduce funds for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for pandemic flu preparedness by about $870 million (Johnson, CQ Today, 2/7). The agreement also would reduce funds for health care prevention and wellness programs by $2 billion (Pierce, Roll Call, 2/7). The agreement would not reduce funds for health care and other programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs (CQ Today, 2/7).

The Senate on Monday likely will hold a vote to end debate on the stimulus package (Rubin et al., CQ Today, 2/6). The Senate likely will pass the stimulus package on Tuesday (Roll Call, 2/7).

Differences in Senate, House Stimulus Packages
Final passage of the economic stimulus package by the Presidents Day recess likely will prove "difficult," as the Senate and House versions of the legislation have "significant differences," CQ Today reports (Rubin/Schatz, CQ Today, 2/8).

According to the New York Times, the "competing bills now reflect substantially different approaches," as the House version "puts greater emphasis on helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services" and the Senate version eliminates some of those funds and "provides far less generous health care subsidies" for recently unemployed workers (Herszenhorn, New York Times, 2/8). For example, the House version would provide $13 billion to help states expand their Medicaid programs to cover recently unemployed workers through 2010, a provision not included in the Senate version (Russell Chaddock, Christian Science Monitor, 2/9). Both the House and Senate versions included $87 billion to assist states with Medicaid costs (AP/Los Angeles Times, 2/7.

Lawrence Summers, an economic adviser to President Obama, said, "There's 90% overlap now" of the Senate and House versions, adding, "We've got to get to closure on the last 10%" (Wolf, USA Today, 2/9).

Obama Calls for Passage
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama on Saturday called on Congress to resolve their differences over the economic stimulus package and "put this plan in motion" (Zeleny, New York Times, 2/8). "In an effort to build support for his economic stimulus plan" and "take greater control of the debate," Obama plans to travel to Indiana on Monday to hold his first prime-time news conference to discuss the issue, according to the Times. He also plans to travel to Florida on Tuesday to discuss the stimulus package (Zeleny, New York Times, 2/9).

Health Care IT Funds
The inclusion of $20 billion for expansion and adoption of EHRs in the stimulus package is a "painfully needed shot in the arm" for health care information technology in the U.S., the San Francisco Chronicle reports (Colliver, San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8). Obama has said that such an investment will save lives, prevent medical errors and create jobs, but consumer advocacy and privacy groups maintain that the stimulus package lacks adequate patient privacy protections (Mincer, Wall Street Journal, 2/7).

Opinion Pieces

• Paul Krugman, New York Times: "What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition ... but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses? A proud centrist, for that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished," New York Times columnist Krugman writes. He writes, "One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services," but the "centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending." The agreement also eliminated help for the "unemployed: especially help in maintaining health care," Krugman writes. He adds, "All in all, the centrists' insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering" (Krugman, New York Times, 2/9).
  
  
• Donald Lambro, Washington Times: "Public resistance to the Democrats' big-spending economic stimulus bill has risen sharply as Americans continue to learn, and dislike, what they see in it," Washington Times chief political correspondent Lambro writes in an opinion piece. He cites concerns about provisions in the stimulus package that would provide $75 million for anti-smoking programs and $400 million for HIV screening. Lambro writes, "This is not to say some of this spending isn't worthy. It just has no business in an economic stimulus bill" (Lambro, Washington Times, 2/9).
  
  
• Specter, Washington Post: Objections to the agreement on the stimulus package by House Democratic leaders "are a warning to conservatives that more cuts would be unlikely to win House approval," as well as "an admission of the price that moderates have been able to extract for their support of stimulus legislation," Specter writes in a Post opinion piece. He adds that the "moderates' bill, regrettably but necessarily," eliminates funds for a number of programs, such as "wellness and prevention programs," on the "grounds that such programs are better left to the regular appropriations process." Specter concludes, "The moderates' compromise ... is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate" (Specter, Washington Post, 2/9).