Bush Vetoes Bill Stopping Doctors' Medicare Cut

RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Share this on Facebook

KEVIN FREKING | July 15, 2008 09:34 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

WASHINGTON — Congress on Tuesday rejected President Bush's veto of legislation protecting doctors from a 10.6 percent cut in their reimbursement rates when treating Medicare patients.

The override vote in the House was a lopsided 383-41, easily meeting the two-thirds threshold needed to nullify the president's veto. About an hour later, the Senate voted to override, 70-26.

Bush has vetoed bills nine times, and Congress has had the muscle to override him only on a water projects bill and twice on farm legislation.

Lawmakers were under pressure from doctors and the elderly patients they serve to void the rate cut, which kicked in on July 1. The cut is based on a formula that establishes lower reimbursement rates when Medicare spending levels exceed established targets.

The president said he supported rescinding the pay cut, but he objected to the way lawmakers would finance the plan, largely by reducing spending on private health plans serving the elderly and disabled.

"I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments," Bush said in a statement. "Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong."

Story continues below
advertisement

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt also expressed his displeasure.

"I was disappointed by tonights vote to override the Presidents veto of the Medicare bill," Leavitt said.

"Medicare is drifting towards disaster," Leavitt said. "Congress has once again given into special interests and shown an unwillingness to change the program's path and take on the important task of entitlement reform."

He said he supports "fully reimbursing physicians at pre-reduction Medicare payment levels and we want to fix the way physicians are paid. We do not support many other provisions in the bill which will hurt both taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries. "

He said the bill undermines the very successful Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit by harming competition and driving up prices and it will reduce the ability of many to choose a private plan.

About 600,000 doctors treat Medicare patients. Many said they would no longer accept new elderly patients if the cuts stood.

Democratic lawmakers used a variety of terms to describe Bush's veto earlier Tuesday. Some called it "meaningless." Others called it "mean-spirited."

"His days of doing us harm are very, very limited," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Instead of a cut, the legislation would keep Medicare rates for doctors where they are for the rest of 2008 and would increase them by 1.1 percent in 2009. The legislation generates the revenue necessary to pay doctors more by reducing spending on private health insurance plans. Those plans serve more than 9 million people through the Medicare Advantage program.

Insurers and the Bush administration argued the changes Democrats sought would lead to benefit cuts and to fewer Medicare Advantage plans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that over the course of five years, enrollment in Medicare Advantage would grow to 12 million rather than to 14.3 million.

Bush said the bill would reduce "access, benefits and choices for all beneficiaries."

"We don't have to punish the patients to help the doctors," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

However, Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans believe the government's payments to the plans are too generous and that those payments drive up costs for taxpayers as well as the 44 million participants in the program.

"We wasted no time in reversing the president's carelessness and protecting our nation's doctors and the patients they treat," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This responsible and overdue Medicare fix is now law."

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said the federal government spends more on patients in Medicare Advantage than on comparable patients in traditional Medicare, leading to billions of dollars in additional costs annually.

"We take some of that unnecessary waste and we use it to pay physicians who are working hard and ought not to have a cut in their reimbursement rates," Doggett said.

While the focus on the bill has largely been on changes for doctors and private insurers, virtually every type of health care provider as well as millions of patients have a stake in the legislation.

For Medicare recipients, lawmakers lowered the copayments for mental health treatment and allowed more people to qualify for the government's help in paying their monthly premiums.

For providers, such as pharmacists, the legislation ensured that they're paid promptly by Medicare drug plans and delayed changes that would have cut their reimbursements when dispensing generic drugs for Medicaid patients.

Military families also had a stake as its TRICARE program set reimbursement levels based on Medicare, and lawmakers raised concerns leading up to the vote that those families would have a hard time finding a doctor.

Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, said a 10.6 percent cut "would have been devastating to seniors and the disabled who rely on Medicare for the health care they need, as well as to military families who rely on TRICARE for their health care."

Prior to Bush's veto, the House had voted in favor of the bill 355-59, so Tuesday's override vote showed more Republicans breaking with the administration.

The vote in the Senate in passing the bill last week was much closer, 69-30, leaving little margin for error for supporters trying to sustain a two-thirds majority to override.

___

The bill is H.R. 6331.

___

On the Net:

Bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov

 
 

Comments
86
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- nirek See Profile I'm a Fan of nirek permalink

It is about time that congress stood up to this tyrant. He has run rufshod over congress because the repubs. cannot go against bush , thay are beholden to the big money guys and can't step on toes. Too bad but it is true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:12 PM on 07/16/2008
- babyboomerorig See Profile I'm a Fan of babyboomerorig permalink

Payments to doctors through Medicare don't need to be cut....dishonest doctors need to stop raping the system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 07/16/2008
- provgrays See Profile I'm a Fan of provgrays permalink

So Mike Leavitt thinks that funding private plans less is a betrayal when many Medicare patients can't get treatment from a publicly financed program?

Brilliant.

The Congress was right to override the pivileged ape's veto, but older people vote and that is why Congress finally grew a spine on this issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 07/16/2008
- AxelDC See Profile I'm a Fan of AxelDC permalink

Bush's proposed cuts would reduce the number of doctors willing to take Medicare patients. If the old folks are still going to vote for McSame in the fall, they are voting themselves into an early grave.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 AM on 07/16/2008
- Ranta See Profile I'm a Fan of Ranta permalink

Why isn't the title of this article, Bush vetoes bill to reduce benefits to the medical insurance companies?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 AM on 07/16/2008
- Ohsnap See Profile I'm a Fan of Ohsnap permalink

"We do not support many other provisions in the bill which will hurt both taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries." -- Mike Leavitt, DHHS

Yes, we know the doctors don't benefit from current Medicare reimbursement rates, patients certainly don't benefit, and taxpayers don't benefit (because doctors pass their losses onto the rest of their "paying" customers -- i.e. the commercially insured through higher premiums and copays), so that would leave WHO? The only ones who seem to be making windfall profits. Yeah that's right, the true Medicare beneficiaries are the insurance companies. So the CEO doesn't get to have a solid gold toilet seat and his third vacation home. Waaaahhh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 07/15/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

The government hands doctors a goldmine by giving them a federally approved monopoly. How many billions of dollars could everyone save if they could get a prescription for common drugs for common conditions from a pharmacist instead? Or a physician's assistant? Or a physical therapist? But no, the government hands the MDs a monopoly at the expense of everyone else.

Doctors have some of the most powerful lobbyists in the country. They scare medical students into thinking that they only reason the government continues to offer this monopoly is because of their lobbying efforts, and perhaps they're right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 AM on 07/16/2008
- bajaboy See Profile I'm a Fan of bajaboy permalink

Yeah! Let's go back to the good old days, when your barber took care of your medical needs, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 AM on 07/16/2008
- neesy08 See Profile I'm a Fan of neesy08 permalink

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Now Bush does not wan the elderly to pay their doctors!

LETS JUST DRIVE THE ELDERLY TO OBAMA!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 07/15/2008
- musselmanm See Profile I'm a Fan of musselmanm permalink

Do you think Booosh will give us American people the two finger fist like he did the g8 summit?
I think he and his minions have been doing it for over 7 years now!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 07/15/2008
- Kynn See Profile I'm a Fan of Kynn permalink

Bush's farewell address will be given from a secret location and it'll just be him, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Rice laughing and pointing at us for twenty minutes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 PM on 07/15/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

Before this bill, we already faced a roughly $75 Trillion future unfunded liability for Medicare. This is for a so-called "optimally efficient" single payer system that liberals and socialists have touted for so long.

That already future unfathomable unpaid liability was based on the fact that Medicare spending had checks and balances to prevent costs from increasing at an even faster rate. The Dems in Congress just took a wrecking ball to that brake. How many more trillions of dollars of new unpaid liability did Dems just foist onto our kids and grandkids and great grandkids to play their pandering games? Why do Dems think that Doctors' lobbyists are any better than any other special interest milking our government?

If Medicare can't negotiate with doctors, and can't even follow its own rules to curb the skyrocketing spending, what good is it? This action has threatened the long term liability of Medicare and left future taxpayers on the hook for trillions, and Congress should hang their heads in shame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 07/15/2008
- mshazen See Profile I'm a Fan of mshazen permalink

You know nothing about Medicare or doctors if you can write these things. Try complaining about the Pharmaceutical companies who are at the top of the Fortune 500 every year. Medicare barley pays its bills as it is they short hopitals and doctors all the time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 AM on 07/16/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

I know plenty of doctors, and plenty about doctors. I know that they are deeply offended by mindless, bureaucratic government cuts. I know that they are indignant when the bean counters make sweeping changes to the funding structures without having any clue about the situation in the hospitals.

BUT, I also know that the government currently funds more than half of all health care expenses nationwide, and that the current pace of inflation is unsustainable. So, something has to be done. Asking doctors to provide the same level of care while freezing reimbursement levels isn't fair. But having it be a free-for-all isn't sustainable.

There are some things that could be done, either by the government or by the hospitals to ease the problems. Either one could standardize insurance forms and claim handling, for instance, which would drastically cut down on overhead costs. But neither one has even bothered. That suggests that despite the complaints that funds are too tight, the doctors and hospitals haven't yet been pushed far enough to leave their comfort zones and try to solve some of these institutional problems.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 07/16/2008
- neoconsareliars See Profile I'm a Fan of neoconsareliars permalink

the gop is behind all of the problems you are so concerned about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 07/16/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

How is the GOP responsible for the enormous future deficits of a Great Society program instituted by LBJ and advocated by Dems for 40 years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 AM on 07/16/2008
- CindyM2008 See Profile I'm a Fan of CindyM2008 permalink

B ush will probably now take credit for the passing of the bill and praise Mc Cain too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 PM on 07/15/2008
- haleywins See Profile I'm a Fan of haleywins permalink

Absolutely, otherwise there goes Florida.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 PM on 07/15/2008
- jmad See Profile I'm a Fan of jmad permalink

Every year we give Israel 4 or 5 Billion aid for who knows what ??
How about a little help at home!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 PM on 07/15/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

The federal budget is 3.1 TRILLION. Half of that goes to entitlements and welfare. So don't act like a few billion in foreign aid is breaking the bank. Sure, complain about it. But don't pretend like we aren't spending money here, because that's just being utterly ridiculous.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 PM on 07/15/2008
- mshazen See Profile I'm a Fan of mshazen permalink

The debt is more like 9 trillion where are you getting your facts. We should be spending money here. If you thing cutting medicare or anything related is a tactic you are crazy. They will get thier money all those seniors will just end up in ER costing even more money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 AM on 07/16/2008
- dtrain51 See Profile I'm a Fan of dtrain51 permalink

so what are you saying, as we hurt at home let's keep giving our money away?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 PM on 07/15/2008
- peterg76 See Profile I'm a Fan of peterg76 permalink

Now there's a lobby that can get results! Could someone hire those lobbyists and go for an impeachment?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 07/15/2008
- TheHandyman See Profile I'm a Fan of TheHandyman permalink

Of course we should all know by now that somewhere in that bill is something that is going to bite us in the ass. Congress does not know how to write a simple bill that does what it should without paying off someone and hiding some benefit for themselves and their cronies.

And I'd like to know how and when all us Senior Citizens became a special interest group? What Congress should be doing is stopping all these stop gap funding plans for medical in this country and adopt a Canadian or British style health care system that works for every one in this country. Then we wouldn't have a dysfunctional health system for the military, the Veterans, and the rest of the People be damned unless you are wealthy or you are a politician and you get the very best health care for free.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe or trust anything that anyone says in Washington, or for that fact, Sacretomato either!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 PM on 07/15/2008
- bajaboy See Profile I'm a Fan of bajaboy permalink

I have coverage by Tricare, the system that serves the military - especially retired military folks. It cost me 22 years of my life in service to my country, but it is an extremely good program. I'm battling cancer right now, and they haven't balked at a single procedure, medicine, etc. On top of all that, my premiums are $230/year, with a copay of $12.00 per doctor visit. My prescriptions cost me a maximum of $22.00 for a three-month supply through the mail-order pharmacy associated with the program. I don't think anyone in Congress gets a much better plan.

Of course, there is that little bit about spending 22 years in uniform to qualify, but what the hell, I liked the job I had in the Navy!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 AM on 07/16/2008
- torrrep See Profile I'm a Fan of torrrep permalink

You mean like the failing Canadian health care system? The same one where you have to wait months to se a specialist? No thanks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 AM on 07/16/2008
- mshazen See Profile I'm a Fan of mshazen permalink

You got that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 AM on 07/16/2008
- ChiGuy See Profile I'm a Fan of ChiGuy permalink

In your face, 43.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 PM on 07/15/2008
- Troubledwawa See Profile I'm a Fan of Troubledwawa permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 07/15/2008
- JessWonderin See Profile I'm a Fan of JessWonderin permalink

NO! - Voted: Sessions, Craig, Vitter, Graham, Kyl, Inhofe, Shelby, Domenci, Brownback, McConnell . . . the usual "Family Values Champions" all VOTED NO , as did 16 other ALL REPUBLICAN cowards.

These same "friends of the elderly" will be pandering for our votes and $upport when it comes time to re-new their firm grip on THEIR Senate FREE Health Care . . . . we need to keep in mind this great show of support of the elderly (actually ALL of US!) by the REPUBLICAN PARTY come November and every following election . . . (R) Remove.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 PM on 07/15/2008
- torrrep See Profile I'm a Fan of torrrep permalink

I got a better idea. Why don't you get a second job and pay for the elderly. It's not the federal government's job to take care of you when you get old. If you were too ignorant to save for your retirement then that's your problem. If your kids or family refuse to help take care of you then that's your problem. Anyone who sits around waiting for the federal government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave is an idiot.