Seniors and Children First: The Future of Health Care Policy Begins with Medicare and SCHIP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When it comes to health care policy, the old and the young serve as the canaries in the coal mine, testing the political air for the rest of the population. If the new government isn’t able to muster the guts–and the Congressional majorities–to improve access to health care for these vulnerable segments of the population, there isn’t much hope for anyone else. On the other hand, if long-overdue changes to Medicare and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) move forward swiftly, it could be a good omen for health care reform in general.

Some early signs give cause for cautious optimism: The new Congress has acted quickly on SCHIP, which gives states federal funds to help cover uninsured children who belong to relatively low-income families that nonetheless earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Some 80 percent of Americans support legislation to expand funding and eligibility for SCHIP. In the past, such legislation has been twice passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress–and twice vetoed by George W. Bush.

Yesterday, the Senate succeeded in passing a bill increasing annual SCHIP funding by $32.8 billion, and expanding the program to cover 11 million children, rather than the current 7 million. The expansion will be paid for largely by a rise in the cigarette tax. The Senate earlier rejected two harsh amendments introduced by Republicans: one that would force some of the less impoverished families to contribute to plans costs “to stop the people moving from private plans … to a government-sponsored plan”; and one that would have limited states’ ability to enroll documented immigrant children in the program. The Washington Post described the Senate debate as “rancorous”–but in the end, nine Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill.

Similar legislation had already passed in the House on January 14, and a final conference bill could be signed by President Obama as early as next week. Perhaps the most promising news is that the new SCHIP legislation is considerably better–more generous and more inclusive–than the two previous versions vetoed by Bush. A number of Republicans objected to this fact, accusing Democrats of double-crossing them on their earlier deals (as if that weren’t what happened after every shift in party power).

SCHIP legislation has always enjoyed some bipartisan support. The same is not true of reforms to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit–-Bush’s signature piece of health care legislation, which is in effect a massive handout of taxpayer dollars to the insurance industry and Big Pharma. So what happens with Part D is perhaps a more useful predictor of things to come.

On Wednesday, House Democrats introduced a bill that would scale back some of the biggest rip-offs in Medicare Part D. One provision of the bill allows the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, instead of leaving it to Part D’s 50-odd private insurance plans. This could knock down drug prices by 25 or 30 percent. The Bush-era law that created Part D expressly forbid such negotation, even though it has long been done in purchasing drugs for Medicaid and Veterans Administration. Bills to negotiate Medicare drug prices have been floated before, but failed to muster filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate.

The new House legislation would also create a government-run prescription drug plan to compete with the private insurance plans. This could force private insurers to improve drug coverage and bring down premiums and copays. Better still, it could drive their market share down toward oblivion–though they are not likely to give up such a prodigious cash cow without a fight. Real reform, of course, would entail and kicking private insurers out of the mix altogether, and running Part D like original Medicare, as well as further measures to bring the drug companies to heel.

And to place this all in perspective: Even after SCHIP expansion, there will still be an estimated 5 million children without health insurance. Meanwhile, the Medicare Rights Center has released a list of ten other actions that need to be taken to ensure “basic consumer protections under Medicare private health and drug plans.” Then, of course, there are still the millions of uninsured, underinsured, and underserved Americans between 18 and 65 to be dealt with.

Some leading Democrats are promising to major progress on a broad health care reform bill in the Obama administration’s first year. At a conference hosted by the advocacy group Families USA, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said on Thursday: “We need to get this job accomplished this year and get the bill to the president.” According to The Hill, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT), who chair key committees, have been drafting basic health care reform legislation for months. But House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) was less optimistic. Speaking on C-SPAN on Sunday, he invoked the ubiquitous spectre of the Clintons’ failed effort at health care reform. “I would much rather see it done…incrementally, than to go out and just bite something you can’t chew. We’ve been down that road. I still remember 1994.”

SCHIP and Medicare are clearly the first steps in this “incremental” journey toward health care reform–but its ultimate desitnation is still unclear. These two programs–which for all their shortcomings, are still the closest thing we have to single payer health care–could become the models for wider reform, as well as its precursors. What remains to be seen, however, is whether the Democrats will content themselves with saving a few trees, while leaving the rest of the forest to burn.

This post also appears on James Ridgeway’s blog, Unsilent Generation.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate