Fact Check LeMieux: Siding With Insurance Companies

From the DNC:

Please see below for a fact check responding to Senator George LeMieux's hypocritical attack on the Senate floor today on the bill's provision to end wasteful subsidies to health insurers under Medicare Advantage and force them to compete for patients through competitive bidding. Sen. LeMieux's comments today prove that he is willing to side with the insurance companies and against the American people despite the fact that ending such subsidies has support even from members of his own party.

LeMieux Defended Wasteful Subsidies To Health Insurance Companies Through Medicare Advantage. Senator George LeMieux: "I think I understand that you're saying that states that have these folks that are on Medicare Advantage now are going to have big reductions in the benefits that they receive. ... You'll hear some say medicare benefits aren't being cut by these proposals. That is a real stretch. But when you look at medicare advantage, it's an outright misrepresentation. Because the benefits they get are vision benefits, dental benefits, the kinds of preventive medicine and the tests and the other types of things that we have found now help you to dramatically increase your health if you pursue these kinds of preventive medicine options are the ones that will be deprived through these benefits." [Senate Floor, 11/20/09]

REPUBLICANS ARE DEFENDING WASTEFUL SUBSIDIES TO HEALTH INSURERS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE THAT PROVIDE PERKS LIKE FREE GYM MEMBERSHIPS

Medicare Advantage Provides Extra Perks, Like Free Gym Memberships, That Are Subsidized By The Government And The High Costs Of The Plans Are Passed On To Seniors. "Seniors in this Sun Belt retirement haven and across the country revel in the free perks that private insurance companies bundle with legally mandated benefits to entice people 65 and older to forgo traditional Medicare and sign up for private Medicare Advantage policies. The trouble is, the extra benefits are not exactly free; they are subsidized by the government. And some of the plans pass their costs on to seniors, who pay higher co-pays and additional fees to get care. ... In a health-care debate defined by big numbers and confusing details, the prospect of losing benefits such as a free gym membership through the Silver Sneakers program is tangible, and it has spooked some seniors, who are the nation's most reliable voters and have been most skeptical about reform." [Washington Post, 10/15/09
]

GOP Opposition To Medicare Advantage Competitive Bidding Is Interesting: “Republicans Have Mounted A Ferocious Defense Of The Market’s Right To Continue Burning Through Taxpayer Dollars.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein commented on Republican anger at the prospect of competitive bidding to lower overpayments to Medicare Advantage programs: “[i]t is also an interesting moment of insight into the conservative philosophy on these matters. The problem with government programs, we're often told, is that they are expensive and wasteful, and the private market could do better. But faced with an instance where the government program proved relatively lean and efficient, and the private market expensive and wasteful, Republicans have mounted a ferocious defense of the market's right to continue burning through taxpayer dollars.” [Washington Post – Ezra Klein, 9/24/09]

REPUBLICANS ARE CRITICIZING A PLAN TO FORCE INSURERS TO COMPETE...

Health Insurance Reform Would Reduce The Difference In Costs Between Medicare And Medicare Advantage Through A Competitive Bidding System. “Federal subsidies to private Medicare plans average about 14 percent higher than those involved in fee-for-service coverage. The health care bills pending in Congress would reduce or eliminate the difference in part by introducing a competitive bidding system to pay the plans. ‘Health insurance reform will strengthen Medicare for seniors, not diminish it,’ said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. ‘Even under the competitive bidding proposal in the legislation, Medicare Advantage plans will still be paid more than traditional Medicare plans. Yes, they'll need to compete, and they'll need to be more efficient, but they'll still have more money to work with than traditional Medicare.’” [AP, 9/22/09]

AARP Lead Lobbyist On Medicare Advantage Competitive Bidding: “We Think The Proposals Actually Will Improve Access And Quality,” Not Cut Benefits. The Boston Globe reported that, “[t]he $120 billion cut to Medicare Advantage is part of spending reductions in Medicare totaling $460 billion to $540 billion over 10 years that have been proposed by Democrats. The cuts would fall on the government reimbursement rates for a broad variety of providers such as hospitals and home health agencies, which could probably absorb them without affecting the services elderly Americans receive, many specialists said in interviews. Though some industry groups complain the spending reductions are too severe, adjustments could be made if problems arose because they would be phased in gradually. Most are aimed at making the programs more efficient. ‘We think the proposals actually will improve access and quality,’ John Rother, a leading lobbyist for the AARP, the large lobbying organization for senior citizens, said in an e-mail.” [Boston Globe, 9/24/09]

... THAT THEY SUPPORTED EARLIER THIS YEAR
Senate Republicans Introduced an Alternative Health Care Reform Bill that Included Similar Provisions to the Finance Committee Bill to Introduce Competitive Bidding into Medicare Advantage to Eliminate Inefficiencies. Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would include competitive bidding in Medicare Advantage to eliminate inefficiencies and increasing choice. The bill was sponsored by Senator Coburn, and co-sponsored by Senators Alexander, Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Graham, Inhofe and Isakson. [S. 1099, Introduced 5/20/09, Title V, Subtitle A.]