Another sad report. And for the yonger members real sad news as their future might require these things you pay for right now but won't be there in your time of need. Reader comments included.

Reductions to Medicare feared: CJOnline / The Topeka Capital-Journal - Reductions to Medicare feared

Topekan concerned about President's proposed changes
By Jan Biles
The Capital-Journal
Published Monday, May 05, 2008
Gary Plemons wears an ostomy pouch following surgery to treat his colon cancer. He also takes medication to keep his depression and paranoia at bay.

But recovery from those illnesses aren't what is foremost on the 49-year-old Topekan's mind. He is more worried about whether proposed cuts to Medicare will allow him to continue to receive access to the medicines and treatment he needs but are far too expensive for him to buy on his own.

"We're barely making ends meet now," Plemons said, explaining he receives Medicare, Medicaid and $600 in Social Security and SSI benefits each month to cover his rent, groceries, transportation, multiple medications, psychiatric care and other expenses. "Eventually, people aren't going to be able to survive."

The Bush administration has proposed legislative changes to Medicare in its proposed 2009 federal budget, which it says will save $6 billion in the next year and $91 billion from 2009 to 2013. Medicare is a health insurance program for people who are older than 65, some people under 65 who have disabilities and people with end-stage renal disease.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the president's budget proposes significant reductions in the Medicare programs for hospitals, home health providers, nursing homes and others.

Similar cuts have been proposed for Medicaid, a federal/state program used to purchase preventive, primary and acute health services for low-income individuals, children and families and certain long-term care services, like nursing homes, for the elderly or people with disabilities.

In mid-April, the U.S. House passed a bill to block the cuts to Medicaid. The bill is expected to be considered by the Senate, even though the Bush administration has threatened to veto it.

Cuts and subsidies

As reimbursement rates dwindle, doctors and other health care providers must decide whether to reduce the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients they treat to cover their costs and make a profit.

"I appreciate the administration putting forth a budget which seeks to control spending and strengthen the long-term security of Medicare and Medicaid," Roberts said. "I agree that we need to return to a policy of fiscal responsibility and get a handle on the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending so these programs are viable and sustainable for future generations.

"However, I certainly do not want to be in the business of tying the hands of our health care providers, especially those in our rural areas, and ultimately harming our seniors and low-income populations by restricting their access to care."

Roberts said the largest reductions in the budget come from freezing hospital payments over the next three years.

"Hospitals in Kansas have analyzed this proposal and estimate that all of the payment reductions combined would translate to a $653 million cut to our Kansas hospitals over the next five years," he said.

From 2000 to 2006, Kansas hospitals experienced losses for treating Medicare patients, with the statewide Medicare margin in 2006 being "negative 2.2 percent," he said.

"Given all of this, I just don't see the president's proposed payment freezes as sustainable options for my hospitals in Kansas, and would like to know how the administration can rationalize these large payment reductions," Roberts said.

Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., said primary care physicians and other doctors haven't seen an increase in Medicare reimbursement rates since 2001 and are now facing a 9.9 percent decrease.

"Medicare never reimbursed very well to begin with and now there's this decrease," Boyda said.

What is alarming to Boyda is the amount of government subsidies received by the health insurance industry — which she says totals $65 billion over five years. She said those subsidies should be halted and the money used to reimburse primary care physicians and other health care providers.

She said the power wielded by the health insurance industry influences the decisions — and lack of action — by Congress to reform the health care system.

"That's why nothing changes," Boyda said. "I can't describe to you how powerful they are."

The bottom line

Tom Bell, president and CEO of the Kansas Hospital Association, said hospitals and physicians are partners in providing health care so anything that negatively affects doctors will negatively affect hospitals, and vice versa.

But most important is the trickle-down effect on patients: Access to health care will be hindered because fewer doctors will accept Medicare patients.

"The more you cut Medicare, the less able physicians are to maintain that kind of involvement in that system," he said.

Plemons, who has received Medicare since 1982, said he tries his best not to be wasteful or spend unwisely when it comes to his health care. For example, he rations his ostomy bags to two a week.

"I don't want the government to pay more than they have to," he said.

But Plemons believes there has to be better ways to fix the federal budget than to cut health care access and benefits to the nation's most vulnerable citizens.

"Why not have a lottery ticket that goes just for Medicare?" he suggested.

Conrad Lauck, 54, a neighbor of Plemons' in Landmark Plaza who has multiple sclerosis and is legally blind, said he also is concerned about the proposed cuts to Medicare. He qualifies for Medicare because of his blindness.

He also receives about $1,100 in Social Security disability payments each month and has a medical card, which helps pay for the eight medications he takes each day. Still, he said, there is "always too much month left at the end of the money."

"It would be about $1,200 a month if I had to pay out of pocket. It'd be a toss-up between a place to live, what I eat and my meds," he said. "If they cut Medicare off, what are we to do?"

Bell said Congress has a "very myopic way" of looking at Medicare funding. Instead of visiting the issue of budget cuts every year or every six months, lawmakers need to take a long-range view and work with health care providers to reform the system with the right incentives implemented in the right way, such as wellness programs, the best use of technology and the involvement of all stakeholders when devising policy.

"It will be difficult to make it happen before the presidential election," Bell said, adding that after the November election, "Regardless of who's president, it needs to be a priority."

Jan Biles can be reached at (785) 295-1292 or jan.biles@cjonline.com.

Gary Plemons wears an ostomy pouch following surgery to treat his colon cancer. He also takes medication to keep his depression and paranoia at bay.

But recovery from those illnesses aren't what is foremost on the 49-year-old Topekan's mind. He is more worried about whether proposed cuts to Medicare will allow him to continue to receive access to the medicines and treatment he needs but are far too expensive for him to buy on his own.

"We're barely making ends meet now," Plemons said, explaining he receives Medicare, Medicaid and $600 in Social Security and SSI benefits each month to cover his rent, groceries, transportation, multiple medications, psychiatric care and other expenses. "Eventually, people aren't going to be able to survive."

The Bush administration has proposed legislative changes to Medicare in its proposed 2009 federal budget, which it says will save $6 billion in the next year and $91 billion from 2009 to 2013. Medicare is a health insurance program for people who are older than 65, some people under 65 who have disabilities and people with end-stage renal disease.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the president's budget proposes significant reductions in the Medicare programs for hospitals, home health providers, nursing homes and others.

Similar cuts have been proposed for Medicaid, a federal/state program used to purchase preventive, primary and acute health services for low-income individuals, children and families and certain long-term care services, like nursing homes, for the elderly or people with disabilities.

In mid-April, the U.S. House passed a bill to block the cuts to Medicaid. The bill is expected to be considered by the Senate, even though the Bush administration has threatened to veto it.

Cuts and subsidies

As reimbursement rates dwindle, doctors and other health care providers must decide whether to reduce the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients they treat to cover their costs and make a profit.

"I appreciate the administration putting forth a budget which seeks to control spending and strengthen the long-term security of Medicare and Medicaid," Roberts said. "I agree that we need to return to a policy of fiscal responsibility and get a handle on the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending so these programs are viable and sustainable for future generations.

"However, I certainly do not want to be in the business of tying the hands of our health care providers, especially those in our rural areas, and ultimately harming our seniors and low-income populations by restricting their access to care."

Roberts said the largest reductions in the budget come from freezing hospital payments over the next three years.

"Hospitals in Kansas have analyzed this proposal and estimate that all of the payment reductions combined would translate to a $653 million cut to our Kansas hospitals over the next five years," he said.

From 2000 to 2006, Kansas hospitals experienced losses for treating Medicare patients, with the statewide Medicare margin in 2006 being "negative 2.2 percent," he said.

"Given all of this, I just don't see the president's proposed payment freezes as sustainable options for my hospitals in Kansas, and would like to know how the administration can rationalize these large payment reductions," Roberts said.

Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., said primary care physicians and other doctors haven't seen an increase in Medicare reimbursement rates since 2001 and are now facing a 9.9 percent decrease.

"Medicare never reimbursed very well to begin with and now there's this decrease," Boyda said.

What is alarming to Boyda is the amount of government subsidies received by the health insurance industry — which she says totals $65 billion over five years. She said those subsidies should be halted and the money used to reimburse primary care physicians and other health care providers.

She said the power wielded by the health insurance industry influences the decisions — and lack of action — by Congress to reform the health care system.

"That's why nothing changes," Boyda said. "I can't describe to you how powerful they are."

The bottom line

Tom Bell, president and CEO of the Kansas Hospital Association, said hospitals and physicians are partners in providing health care so anything that negatively affects doctors will negatively affect hospitals, and vice versa.

But most important is the trickle-down effect on patients: Access to health care will be hindered because fewer doctors will accept Medicare patients.

"The more you cut Medicare, the less able physicians are to maintain that kind of involvement in that system," he said.

Plemons, who has received Medicare since 1982, said he tries his best not to be wasteful or spend unwisely when it comes to his health care. For example, he rations his ostomy bags to two a week.

"I don't want the government to pay more than they have to," he said.

But Plemons believes there has to be better ways to fix the federal budget than to cut health care access and benefits to the nation's most vulnerable citizens.

"Why not have a lottery ticket that goes just for Medicare?" he suggested.

Conrad Lauck, 54, a neighbor of Plemons' in Landmark Plaza who has multiple sclerosis and is legally blind, said he also is concerned about the proposed cuts to Medicare. He qualifies for Medicare because of his blindness.

He also receives about $1,100 in Social Security disability payments each month and has a medical card, which helps pay for the eight medications he takes each day. Still, he said, there is "always too much month left at the end of the money."

"It would be about $1,200 a month if I had to pay out of pocket. It'd be a toss-up between a place to live, what I eat and my meds," he said. "If they cut Medicare off, what are we to do?"

Bell said Congress has a "very myopic way" of looking at Medicare funding. Instead of visiting the issue of budget cuts every year or every six months, lawmakers need to take a long-range view and work with health care providers to reform the system with the right incentives implemented in the right way, such as wellness programs, the best use of technology and the involvement of all stakeholders when devising policy.

"It will be difficult to make it happen before the presidential election," Bell said, adding that after the November election, "Regardless of who's president, it needs to be a priority."

Jan Biles can be reached at (785) 295-1292 or jan.biles@cjonline.com.

Gary Plemons wears an ostomy pouch following surgery to treat his colon cancer. He also takes medication to keep his depression and paranoia at bay.

But recovery from those illnesses aren't what is foremost on the 49-year-old Topekan's mind. He is more worried about whether proposed cuts to Medicare will allow him to continue to receive access to the medicines and treatment he needs but are far too expensive for him to buy on his own.

"We're barely making ends meet now," Plemons said, explaining he receives Medicare, Medicaid and $600 in Social Security and SSI benefits each month to cover his rent, groceries, transportation, multiple medications, psychiatric care and other expenses. "Eventually, people aren't going to be able to survive."

The Bush administration has proposed legislative changes to Medicare in its proposed 2009 federal budget, which it says will save $6 billion in the next year and $91 billion from 2009 to 2013. Medicare is a health insurance program for people who are older than 65, some people under 65 who have disabilities and people with end-stage renal disease.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the president's budget proposes significant reductions in the Medicare programs for hospitals, home health providers, nursing homes and others.

Similar cuts have been proposed for Medicaid, a federal/state program used to purchase preventive, primary and acute health services for low-income individuals, children and families and certain long-term care services, like nursing homes, for the elderly or people with disabilities.

In mid-April, the U.S. House passed a bill to block the cuts to Medicaid. The bill is expected to be considered by the Senate, even though the Bush administration has threatened to veto it.

Cuts and subsidies

As reimbursement rates dwindle, doctors and other health care providers must decide whether to reduce the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients they treat to cover their costs and make a profit.

"I appreciate the administration putting forth a budget which seeks to control spending and strengthen the long-term security of Medicare and Medicaid," Roberts said. "I agree that we need to return to a policy of fiscal responsibility and get a handle on the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending so these programs are viable and sustainable for future generations.

"However, I certainly do not want to be in the business of tying the hands of our health care providers, especially those in our rural areas, and ultimately harming our seniors and low-income populations by restricting their access to care."

Roberts said the largest reductions in the budget come from freezing hospital payments over the next three years.

"Hospitals in Kansas have analyzed this proposal and estimate that all of the payment reductions combined would translate to a $653 million cut to our Kansas hospitals over the next five years," he said.

From 2000 to 2006, Kansas hospitals experienced losses for treating Medicare patients, with the statewide Medicare margin in 2006 being "negative 2.2 percent," he said.

"Given all of this, I just don't see the president's proposed payment freezes as sustainable options for my hospitals in Kansas, and would like to know how the administration can rationalize these large payment reductions," Roberts said.

Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., said primary care physicians and other doctors haven't seen an increase in Medicare reimbursement rates since 2001 and are now facing a 9.9 percent decrease.

"Medicare never reimbursed very well to begin with and now there's this decrease," Boyda said.

What is alarming to Boyda is the amount of government subsidies received by the health insurance industry — which she says totals $65 billion over five years. She said those subsidies should be halted and the money used to reimburse primary care physicians and other health care providers.

She said the power wielded by the health insurance industry influences the decisions — and lack of action — by Congress to reform the health care system.

"That's why nothing changes," Boyda said. "I can't describe to you how powerful they are."

The bottom line

Tom Bell, president and CEO of the Kansas Hospital Association, said hospitals and physicians are partners in providing health care so anything that negatively affects doctors will negatively affect hospitals, and vice versa.

But most important is the trickle-down effect on patients: Access to health care will be hindered because fewer doctors will accept Medicare patients.

"The more you cut Medicare, the less able physicians are to maintain that kind of involvement in that system," he said.

Plemons, who has received Medicare since 1982, said he tries his best not to be wasteful or spend unwisely when it comes to his health care. For example, he rations his ostomy bags to two a week.

"I don't want the government to pay more than they have to," he said.

But Plemons believes there has to be better ways to fix the federal budget than to cut health care access and benefits to the nation's most vulnerable citizens.

"Why not have a lottery ticket that goes just for Medicare?" he suggested.

Conrad Lauck, 54, a neighbor of Plemons' in Landmark Plaza who has multiple sclerosis and is legally blind, said he also is concerned about the proposed cuts to Medicare. He qualifies for Medicare because of his blindness.

He also receives about $1,100 in Social Security disability payments each month and has a medical card, which helps pay for the eight medications he takes each day. Still, he said, there is "always too much month left at the end of the money."

"It would be about $1,200 a month if I had to pay out of pocket. It'd be a toss-up between a place to live, what I eat and my meds," he said. "If they cut Medicare off, what are we to do?"

Bell said Congress has a "very myopic way" of looking at Medicare funding. Instead of visiting the issue of budget cuts every year or every six months, lawmakers need to take a long-range view and work with health care providers to reform the system with the right incentives implemented in the right way, such as wellness programs, the best use of technology and the involvement of all stakeholders when devising policy.

"It will be difficult to make it happen before the presidential election," Bell said, adding that after the November election, "Regardless of who's president, it needs to be a priority."

Jan Biles can be reached at (785) 295-1292 or jan.biles@cjonline.com.

Reader comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Click here for our full user agreement.

You can rate each comment by clicking the or buttons.
To report an inappropriate comment, click the .

Reader Comments
-3 Rating Posted by: RH at May 05, 2008 at 07:14:25 AM
National Health Insurance is what americans need not republicans who simply do not care. Republicans have sat around and watched the Bush administration waste money and have never tried to curb his appetite for spending on the oil giants,bailing out Wall Street,bailing out the sub prime lender,build a multi billion dollar wall on the mexico border,spend $9 billion on coal plant subsidies annually,$12 billion on nuke power plants subsidies and average of $13 billion on medical insurance giants annually.McCain and Clinton will likely change nothing.

Posted by: RH at May 05, 2008 at 07:15:50 AM
And trillions on an illegal war for oil aka subsidizing the war profiteers.

Posted by: RH at May 05, 2008 at 07:31:53 AM
National Health Insurance protects families and business at the same time. No more large chunks from the paycheck for health insurance that sometimes is not worth the paper it’s written on. Business will not be forced to shell out large amounts for employees. Yet all citizens will receive identical coverage.

Why should healthcare be treated like some retail object on a shelf?

Why National Health Insurance?
* We all pay for identical healthcare
* Provides extraordinary leverage against suppliers
* Protects families and business alike from being gouged by the healthcare industry
* Treatment for serious illness such as cancer will not be cut off because a patient has reached the point insurance companies will pay no more…happens everyday
* 60% of healthcare today is paid with tax dollars so why not 100% that covers all who need treatment.
* Citizens will not be forced to lose all of their assets or file bankruptcy due to serious illness as does happen somewhere everyday as we speak
* Eliminates healthcare dollars going into special interest campaign cookie jars
* Eliminates healthcare dollars from financing golden parachutes
* Veterans receive care immediately for whatever symptoms war has imposed on their physical or mental health. No more waiting on the Dept. of Defense
*National Healthcare eliminates 314 different policies thus eliminating tons of wasteful administrative costs. That money could be included towards 100% coverage. It is estimated todays administrative costs runs at 33%…that is a lot of money.


Posted by: flyrcoyle at May 05, 2008 at 08:05:12 AM:


RH, while not disputing your figures, I wonder as to their source. There are a lot of places to gather information these days, many very unreliable, although seemingly solid.
On another note, why do you say that "McCain and/or Clinton will likely change nothing"? The last I knew, the Democratic Party, whose membership includes Clinton, is at the forefront of Healthcare Reform.

+ 1 Rating Posted by: T-TownTracker at May 05, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM
The Republicrats make their fortunes facillitating the pillaging in of the middle class. Libertarians are the only hope, and people act like they are irrelevant. Well, that's why are.

__________________
Yea can't keep the words of your great leader.

Prophet Muhammad - “Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.”

When are people going to realize that they're not paying into Social Security and Medicare for themselves? There isn't some pot of money sitting somewhere with their name on it. They're paying for the old folks who are presently receiving these benefits.

I'm not expecting Social Security and Medicare to be there when I'm old enough to retire at age 67. Besides, these programs are unconstitutional and should be dissolved.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."