“But health reform is not only saving money – it’s saving lives.”

“In the richest nation in the world no insurance company will ever again put a price tag on a human life.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Saturday’s anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Three years ago, President Barack Obama signed into law the greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to quality, affordable healthcare for every American – the Affordable Care Act.

Millions of Americans are already benefitting from Obamacare. Insurance companies can no longer set arbitrary lifetime caps on benefits, putting millions of Americans one car accident or heart attack away from bankruptcy. Today children can no longer be denied insurance because they are born with a disease or a disability, a protection that will soon extend to all Americans. And soon being a woman will no longer be considered a pre-existing condition.

In less than a year, 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes can rest assured they’ll have access to affordable insurance and life-saving care – regardless of their health or how much money they make.

In Nevada alone, tens of thousands of seniors have saved tens of millions of dollars on medicines because the Affordable Care Act closed the gap in prescription drug coverage.

But health reform is not only saving money – it’s saving lives.

Just ask 26-year-old Sarah Coffey, a native of Gardnerville, Nevada. Sarah was halfway through her first year of law school at the University of Connecticut when she was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s disease.

Sarah had done everything right. When she enrolled at UConn, she bought the best student insurance plan money could buy and paid for it a year in advance. But her cancer – and the difficult treatment to fight it – made returning to school last fall impossible.

Since Sarah was no longer a student, she no longer qualified for student health insurance. And her policy was about to expire. Without an expensive bone marrow transplant, she might die.

Before the Affordable Care Act became law, Sarah would have been one of the tens of millions of Americans who desperately needed life-saving care, but didn’t have insurance to pay for it. Before the Affordable Care Act, Sarah might even have become one of the 45,000 Americans who died each year because they lacked health insurance.

But thanks to Obamacare, Sarah was able to sign on to her parents’ insurance plan. Sarah is one of 3.1 million young people – including 33,000 young Nevadans – who have benefited from a provision in the law that allows children to stay on their parents’ health plans until they are 26 years old.

And I’m pleased to report that Sarah’s story has a happy ending. She got the treatment she needed. Her most recent PET scan was clear. And Sarah plans to return to law school in September.

Sarah’s mother, Sue, sent me a letter in January. She wrote that Obamacare and the dedicated doctors at Stanford Hospital saved her daughter’s life.

This is the legacy of the landmark law: that no American will end up in an emergency room because he has no insurance, that no American will live in fear of losing her insurance because she loses her job and that in the richest nation in the world no insurance company will ever again put a price tag on a human life.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, “The care of human life and happiness… is the first and only object of good government.” I am gratified that the Affordable Care Act meets that standard. And I am proud that this law, which we worked so hard to pass, is already ensuring the care of human life remains the first object of this government.

GOP Plan Would Force Seniors to Pay $2.5 Billion More In Prescription Drugs Next Year Alone By Reopening Drug ‘Donut Hole’

New State-By-State Reports Showing Devastating Local Impact on Seniors Found Here

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) detailed the devastating effects of the new Republican budget in a series of state-by-state reports. The Republican budget introduced by Paul Ryan is anything but balanced. It would end Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors into a costly voucher system, while providing more tax breaks to millionaires. It would gut investments that strengthen the middle class, while protecting tax loopholes that benefit corporations that ship jobs overseas.

“The closer you look at the numbers, the worse the House Republicans’ budget gets for the nation’s seniors. The Republican budget that would end Medicare as we know it is anything but balanced. Rather than taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction, the Republican budget would kick millions of seniors into a voucher program, and force them to pay more for prescription drugs,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “This reckless budget would gut programs that are essential to the middle class, while preserving tax breaks for the wealthy and huge corporations. The Democratic plan preserves investments in job-creating programs, cuts wasteful spending, and protects Medicare for our seniors.”

Under the proposal, set to receive a vote in the House next week, seniors would see their out-of-pocket costs increase by as much as $5,900 per year.
The Republican budget would also reopen the prescription drug donut hole for millions of current seniors, forcing them to pay an additional $2.5 billion dollars for prescription drugs next year alone. A county-by-county breakdown of seniors’ savings on prescription drugs thanks to the Affordable Care Act through December 2012 can be found here. These savings would be wiped out in the Republican budget plan.

Report Highlights:

• The Republican plan could increase out-of-pocket health care costs per senior by $5,900.
• Nationwide, over 3.5 million seniors saved more than $2.5 billion in prescription drug costs last year. The GOP budget would eliminate those savings in the years to come.
• Over 34 million seniors could pay more for preventive services this year.

As a Result, 30 Million Americans Could Get Kicked Off Medicaid – Forcing Seniors to Be Denied Critical, Life-Saving Care

New State-by-State Analysis of Impact of Extreme GOP Budget Found HERE

Washington, DC—The Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) today released new national and state-by-state reports (see below) revealing the devastating impact the Republican Medicare-ending budget would have on seniors, families, and nursing home residents.  The report shows that, on top of ending Medicare as we know it and increasing seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs by nearly $6,000, the GOP budget would also cut $1.7 trillion in Medicaid benefits for seniors, families, and those in nursing homes, which could force as many as 30 million Americans off of the program.

The GOP budget cuts $550 billion in health care benefits specifically for seniors and the disabled, which could lead to them being denied access to life-saving care and shutting nursing homes down across the country.  With state governments across the country already cash-strapped, the reduced federal support and increased burdens included in the GOP proposal would require them to drastically slash benefits, increase taxes, or both.

Report Highlights:

• The Republican plan could force as many as 30 million Americans off of Medicaid.
• The Republican plan cuts over $1.7 trillion from health care services provided through Medicaid, including $550 billion in health care for seniors and the disabled.  As a result, nursing homes across the country could be forced to slash services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.
• The Republican plan would shift costs to state taxpayers at a time when 41 states already face a budget crisis.  This could lead to huge tax hikes on taxpayers in states across the country.

The Republican budget also doubles-down on their effort to end Medicare as we know it. Under their plan, over 45 million soon-to-be seniors would be forced out of Medicare’s guaranteed benefits and onto a voucher, and out-of-pocket costs for the typical senior could go up by nearly $6,000.  The DPCC national report and state-by-state breakdown on the impact on Medicare can be found below:

National
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Budget Will Immediately Reopen Prescription Drug ‘Donut Hole’, Costing Current Seniors Over $10,000 by 2020

New State-By-State Reports Showing Devastating Local Impact on Seniors

Washington, D.C. – The Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) today released new state-by-state reports that outline the devastating impact of the new Republican budget. Instead of strengthening Medicare, the new Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, raise the eligibility age to 67, and turn guaranteed benefits for over 45 million seniors into a voucher that will shift higher costs to seniors over time. Under the proposal, set to receive a vote in the House next week, seniors would see their out of pocket costs increate by as much as $5,900 per year.

In addition to ending Medicare as we know it, the Republican budget would also force millions of current seniors across the country back into the prescription drug “donut hole,” costing them more than $10,000 over the next 10 years. A county-by-county breakdown of what seniors saved in prescription drug costs in 2012 can be found here. Seniors would lose all of that money out of their pockets going forward if the GOP budget was enacted into law.

Report Highlights:

• Over 45 million Americans who are in 47-56 “near retirement” age group would be forced onto health care “vouchers” when they retire, starting in 2023.
• The Republican plan could increase out-of-pocket health care costs for a typical 67 year-old senior by $5,900.
• Nationwide, over 3.2 million seniors saved more than $2.1 billion in prescription drug costs last year. The GOP budget would eliminate those savings in the years to come.
• Over 35 million seniors could pay more for preventative services this year.

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arkansas
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

Sixty years ago, this nation’s Armed Forces were segregated by race.

Thirty-five years ago women weren’t allowed to attend our nation’s military academies.

And until today, thousands of qualified, dedicated men and women were barred from military service or expelled from the Armed Forces because they were honest about their sexual orientation.

Today, I am glad to say that the time has passed when Americans willing to give their lives to defend this great nation could be turned away from service because of who they love.

Today, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is no longer the law of the land.

For 17 years we have asked our soldiers to defend a flag that stands for liberty and justice for all and then required some of those soldiers to keep who they really are a secret.

And in too many cases we have robbed them of the right to fight for their country altogether. More than 13,000 American service members have been discharged because of this law, which institutionalized discrimination against openly gay soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.

And we’ll never know how many more capable men and women never offered patriotic service to their country because the law exposed them to career-ruining discrimination.

The military’s highest commanders and a vast majority of service members agree our fighting force is better off knowing that we’ll have the best and brightest volunteers, regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion or gender.

There is no place for intolerance in this great nation, nor in the Armed Forces tasked with protecting it.

I am glad to say that today our military policies and our national values are at last in line.

From today forward, no qualified man or woman willing to fight for a nation founded on the principles of tolerance and equality will ever again be denied the right to do so.

On Wednesday the House will send us a continuing resolution to fund the government through November 18.

I was disappointed to see that the House shortchanged the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by failing to provide the funding to adequately help Americans whose lives have been devastated by floods, hurricanes and tornados.

Last week, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill granting FEMA and other agencies that help disaster victims an additional $6.9 billion. That funding will help rebuild after several costly natural disasters, including Hurricane Irene.

Tomorrow, when the Senate receives the House bill to fund the government for six more weeks, we will amend it with the language of the Senate FEMA legislation. This year, President Obama has declared disasters in all but two states, and FEMA is quickly running out of money to help American families and communities recover.

Of course, I know this amendment will enjoy the support of my Republican colleagues, as it did just last week, when a bipartisan group of Senators agreed that helping communities destroyed by natural disasters was too important to let politics get in the way.

Americans have sent a message to Congress that no issue is more important to them than jobs.

But for Republicans, job creation is less important than slashing spending on initiatives that create jobs and the Social Security and Medicare benefits seniors have earned.

Democrats believe we can reduce the deficit without abandoning job creation.

We can make smart, strategic cuts that won’t further slow down our struggling economy while protecting and advancing initiatives that create jobs. That’s why President Obama has released detailed proposals to create 2 million jobs now while reducing our deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

But Republicans have criticized both proposals before even looking at their substance.

They are more concerned with protecting millionaires, billionaires, hedge fund managers and private jet owners than fighting for the middle class.

They claim it is class warfare to ask the wealthiest 400 Americans – who made an average $271 million apiece in 2008 – to pay the same tax rate as librarians, police officers and air traffic controllers.

The truth is Republicans are just defending the economic policies that have besieged the middle class for years.

It’s class warfare to ask middle-class Americans to get by on less while those same 400 Americans are paying less than 18 percent of their income in taxes – a lower rate than the secretaries and janitors who work for them.

Let me be clear: Democrats will do whatever it takes to protect the middle class and seniors, even if it means the richest of the rich in American have to contribute a little bit more than they do now.

We will fight for the policies that create American jobs, even if that means CEOs and hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions of dollars a year have to contribute the same amount or more as teachers and firefighters whose salaries are a tiny fraction the size of theirs.

That’s simple fairness.

With 14 million Americans out of work, we have 14 million reasons to put job creation ahead of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

As the economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, “True patriotism isn’t cheap. It’s about taking on a fair share of the burden of keeping America going.”

Democrats Are Committed to Improving Access to Cancer Prevention and Treatment Services for Seniors.

The Affordable Care Act provides seniors with new cancer prevention and treatment tools, including free screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies.  In 2008, 43% of female Medicare beneficiaries did not receive a mammogram.  Studies suggest that 3,700 lives could be saved if 90% of women 40 and older receive a mammogram.  The Affordable Care Act eliminated cost sharing requirements for mammograms and other prevention tools, dramatically improving access to important lifesaving services.  [HHS, 3/16/11; HHS, 7/14/10]

Under the Republican Budget, More Than 7 Million Seniors Will Be Required to Pay More for Cancer Prevention Starting Next Year. The Republican budget will require seniors to pay a 20% co-insurance for many cancer prevention services, including screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies.  By forcing seniors to pay the 20% co-insurance, the Republican budget could result in beneficiaries paying an additional $160 out-of-pocket. These increased costs could force thousands of seniors to forego mammograms and colonoscopies, thus possibly putting their lives at greater risk.  [HHS, 3/16/11]

Despite Republican claims that their budget will not impact current seniors, the GOP budget will increase costs for cancer prevention immediately and require:

• More than 7,800,000 senior women pay a 20% co-insurance for breast cancer screening
• More than 2,000,000 senior women pay a 20% co-insurance for cervical cancer screening (pap test)
• More than 1,200,000 senior women pay a 20% co-insurance for cervical cancer screening (pelvic examination)

Cancer Patients Have Already Saved More Than $32 Million on Their Medication This Year, But The Republican Budget Eliminates Those Discounts, Making Lifesaving Drugs Unaffordable for Many Seniors. By re-opening the donut hole, the Republican budget will force seniors with cancer to pay millions more for their life-saving medications. By providing significant discounts on prescription drugs to seniors in the donut hole, Medicare saved seniors with cancer $32 million for cancer drugs in the first part of this year alone.  In fact, nearly 20% of the discounts to date have been for cancer medication. The House budget would eliminate these savings moving forward. According to a recent report, 16 percent of Medicare patients did not fill their cancer drug prescriptions due to the high costs. The Republican budget imposes new costs on seniors with cancer starting in 2012, thereby risking the health of our most vulnerable senior population. [HHS, 5/24/11; Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5/11]

Click here for state-specific data on how the Republican budget will force seniors in your state to pay more for life-saving preventive health services in 2012.

Safe Over 55? Maybe Not.

Republicans say their Medicare plan wouldn’t affect anybody near retirement age. But it would.

by Tim Fernholz, National Journal Magazine

Republicans are convinced that burnishing the public’s view of their unpopular proposal to overhaul Medicare depends on assuring today’s seniors that they won’t be affected.

“The retirees are going to be taken care of; there’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it,” House Speaker John Boehner vowed in an interview with CBS last month. The plan’s architect, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has said time and again that the changes wouldn’t affect anybody getting close to retirement. “We propose to not change the benefits for people above the age of 55,” Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, insisted last week.

There’s only one problem with the strategy: It’s not true.

The policies in the House GOP budget, if enacted, would begin affecting millions of seniors almost immediately by increasing their costs for prescription drugs and probably long-term care. Further, Medicare costs could rise over time if healthier seniors choose to abandon the traditional benefit program.

Exploiting the fear of change is a constant in health care politics, so nearly every reformer tries to play down the dislocation inherent in plans to make the system fiscally sustainable. During his own reform push, President Obama promised citizens they could keep their existing health insurance plans if they liked them. That was not exactly true: Although the new law doesn’t eliminate the current insurance system, it does put in place new incentives that experts predict will significantly change individuals’ health care options.

Republicans capitalized on the fear of those potential changes, as well as of hundreds of billions in genuine cuts to Medicare spending that were part of last year’s law, and they won heavily in November’s midterm elections. The president’s party lost seniors by more than 20 percentage points after splitting their vote 50-50 with the GOP in the prior midterm election. This year, however, it is the Republicans’ turn to be nervous, as opinion polls and their surprising loss in a special election in upstate New York revealed voter anxiety about their plan.

In response, the GOP is doubling down on the idea that today’s seniors won’t be affected. That’s partly true. Ryan’s plan to convert Medicare into a limited insurance subsidy, the most controversial aspect of the budget, wouldn’t take effect until 2022.

But the proposal would also repeal last year’s health care law, which means reopening a coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug benefit that the statute closed. The gap, commonly called the “doughnut hole,” requires seniors to pay 100 percent of any prescription costs after the annual total reaches $2,840 and until it hits $4,550. Those who spend more or less have at least three-quarters of the costs covered. Under the 2010 health law, Medicare will pay 7 percent of the cost of generic drugs and 50 percent on name-brand pharmaceuticals; by 2020, the doughnut hole will be closed.

If Congress were to pass Ryan’s plan and repeal the law, as House Republicans want, the 3 million to 4 million seniors left in the doughnut hole each year would immediately face significant out-of-pocket costs. They and all other Medicare beneficiaries would also lose access to a host of preventative-care benefits in the health care law, including free wellness visits to physicians, mammograms, colonoscopies, and programs to help smokers quit.

Perhaps more jolting, the Republican budget would cut spending on Medicaid—health care for the poor—much of which goes to long-term care for the elderly. Some 9 million seniors qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and about two-thirds of all nursing-home residents are covered by Medicaid. The GOP budget proposes cutting some $744 billion from Medicaid over 10 years by turning the system into block grants that limit federal contributions and give states more choice in structuring benefits. No one knows exactly which Medicaid services states would choose to cut back, but senior citizens account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid outlays and would almost certainly bear some of the burden.

“We know that two-thirds of the dollars in Medicaid go to people who are disabled or over 65, so this is the big funder of long-term care in this country,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative-policy director. “We also know this could have an impact on home- and community-based care, which is the kind of care individuals prefer the most [and] often the ones that will be cut first.”

The plan to grandfather traditional Medicare for those older than 55 could also have negative consequences for current seniors: In 2022, when the limited-subsidy program would be introduced, seniors who qualified for traditional Medicare would be allowed to switch to the new program. If healthier or younger beneficiaries make the change to lower their out-of-pocket costs, those still participating in Medicare would be part of an insurance pool that is less healthy and more expensive. To cover those higher per-person costs, Medicare might well be forced to either raise premiums or limit reimbursements to health care providers—which could prompt many to stop taking Medicare patients.

Republicans say that comparing their plan with the projected costs of unsustainable programs is an exercise in magical thinking. They have a point. But the idea of cutting benefits deeply without affecting anyone over 55 is almost as fantastic.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/ryan-plan-would-have-immediate-effect-on-seniors-20110602?print=true

…But That Just Isn’t True. The GOP Plan to end Medicare Would Re-Open the Donut Hole, Forcing Millions of Seniors to Pay More for Prescription Drugs From Day One.

Nationwide, nearly four million seniors would pay $2.2 billion more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.  [DPCC Report]

In Wisconsin, more than 69,100 seniors would pay $39 million more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.  [DPCC Report]

The Republican plan could force at least 20,400 Wisconsin seniors to pay over $2.1 million more for annual wellness visits in 2012. [DPCC Report]

…But That Just Isn’t True. The GOP Plan to end Medicare Would Re-Open the Donut Hole, Forcing Millions of Seniors to Pay More for Prescription Drugs From Day One.

Nationwide, nearly four million seniors would pay $2.2 billion more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.  [DPCC Report]

In Nebraska, more than 28,000 seniors would pay $16 million more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.  [DPCC Report]

The Republican plan could force at least 6,200 Nebraska seniors to pay over $660,500 more for annual wellness visits in 2012. [DPCC Report]

This vote is about more than public policy.  It is about priorities.  It is about whether we hold fast to our values, or break our promises.

There is a lot wrong with the House Republican budget on which each Senator is about to cast a vote.  But among the most irresponsible and indefensible ideas in it is the radical plan to end Medicare as we know it.

Doing so would break a solemn promise between our society and our seniors.  It’s a promise that for more than four decades has saved seniors from poverty, illness and worse.

The promise of Medicare is this: if you work hard and contribute, America will make sure you are protected in retirement from the hardships of affording health care.

The Republican budget would break this promise.  It would make life significantly more difficult and painful for America’s seniors.  It’s as simple and as serious as that.

The Republican plan would kill Medicare.  Even the conservative Wall Street Journal admitted this – even if most Republican Senators still refuse to face this reality.

Here’s what it would do: It would turn over seniors’ health to profit-hungry insurance companies.  It would let bureaucrats decide what tests and treatments seniors get.  And it would ask seniors to pay more for their health care – charging every senior $6,000 more every year – in exchange for fewer benefits.  That’s a bad deal all around.

Those voting for this Republican plan would be forcing seniors in Nevada to pay more than twice as much as they pay today in out-of-pocket costs.

Those voting for the Republican plan to kill Medicare would be voting to re-open the doughnut hole that we closed to help seniors afford expensive prescription drugs.  Opening the doughnut hole would send drug prices through the roof, costing 27,000 Nevada seniors thousands of dollars between now and the year 2020.

Those voting for the Republican plan to kill Medicare would also be forcing our seniors to pay almost a million dollars more for annual wellness visits.  They would make it harder for seniors to access nursing homes and long-term care, and would make at least 34 million more Americans uninsured.

The Republican plan to kill Medicare was written in the name of saving money.  But it costs seniors so much money, that it doesn’t even do that.  One study found that seniors would spend $14 more for every dollar the government saves.  That’s not effective economics – and it’s certainly not worth endangering the health of our seniors.

The Republican plan to kill Medicare is a plan that tries to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors.  That is a clear window into the other party’s priorities.  While it asks seniors pay more and more, it allows the wealthiest to pay less and less.  It gives even more tax breaks to those who need it the least: oil companies, billionaires and multinational companies that ship jobs overseas.

It comes down to this: The Republican plan to kill Medicare is a plan to make the rich richer and the sick sicker.

A well-worn metaphor characterizes the Senate as a saucer – as the deliberative body that cools the intense heat and occasional zeal of the House of Representatives.  In voting today down the radical Republican House-passed plan to end Medicare – in keeping our nation’s priorities straight and keeping our promise to our seniors – we are bringing our Founding Fathers’ image to life.

Millions of Seniors In “Donut-Hole” Would Pay over $9,300 more for Rx Drugs by 2020

Senate Dems Release New National And State-by-State Report on Increased Cost Current Enrollees Would Face in Coming Years Under Republican Budget

Washington, DC— Today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) revealed the immediate and devastating impact the extreme House Republicans’ budget plan would have on at least four million seniors across the country.  The Republican budget would reopen the prescription drug donut hole, costing each of the four million seniors who fall into the coverage gap up to $9,300 by 2020.  In total, it would cost seniors $44 billion in prescription drug costs over this time period, including $2.2 billion next year alone.  It would also force at least one million seniors and people with disabilities to pay over $110 million more for their annual wellness visits in 2012.

The Senators released a state-by-state report detailing the number of seniors who would be thrown back into the prescription drug donut hole, the additional costs seniors would pay for prescription drugs, and the number of Medicare enrollees who would pay more for their annual wellness visit under the Republican budget [LINK].

“There’s a right way to preserve Medicare, and that’s by improving it,” Secretary Sebelius said. “President Obama has begun to do just that. The Republican plan would end Medicare as we know it and impose significant costs on today’s seniors and tomorrow’s seniors. That is clearly the wrong way.”

“Since passing their reckless budget plan, Republicans have continued to make the false claim that their plan protects Medicare benefits for seniors – this is simply not true,” Senator Rockefeller said.  “Medicaid is just as important for seniors as Medicare and Social Security, and we ought to be asking Republicans why they want to slash our country’s only long-term care program.”

“The Ryan budget jeopardizes women’s health at all stages of life – it is devastating to seniors, women of child-bearing age, and even children,” Senator Mikulski said. “It continues the assault on women that House Republicans began in H.R. 1. It decimates Medicare and Medicaid, but gives a bailout to rich insurance companies. This budget is so ridiculous that it’s hard to take seriously, but I know they are serious. And I’m serious about stopping them.”

“The Republican budget would pull the rug out from under seniors in order to finance extra tax cuts for millionaires,” Senator Brown said. “If enacted, seniors would see their prescription drug costs explode and would lose access to no-cost annual wellness visits and preventive care. It would hand an $89 million prescription drug tab to split among 159,000 Ohio seniors in the first year alone. Meanwhile, seniors would see an end to Medicare as we know it through privatization. They would be handed vouchers that wouldn’t cover the cost of the health services they count on – doubling their out-of-pocket costs in the first year alone.”

“With Rhode Island seniors struggling to keep up with rising costs at the pharmacy, grocery store, and gas pump, this is not the time to tamper with Medicare by reopening the doughnut hole and taking away access to free preventive screenings,” Senator Whitehouse said.  “I will stand strong against efforts to increase the out-of-pocket health expenses of Rhode Island seniors.”

The Republican budget would also require that seniors pay deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for many preventive services currently covered by Medicare, including mammograms; colorectal, cervical and prostate cancer screening; cholesterol and other cardiovascular screenings; diabetes screening and flu shots.

Background:

Under the Republican Plan, Nearly Four Million Seniors Will Be Forced to Pay $2.2 Billion More for Prescription Drugs in 2012. The Republican budget would “reopen” the prescription drug donut hole and cost the average senior who falls into the coverage gap approximately $9,300 between 2012 and 2020. Over that time, the Republican budget will cost seniors an estimated $44 billion in prescription drug costs, including $2.2 billion next year alone.  [HHS, 11/4/10; CBO, 3/18/11]

Under The Republican Plan, At Least One Million Seniors and People With Disabilities Will Pay Over $110 Million More For Their Annual Wellness Visits In 2012. At least 1,000,000 seniors are expected to see their physician for an annual wellness visit in 2012. These visits are critical to positive health outcomes for seniors across the country. As a result of the Republican plan, these seniors would each pay an additional $160 for the first visit and $105 for a subsequent visit. [HHS, 3/16/11; Kaiser State Health Facts, accessed on 5/5/11]

All Seniors Enrolled In Medicare Will Be Forced to Pay More for Health Care Services Under the Republican Plan. The Republican plan will require that seniors pay deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for many preventive services currently covered by Medicare; including cancer screenings such as mammograms and colonoscopies as well as annual wellness visits. Seniors could be forced to pay for many other health services that Medicare currently covers free of charge to the patient, including mammograms; colorectal, cervical and prostate cancer screening; cholesterol and other cardiovascular screenings; diabetes screening and flu shots. [HHS, 11/4/10]

“The Medicare Trustees’ report projects that Medicare will remain solvent through 2024.  This is a slight reduction from last year’s projection, caused largely by the pace of economic recovery.  Without the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicare would have gone bankrupt in 2016.

“Clearly, the ACA extended the solvency of Medicare.  It also laid the foundation for system-wide savings and quality improvement through reforms to our delivery system.  We should build upon that foundation by implementing those delivery system reforms that reward quality, promote prevention, simplify administrative processes, realign payment systems, and encourage information technology.  This approach will save money by improving quality of care: a win-win for our health care system and the American people.  We owe it to our country to reach for those savings – not compromise the care on which millions rely.

“Unfortunately, some of my Republican colleagues have proposed to privatize Medicare and shift the rising cost burden to seniors, rather than strengthen Medicare and put our entire health care system on a sustainable path. They have misdiagnosed the problem, and their remedy will do more harm than good.”

“Next year’s Republican budget is a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle Medicare for tens of millions of Americans.  We need to do everything possible to responsibly reduce our debt, but we should do that by holding government accountable and eliminating programs that aren’t working, not by putting all of the burden on middle class families and seniors.  Pulling the rug out from under seniors who have paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire lives is wrong, and extreme plans that dismantle benefits seniors have earned will not pass the Senate.”

Washington, D.C.–Today Senators Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken and Richard Blumenthal told Republicans to “Back Off Social Security” during an event with more than 300 of the program’s supporters. The senators  discussed the GOP’s dangerous plan to privatize Social Security, ending the program as we know it.

Republicans’ dangerous spending plan also calls for draconian cuts to the Social Security Administration, which could lead to delays in the distribution of benefits.

“Seventy-five years ago, our nation made the promise that if you work hard and contribute, America will make sure you can retire in dignity. That promise is called Social Security, and it’s a promise that must never be broken,” Sen. Reid said. “But Republicans have shown they couldn’t care less about those who have the least. Their plan on Social Security is simple, and it’s this: end it.  They use words like ‘privatize’ and ‘personalize.’  But they’re all code words for the same thing: ending Social Security as we know it.”

“Let’s remember who we are talking about when it comes to protecting Social Security – our parents and grandparents, children and neighbors,” Sen. Harkin said.  “Social Security provides our families and friends with a safety net as they grow old.   Despite that fact, the same people who wanted to leave Social Security to the whims of the stock market in the years before the financial crisis are now using the budget debate as an excuse to give another handout to money managers on Wall Street. The promise of Social Security is one that we must keep and one which we will continue to insist on for future generations.”

“Social Security is the most successful federal program in our nation’s history and we cannot allow it to be dismantled by Wall Street and those in the Republican Party who want to take us back to the 1920s when half of our nation’s seniors were living in abject poverty,” Sen. Sanders said.

“Social Security provides a safety net for Minnesota families torn apart by unspeakable tragedy and allows America’s retirees to age with dignity,” Sen. Franken said. “Social Security has nothing to do with reducing the deficit.  Social Security benefits should not be cut at all, for anyone, as part of efforts to reduce the deficit.”

“We’ve heard all the scare tactics before, but people in Connecticut and across the country just aren’t buying it – for decades, Social Security benefits have kept millions of senior and disabled Americans out of poverty,” Sen. Blumenthal said. “Cutting Social Security benefits won’t reduce our deficit or debt, and the American people expect us to make smart, strategic choices about cutting spending – not to do it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.”

“This morning one of my friends said that passing the health care bill was a miracle in his life and his family’s life. Those are his words, not mine,” Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said today on the Senate Floor. “They could not find insurance for their child who developed diabetes. Because of the health care bill, that child is fully insured now. That’s what the health care bill is about.

“Hundreds of thousands of students have health insurance because their parents have health insurance. The IRS sent notices to 4.4 million small businesses in America to let them know that they may qualify for reduced insurance premiums. And exchanges are being set up in Nevada and across the country that will mean every American has access to insurance plans similar to the ones members of Congress have. The health care bill is a milestone in the history of this country.”

Reid said Republicans who want to repeal health care reform also want to strip away those benefits, which have proven popular with people in Nevada and across America. Their plan would put Americans’ care back in the hands of big insurance companies, whose only concern is their bottom line.

In addition to costing small businesses and middle-class families, repealing the Affordable Care Act would also balloon our deficit.  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the law will reduce this country’s debt by $1.3 trillion–a savings that would disappear if Republicans get their way.

Fr: Democratic Policy and Communications Center

Re: Republicans’ Reckless Plans Would Drive Up Drug Prices for Seniors, Put Sick Kids At Risk And Explode Our Deficit

While Democrats have moved on to creating jobs, after a year, Republicans are still obsessed with yesterday’s battles. There are various reckless Republican plans to take away benefits and protections that millions of Americans rely on, but the thing they all have in common is that they would raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription costs for seniors, allow insurance companies to deny care to sick children and increase the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades.

As Republicans continue to refight old battles, here are a few questions for them:

1. Republicans’ long-shot plan to defund the Affordable Care Act would prevent Medicare from paying the bills for millions of seniors, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare would not be able to issue payments to private insurance plans that cover a quarter of all the seniors in the program and would risk “significant disruptions in services” to nearly 13 million Medicare recipients. Are Republicans willing to put Medicare benefits for nearly 13 million seniors at risk with their extreme plan?

2. Republicans’ ideological plan to repeal health reform would increase the deficit by more than $1 trillion over two decades, and $230 billion in the first decade alone. How can Republicans support a plan that would explode our deficit?

3. About 17 million children – nearly a quarter of all American children – have preexisting conditions that could be used by insurance companies to deny them care if the health reform law were repealed. How do Republicans justify a plan that would allow insurers to deny care to 17 million children?

“Rep. Cantor’s claim that we need to cut seniors’ Social Security checks today to balance the budget is flat-out wrong.  Blaming Social Security for our deficit is nothing but an ideological attempt to slash benefits and privatize the program.”

Slashes Title I Education Funding, Putting 1 Million Students and 10,000 Jobs at Risk. The House plan cuts an additional $5 billion from the Department of Education, including slashing Title I education funding by nearly $700 million, meaning 2,400 schools serving 1 million disadvantaged students could lose funding, and approximately 10,000 teachers, aides and staff could lose their jobs.

Slashes Maximum Pell Grant Award By $845 Per Student. The House plan will cut the maximum Pell Grant award by $845 from $4,860 to $4,015, a 17 percent cut.

Slashes Head Start By 20%, Eliminating the Program for 218,000 Children and Forcing 55,000 Layoffs. The House bill funds Head Start at $6.1 billion, a cut of nearly $1.1 billion from the FY 2010 enacted level.  At the House level, HHS would have to cut approximately 218,000 low-income children and their families, a cut of over 20 percent.  This would involve laying off an estimated 55,000 teachers and related staff.

Eliminates Race to the Top & AmeriCorps. The House plan provides no funding to key K-12 priorities, including Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, the Early Learning Challenge Fund.  In addition, the House plan eliminates AmeriCorps.

Slashes Food Safety Inspection Funding By $100 Million, Stopping Inspections and Costing the Economy and Businesses $11 Billion. The House plan reduces funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service by $100 million. This would force many meat and poultry plants to shut down for more than a month during inspector furloughs, resulting in economic losses of approximately $11 billion and potentially leading to a spike in consumer prices.

Slashes Support for the WIC Program, Covering Fewer Women and Children Struggling to Get Back on Their Feet. The House plan reduces funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) by 10%, or nearly $750 million. At this rate, the program would need to dip into contingency funds or turn families away to cover the 9.3 million participants in 2011.

Slashes EPA Funding By Nearly 30% From Current Levels. The House plan cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 29% from the FY10 enacted level.

Slashes Funding for Renewable Energy By $787 Million. The House bill provides $787 million below the current level for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Furthermore, the bill appears to provide no new funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which falls within this account. The bill would significantly delay needed investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy R&D, demonstration and deployment programs critical to the transition to a Clean Energy Economy.

Slashes Funding for the SEC & CFTC, Hindering Wall Street Enforcement and Consumer Protections. The House bill provides $188 million less for the Securities and Exchange Commission than the Obama Administration requested for FY11 and $149 million less for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission than the FY11 request, severely impairing SEC’s ability to implement the Dodd-Frank Act.

Slashes Funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Rolling Back Critical Investments in Innovation. The House bill reduces funding for NIST by $223 million below the Obama Administration’s FY11 request and $162 million below FY 2010.  This steep reduction could lead to construction halts and damage the Administration’s innovation initiatives.

Slashes Investment in Science Research, Hurting More Than 5,000 Researchers, Teachers and Students. The House bill slashes funding for the National Science Foundation by more than $300 million below current levels. The likely impacts of these cuts are 1,800 fewer research and education grants supporting over 5,000 researchers, teachers, and students, and significant cost and schedule growth for one or more of the major facility construction projects.

Slashes Funding for State and Local FEMA Programs, Impacting First Responders and Homeland Security. The House bill reduces funding for FEMA State and Local Programs by $1.4 billion.   This level significantly reduces funding to hire firefighters and other first responders and cuts funding to support port and transit security.

Slashes Funding for Border Technology Initiatives. The House bill reduces funding for the Department of Homeland Security’s border technology initiative by $243 million (including rescissions of prior year amounts).  This will result in a slow-down in the deployment of new and much needed border surveillance technologies.

Slashes Investment in Job Training When Workers Need it Most. The House bill completely zeroes out all new funding for WIA’s (title I) Adult, Dislocated Workers and Youth formula grant programs in Program Year 2011. If these cuts are enacted, more than 8.5 million job seekers and workers will lose services, including 130,000 veterans. In addition, the 3,000 local one-stop career centers across the country would be forced to close their doors.

Slashes Economic Development Administration Grants. The House bill cuts funding for Economic Development Administration grant programs by $80 million below the FY10 level, hindering EDA’s ability to promote competitiveness and prepare American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy.

Slashes More Than $1 Billion from NIH. The House bill slashes $1.3 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would force NIH to reduce support for more than 25,000 existing research grants and scale back clinical trials and research projects.

Slashes Investment in FAA NextGen, Leading to More Flight Delays and Hurting the Economy. The House bill provides $340 million less funding for the FAA’s NextGen program than the Obama Administration requested for FY11.  This funding level will significantly slow efforts to modernize FAA’s air traffic control system, including initiatives to develop satellite-based surveillance of air traffic, data communications capabilities, and efforts to improve aviation weather observations and forecasting.  This level will likely jeopardize FAA’s 2018 goals of reducing total flight delays by 21 percent and saving 1.4 billion gallons of fuel.

Zeroes Out Funding for High Speed Rail. The House bill zeroes out funding for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service.

“If Paul Ryan’s Roadmap is any indication, the House Republicans’ idea of entitlement reform will be privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher system. Any such plans will be dead on arrival in the Senate. Democrats will fight any attempt to break our promise to America’s seniors. We want to extend the life of Social Security and eliminate waste in Medicare, but we will not go along with proposals that seek to end these programs.”

###

Ryan’s Roadmap Would Privatize Social Security, End Medicare As We Know It.

Congressional Budget Office: “Roadmap” Will Privatize Social Security. The CBO wrote in a letter to Ryan about his roadmap, “A system of individual accounts would be established in 2012. In that year, workers who are age 55 or younger would be able to participate in voluntary individual accounts, funded with a portion of their payroll taxes.” [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]

•  Roadmap Would Cut Social Security Benefits.  “The Roadmap specifies reductions in traditional retirement benefits through progressive price indexing for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011.”  [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]

Ryan’s Plan Would Convert Medicare to a Voucher Program, Vastly Cutting Benefits. “People who become eligible for Medicare after 2020 would no longer have access to a defined set of benefits from any participating health care provider. Instead, they would receive a voucher worth $11,000 (on average) to be used to purchase private health insurance… Moreover, the Ryan plan imposes no requirement that private insurers actually offer health coverage to Medicare beneficiaries at an affordable price, or at all. Some beneficiaries, particularly the frail elderly, people with disabilities, and those with very modest incomes, could end up uninsured or heavily underinsured.” [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/7/10]

•  Roadmap Would Raise the Retirement Age For Medicare. According to the CBO the Ryan plan would eventually raise the retirement age for Medicare from 65 to 69 ½ years old.  [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]

MISPLACED PRIORITIES: PAY THE CHINESE FIRST

Under This Plan, Republicans Would Have Government Pay China Before They Provide Earned Benefits to American Veterans & Seniors. “Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., came out strongly against the legislation on Wednesday, saying it jeopardizes not only the credit system but potentially basic government services. ‘I think it is a dreadful idea,’ Conrad said. ‘Basically what they are saying is, pay China first. Are we going to forget about the American public and the things that they need? Somehow they are secondary? And paying the Chinese and the Japanese is the first priority of this country? I don’t even know how to describe that idea; it’s just a very, very bad one.’ ‘What they are saying essentially is that the full faith and credit of the American government extends to a lot of foreign countries, but it doesn’t extend to the American people themselves,’ Van Hollen said.” [National Journal, 1/26/11; The Hill, 1/26/11]

KEY POINTS

• Sen. Toomey has introduced a bill that the Treasury Department says will allow the Republicans to evade responsibility for their failure to honor America’s legal payment obligations.

• Sen. Toomey and his colleagues claim that by prioritizing payment of principal and interest on our public debt, we can avoid default. But in reality Toomey’s bill is not only “unworkable”, according to the Treasury Department, but it would do nothing to protect the creditworthiness of the United States government.

• The Treasury Department says that the public debt is not our only legal obligation – we also need to make Social Security and Medicare payments, to pay our service men and women and military contractors, and distribute Americans’ tax refunds. The government would have to stop or delay making payments on these other obligations in order to ensure that it could make payments on the debt. In basic terms, these Republicans would rather insist that payments to China, Russia and Venezuela be made ahead of payments for benefits to veterans and seniors.

• The Treasury Department says that failure to make those payments will be considered a default by the U.S. government every bit as much as the failure to pay interest on Treasury bonds – it would be a statement to the financial markets and everybody who does business with the U.S. government that we aren’t willing to honor our legal obligations.

• In short, the Treasury Department says that Sen. Toomey’s bill would not avoid any of the disastrous consequences that failing to raise the debt ceiling in the first place would lead to. These include: a massive tax on all households as a result of skyrocketing interest rates, a potentially massive devaluation of the U.S. Dollar and drastic cuts to benefits that middle-class families, veterans and seniors rely on.

• Even by Sen. Toomey’s own estimate, his bill would force the U.S. to default on one-third of its legal obligations, and in reality the number is far higher.

For more information, please see the Treasury Department’s statement on Sen. Toomey’s proposal here: http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Proposals-to-Prioritize-Payments-on-US-Debt-Not-Workable-Would-Not-Prevent-Default.aspx

In addition, please see Secretary Geithner’s letter to Congress regarding the debt ceiling: http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/letter.aspx

Republican Repeal Costs $143 billion

Health Reform Reduces the Deficit

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper of Congress, determined that the Affordable Care Act reduces the federal deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years of enactment. [CBO, 3/20/10]  The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit while ensuring that 94 percent of Americans have health insurance and reducing the rate at which health care costs grow.

Republican Repeal Plan Increases the Deficit

Extrapolating from CBO’s estimate of the deficit savings resulting from the Affordable Care Act, repeal of health reform is likely to increase the deficit by $143 billion.

Republican Repeal Raises Drug Costs for Seniors

Health Reform Fills in the “Donut Hole”

More than 1.2 million Medicare beneficiaries who have entered the “donut hole” have received their $250 rebate checks, the first of the Affordable Care Act’s steps to completely fill in the “donut hole” by 2020. [HHS, 9/23/10]  Checks will continue to go out monthly for the rest of the year as beneficiaries enter the coverage gap. [White House, 6/8/10]  The $250 rebate check is tax-free and seniors do not need to do anything to receive it; Medicare automatically mails a check when the beneficiary reaches the “donut hole.” [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 5/10]  Seniors who do not receive Medicare Extra Help should expect their check in the mail within 45 days or less of hitting the coverage gap.  Information on the number of seniors in your state who may qualify for the rebate check is available from the DPC. [DPC, 6/22/10]

Beginning next year, Medicare beneficiaries who do not receive Medicare Extra Help will receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and biologics they purchase when they are in the coverage gap.  In addition to the discount, coverage in the “donut hole” will increase until 2020, when 75 percent coverage on all drugs purchased in the gap will completely fill in the “donut hole.”  More information on filling in the “donut hole” and other benefits of health reform for seniors is available from the DPC. [DPC, 6/10/10]

Republican Repeal Raises Drug Costs for Seniors

The Republican scheme to repeal health reform would deny seniors the $250 rebate check and rescind the 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and biologics purchased in the “donut hole” next year to help them afford their medication.  The Republican plot to repeal reform would ensure the “donut hole” remains in place, rather than being closed by 2020 as under the health reform law.

Republican Repeal Revokes Tax Credits for Small Businesses

Health Reform Provides Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credits

The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits for up to 35 percent of premium costs for small businesses that offer coverage to their employees.  Effective this year, the full credit is available to firms with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $25,000, while firms with up to 25 employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for a credit.  Beginning in 2014, tax credits are available for up to 50 percent of premium costs.  In April, the Internal Revenue Service began mailing postcards to more than four million small businesses and tax-exempt organizations that may be eligible for the credit, and provided answers to frequently asked questions about the credit. [IRS, 4/19/10; 5/5/10]  Information on the number of small businesses in your state who may qualify for the tax credit is available from the DPC. [DPC, 6/22/10]

Republican Repeal Plan Revokes Tax Credits for Small Businesses

The Republican scheme to repeal health reform would deny small businesses this tax credit, putting small business owners right back where they were before health reform was enacted, struggling to find affordable coverage options to offer their employees, or simply not offering coverage because affordable plans are unavailable.

Republican Repeal Rescinds Coverage for Young Adults

Health Reform Expands Coverage for Young Adults

The Affordable Care Act allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until their 26^th birthday.  Before passage of the new law, many plans dropped young adults from their parents’ policies at age 19 or upon graduation from high school or college. [National Conference of State Legislatures, 4/10]  Thirty percent of young adults age 19 through 29 are uninsured, the highest rate of any age group.  This provision is effective for all policies issued or renewed after September 23, 2010, and more than 65 insurance companies voluntarily started providing this coverage to young adults earlier this year, before the deadline. [The White House, 5/10/10]  Information on the number of young adults in your state who may benefit from this coverage extension is available from the DPC. [DPC, 6/22/10]

Republican Repeal Plan Rescinds Coverage Expansion for Young Adults

The Republican scheme to repeal health reform would revoke the new health insurance coverage options that health reform offers for young adults.  For young adults, especially new college graduates facing a challenging job market, the option to stay on a parent’s health insurance could be the only reasonably priced insurance option they have.  Without it, many will be forced to go uninsured.

Republican Repeal Revokes Coverage for Children with Pre-Existing Conditions

Health Reform Guarantees Coverage for Children with Pre-Existing Conditions

The Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurers from denying or excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective for policies and plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, and applying to all group plans and all new plans in the individual market.  The Administration has worked with the health insurance industry, which has agreed to ensure that children with pre-existing conditions are not denied coverage. [HHS, 5/10/10]  This means that children, no matter their health status, and their parents will soon have the peace of mind that comes with knowing coverage of a child’s pre-existing condition cannot be denied.

Republican Repeal Plan Revokes Protections for Children

The Republican scheme to repeal health reform would revoke the protection children now have from having their health insurance coverage denied or limited due to a pre-existing condition.  The Republican effort to repeal reform gives insurance companies the freedom to deny coverage of a child’s pre-existing condition, including congenital conditions a child may have at birth.  No child should be denied health care for a condition they were born with, and every parent deserves the peace of mind that comes with knowing their child’s health care is covered.

Republican Repeal Revokes the Patients’ Bill of Rights

Health Reform Guarantees Patients’ Rights

The Affordable Care Act includes numerous consumer protections and a Patients’ Bill of Rights – provisions that Senate Democrats have been fighting to enact for nearly a decade.  These patient protections take effect for policy or plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, and apply to various types of health insurance plans, as noted.

·         No lifetime limits on coverage. Insurers will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.  This provision applies to all new and existing plans in all markets.

·         No coverage rescissions when Americans get sick. Insurers will be prohibited from rescinding health coverage when a beneficiary gets sick as a way of avoiding paying that person’s health care bills.  This provision applies to all new and existing plans in all markets.

·         Required coverage of preventive care with no cost-sharing. Insurers will be required to provide coverage of preventive health care services without cost-sharing.  This provision applies to all new plans in all markets.

·         Regulated annual limits on coverage. Insurance plans’ use of annual limits will be tightly regulated to ensure access to needed care.  This provision applies to all new plans and existing employer plans, until 2014, when the Exchanges are operational and use of any type of annual limit will be banned for all new plans and existing employer plans.

·         Fair opportunity to appeal coverage and claims decisions. Health insurers will be required to develop an appeals process that, at a minimum, provides beneficiaries with a notice of internal and external appeals processes and allows beneficiaries to review their file and present evidence in their appeal.  This provision applies to all new plans in all markets.

·         Right to choose your doctor. Patients’ rights are protected by allowing health insurance plan members to choose any participating primary care provider, or in the case of children, any participating pediatrician, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before a woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care.  This provision applies to all new plans in all markets.

Republican Repeal Plan Revokes Patients’ Rights

The Republican scheme to repeal health reform would deny all Americans the consumer protections and patients’ rights that will soon take effect as a result of the new health reform law.  The Affordable Care Act puts control over health care decisions in the hands of the American people, not insurance companies.  It seems Republicans advocating for repeal of the new law are on the side of insurance companies, not patients.

Republican Repeal Raises Costs for Early Retirees

Health Reform Lowers Costs for Early Retirees

The Affordable Care Act created a $5 billion re-insurance program for employer health plans that offer coverage to retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare, to help protect access to coverage while reducing costs for employers and retirees.  This temporary program will provide financial assistance until 2014, when health insurance Exchanges will make it easier for early retirees to access affordable health insurance options.  Early retirees are at particular risk of becoming uninsured, or of being forced to pay exorbitant premium costs until they become eligible for Medicare, and the percentage of large firms offering retiree coverage has dropped precipitously, from 66 percent in 1988 to just 31 percent in 2008. [The White House, 5/4/10]  The program began on June 1, 2010, in advance of the June 22, 2010, effective date required by law. [Federal Register, 5/5/10; The White House, 5/4/10]  Information on the number of early retirees in your state who may benefit from this program is available from the DPC. [DPC, 6/22/10]

Republican Repeal Plan Leaves Early Retirees Without Critical Protections

The Republican scheme to repeal health reform fails to protect early retirees, who will continue to be at a very high risk of becoming uninsured or of paying excessive premiums if they are lucky enough to maintain their health insurance coverage.  Employers are struggling to continue providing health benefits to retirees, and Republicans are working to repeal the assistance that the health reform law provides them to do the right thing.