lily
04-23-2008, 10:38 PM
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042300935.html?hpid=topnews)
House challenges administration on Medicaid rules
By JIM ABRAMS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 23, 2008; 5:14 PM
WASHINGTON -- The House voted Wednesday to block the Bush administration
from cutting federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13
billion over the next five years. President Bush has threatened a veto, but
supporters have more than enough votes in the House to override him, and
maybe in the Senate, too.
Two thirds of the Republicans joined every voting Democrat in the 349-62
vote to impose a one-year moratorium, through next March, on seven rules
changes that the administration argues are needed to rectify waste and abuse
in the state-federal partnership to provide health care to the poor.
Supporters of the bill said the rules would merely shift financial burdens
to the states at a time of economic distress while reducing access to health
care for the country's neediest people.
The governors of all 50 states, state Medicaid directors and others oppose
the rules, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich.,
told the House. "They know the devastating effects these rules would have on
local communities, upon hospitals, and upon vulnerable beneficiaries."
The House vote margin was well above the two-thirds needed to override a
presidential veto. Congress has overridden a Bush veto only once, last
November on a water projects bill.
But the legislation must first move through the Senate Finance Committee and
get a vote on the Senate floor. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus,
D-Mont., applauded the House vote, saying he intended to work with his
Senate colleagues "on strategies to stop harmful Medicaid regulations as
well."
But his Republican counterpart, Charles Grassley of Iowa, has voiced
opposition to the House approach of freezing the seven rules.
"It is an absolute farce for anyone to argue that all of those dollars are
being appropriately spent and that Congress ought to just walk away from
these issues," he said in a recent speech. He said the Finance Committee
should fix the problems "instead of just making the regulations go away."
The Bush administration instituted the rules with the aim of saving the
Treasury about $13 billion over five years and $33 billion over 10 years in
programs that provides health coverage and nursing home care to the poor.
The White House, in a statement Tuesday warning of a veto threat, said the
bill would "thwart these efforts of the federal government to regain fiscal
accountability and integrity in Medicaid." Health and Human Services
Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a letter to lawmakers, said it "puts billions of
dollars of federal funds at risk, and may turn back progress that has
already been made to stop abusive state practices."
But the proposed changes have met opposition from states, health care
providers and advocates for poor who say they will shift costs from the
federal government to the states and create new hardships for the needy.
"Some of these regulations already have become effective and current state
estimates of the impact could be as high as four times the administration's
$13 billion estimate," National Governors Association chairman Tim Pawlenty,
R-Minn., and other governors wrote lawmakers this month. Timely action to
impose the one-year moratorium was "critical to avert significant
disruptions in coverage for vulnerable populations," they wrote.
House challenges administration on Medicaid rules
By JIM ABRAMS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 23, 2008; 5:14 PM
WASHINGTON -- The House voted Wednesday to block the Bush administration
from cutting federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13
billion over the next five years. President Bush has threatened a veto, but
supporters have more than enough votes in the House to override him, and
maybe in the Senate, too.
Two thirds of the Republicans joined every voting Democrat in the 349-62
vote to impose a one-year moratorium, through next March, on seven rules
changes that the administration argues are needed to rectify waste and abuse
in the state-federal partnership to provide health care to the poor.
Supporters of the bill said the rules would merely shift financial burdens
to the states at a time of economic distress while reducing access to health
care for the country's neediest people.
The governors of all 50 states, state Medicaid directors and others oppose
the rules, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich.,
told the House. "They know the devastating effects these rules would have on
local communities, upon hospitals, and upon vulnerable beneficiaries."
The House vote margin was well above the two-thirds needed to override a
presidential veto. Congress has overridden a Bush veto only once, last
November on a water projects bill.
But the legislation must first move through the Senate Finance Committee and
get a vote on the Senate floor. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus,
D-Mont., applauded the House vote, saying he intended to work with his
Senate colleagues "on strategies to stop harmful Medicaid regulations as
well."
But his Republican counterpart, Charles Grassley of Iowa, has voiced
opposition to the House approach of freezing the seven rules.
"It is an absolute farce for anyone to argue that all of those dollars are
being appropriately spent and that Congress ought to just walk away from
these issues," he said in a recent speech. He said the Finance Committee
should fix the problems "instead of just making the regulations go away."
The Bush administration instituted the rules with the aim of saving the
Treasury about $13 billion over five years and $33 billion over 10 years in
programs that provides health coverage and nursing home care to the poor.
The White House, in a statement Tuesday warning of a veto threat, said the
bill would "thwart these efforts of the federal government to regain fiscal
accountability and integrity in Medicaid." Health and Human Services
Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a letter to lawmakers, said it "puts billions of
dollars of federal funds at risk, and may turn back progress that has
already been made to stop abusive state practices."
But the proposed changes have met opposition from states, health care
providers and advocates for poor who say they will shift costs from the
federal government to the states and create new hardships for the needy.
"Some of these regulations already have become effective and current state
estimates of the impact could be as high as four times the administration's
$13 billion estimate," National Governors Association chairman Tim Pawlenty,
R-Minn., and other governors wrote lawmakers this month. Timely action to
impose the one-year moratorium was "critical to avert significant
disruptions in coverage for vulnerable populations," they wrote.