Democrats touch off lobbying in fight over Medicare

WASHINGTON -- Call it the health insurance companies and nursing homes versus doctors and the AARP, a classic, inside-the-Beltway struggle that erupted when House Democrats sought changes to Medicare.

Publicly, all sides trumpeted their concern for older people in the United States and scarcely mentioned their own financial and political self-interests, if at all.

Together, they have spent millions on lobbyists, television ads and polling to influence lawmakers. They stand ready to renew the battle this fall, all the while previewing possible lines of attack for the 2008 elections.

• "The bill preserves access for Medicare patients and lowers seniors' out of pocket costs," the American Medical Association and AARP said in ads endorsing the Democrats' bill.

Not mentioned was that the legislation would put $65 billion more into doctors' pockets over the next decade. Or that AARP, which has 39 million members older than 50, was eager to court favor with Democrats newly in control of the House.

• "Three million seniors could be pushed out of their Medicare Advantage plan, while millions more will have to pay higher out-of-pocket costs for health care and lose important benefits they depend on," the American Health Insurance Plans countered in their ad opposing the bill.

Left unsaid was that the measure would cut $157 billion over a decade from planned payments to the companies that operate Medicare health maintenance organizations under the Medicare Advantage program.

• "Slashing billions could jeopardize quality, threaten thousands of health care jobs and return Medicare funding to levels of almost a decade ago," two nursing home groups said in ads that angered top Democratic lawmakers.

No word, however, that payments to the nursing homes would drop by $6.5 billion over a decade. The commercials were financed by the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home and the American Health Care Association.

Bill of contention

The flash point for the high-dollar struggle was a complex bill that passed the House with two separate, largely unrelated halves.

One included an expansion of health insurance for lower-income children, largely paid for with higher tobacco taxes.

The second made numerous multibillion-dollar changes in Medicare, which covers about 43 million elderly and disabled people. The largest change took $157 billion from private plans that Republicans long nurtured as an alternative to the traditional government-run program.

Democrats wanted to use much of that money to raise Medicare fees to doctors, who otherwise face a 10 percent cut on Jan. 1., and provide more aid for lower-income beneficiaries.

Ultimately, Democrats broke their bill in two and temporarily sidetracked the Medicare changes.

The childrens' health care issue is now at the center of a veto struggle between Congress and the White House. To the irritation of the administration, the interest groups that parted company over Medicare are virtually unanimous in supporting expanded children's' health insurance.

Still, the maneuvering over Medicare has been a quiet presence in recent weeks and is certain to flare when Democrats turn anew to the issue.

In the interim, some Democratic strategists express concern that vulnerable lawmakers needlessly exposed themselves to potential political harm by voting to roll back private Medicare, only to have the measure sidetracked.

Statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that the health service/HMO industry has made more than $8 million in campaign donations from 2005 to 2006. Republicans got 60 percent of the money.