Administration Drops Controversial Medicare Changes

The Medicare agency is abandoning changes that conservatives said would undermine its drug coverage.

WASHINGTON - AUGUST 16: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services building is shown August 16, 2006 in Washington, DC. The HHS Building, also known as the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, is located at the foot of Capitol Hill and is named for Humphrey, who served as a U.S. senator from Minnesota and Vice President of the United States. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
National Journal
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
Sam Baker
March 10, 2014, 8:50 a.m.

The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is back­ing off of con­tro­ver­sial changes to the way Medi­care cov­ers pre­scrip­tion drugs.

Con­ser­vat­ives and many law­makers had as­sailed the pro­posed changes, ar­guing that they would have fun­da­ment­ally changed the nature of Medi­care’s drug be­ne­fit, known as Part D. The Cen­ters for Medi­care and Medi­caid Ser­vices said in a let­ter to mem­bers of Con­gress on Monday that it would not move for­ward with the most con­tro­ver­sial changes.

CMS aban­doned pro­pos­als that would have ex­pan­ded the agency’s power to get in­volved in ne­go­ti­ations between Part D plans and phar­ma­cies. Un­til the pro­posed changes, CMS had be­lieved it did not have the au­thor­ity to be a part of those ne­go­ti­ations. It pro­posed a re­in­ter­pret­a­tion of its power, which promp­ted cri­ti­cism that the agency would un­der­mine a pop­u­lar part of the Medi­care pro­gram.

CMS had also pro­posed, but has now aban­doned, new rules for how Part D plans es­tab­lish their phar­macy net­works. The pro­pos­als would have al­lowed more phar­ma­cies to win deals as “pre­ferred” pro­viders. Ac­cord­ing to an ana­lys­is from the con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­an Ac­tion For­um, that would have re­duced the num­ber of pre­ferred phar­ma­cies and po­ten­tially raised seni­ors’ costs.

“Giv­en the com­plex­it­ies of these is­sues and stake­hold­er in­put, we do not plan to fi­nal­ize these pro­pos­als at this time,” CMS said Monday in a let­ter to mem­bers of Con­gress. “We will en­gage in fur­ther stake­hold­er in­put be­fore ad­van­cing some or all of the changes in these areas in fu­ture years.”

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×