Font Size

Mike Pence’s Long History Attacking Social Security & Medicare

GOP Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has chosen one of Congress’ most aggressive Social Security privatization supporters to serve as his Vice President. Indiana Governor and former Congressman, Mike Pence’s record on issues important to seniors, particularly cutting benefits to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid couldn’t be worse:

“By choosing Governor Mike Pence as his running mate, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has sent a very clear message to America’s seniors that their priorities will hold little weight in a Trump administration.  During his decade-plus tenure in the U.S. Congress, Mike Pence consistently voted in favor of legislative efforts to cut benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He has a long history of blaming earned benefit programs for America’s economic woes and supporting middle-class benefit cuts to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. Few members of Congress have an anti-seniors voting record as consistently strong as Mike Pence. 

Mike Pence was one of Congress’ biggest proponents of privatization. He supports cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the COLA, means-testing and turning Medicare into “CouponCare.” As he told CNN, ‘I’m an all of the above guy.  I think we need to look at everything that’s on the menu,’ and the record shows he has done just that by supporting every form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cut proposed in the past decade. 

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare scored Mike Pence at 0% on issues important to seniors during the 2011-2012 Congress since he voted for multiple pieces of legislation that would cut benefits and programs that protect senior’s health and financial security.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

As leader of the Republican Study Committee, the House’s far-right wing caucus, during the Bush administration, Pence doubled-down on President George Bush’s failed privatization efforts by calling for an even larger private accounts scheme to be implemented sooner, putting Americans at even greater fiscal risk than the President’s doomed plan. The Washington Times reported in 2005:

“The Bush plan allows workers to divert 4 percent of their wages into investment accounts, and to choose from a set of investment strategies. But the conservatives are leaning more toward a plan sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, which would allow diversion of 6 percent of wages.

‘Conservatives want to see personal retirement accounts that have immediate relevance to younger Americans, that they can see the value, and that will require that they be big and that they be implemented in the final bill without delay,’ said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the 100-member Republican Study Committee (RSC).”

Incredibly, even though Pence was among Congress’ most vocal fiscal hawks, he was willing to use deficit spending to pay for their Social Security privatization scheme but not to improve Social Security’s long-term funding or protect seniors’ benefits:  

“Mr. Pence said conservatives would be willing to accept borrowing money to pay for the transition costs, but “so long as we can achieve the fundamental reform of personal Social Security account for retirement.” He said the RSC will convey those principles to House Republican leaders early next week, and said they believe they have muscle to back up those principles.”

Beyond privatization, Pence’s comments make it clear there isn’t a Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefit cut he won’t embrace:

“I think everything has to be on the table...I think it’s absolutely imperative, whether it’s Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.”

“With regard to entitlements we’re going to have to take some deep cuts in domestic spending.” CNN, 2010

“I was tea party before it was cool.”  Indianapolis Monthly, 2011

On health issues, Pence’s record is just as anti-senior as his Social Security stance. He aggressively opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and fought for its repeal, which would worsen Medicare’s solvency and take away billions in added benefits and cost savings for seniors.  He voted against the creation of a prescription drug benefit (Part D) in Medicare, opposes allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs and allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, he supported legislation that would deny non-emergency treatment for lack of a Medicare co-pay, and most importantly supports the GOP/Ryan budget which would destroy Medicare in favor of “Couponcare,” giving seniors a voucher to take shopping for insurance rather than protecting traditional Medicare’s guaranteed coverage.

In spite of his leadership in Congress against the ACA, as Governor he reluctantly acknowledged the healthcare needs of Indiana citizens and adopted Medicaid expansion, yet not without putting the GOP political spin on it.  As Politico reported, Pence incredibly claims the expansion was actually an elimination of Medicaid.

“In fact, a summary of the proposal describes it as a move to “eliminate traditional Medicaid” for non-disabled Hoosiers.

And by adding a requirement that Indiana residents must pay a premium, Pence promised to preserve citizens’ dignity:

“So the Indiana plan will charge small premiums—up to 2 percent of an individual's income—which will make only a tiny impact on the state's balance sheets, but will send a clear message to those layabouts; Pence talked about giving people the "dignity to pay for their own health insurance." (I'm sure that Pence declines to take a government handout in the form of the mortgage interest deduction, because that would undermine his dignity.)...American Prospect

While Donald Trump has promised on the campaign trail that he won’t cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, he continues to surround himself with advisors and now a running-mate with polar opposite intentions.  At the same time, his promise to “not touch” benefits has been noticeably absent in recent campaign appearances.  In fact, his most recent comments to an AARP survey take a very different tone:

“As our demography changes, a prudent administration would begin to examine what changes might be necessary for future generations.”...Donald Trump, AARP, June 27, 2016

That’s why NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, urges seniors and their families to beware of candidates who make promises on the campaign trail they have no intention of keeping once they get your vote:

"They say actions speak louder than words – and there’s no doubt about it -- Donald Trump’s choice of Mike Pence as his Vice-Presidential running mate speaks volumes to American seniors.”

Why All Hospital Stays Aren’t Created Equal in Medicare

For years, patients and advocates have been warning of the increasing use of the patient classification status known as “observation stays.”  A growing number of patients covered by Medicare, have spent days in the hospital, only to be surprised with large out-of-pocket costs and an inability to access long-term care because they were totally unaware the hospital never actually admitted them as a patient. 

Beginning this summer, a new federal law will require hospitals to tell their Medicare patients if they have not been formally admitted and why. Kaiser Health News reports:

“The NOTICE Act requires that starting Aug. 6, Medicare patients receive a form written in ‘plain language’ after 24 hours of observation care but no later than 36 hours. Under the law, it must explain the reason they have not been admitted and how that decision will affect Medicare’s payment for services and patients’ share of the costs. The information must also be provided verbally, and a doctor or hospital staff member must be available to answer questions.”

A Wall Street Journal investigation showed observation stays at hospitals have increased 156% and explains why many hospitals have lowered their readmissions and thus the fines that come from too many Medicare patients returning to the hospital.  

“...at hospitals around the country, more patients are entering or re-entering hospitals under something called “observation status”—a category that keeps them out of the readmission tallies. Patients on observation status can remain in the hospital for days, and typically receive care that is indistinguishable from inpatient stays, experts say. But under Medicare billing rules, the stays are considered outpatient visits, and as such, don’t trigger penalties under the health law.

The Journal’s analysis of Medicare billing data shows that increases in observation stays can skew the readmission numbers, letting hospitals avoid penalties even if patients continue to have complications and return for repeat visits. Observation stays generally are cheaper for the government, but in some cases they can lead to big bills that are the patient’s responsibility.”

The American Hospital Association has asked that the new rules be delayed and one of the law’s co-sponsors also isn’t happy with the language used to explain observation stays to patients.

“It doesn’t require the hospital to explain exactly why the patient is getting observation care instead of being admitted, he {Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)} said, and doesn’t clearly explain the difference between Medicare’s Part A hospitalization and nursing home benefit and Part B, which covers outpatient services, including doctor’s visits, lab tests and hospital observation care.

The notice, he said, also does not sufficiently explain why observation patients are ineligible for Medicare’s nursing home coverage, which under law requires at least three consecutive days as an admitted patient.”

Medicare has been taking public comment and we’ll likely hear more implementation details this month. 

Happy 4th of July from NCPSSM

If They Can't Cut Benefits--Cutting Social Security Administrative Funding is the GOP Fall Back Strategy

 

It’s often been said budgets are the best indicator of a nation’s priorities because talk is cheap but where Congress actually spends taxpayers’ money is what really matters.  If you believe that premise, then American seniors have a lot to worry about.  On the Medicare side of the ledger, we’ve already reported about efforts by GOP Senate appropriators to kill the vitally important State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) program: 

“The SHIP network provides critical information upon which people with Medicare rely to make informed decisions about their coverage options and enrollment decisions,” says Judith A. Stein, Executive Director, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. “The SHIPs are critical to providing assistance with these increasingly complicated choices. People with Medicare and their families from all over the country depend on SHIPs as the key source of unbiased guidance.

‘Senate appropriators have turned their backs on a growing number of people who will need SHIP services to navigate the complexities of Medicare coverage by proposing to eliminate program funding. This kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish lawmaking will threaten the economic security of millions of Medicare beneficiaries and their families.”…Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO”

The news is just as bad on the Social Security side as the Senate Appropriations Committee cut the agency’s administrative budget request by nearly 5.5% at a time when 10,000 Americans a day turn 65.  As Los Angeles Times columnist, Michael Hiltzik, reports this cut is especially telling:

“In fiscal terms, there’s no earthly reason for Congress to be stingy with Social Security’s administrative budget. The money comes out of workers’ payroll taxes and the system’s other revenue, not from the general treasury. And it’s spent with painstaking care: The Social Security Administration is one of the government’s most efficient agencies, with a core administrative budget of 0.7% of benefits, devoted to upholding a decades-old reputation for superb customer service.” 

Politically, this effort is a continuation of a decades-long campaign to diminish successful government programs which, since the vast majority of the American public of both parties supports them, can’t be killed outright.  Whether it’s right-winger Grover Norquist’s goal "to get it {government} down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" or former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s plan to “starve the beast” by slashing taxes on the wealthy and underfunding government programs conservatives don’t like, Republican efforts to weaken programs like Social Security and Medicare continue in full force.   

In the case of the Social Security Administration, the Senate Special Committee on Aging reports that years of Congressional under funding is clearly taking its toll.

“At a time when Baby Boomers are retiring and filing disability and retirement claims at record numbers, SSA has shed 11,000 workers agency-wide over three years. Hiring freezes resulted in disproportionate staffing across the nation’s 1,245 field offices, with some offices losing a quarter of their staff. These past five years have also served witness to the largest five-year decline in the number of field offices in the agency’s 79-year history as 64 field offices have been shuttered, in addition to the closure of 533 temporary mobile offices known as contact stations. SSA has also reduced or eliminated a variety of in-person services as it attempts to keep up with rising workloads and shift seniors and others online to conduct their business.”…Reduction in Face-to-Face Services at The Social Security Administration

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities detailed the real-life effects this has on millions of American seniors:

“Before the budget cuts, more than 90 percent of applicants could schedule an appointment within three weeks; by 2015, fewer than half could.”

“Starting in 2011, budget cuts forced SSA to freeze hiring, and the teleservice centers lost many agents through attrition.  In just three years, SSA lost more than 15 percent of its 800 number staff. Wait times and busy rates spiked.  In 2014, wait times peaked at over 22 minutes and busy rates at 13 percent.”

Again, let’s not forget that American workers have contributed a lifetime to support Social Security.  This isn’t even general revenue at issue.  While the numbers are important, they only offer a glimpse into what these cuts actually mean to average Americans, many who find themselves at the Social Security office during some of the hardest times of the lives:

“For me, this was just one bill. But there’s much more at stake for many people who need the benefits offered by the Social Security Administration, who are not in a position to put this kind of time or legwork in. Many who visit are poor, old, widowed, homeless, or disabled, and if they aren’t one of those things themselves, they are likely caring for someone who is. They are at the end of their rope, perhaps experiencing the worst scenario of their lives: They need a wheelchair. They’ve gone blind. Their spouse died. Or, like me, they have a baby in the NICU.”…Laura Kwerkel, The Atlantic

The battle to fully fund the Social Security administration and the Medicare SHIP program continues.  Chances are good your Member of Congress will tell you protecting these programs is a “top priority” but their actual vote on these particular programs could likely tell you a very different story.

Why the Social Security COLA matters

There’s no more closely watched Washington announcement for seniors than word of what the next year’s Cost of Living Adjustment will be for Social Security beneficiaries.  While the final decision isn’t announced until October of each year, the annual Social Security Trustees Report usually provides a sneak peak a few months early, as it did last week.

News that seniors should prepare for no increase (or a very small increase) for the second year in a row and the fourth time since 2010 has many understandably worried.  Contrary to conservative /fiscal hawk mythology, which dominates so much of the political discourse in Washington these days, American Social Security beneficiaries aren’t living high on the hog.  In fact, Americans know first-hand that the average $1,300 monthly Social Security retirement benefit isn’t too generous.  They know that this year’s zero cost of living allowance isn’t too generous.  They see a growing amount of their Social Security check going to pay for rising healthcare costs and skyrocketing drug prices.  It’s no wonder the annual COLA announcement adds to their frustration. 

But here’s the thing…Congress didn’t vote or even “decide” to give you a tiny or zero COLA next year.  That number is cooked into the law.  The only way to change the COLA is to convince your Members of Congress to support a new formula that actually measures the cost of living American seniors face.  

This is how current law works: 

“If there is an increase in inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a COLA was made to the third quarter of the current year. “ …NCPSSM, “Call for COLA Recalculation,” June 2015 

That means the Social Security COLA is based on the costs of goods and services purchased by wage earners, not retirees.  That’s a real problem since the purchases made by retirees are vastly different than younger Americans still in the workforce. 

“The primary source of the difference in spending patterns is medical expenses, which for most years have increased at a higher rate of inflation.  Seniors spend three times more than younger consumers on health care, including prescription drugs, medical co-pays and deductibles and non-covered expenses.  In fact, older Americans spend 23 percent of their average Social Security check for Parts B and D cost-sharing in addition to paying for health services not covered by Medicare. The following chart illustrates a sample of the increases in health care expenses compared to the increases in Social Security benefits:”

 

 

This is why we have long advocated for the adoption of a cost of living formula for the elderly that measures the expenses retirees actually face.

As early as the 1980’s, Congress recognized the problems with using the CPI-W as the basis for preserving the spending power of Social Security benefits, and in 1987 directed the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to begin work on an index focused on the elderly.  As a result, the BLS created the Experimental CPI for Americans 62 Years of Age and Older (CPI-E) and calculated estimates of the index dating back to December 1982.  The CPI-E continues to be classified as experimental because its sample size is smaller than the CPI-W, and is therefore subject to a greater sampling error.

The National Committee believes a fully developed CPI-E represents the best hope for correcting problems with the CPI-W for America’s seniors.  But Congress must provide the BLS with the funding needed to finish work on the CPI-E and make it the standard for calculating COLA adjustments for Social Security, Veterans, and Federal Civilian and Military retirement benefits. 

America’s seniors worked hard for their earned benefits and they deserve to have their standard of living and purchasing power preserved through an accurate COLA calculation.

 




Questions?

Have a Social Security or Medicare question?




 

Archives
Media Contacts

Pamela Causey
Communications Director
Causeyp@ncpssm.org(202) 216-8378
(202) 236-2123 cell

Kim Wright
Assistant Director of Communications
Wrightk@ncpssm.org
(202) 216-8414

Entitled to Know

         

 

Copyright © 2016 by NCPSSM
Login  |