Thanks Linda,

I went to the AARP (www.aarp.org) site, scrolled to the bottom, clicked contact AARP, chose "AARP on the Issues," then "prescription drugs" from the drop down list, cut and pasted the article, filled out the required parts of the form and sent it.

I urge others to do the same.

Charlotte
Linda J Herman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I'll not add any comments to the following article, because I think it
says it all....

FROM: The Philadelphia Inquirer
Saturday 13 March 2004

Medicare Analyst Confirms Muzzling
By Tony Pugh

He said his boss told him he'd be fired if he gave lawmakers higher cost
estimates for the prescription-drug bill.
WASHINGTON - The nation's top Medicare cost analyst confirmed
yesterday that his former boss had ordered him to withhold from lawmakers
unfavorable cost estimates about the Medicare prescription-drug bill. He
said the estimates exceeded what Congress seemed willing to accept by
more than $100 billion.

Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, said that in early June he received a written note from Thomas
Scully, then the centers' administrator, ordering him to ignore
information requests from members of Congress who were drafting the drug
bill.

The Inquirer Washington Bureau reported the episode in an exclusive
published yesterday, but Foster's comments were his first on the matter.
Yesterday, House and Senate leaders called for investigations into the
alleged muzzling. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) said the
allegations justified reopening the vote on the drug benefit. Sen. Edward
M. Kennedy (D., Mass.) wrote President Bush demanding to know what cost
estimates he used in pushing the new drug benefit, which Congress passed
in November and which Bush signed into law Dec. 8.

Scully's note, Foster said, "was a direct order not to respond to
certain requests and instead to provide the responses to him and warn
about the consequences of insubordination."

The note was Scully's first threat in writing, according to Foster,
and came after at least three less formal threats.

They "came in different forms," he said. "Sometimes he would make a
comment that 'I think I need another chief actuary,' or, 'If you want to
work for the Ways and Means Committee, I can arrange it.' It was that
sort of thing." Ways and Means was drafting the bill.

Efforts to reach Scully at his office and home yesterday were
unsuccessful. In a recent interview, he denied closing off Foster's lines
of communication with Congress. On only one occasion, Scully said, did he
block Foster's contacts with lawmakers, in this case Democrats, saying
their motives were purely political.

Foster said Scully insisted on a pattern of withholding of
information.

"Estimates that were supportive of the legislation were generally
released, and estimates that could be used to criticize the legislation
were generally not released," Foster said.

He said he believed that higher-ranking members of the
administration than Scully knew of the higher cost estimates his office
had computed.

"Did the President know? Did Secretary Tommy Thompson know? I don't
know," Foster said. Thompson heads the Department of Health and Human
Services, which oversees the Medicare office.

The White House press office did not respond to requests seeking
comment.

The Inquirer reported yesterday that Foster's office had suggested
that the drug benefit would cost at least $100 billion more than the $395
billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to
project costs of legislation.

One projection prepared in early June by Foster's office and
obtained by the Inquirer Washington Bureau concluded that a Senate
version of the bill might cost as much as $551 billion.

At the time of the estimate, the House was sharply divided on the
proposed new Medicare drug benefit, which the administration strongly
backed. Ultimately, the House passed the measure, 216-215, on June 27. In
November, it endorsed a House-Senate compromise version, 220-215; the yes
votes included 13 Republican fiscal conservatives who had said they would
vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion for its first 10
years.

When Bush signed the bill, the drug benefit was touted as costing
$395 billion. In January, Bush's budget director, Joshua Bolten, raised
the estimate to $534 billion.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) noted yesterday that
Foster's estimates were based on different and costlier assumptions than
those of the Congressional Budget Office.

Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson added: "If an individual's job was
threatened and if they were trying to shield information from Congress,
that could be an issue of concern."

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Finance
Committee, said Foster's estimates "should not have been withheld.
Government analysts with relevant information should never be muzzled."

In a floor speech yesterday, Daschle called for reopening the vote
on the drug benefit. He also called for an investigation into the firing
threat and assertions that the administration had withheld its cost
estimates from Congress.

"Whether this is criminal or not is a matter we will certainly want
to clarify," Daschle said. "But if not criminal, it was certainly
unethical. And I think we need to know the facts."

A group of House Democrats concurred, asking that the HHS inspector
general investigate.

Foster, a senior civil servant, remains on his job. He said he had
new and strong support from Thompson and from Medicare's newly confirmed
chief, Mark McClellan.

-------

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/8174963.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn