Lame ducks should avoid health policy |
Featured Commentary

Lame ducks should avoid health policy

A lame-duck Congress typically is driven by a desire to “get things done.” But lawmakers should resist ramming last-minute deals on Medicare physician payments and the Children’s Health Insurance Program through this Congress.

While end-of-year sessions are often needed to clean up routine budget and appropriations bills, past lame-duck sessions have resulted in members of Congress voting themselves special pay or retirement raises or handing out billions of dollars to favored special interests. Untethered from accountability to their constituents, soon-to-be-unemployed politicians can repudiate popular opinion with impunity, while bypassing the deliberation that the Founders expected of the legislature in a constitutional republic.

A lame-duck session this year would pose two big threats on the health care front.

Medicare doctors are facing a 21 percent pay cut effective March 15 because of scheduled — and wholly unrealistic — “updates” to the Sustainable Growth Rate payment formula. Virtually all lawmakers agree that Medicare’s flawed payment system should be replaced. But that undertaking must be done right. Any lame-duck efforts to enact a permanent fix without offsetting the extra costs via permanent savings elsewhere in the budget should be stopped cold.

The so-called “compromise bill” that House and Senate negotiators agreed to last spring does not meet that test. For one thing, it did nothing to reduce the bureaucratic overregulation that drives Medicare physicians crazy and ramps up costs. Worse, there was no congressional agreement on how to offset the huge cost that “fix” would impose on taxpayers.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that its initial 10-year cost was $138 billion, and the unfunded “fix” would continue to add massively to the nation’s deficit thereafter. Taxpayers should not be burdened with heavier debt because an irresponsible Congress wants to bum-rush Medicare physician payment reform.

The second threat arises from the Children’s Health Insurance Program. CHIP was created to provide coverage for uninsured children whose families earned too much to qualify for Medicaid. Its continued role, however, is uncertain due to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Yet, some are calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the CHIP program in the lame-duck session. It shouldn’t.

Congress must do its due diligence before promising additional taxpayer dollars for CHIP. This requires hearings to review the program’s effectiveness, as well as determining how much funding is still available in the program and how the remaining funding is distributed among the states.

Other important issues relating to enrollment and the interaction of the CHIP program with the Affordable Care Act also need to be addressed. These questions should be raised through the normal congressional process of hearings and committee mark-ups. Fast-tracking the bill would be tantamount to asking taxpayers to write a check without offering any justification for the request.

Members of Congress (even those who are soon to depart) should assure accountability and protect America’s taxpayers by sparing the country a lame-duck session and letting the new Congress do its job.

Nina Owcharenko is director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation (, where Robert E. Moffit is a senior fellow.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.