Las Vegas Sun

July 29, 2014

Currently: 90° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Beyond attacks, Heller and Berkley differ fundamentally on approach to Medicare

If the only information for you to judge Nevada’s U.S. Senate candidates came from attack ads on television, you’d probably think Republican Dean Heller wants to “end Medicare” and Democrat Shelley Berkley thinks nothing of chopping $500 billion from the program.

Indeed, so far, both candidates have been content to let the debate over Medicare be distilled into attack ads, wielding the program as a convenient political weapon rather than putting forward detailed plans for addressing the financial issues confronting the government-run health insurance plan that covers the nation’s senior citizens.

In response to requests from the Las Vegas Sun, representatives from both candidates have offered a broad description of how they would approach Medicare reform.

On some questions, the foes actually agree in philosophy, even if their voting records sometimes contradict those philosophies. Both oppose raising the eligibility age — even though Heller did vote for a plan that included a provision to do just that. Neither is a fan putting Medicare spending decisions in the hands of an appointed board — even though Berkley voted for a health care law that did just that.

On the larger question of how to deal with the financial stability of the program, the two come from different philosophies.

Click to enlarge photo

Rep. Shelley Berkley challenges Sen. Dean Heller (pictured) for his seat in 2012.

Heller believes a major overhaul of the program is needed to address the spiraling cost of health care in general. Berkley favors an incremental approach to finding efficiencies and savings within the budget.

According to the most recent trustees report, the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent by 2024 — a date that was pushed back from 2016 because of changes enacted in the new health care law.

A further cause for concern is the growing cost to provide care. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Medicare spending will grow from 3.2 percent to 6 percent in 2040. Expenditures have exceeded income since 2008.

The path, analysts agree, is unsustainable.

Although the per-person cost to provide care is growing more slowly under the Medicare program than it is under private health insurance plans, the sheer number of people aging into Medicare is straining the program.

“Medicare has a financial challenge in financing care for a growing aging population,” said Tricia Neuman, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent health care policy think tank.

The urgency of the problem is relative, Newman added.

“In 1995, the fund was projected to be insolvent within six years,” she said. “Congress took steps at that time to slow the growth in spending. By that measure, it’s not as urgent a situation as now. But if you look at the demographics and the number of people coming into the program, there is some justification to ... figure out what to do about it.”

The choices aren’t simple and generally involved deciding who should shoulder the increasing costs.

In a budget put forward by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, Medicare recipients would shoulder a growing share. Instead of the traditional fee-for-service plan, individuals would be eligible for a certain amount of money to pay for private insurance. Unlike a voucher, the payment would be made directly to the insurance company.

But any gap in the cost would be borne by the individual.

Click to enlarge photo

Rep. Shelley Berkley listens to the concerns of a constituent during a "Congress on Your Corner" event honoring Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Friday, Jan. 14, at Berkley's office in Las Vegas.

Heller twice voted for that budget and once against it.

His spokesman, Stewart Bybee, said Heller “is not married to that specific proposal.” But he sees it as an option for addressing the fundamental problems facing the system.

“Whether it’s a premium support model or another system, the system itself needs to be addressed or it will essentially go bankrupt,” Bybee said.

Bybee stopped short of offering alternative proposals, other than saying the overall cost of health care must be addressed. Heller believes that can be done by addressing medical malpractice reform and giving individuals more control over their health care choices.

Berkley opposes premium support models.

But if the patient doesn’t shoulder more of the cost, who does?

Under the health care legislation supported by Berkley, an independent appointed board is tasked with finding savings in the program. The board can’t increase premiums or cut benefits.

Many experts believe the only option left is to address reimbursement rates for doctors.

Both Berkley and Heller have voted for annual legislation to protect reimbursement rates from being cut, the so-called “doc fix.” Such congressional intervention only places further financial stress on the system, according to the trustees report.

Although she voted for the bill, Berkley doesn’t necessarily support the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

“Like Dean Heller, Shelley Berkley believes that Congress is better equipped to address patient care than an independent board,” her spokeswoman, Xochitl Hinojosa, said.

In favoring incremental measures aimed at efficiency and cost cutting, Berkley supports many proposals put forward by the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group. They include stronger measures to prevent fraud and abuse, finding administrative cost savings through electronic records and processes, and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

“Shelley Berkley believes this is a good start to make the program stronger, but there’s definitely more to be done,” Hinojosa said. “She is open to examining more proposals and is dedicated to improving care for American families while controlling rising costs.”

This story has been edited to correct the dollar figure in the first paragraph. The headline also has been changed to better reflect the story.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 4 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Berkley and Heller are both borrow and spenders. They both voted for NDAA, which allows the government to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely, without a trial. They both support the war without end in the Middle East, and the War on Drugs in America. Neither supports term limits for members of Congress, or has anything resembling an actual plan to balance the budget. They both take millions of dollars from special interests, and then support corporate welfare and Foreign Aid.

  2. Premium support sounds interesting. Seniors would be able to select a health plan that considers their needs--high deductible for the healthy, something else for those with chronic conditions. Sure, seniors will pay for health care. Everybody will. But some actual funding of premiums would continue to help seniors on fixed incomes.

  3. What the 2 boobs are doing is allowing Medicare to not allow payment for certain tests and procedures. This will only get worse over time. I have a Medicare supplement plan that costs me $200 a month, but they want to get rid of supplement plans. Pretty soon, only wealthy seniors will be able to get certain procedures. The rest of us will be "kicked to the curb". LBJ would be ashamed.

  4. About that 500 billion cut claim:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...