Offline
Background
Location:
Boston, Massachusetts
United States

My Journals (390)

Added: June 13, 2008
Views: 358 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

 

We’re looking for volunteers to join our leadership team, the AARP Massachusetts Executive Council.  As a member of the Executive Council, you would help shape the future of AARP in Massachusetts – as a member of a great team of people committed to making a positive difference.


Consider the following: 

  • Are you someone who thinks strategically and sees the “big picture”?
  • Are you a good verbal and written communicator?
  • Do you enjoy challenges and working with people?
  • Can you envision yourself inspiring and leading volunteers?
  • Do you like to be active and involved?
  • Do you believe that positive change starts with you? 

If so, we encourage you to apply today. 

 Executive Council Responsibilities

As an Executive Council member, you will: 

  • Participate in setting annual priorities and choosing among opportunities, in alignment with AARP’s national strategic plan, to benefit our members and their families in Massachusetts.
  • Seek input from other volunteers and members on a continuing basis; inspire and motivate volunteers.
  • Communicate national and state policy updates to volunteers in the areas for which they are responsible.
  • Serve on special projects and teams with various AARP volunteer leaders from Massachusetts and across the country. 

Position Qualifications

Executive Council members must be:

  • A Massachusetts resident;
  • Committed to the goals and priorities of AARP;
  • Knowledgeable of Massachusetts issues, including the political, social and economic environment in the state;
  • Able to work well with diverse populations;
  • Eligible for membership or associate membership in AARP;
  • Accessible via email. 

In addition, qualified applicants must have demonstrated past volunteer involvement and professional leadership, including but not limited to leadership in:

  • Community groups,
  • Government advisory bodies,
  • Fraternal or faith organizations,
  • Social welfare organizations,
  • Trade associations,
  • AARP chapters or other programs, or
  • Unions. 

Interested?  Get the facts and apply today!

For a complete Position Description and Application Form, or additional information, please contact ma@aarp.org.   We hope to hear from you.  

Spread the word

Please feel free to share this information with anyone you know who would make a good member of our AARP Massachusetts Executive Council. 

 

Added: April 25, 2008
Views: 2655 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

Deborah Banda, state director for AARP Massachusetts, appeared on NECN's Business Day on April 7 to discuss 50+ workers, and the new policy brief by the Boston College Center on Aging & Work and AARP.

You can watch the video on NECN's website:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Business/Study-Workers-over-50-economically-essential/1207612949.html

And you can view the full report here: http://agingandwork.bc.edu/states.

Added: April 8, 2008
Views: 4666 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

April 2, 2008

 

BOSTON, MA – As Massachusetts leaders develop solutions to stimulate the state’s sagging economy, 50-plus workers should be part of the mix. According to a new policy brief by the Boston College Center on Aging & Work and AARP, the future vitality of the commonwealth will likely depend on 50-plus workers, and it’s down to state leadership to capitalize on the coming age wave.

 

Like much of the world, the United States is an increasingly aging society. In Massachusetts, nearly 40 percent of the commonwealth’s population will be 50 years or older by 2010. Shortly thereafter, almost one in five workers will be at least 55 – a 50 percent increase in mature workers. At the same time, the pool of younger workers will diminish due to lower birthrates.

 

“State leaders must play an active role in developing policy and initiatives to capture the value of 50-plus workers,” says Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, co-director of the Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. “Most of the attention paid to the aging of the workforce has focused on national trends. However, the thought leadership for economic and workforce development occurs at the state level.”

 

The policy brief, 21st Century Age Demographics: Opportunities for Visionary State Leadership, provides information to help state leaders nationwide examine the connection between aging and work, and how changes in the labor force participation of older adults will affect their states.  The brief also outlines options for leaders to enhance their state’s readiness for the aging of the workforce.

 

In Massachusetts, as part of the Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund, the state Legislature has already included a $1 million earmark for older worker retraining. But, as highlighted in the policy brief, state leaders can do more to advance public sector innovation and increase employment options for 50-plus workers. Specific steps include: raising awareness, encouraging business leaders to respond, expanding resources, benchmarking progress, and positioning Massachusetts as a model employer.

 

As the 12th oldest state in the nation, Massachusetts is at the leading edge of the coming age wave in the U.S. workforce. Employment sectors likely to be hardest hit by the aging workforce are those that encourage long service, have had relatively little hiring in recent years, and experienced major downsizing in the 1980s and 1990s. Industry examples include health care, defense and aerospace, education and government – all sectors critical to the Massachusetts economy. 

 

“Connect the dots and the conclusion is clear – employers must focus on recruiting, training and retraining the 50-plus worker if they are to meet their workforce needs in the years to come, and the state must lead the way,” says Deborah Banda, state director of AARP Massachusetts, which represents 860,000 members age 50 and over in the Bay State. 

 

“After all,” Banda continues, “the decisions 50-plus workers make about employment versus retirement could have significant financial implications for the state. Those who continue working may require fewer state benefits and resources, particularly if they have access to employer-sponsored programs and services. And, perhaps most importantly,” she concludes, “if Massachusetts doesn’t keep 50-plus workers on the job, we risk losing them to other states that may be ahead of the curve, not behind the time.”

 

 

21st Century Age Demographics: Opportunities for Visionary State Leadership by the Boston College Center on Aging & Work and AARP may be viewed online at http://agingandwork.bc.edu/states.

 
# # #
 

 

NEW STUDY: STATES NEED 50+ WORKERS FOR ECONOMIC VITALITY
Massachusetts Leaders Should Capitalize on Coming Age Wave
Added: April 2, 2008
Views: 5268 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

 
What is the Real Cost of Health Care?
 
 
AARP Massachusetts issued the following call to action on March 26, 2008.
 
As a consumer you know that your monthly insurance premiums don’t cover the entire cost of your health care.   You dig into your wallet for a co-pay when you visit the doctor or pickup a prescription; you write a check when a deductible hits.   It all adds up, and cuts into what you could be spending on food and a roof over your head.   So, why are state officials defining “affordability” solely in terms of the amount of the premiums people pay?
 
Why is this important? 
 
Last Thursday, the Health Connector board, which manages health care reform in Massachusetts, voted to change what’s called the “Affordability Schedule.” They voted to raise premiums by 10 percent. We believe that health care affordability includes more than just premiums, and this increase may put health care coverage out of reach for many. 
 
AARP urges the state to change its definition of health care affordability to include: premiums, deductibles, co-payments and other cost-sharing.
 
Who does this affect?
 
An increase in health care premiums could especially hurt AARP members between the ages of 50-64, who are already paying higher premiums to purchase health care through the Health Connector because of their age – as well as people with lower incomes and chronic illnesses.
 
What can you do?
 
ACTION STEP: 
 
Call Governor Patrick at (617) 725-4005 or toll-free in Massachusetts at 1-888-870-7770 and urge him to change the health care Affordability Schedule to include premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. Tell him we want to keep health care affordable in Massachusetts!
 
Please call Governor Patrick before April 11, when the Health Connector board takes its final vote on this important issue.
 
 
 
Added: March 26, 2008
Views: 5867 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

Controlling Rising Health Care Costs, Long-Term Solvency

Noted by AARP as Priorities for Medicare, Social Security

 March 25, 2008
 
AARP: “Today’s report reaffirms the need to move beyond partisan politics to address the longer term reforms of our health care system and the financial challenges in retirement.”
 
WASHINGTON, DC—AARP issued a statement in response to today’s report from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees.  The statement, from AARP Senior Vice President David Sloane, follows:
 
“Today’s report is one more reminder that America’s health care system is in trouble.  Skyrocketing health care costs are shortening Medicare’s lifespan, while reasonable steps like expanding health information technology and comparative medical research remain stalled in Congress.  Costs to the program and the people it serves continue to climb – most acutely in the form of higher out-of-pocket costs for the people who rely on Medicare.
 
“As the trustees also remind us, Social Security faces a long-term financing problem that we can resolve with reasonable solutions.  Millions of Americans have counted on Social Security’s defined benefit that is adjusted annually for inflation, and today’s workers should continue to receive the benefits they have earned for themselves and their families.
 
“Finding solutions to Social Security’s long-term solvency requires an honest discussion and political courage.  The good news is that the sooner we start, the more reasonable those solutions can be.  Congress should also look beyond Social Security to help Americans increase their personal retirement savings.  Common sense solutions, like the Automatic IRA proposal, would give tens of millions of workers access to savings tools at their workplace.
 
“Today’s report reaffirms the need to move beyond partisan politics to address the longer term reforms of our health care system and the financial challenges in retirement.”
 
# # #
 
Added: March 25, 2008
Views: 5871 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

AARP ‘DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED’ BY SUPREME COURT DECISION

ON RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

 
March 24, 2008
 
WASHINGTON, DC Following is a statement by AARP Legislative Policy Director David Certner on the Supreme Court decision today declining AARP’s request to review a federal rule allowing employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach 65 and become eligible for Medicare. Last December 26, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized and published the rule that AARP had challenged in lower federal courts.
 
“AARP is deeply disappointed by the Court’s decision today. The Court’s action clears the way for employers to discriminate by reducing or terminating benefits for older retirees simply because they’ve turned 65 years old.   
 
“This double standard, one tier of coverage for those under 65, and another lower tier for those 65 and over, is especially troubling because it comes from the EEOC, the federal government agency created to enforce anti-discrimination policies.
 
“Beyond blatant age discrimination, the new policy is an ineffective Band-aid for the bigger issue facing American employers and workers: the skyrocketing cost of health care.  By allowing employers to reduce or even eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach age 65, this rule essentially shifts the costs of all retiree health care on to the backs of older retirees.  The timing of this new rule couldn’t be worse; due to rising costs and fixed incomes, many retirees are already foregoing needed services that have simply become unaffordable.
 
“Instead of discriminatory rules that simply shift health care costs to older retirees, we need real solutions that control ongoing and dramatic increases in health care costs.  Political, business, union and non-profit leaders, as well as individual citizens, all have roles to play in devising effective policies that will insure that every American has access to affordable health care.”
 
# # #
Added: March 24, 2008
Views: 5874 | Comments: 1 | Bookmarks: 1

NEW GROUP CALLS FOR “SAFE ROADS NOW”

Urges Action on Road Safety and Driver Retesting

 

BOSTONToday, 10 organizations and individuals working together as Safe Roads Now urged Massachusetts leaders to act on road safety and driver retesting in a comprehensive and timely manner. The group – including AARP Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Association of Councils on Aging and Senior Center Directors, and Elizabeth Dugan, Ph.D., author of The Driving Dilemma: The Complete Resource Guide for Older Drivers and Their Families – proposes to expand on Senate Bill No. 2043, An Act Relative to Driver Impairment, which establishes a commission to address the broad issues of road safety.

 

Spurred to action by legislative proposals aimed solely at age-based driver retesting, Safe Roads Now believes such a narrow focus will result in costly changes that will do little to improve safety.  “We urge policy leaders to address the issues of road safety and driver retesting – in a careful, comprehensive, and timely way,” says Deborah Banda, AARP Massachusetts state director. 

 

“The current system for driver renewal and testing is antiquated in that it is not designed to evaluate a driver’s functional ability and does not account for the gains in human longevity,” says Elizabeth Dugan, Ph.D.  In Massachusetts, at five year intervals, drivers may renew licenses by phone, mail or online without any testing; at ten year intervals, drivers must renew in-person at the Registry of Motor Vehicles and pass a vision test.

 

In letters, sent today, to Governor Deval Patrick, Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray and Chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation, Senator Steven Baddour and Representative Joseph Wagner, Safe Roads Now says, “We believe that none of the bills currently pending before the Massachusetts legislature goes far enough to address this issue in a comprehensive manner.  Ideally, we would like to see a new law in place that truly corrects deficiencies in the current system.

 

“We propose to expand upon the framework outlined in Senate Bill No. 2043, An Act Relative to Driver Impairment.  A clearly defined timeline and specific areas to address must be incorporated into a redrafted version.”  These areas include:

 

  • Evaluate testing methods that focus on a driver’s functional ability and detect functional impairments.
  • Review state license renewal processes that have been updated recently, such as California and Maryland.
  • Define programs in addition to those offered by the Registry of Motor Vehicles to identify unsafe drivers such as existing efforts by law enforcement and opportunities with Councils on Aging and senior centers.

 

“We are looking to expand upon Senate Bill No. 2043 so that the commission can come up with the most comprehensive solution to road safety and driver retesting, but within a specific timeframe,” says David Stevens, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Councils on Aging and Senior Center Directors.  “We want to look at the innovations that have been implemented in other states – and update the current driver testing system in a way that weeds out unsafe drivers, while not breaking the bank.”

 

Following are the initial organizations and individuals working as part of Safe Roads Now:  AARP Massachusetts; Alzheimer’s Association Massachusetts/New Hampshire Chapter; Massachusetts Association of Councils on Aging and Senior Center Directors; Jon Bailey, TRIAD Officer, Waltham Police; Juergen Bludau, MD; Elizabeth Dugan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Massachusetts Silver Legislature; Elin Schold-Davis, Coordinator, Older Driver Initiative, American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.; Nina M. Silverstein, Ph.D., Professor of Gerontology, University of Massachusetts Boston; and, Robert Stern, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine.

 

# # #

 

Added: March 14, 2008
Views: 6149 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

Testimony of the Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition
Before the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
March 12, 2008
 

RE: S. 2526, An Act to Promote Cost Containment, Transparency and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care

 

The Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition appreciates this opportunity to offer testimony in strong support of section 7 and section 22 of S. 2526, An Act to Promote Cost Containment, Transparency and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care, which seek to create an academic detailing program and ban the provision of gifts from pharmaceutical and medical device companies to physicians.

 
The Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition is a group of community organizations, local and national non-profit organizations, health care advocates, private insurers, health care providers, public payors and others committed to promoting evidence-based, unbiased prescribing and access to appropriate and affordable prescription drugs. Our work is guided by the following principles:
  • Prescription drugs should be affordable for all patients and payors.
  • Pharmaceutical marketing should be focused on getting the right drug to the right person.
  • Prescribers and consumers should have access to evidence-based, unbiased information about prescription drugs.
  • Decisions of whether to prescribe, what to prescribe and what drugs to cover should be based on timely, unbiased, evidence-based data and should be guided by the best interests of the patient. The process of making those decisions should be transparent.
  • Relationships between pharmaceutical companies, prescribers and payors should be transparent and free from conflicts of interest.
  • Prescription data should be protected from use in marketing.
 
Prescription drugs are central to modern health care. Medications are the first line of defense in preventing and combating disease. Those who suffer from chronic or acute disease rely on medications to control their illnesses. Even people of generally good health need access to medications such as allergy medications and antibiotics. 
 
The many people who need access to prescription drugs to maintain their health all suffer as a result of the high cost of medications. The prices of the most widely used brand-name prescription drugs rose nearly 50% between 2000 and 2006, more than twice the rate of inflation.[i] The cost of prescription drugs is borne by uninsured and underinsured consumers who must pay for the drugs out-of-pocket. The cost of prescription drugs is


also borne by the insured whose insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs are impacted by high costs. These high costs put consumers at risk for medical debt and bankruptcy. Rising prescription drug costs also threaten the continued success of Massachusetts health reform and the financial stability of the state and employers that provide health care coverage. 
 
Access to needed drugs is also threatened by these high costs. People without any, or adequate, drug coverage are forced to go without needed medications that they cannot afford. More basically, high costs threaten access to insurance plans that include drug coverage. Concerns over the affordability of prescription drug coverage emerged as a critical issue as the Health Connector crafted its Minimum Creditable Coverage standards when employers argued that they cannot afford to offer their employees plans that cover prescription drugs. 
 
S. 2526 seeks to promote prescription drug cost control, thereby ensuring access to prescription drugs, by curbing factors that artificially inflate the price of prescription drugs. The provisions related to prescription drugs in the bill would also improve quality of care by promoting evidence-based medicine.
 
  • Academic Detailing
 
Section 7 of S. 2526 seeks to ensure that prescribing decisions are based on unbiased evidence of the effectiveness and safety of a given drug. It directs the Department of Public Health to establish an “academic detailing” program through which medical professionals would provide evidence-based, balanced information about the effectiveness, safety and costs of prescription drugs to physicians and other prescribers in face-to-face visits. Currently, industry salespeople are the primary source of providers’ information about medications. The result is inflated industry influence on prescribing. Academic detailing is similar to pharmaceutical sales visits, except that the academic detailers do not promote a particular product. Academic detailing promotes evidence-based medicine by providing prescribers with unbiased data rather than promotional information.
 
The Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition strongly supports a state-sponsored academic detailing program. Academic detailing programs have been repeatedly shown to control costs and increase quality. As a result, an increasing number of states are implementing similar programs. 
 
Academic detailing programs control costs by helping providers identify when less expensive but equally safe and effective drugs are available. As a result, these programs increase prescribing of appropriate lower-cost drugs, such as generics. Savings of $8.3 billion or 11% of total drug expenditures would result if adults appropriately substituted generics for brand names.[ii] It is, therefore, not surprising that research shows that academic detailing programs more than pay for themselves with the amount of money they save the state in health care costs and have the potential to save nearly two dollars for every dollar spent to implement such programs. [iii]  
 
By providing prescribers with unbiased evidence, these programs also assist providers in making safer and more appropriate prescribing decisions. A recent summary of evidence about educational programs aimed at improving patient care concluded that programs that include interactive techniques, like academic detailing, are the most effective means of improving physician practices and patient outcomes.[iv] 
 
  • Gift Ban
 
Section 22 of the bill takes another crucial step toward controlling health care costs by prohibiting pharmaceutical and medical device companies from giving gifts to physicians. 
 
The pharmaceutical industry spends $29 billion annually to market their products, and over
$7 billion annually marketing to physicians alone.[v] A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a staggering 94% of physicians receive meals and other payments from pharmaceutical companies.[vi] 
 
The Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition strongly supports a ban on gifts in order to eliminate the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies have on prescribing decisions and the resulting cost and quality implications. Excessive pharmaceutical marketing practices contribute directly to rising health care costs. The cost of marketing is passed along in the price of prescription drugs. Marketing also promotes prescribing of more expensive drugs in place of equally safe and effective lower cost drugs, which may be either other brand name drugs or generic drugs. 
 
The provision of pharmaceutical gifts to providers also threatens quality of care. Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association show that physician prescribing is highly responsive to marketing.[vii] Gifts and financial incentives from pharmaceutical companies create conflicts of interests that interfere with the ability of health care providers to make prescribing decisions based only on the needs of their patient. 
 
Recognizing the inappropriate influence of pharmaceutical gifts, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, West Virginia and the District of Columbia have taken legislative action. In Massachusetts, Boston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center and UMass Memorial Health Care recently announced new conflict-of-interest policies that ban clinicians from accepting personal gifts and meals from pharmaceutical companies.
 
The Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition offers several suggestions to further strengthen the ban and ensure that its intended benefits are realized: 
 
  • Expand gift ban to apply to all health care providers. The bill currently prohibits gifts given to physicians and to health care facilities. Physicians are not the only health care providers that write prescriptions.  Additionally, health care providers who cannot prescribe drugs, such as nurses, are also involved in decision-making around what medications to prescribe and are increasingly targeted by pharmaceutical detailers. To prevent the influence of gifts in all prescribing decisions, the ban on gifts should extend to all health care providers.
 
  • Expand the definition of “pharmaceutical manufacturer agent” to include those marketing biologics. As it stands, the gift ban applies to those marketing prescription drugs and medical devices. Biotechnology companies also engage in aggressive marketing practices and should be included in the prohibition. 
 
  • Require compensation to be made pursuant to a contract for deliverables unrelated to marketing. The definition of gifts in S. 2526 excludes payments made when “consideration of equal or greater value is received.” Without greater protections, the industry could take advantage of this exclusion by paying providers for sham transactions or by employing providers in marketing efforts. We urge you to not only require that permissible compensation be in exchange for consideration of equal or greater value, but also to require that it be subject to a contract and be unrelated to marketing.
 
  • Include a disclosure requirement. It is critical to include a disclosure requirement in tandem with a ban in order to ensure compliance with the ban. A disclosure requirement would also promote the transparency of the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and providers that are not considered “gifts” as defined by
    S. 2526. There is a strong public interest in having access to information about the continuing funds flow between industry and providers. We urge you to require pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies to disclose the payments they make (listed by individual provider and facility) to the Department of Public Health. Those reports should be public records. Any violations of the ban that become apparent as a result of the disclosure should be reported to Attorney General for enforcement.
 
 
Thank you for your attention and consideration. The Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition seeks to be a resource to you as you consider these provisions. Please do not hesitate to call upon us by contacting Lisa Kaplan Howe at 617-275-2922 or lkaplanhowe@hcfama.org.
 
 
 
 


[i] AARP Public Policy Institute and the PRIME Institute, University of Minnesota, based on data from Med-Spin Price-Check PC (Indianapolis, IN: Wolters Kluwer Health Inc., February 2007).
[ii] Powell, D.R., An Effective Way to Increase Generic Utilization. Benefits and
Compensation Digest, 2006.
[iii] Avorn JA, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach: a randomized controlled trial of academically based “detailing”. New Eng J Med  1983; 308: 1457-1463; Soumerai, S. B., & Avorn, J. (1986). Economic and policy analysis of university-based drug "detailing". Medical Care, 24(4), 313-331.
[iv] Bloom. Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient
health: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21(3):380-5.
[v] Donohue, J., Cevasco, M., Rosenthal, M. A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of
Prescription Drugs. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 357: 673-681.
[vi] Campbell, E. G., et al. A National Survey of Physician-Industry Relationships. NEJM. April 26, 2007;356(17):1742-1750.
[vii] Wazana, A. Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift? JAMA. 2000;283(3):373-380.
Added: March 13, 2008
Views: 6289 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0

AARP Urges Congress to Support House and Senate Budgets

Group reminds lawmakers: 39 million AARP members have much at stake

 

WASHINGTON — As lawmakers continue work on the FY2009 budget, AARP issued a statement urging Members of Congress to support the House and Senate budget resolutions and to oppose harmful amendments that would negatively impact older Americans.  The Association has been actively lobbying both chambers to ensure Congress passes a budget resolution that addresses the priorities of older Americans.  The statement, from AARP Senior Vice President David Sloane, follows:

 

“The budget resolutions in both chambers address the needs of older Americans, and we encourage all members to support them.  These bills also reject the deep Medicare and Medicaid cuts proposed by the Administration, while taking steps toward improvements in both programs that will begin to reduce America’s skyrocketing health care bill.

 

“Both the House and Senate budget bills also reject the Administration’s proposals for drastic cuts to heating assistance and supportive housing for the elderly.  These programs provide vital funding to help low-income older Americans live in safe, affordable, warm homes.

 

“This week will lay the appropriations groundwork for the next fiscal year, and there is much at stake for our 39 million members.  We urge members in both chambers to pass the budget resolutions as reported out of their respective budget committees and without harmful amendments that would reduce access to health and financial security for older Americans.”

 

AARP urges passage of a final budget resolution that will:

* Prioritize sound health policies, such as addressing the Medicare asset tests;

* Protect the 44 million people in Medicare from unreasonable and unfair premium increases when addressing the potential cuts to Medicare physician reimbursement;

* Reauthorize and improve the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);

* Promote comparative effectiveness research and health information technology;

* Extend the moratoria on harmful Medicaid regulations;

* Ensure adequate funding for the Social Security Administration to address the growing backlog of disability insurance benefit claims; and

* Reject the Administration’s proposed cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and housing assistance for older Americans.

 

AARP also urges Congress to reject attempts to add harmful budget provisions that would:

* Encourage private accounts in Social Security—already rejected by the public—which would threaten the promise of a guaranteed, inflation-protected retirement benefit that cannot be outlived;

* Income-relate Medicare Prescription Drug Program premiums or further income-relate the Part B premium, which would add yet another “senior tax” and unfairly burden those who work past age 65; and

* Create a “hard trigger” within Medicare that will cause across-the-board spending cuts without solving the underlying problem of skyrocketing health care costs.

# # #

Added: March 12, 2008
Views: 5889 | Comments: 1 | Bookmarks: 0