HEALTH CARE
Leavitt's Conflicting Interests
Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS
(http://www.hhs.gov/about/whatwedo.html/) ) nominee
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/bush.cabinet/) Mike Leavitt has
strong family ties to the 27th largest insurance broker in the U.S., Leavitt
Group Enterprises (http://www.leavitt.com/) , which operates in areas -- like
medical malpractice insurance
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041213-2.html) -- that
Leavitt has signaled will be important parts of his agenda. Leavitt used to
serve as chief operating officer and retains a substantial financial interest in
the family insurance firm, now run by his brother, Dane Leavitt, and staffed by
several members of his family (http://www.leavitt.com/DirectorsAndOfficers.aspx)
. Leavitt also has substantial financial interests
(http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:quzEWGK6Iq8J:kutv.com/utah/UT--Leavitt-Wealth-Gl-en/resources_news_html)
in other companies directly affected by decisions he would be making as head of
HHS, including Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. (the maker of the
controversial painkiller
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109926864290160719,00.html) , Vioxx). At
confirmation hearings on Wednesday (http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2520348) ,
Congress should ask Leavitt how he plans to deal with his multiple conflicts of
interest. Below are some other questions Congress should ask Mike Leavitt. (For
a full list of questions, click here
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=293790) .)
DO YOU OPPOSE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO CUT FEDERAL MEDICAID FUNDING?:
Bush administration officials have indicated that Medicaid, the nation's health
care program for the poor, may be " headed for the chopping block in 2005
(http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11728465p-12616596c.html) as
President Bush and Congress look for ways to cut the federal budget deficit." In
1997, as governor of Utah, Leavitt adamantly opposed federal government spending
cuts that left states footing the bill for Medicaid, telling Congress, "states
strongly oppose federal spending caps on Medicaid...because they would force
states to pick up extra costs." With states already facing a " projected
shortfall of nearly $40 billion going into 2005
(http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2004/10/04/ap1574989.html) ,"
Congress should ask Leavitt whether he will stand up for federal funding for
Medicaid and its vital protections for poor, disabled and elderly Americans.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT LEGISLATION ENABLING HHS TO NEGOTIATE LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PRICES FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES?: The Medicare reform law
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24890) signed by
President Bush in 2003 specifically prohibits HHS from negotiating
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B17FB3A5F0C778EDDA80994DB404482)
with drug companies to obtain lower prices for beneficiaries, as is done in
Canada and other nations. As a result, when the law goes into effect, taxpayers
and Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to spend much more for drugs than they
should. The legislation favors -- surprise! -- the pharmaceutical industry,
which " deployed nearly 700 lobbyists
(http://www.citizen.org/documents/Other_Drug_War2003.pdf) " to kill any plans
that would allow HHS to negotiate lower drug prices. Current HHS Secretary Tommy
Thompson recently stated he " would like to have had the opportunity to
negotiate
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a1_aMTJnW6S4&refer=us) "
with drug makers on prices. And 80 percent of Americans
(http://www.medicarerights.org/asclepios2004_32.html) agree the law should be
changed "to allow the federal government to use its buying power to negotiate
with drug companies."
IF CONFIRMED, WOULD YOU ADVOCATE -- AS YOU DID AS GOVERNOR OF UTAH --
RESTRICTING SERVICES FOR THE POOREST MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES?: As governor of
Utah, Mike Leavitt sponsored a controversial Medicaid waiver program
(http://www.kff.org/medicaid/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14329)
, which the Bush administration has touted as a way for states to deal with
budget shortfalls. But the waiver program is far from an adequate solution to
the problem: it works by siphoning benefits from the poorest beneficiaries to
pay for the extension of a "narrow benefit package" (for instance, Utah's
program doesn't include hospital coverage) to some adults not previously
eligible for Medicaid. Families USA Director Ron Pollack said the program was "
like robbing Peter and Paul to pay Phil
(http://www.familiesusa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_statements_utah_waiver)
...It will result in many thousands of low-income people being placed at risk of
losing their Medicaid lifeline."
DID YOU SUPPORT THE WHITE HOUSE'S DECISION IN 2004 TO TAKE MONEY ALLOTTED FOR
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS AWAY FROM STATES AND RETURN IT TO THE U.S.
TREASURY?: On 9/30/04, the deadline for Congress to act on preserving $1.1
billion in federal funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP) was allowed to expire. The money was taken away from the states
(http://www.familiesusa.org/site/DocServer?docID=5021) and returned to the U.S.
Treasury. Apparently unmoved by Census data citing a dramatic increase in the
number of children living in poverty
(http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/26/210338.shtml) , the White
House, over the objections of the National Governors Association and a
bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, failed to take the simple step of asking that
Congress extend the time states had to use the funds in the 2005 budget. The
move could have insured an additional 750,000 children. |
