This is from Tony Pugh-Knight Ridder:
The Inspector General's Office will investigate whether the nation's top Medicare cost analyst was ordered not to tell Congress that the Medicare Prescription drug benefit was more expensive than described or be fired.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson on Tuesday asked that his department's investigative unit probe the allegations made last week by Richard Foster chief actuary for the Centers for the Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Knight Ridder first reported on March 12th that then Medicare administrator Thomas Scully ordered Foster to withhold cost estimates and technical information from members of Congress.
Foster found that the drug benefit could cost at least $100 billion more than the $395 billion that Congress was told when it approved the bill in November.

The higher estimate would have jeopardized passage of the White House backed legislation.

Scully has denied threatening to fire Foster.
Foster said estimates complied by his actuarial staff since June consistently showed the program would cost between $100 billion, and $200 billion more over its first 10 years.

In an interview with Knight Ridder, Foster said Doug Badger, President Bush's chief health policy advisor likely knew of Scully's alleged threats and the effort to withhold the information.

White House spokeman Trent Duffy said some of the higher cost estimates were shared with members of the Bush administration, but that they regarded the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of $395 billion to be the only one that mattered. Duffy said Badger didn't order Foster to withhold information from Congress.

Senator Kennedy said the investigation is a positive step but added: It won't answer the key question that goes to the heart of the credibility of the Bush administration: What did the President know, and when did he know it.

If this story is true, and that is a big if, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Scully is not that well-liked in the health care world, and a lot of people react to him like he's a slimy used-car salesman. I wouldn't put it past him to pull this stunt.

Okay, and then there's the retiring Republican Congressman, Nick Smith from Michigan, who first claimed (and is now backtracking) that he was offered a bribe by fellow GOPers who wanted his vote...

Yahoo!: House ethics committee eyes bribe allegation

How typical of the Repugs. As I mentioned the other day they knew the vote was going to be extremely close and Shrub was desperate to get this bill passed, before the truth came out about the real cost of this bill. I look very much forward to finding out about this and the results of the inquiry on the Medicare analyst. I read an interesting op ed this morning about what's been going on with A.A.R.P. since this so called "reform" bill passed. Turns out about 60,000 people have cancelled their memberships with A.A.R.P. because of their support for this.

You folks ever hear of the word budget or PROJECTION...

Enroll at your local community college please.

Ah yes, two words that the Shrub administration knows nothing about.

Well, as an economist I know very well about projecting costs into the future, it is an inherently difficult and inexact science.

I also know that making decisions without the benefit of all the available information is a dumb way to go about the process of lawmaking, and deliberately witholding information that could affect a lawmaking decision is unethical, and threatening someone with firing for revealing such information is illegal.

More importantly, it turns out, yet again, that the administration has lied to us. Right after the vote on Medicare, the administration was SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you, to find out that the actual estimated costs were much higher than they had stated to Congress. Then when this information comes to light, we find the administration admitting officials were well aware of the higher cost estimates as early as last spring.

What a surprise - and these were the people who were going to restore "character" to the White House?

I am surprised this story seems to have fallen off the radar of the mainstream press. If Richard Foster--highly respected across the political spectrum for his ability and his integrity--had been threatened with being fired for telling the truth about the Bush Administration's (faulty) cost estimate for their much-heralded prescription drug benefits, it is nothing short of criminal. And the entire prescription drug benefit plan--which is a classic case of smoke & mirrors--will have to be re-examined.

If these actions--the firing threat, the bribe to Rep Smith--do prove true, the ush Administration has lost all claim to "bringing integrity back to the White House." It is hoped that the Congressional investigations will be able to get to the bottom of these questions & that a non-governmnental investigation (media perhaps) is also taking place.

~Adam

Well, this may have fallen off the radar screen because of the 9/11 hearings - there were also hearings about the Medicare estimates yesterday:

It also appears again that the Republicans are attempting to attack his credibility as well, although not as ferociously as Clarke's.

Post Coverage

:mad: Repuglicans have lots of trouble in hearing and dealing with the truth. That's the bottom line.

[ March 25, 2004, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Sadly, this seems true for politicians in both parties. frown

True to some extent Scottie, but who is in complete control of the White House, and both houses of Congress, hummmm?

You're right. I think I'm becoming jaded (or realistic) enough to get tired of the games on both sides of the aisle. When the Republicans are in power, they complain the Democrats are holding up judicial confirmations. When the Democrats are in the power, they complain the Republicans are holding up judicial confirmations.

But this Medicare fiasco is clearly a Republican mess - intentionally concealing information (a lie is a lie) to get a bill passed.

but this Medicare fiasco is a Repuglican mess just like the budget and budget defecit fiasco as well.

[ March 25, 2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

I'm confused. I thought the Republican party was the party that believed in balanced budgets, etc.
wink

They also use to be against deficits, nation building ect...

And don't forget they used to be for smaller government too.

[ March 25, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]