Time aiding Medicare drug plan

The Medicare prescription drug program for seniors, the topic of so much political controversy these days, traces its origins to the 2000 presidential campaign.

That race, between then-Vice President Al Gore and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, saw the two candidates duel over who had a better plan to help hard-pressed seniors with their soaring prescription drug bills.

At the time, Medicare provided no prescription drug benefit outside of hospitals. But many seniors had coverage through private plans purchased on their own or through employers.

The candidates stumped the country telling lurid tales about seniors forced to choose between food and life-saving drugs, heat and heart medication. There were bleak stories of elderly retirees cutting pills in half to make them go farther.

Gore got in trouble when he made up – or at least exaggerated – a story to illustrate the high cost of some prescription drugs. He told a group of seniors at a campaign stop in Tallahassee, Fla., that his mother-in-law paid three times as much for her arthritis medicine as Gore paid to get the same medicine for his Labrador retriever.

As it turned out, the figures cited came not from his family’s drug bills but from a House Democratic study. The Bush campaign was quick to pounce on it and remind voters that this was the same Gore who claimed to have “invented” the Internet.

When Bush won that disputed race, he went to work to make his campaign promise a reality. In 2003, Congress passed – and he signed – a multibillion-dollar bill to provide seniors with prescription drug help through Medicare starting in 2006.

It is this bill that is now in the early stages of implementation and generating so much debate as to whether it is a good deal or not.

Most Democrats didn’t vote for it. They wanted a broader, more expensive government-based plan. So with congressional elections coming up in November and many seniors having trouble navigating the coverage options, they have tried to place the place the blame on Bush and the Republicans and win votes.

Many seniors are seeing their drug bills drop thanks to the new benefit, and progress is being made helping those eligible find a plan that fits their needs. But Democrats continue to focus on that part of the glass that is still empty.

“Twenty-five percent of those who have enrolled have realized no savings or are even paying more for their coverage,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., citing an ABC News-Washington Post poll released Wednesday. “If 25 percent of the cars made by GM or Ford didn’t start, they would go out of business.”

Feeling the pressure, Bush spent a good part of this past week promoting the plan’s benefits, urging seniors to sign up before the May 15 deadline and offering help in picking a plan.

In appearances with seniors in Jefferson City, Mo., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday and Annandale, Va., on Wednesday, Bush said that on average, those enrolled are seeing their drug bills drop by 50 percent, and seniors with low incomes are getting 95 percent of their prescriptions paid.

“It’s a good deal,” Bush said at each appearance.

Experience will tell if that’s true. But time is on the side of those who support the plan. As more people sign up, stories of seniors confused by the options are being replaced by stories of seniors seeing their drug bills reduced.

A strategy shift is already seen as Democrats talk less about the enrollment confusion and more about what they see as shortcomings in the plan itself. Some want private insurers out of the picture and the government to take over.

Meanwhile Bush keeps pushing the good news.

Which side has the advantage? That will become clearer as the fall campaigns approach.