Article on possible Medicare change in Kansas draws a rebuttal from lawmakers

Normally The Best Times, Johnson County’s magazine for those 60 and older, is not controversial, filled with tips on healthy living, upbeat stories and information on county services.

Then came the October edition.

A planned article critical of a new Kansas health care law written by members of the Johnson County Commission on Aging exploded in controversy this month, causing an impassioned pushback from state legislators.

Before publication, a group of about 10 lawmakers crowded into a Sept. 10 meeting with the commission with angry complaints that the article is “dishonest and reckless” and would needlessly scare seniors. One legislator called it a “partisan hit piece against us,” because it comes out so close to the election.

Some observers, in turn, then charged those lawmakers with trying to bully the advocacy group. Tom Raby of Olathe took to the podium during the public comment period of the Johnson County Commission meeting last week to protest the lawmakers.

“As a citizen, I resent being bullied by some group of legislators from Topeka even if I agree with some of their ideas,” Raby said.

The piece appears in a section of the magazine dedicated to the Johnson County Area Agency on Aging, which the commission on aging is a part of. It is followed by a rebuttal signed by 23 state senators and representatives. The magazine will be available online Thursday and soon after in mailboxes.

Under the headline, “Kansas on the road to eliminating Medicare?” the advisory group outlined its concerns over Kansas lawmakers’ decision to sign the state up for a health care compact that would potentially change the management of federal health care dollars. For instance, the state could receive federal block grants for health care programs, which it would then administer itself.

Kansas became the ninth state to sign on to the compact bill with Gov. Sam Brownback’s signature in April. The whole deal is still subject to approval by Congress.

The commission on aging studied the issue and decided in a 10-2 vote in August to air its doubts about the compact.

“It is the opinion of the COA (commission on aging) that this proposed change creates a direct threat to the health care benefits of every older Kansan,” the article said.

The group listed what it considered to be unanswered questions about the compact bill. One primary concern was the question of whether those block grant dollars for health care could be raided for other uses during tough state budget years. The group also expressed concern about the lack of specifics on how benefits would be managed by the state.

“The group’s concern stems from the fact that the bill would give the state total management control of the Medicare program for Kansas seniors,” the article said. “All federal Medicare and Medicaid health care dollars would come to Kansas in a lump sum. These funds would be spent for health care services per whatever coverage plan(s) the state sets up.”

Controversy ensued when members of the advisory group mentioned the upcoming article at a recent breakfast with legislators.

State lawmakers, however, took umbrage. They were invited to discuss it further at the meeting Sept. 10, where they were given a draft copy, said Chuck Nigro, chairman of the commission’s legislative committee.

A tape of part of that meeting was posted with a story by the Kansas Health Institute website. In it, lawmakers can be heard excitedly calling the article irresponsible. A KHI report on the meeting said the advisory group also was told to consider how their views reflected on the county commissioners who appointed them to the volunteer commission.

The statehouse delegation made it clear they were unhappy, said Dan Goodman, director of the Johnson County Agency on Aging. “I didn’t get the impression that I was sitting in one of those meetings where they were there to listen,” he said.

Sen. Jim Denning said the intent was to set the record straight on the intent of the legislation. “Our only question about the entire article was the title,” he said, which is, “trying to scare Medicare patients.”

The commission on aging eventually agreed to make a small change in the title — the addition of a question mark at the end and a subhead clarifying that it was the commission’s opinion. None of the content was changed.

But the lawmakers did have their own say in a rebuttal elsewhere in the magazine. That rebuttal — headlined, “Kansas Legislature saves Medicare with innovative Obamacare fix” — points out that the compact needs congressional approval to be implemented. It also assures seniors that the governor and lawmakers have no intention of cutting Medicare funds. In fact, the rebuttal says, “Governor Brownback signed the health care compact into law, prefacing his signing with an accompanying statement that he would never agree to reduce — in any manner — Medicare coverage for Kansans.”

The compact would allow the state to repeal the individual and employer mandates of the federal health care law, according to the rebuttal. “From an economic standpoint, new insurance companies would come to Kansas to create more competition,” the rebuttal says. “Kansas would be in a competitive position to market the state as a health care tourism site.”

Denning said he did not think the lawmaker’s meeting was bullying in tone. “Everybody had an opinion, but there certainly wasn’t any threat,” he said. “Any time you have a debate, it’s healthy.”

Kansas House Speaker Ray Merrick, in emailed response to questions from The Star, said the lawmakers only wanted to set the record straight on the health care compact. The bill is actually an effort to avoid cuts in Medicare that will be caused by the federal law, he said.

“No one wants to touch or change Medicare at all, other than to advocate for keeping it strong and working for the people who rely on it,” Merrick said.

“So I think people can understand why lawmakers would bristle under the assertion that we want to ‘eliminate Medicare,’ as the aging commission is purporting. This is an extremely sensitive issue to constituents, and consequently, legislators. Furthermore, I am on Medicare myself, so it’s an issue of great importance to me personally. The way the media chose to characterize the meeting was unfortunate.”

The members of the commission on aging say they were not bothered by the lawmakers’ objections. Patti Rule, who helped with the research and writing of the article, said she stands by what was written, adding that the questions the group posed still need to be answered.

“If you’re going to do something like this we need to know how you’re going to do it,” she said of the health care compact.

Nigro agreed, saying, “I was not upset, but I was disappointed in how the exchange (with lawmakers) took place.”

The commission never intended the article to be confrontational, Nigro said. “I’m sorry it caused so much trouble. That was not our intent.”

Meanwhile, Ed Eilert, chairman of the Johnson County Commission, said he was surprised at the number of lawmakers who attended the meeting with the commission. The article, he said, “basically just raised a lot of questions many people had since the legislation was passed.” Members of the Commission on Aging should not have to worry about how their opinions reflect on the commissioners who appoint them, Eilert said.

This was the second instance of state lawmakers objecting to how legislation has been portrayed at the county level. Lawmakers also recently campaigned to get the county commission to reconsider a mill levy increase that was attributed to statehouse changes in the mortgage registration fee.

Eilert attributed the anxiety to the election year. “Regardless of what office one holds, the antenna are at a raised level during election times,” he said.

This story was originally published September 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM with the headline "Article on possible Medicare change in Kansas draws a rebuttal from lawmakers."