Share

Oncologists on Medicare Vote: Not in Our Name

Wednesday 02 July 2008

by: Ryan Grim  |  The Politico

photo
The American Medical Association has denounced Senator Arlen Specter for blocking the passage of a Medicare bill.
(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

    Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) sent the American Medical Association into a tizzy Thursday night by switching his vote and blocking passage of a crucial Medicare bill. The flip came after the White House offered to work with him on getting more money for oncologists, so you'd think that at least the oncologists would be pleased.

    They're not. At least not all of them. A five-member team of lobbyists representing the American Society of Clinical Oncology met with Senate Democratic staff Wednesday to assure them that they had not lobbied Specter to make a deal, said both a Democratic aide and a spokeswoman for ASCO. Another Democratic aide referred to the message the oncologists delivered as "not in our name."

    "They were horrified," said one Democratic aide, and afraid that oncologists would be blamed by Democrats and doctors for spiking a bill that would have staved off a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements. Democrats were one vote short.

    Specter, by working on behalf of the oncologists, has put the oncologists in a difficult situation, stuck between the AMA and Democrats on one side and a fear of alienating their champion, Specter, on the other. ASCO wouldn't comment on the meeting other than to confirm its goal.

    Oncologists aren't of one mind, however. The Community Oncology Alliance sent a letter to its members after the failed vote urging them to push the Senate to include the money for oncology that Specter sought in the final Medicare bill.

    U.S. Oncology has also been lobbying hard for the provision. "I was certainly pleased," said U.S. Oncology lobbyist Dan Cohen of Specter's talks with the White House. "If he was able to get a deal," he added, "we're all behind him."

    Ultimately, the Medicare cut will be avoided because staving it off has "strong bipartisan support," said Cohen. "We certainly don't want to see our payment from Medicare getting cut. Medicare patients already cost us money to treat."

    But he put little distance between his organization and Specter's vote. "Sen. Specter has been an extremely strong supporter of oncology and we're strong supporters of Sen. Specter," he said.

    Specter, for his part, acknowledged the offer from the White House but said that the real reason he switched his vote was that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wouldn't let him introduce amendments.

    Specter's staff has been lobbying Reid to allow amendments when it's voted on again next week, but Reid's staff notes that Specter already signed on the unanimous consent agreement - negotiated between Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - that forbids amendments.

    "I don't know what the hell McConnell agreed to, but that wouldn't be determinative with me," Specter told The Crypt.

  

»

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

How much can you trust

 Fri, 07/04/2008 - 01:22 — smilodon1 (not verified)
How much can you trust Specter? He's the one who gave us the "magic bullet theory" in the Kennedy assassination. He's been going down hill ever since. He's atypical republicanderthal, i.e., untrustworthy.

I disagree with smilodon1.

 Fri, 07/04/2008 - 12:44 — Steve Newcomb (not verified)
I disagree with smilodon1. True, I'm sometimes appalled by Specter's positions and votes, but much more often I applaud them, especially when it turns out that he was being craftily effective all along in protecting and promoting the rule of law. Yes, we can't trust Specter to do what we'd do, or to promote the progressive agenda. But over the long haul, his record shows more integrity, more patriotism, and much, much more courage, than the overwhelming majority of his colleagues. And, compared to the rest of Congress's leadership, the Leahy-Specter chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee has been exemplary of how things ought to be in Congress. Specter and Leahy don't agree about lots of things, but they come together for the benefit of our country, and when they do, they act like rock solid patriots. So, I'd gladly vote for more Republicans like Specter, even though their behavior occasionally smells very partisan. Political survival is part of any politician's job; the crucial difference with Specter is that it is only *part* of his job as he sees it. Although I have rarely voted for Republicans, I feel much the same way about Ron Paul. I agree with Paul about almost nothing, but he's cut from the same high-integrity, USA-loving cloth as Harry Truman. Party affiliation is not so important in that league; such people will defend the country against the depredations of their own party when necessary. When we decide to go to a concert, we hardly ever do so because of the *songs* that will be sung there; we go because of *who* will be singing them.

I don't follow Congress that

 Fri, 07/04/2008 - 15:47 — Mike (not verified)
I don't follow Congress that closely, but it seems to me Senator Specter has sold his soul to the GOP in recent years. Specter's Judiciary hearing with Alberto Gonzales was all bluster and no substance. He let Gonzales off the hook without so much as slap on the hand. His voting record for the 110th is typical rubberstamp Republican. He voted for permanent bases in Iraq, voted for Mukasey, voted for Lieberman's bill to undermine diplomacy with Iran, etc, etc, etc. It's not too difficult to imagine why he's favoring cancer doctors. It's time for the pendulum to swing in the other direction for a change.