Medicare's
ex-chief was within his rights in stifling a subordinate's politically damaging
cost estimates of the prescription drug program |
|
|
|
Former Medicare administrator
Thomas Scully broke no law when he repeatedly directed his chief cost analyst
to withhold information from Congress about the true cost of the Medicare
prescription drug bill, a report released Tuesday concludes. |
|
The finding by the Health and
Human Services Department's independent office of inspector general relies
heavily on a fresh opinion by the Bush administration's legal advisors. They
concluded the analyst wasn't legally independent enough to override his boss'
order. |
|
Critics of that view -- who
included Republicans in the House of Representatives when the Clinton
administration was in power -- contend that Congress can legislate wisely only
when executive branch experts share their information and expert opinions, especially
about the costs of government programs. |
|
The actual cost exceeded the
Bush administration's estimate by more than $100 billion. |
|
CONTRADICTS REPORT |
|
And the debate about it isn't
over. The finding that Scully's actions violated no laws contradicts a report
in April from the Congressional Research Service that also probed the matter.
The earlier analysis concluded that Scully's threats to fire his chief actuary,
Richard Foster, probably violated a 1912 statute that says a federal employee's
right to communicate with and provide information to Congress ''may not be
interfered with or impeded.'' |
|
Lawyers for the General
Accounting Office, Congress' watchdog agency, will be the final arbiters of the
two opinions. The GAO is expected to report in a few weeks. |
|
The new report, signed by
acting Principal Deputy Inspector General Dara Corrigan, found that on five
occasions between June and October 2003, Scully blocked the efforts of Foster
to comply with congressional Democrats' requests for information about the cost
of the Medicare drug bill. |
|
''Our investigation failed to
produce evidence that criminal statutes were violated in connection with the
failure to respond to congressional requests,'' the report said. |
|
Bill Pierce, a Health and Human
Services spokesman, said Tuesday's report showed that the administration acted
properly. ''We hope that with the release of this report we can put behind us
the political squabbling and move on to the important work of implementing the
new law,'' Pierce told The Associated Press. |
|
Democrats, however, said the
narrow focus of the decision underscored the need for an independent
investigation. |
|
''All I know is that the
Congress did not have the best information available to make a judgment on
vital legislation,'' said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the senior Democrat on
the Ways and Means Committee, which handled the Medicare drug bill in the
House. ''We asked for it. We were not given it.'' |
|
FIRM ON OPINION |
|
Foster, reached at home
Tuesday, said he was surprised that the Congressional Research Service report
and the Health and Human Services report differed so much in their findings. |
|
''My perception remains that
Mr. Scully withheld that information for political purposes,'' he said. ''And
regardless of his legal right to withhold it, I continue to believe that it's
wrong and unethical to withhold technical information from Congress.'' |
|
Before 2003, the Medicare
actuary's expertise and figures usually were provided to lawmakers who were
debating Medicare legislation. |
|
For the Bush administration,
the key issue was keeping Foster's analysis, which showed that the then-pending
Medicare drug bill would cost $500 billion to $600 billion over the first 10
years -- from critical Democrats. That was far more than the $395 billion
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office and touted by the White House. |
|
In March, The Herald's
Washington Bureau reported exclusively that Foster nearly resigned in protest
after Scully directed him to withhold cost estimates and other information
sought by members of Congress. |
|
Foster's figures threatened the
passage of the White House-backed bill because 13 House Republicans had vowed
to vote against it if it cost more than $400 billion. The bill initially passed
the House by one vote in June 2003. A House-Senate compromise passed by five
votes in November. |
In January, the Bush
administration acknowledged that the bill probably would cost $534 billion over
10 years, not $395 billion.
|
