The back story
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration warned insurance companies Monday they face possible legal action for allegedly trying to scare seniors with misleading information about the potential for lost benefits under health care legislation in Congress.“As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your Web sites,” said a notice from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.
Teresa DeCaro, an agency official, sent the notice to all companies that sell private Medicare coverage and stand-alone drug plans to seniors. The warning came as President Barack Obama’s health care legislation is moving toward key tests in a Senate committee over the next several days, and with public polls showing widespread skepticism among seniors. [...]
In one case, the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees CMS, launched an investigation of Humana after getting a complaint from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a senior lawmaker usually viewed as a reliable ally of the insurance industry. [...]
HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana, which is based in Louisville, Ky.
Now, we already have — from Obama’s own piehole that he wants Medical Advantage gone. Inconvenient to his plans to have MA insurance providers, such as Humana, actually telling that to their customers.
Funny thing, though, just as Obama’s NEA allegedly tread into legally proscribed behavior with their propaganda conference call, DHHS allegedly is way overstepping in trying to shut down anyone who questions Obama’s proposed policies.
But while the government has substantial control over how government program dollars are spent by people and institutions hired to administer the programs, the government may not impose blanket limits on everything the recipients say, as a condition of participating in the program. Rather, the recipients must retain the right to speak using their own money (at least unless their speech is otherwise punishable).
Henry Stein at Insureblog
Turns out, the bureauweenies at the agency tasked with Medicare oversight had no such compunctions about, for example, AARP’s very vocal, very public support of cuts in Medicare funding (and, of course, ObamaCare in general). Certainly that was advocacy, yet drew no reproach. The Representative from Michigan rather decisively points out that “when health care plans try to share that information with their enrollees, the Administration slaps a gag order on them.”Or, to put it a bit less elegantly, “shut up, they explained.”
Nice kickback racket, eh, AARP? No wonder you want those seniors to sit down and shut up. So… Chicago
But wait, there’s more! Republican Mitch McConnell took exception to these thug tactics after Max Baucus, the Democrat leader of the Finance Committee trying to ram through healthcare with no debate, indeed, without even allowing people to read it, boasted about shutting down opposition.
Now it appears that the person at CMS that sent out those threatening letters was one Jonathan Blum
CMS has named Jonathan Blum as the director of (CMM). Blum joins CMS from Avalere Health where he served as Vice President of Medicaid and Long-Term Care Practice. Blum most recently served on the professional staff of the Senate Finance Committee as an advisor to Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and other Finance Committee members on prescription drug and Medicare Advantage policies during the development of the Medicare Modernization Act.
Hello? A little :::ahem::: coordination here?
Of course, some of this isn’t surprising. The pattern is clearn – Obamacrats do what they want, Constitution be damned, and if caught — pretend shock, offer a qualified “apology”, backpeddle (perferably on a Friday afternoon), offer to “retrain” people. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And somethings will slip through, such as getting Humana to purge their website under threat.
It’s the Chicago way.
*********************************
There seems to be some sort of idea that Humana, or other Medicare and Medicare Advantage Insurers, are contractually proscribed from communicating with their customers about how proposed legislation may affect their coverage (ie Obama says he wants to eliminate MA, but Humana can’t tell that to their customers). However, Harry Stein reviewed the actual guidelines rather than relying on the word of an anonymous “CMS insider”
According to conventional wisdom (i.e. certain blogs):“Medicare providers are only allowed to communicate with plan members about the benefits they have now, not about possible changes to benefits. They are also not allowed to use plan-related communications to lobby for policies or legislation.”
First, this is somewhat misleading: the source cited for this bit of misdirection neglects to mention that, in this context, “providers” does not mean doctors, hospitals, etc. The relevant guidelines (available here) specifically define MA plans as “providers” for the purpose of those guidelines.
The more important point is that the guidelines do no such thing. This verbiage appears nowhere in the text, nor is there anything even like it in the document (I know, because I’ve spent a good chunk of the evening reading through it). The seemingly relevant sections (50 and 90.7) make no mention of this kind of restriction, nor does it appear anywhere else in the text.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/24 @ 2:12 am #
Humana signed a contract with the feds stating that they would refrain from engaging in certain sorts of marketing in exchange for the vast amount of taxpayer money the company receives, and Humana’s mailer may have violated that agreement. If Humana is doing something that it was contractually obligated not to do, then no, this isn’t really a matter of contempt for the First Amendment.
Likewise, if you sell an article to the government and promise not to sell it elsewhere but then sell it again anyway, and then the government takes legal action against you in response, your rights are not being violated.
You should stick with the arts conference call story; that actually had legs.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 5:06 am #
Barrett, do you have a link about Human taking bailout money? About it’s contract.
I believe in the past your response has been to tell us to do our own legwork.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 5:07 am #
Boy I can’t wait for our entire health care industry to be contracted to the Feds and under strict gag orders. That is bound to improve the quality tremendously.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 5:10 am #
I mean, what I find is something different.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 5:10 am #
I could have written what B moe did. But I’m more wordy.
Last two lines aren’t supposed to be blockquote above. I sux.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 5:11 am #
Barrett just doesn’t seem very libertariany. I mean, he always seems to be defending those that are taking away our rights.
Funny.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:13 am #
“Likewise, if you sell an article to the government and promise not to sell it elsewhere but then sell it again anyway, and then the government takes legal action against you in response, your rights are not being violated.”
How does that have anything to do with anything, anywhere?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:15 am #
Morning shift for the moronic trolls?
Do ehsy have little punch cards thingys they have to punch as the shift changes?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 5:16 am #
Do THEY have……
Comment by Eben on 9/24 @ 5:17 am #
B.O. is all of those things that the lefties claimed BusHitler was, lolcat.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 5:30 am #
Yea, I found it interesting that BB is changing this issue into code words. It was “marketing”. In addition, his analogy was poor.
Course, I never saw that contract BB is alleging Humana signed.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/24 @ 5:31 am #
Here’s a link, Carin.
B Moe: Likewise, I can’t wait for half the conservative blogosphere to run with the CENSORSHIP! angle without bothering to note that Humana agreed not to do what it may have done in this case, way back when the company signed the contract for all that sweet taxpayer money.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 5:38 am #
Because you signed a contract with the devil doesn’t make him any less a devil.
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 5:40 am #
What terms are those? Do seniors need to be protected from the truth? Because contrary to what HSS had to say it it’s “Nice company you have there. Shame to see anything happen to it.” letter, what Humana said in their mailer was quite right, according to the CBO.
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 5:42 am #
You might want to read your own link, Barrett. It provides a pretty good counter argument.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/24 @ 5:42 am #
“Yea, I found it interesting that BB is changing this issue into code words. It was ‘marketing.’”
Carin, look real closely at the excerpt that you yourself just posted a few minutes ago:
“According to a source with inside knowledge of the way CMS regulates marketing guidelines…”
Hey, look. It’s that crazy code word that I “changed” it into, “marketing.” And it’s being used by others! To describe a marketing campaign! CODE WORDS!!!!!!111!!!!!11!!
I’m going back to sleep because all labors are futile here.
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 5:44 am #
Barrett,
With all due respect your link to TPM doesn’t provide any details of Humana’s obligations to secrecy as part of their ageement for participating in MA, it merely says:
“Under terms the government erected when it created the system, those insurers face strict limits on how they communicate to beneficiaries–regulations that exist to protect seniors from acting under the pressures of insurers, who control their benefits.”
And there was no problem until Senator Baucus called his fromer staffer, and asked that he do Baucus a solid, for old times sake…
It may be that the terms stipulated in the contract are unconstitutional in light of it being a contract with the government. But, we’ll never know because the TPM site you linked is as much an opinion piece as Darleen’s is; but with much less factual support in the way of links…
I’d feel better if it was a less partisan and more detailed source myself. Until then, it seems like Chicago thuggery to me too…
Comment by B Moe on 9/24 @ 5:45 am #
Pretty short trip, right there.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/24 @ 5:47 am #
“You might want to read your own link, Barrett. It provides a pretty good counter argument.”
You mean the assertion, made without evidence, that the move is “uneven and potentially politically-motivated”? The one that’s not so much an argument as it is an assertion? I read that.
Okay, seriously sleep; labors futile.
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 5:50 am #
From Barretts article:
“I note that no such pressure has been applied to those supportive of the President’s Medicare cuts. AARP, which has the largest MA plan in Medicare at 1.7 million enrollees, has been a vocal advocate in favor of the President Obama and Democrats’ health care proposals. They have spent millions of dollars communicating to its members the group’s support of President Obama’s proposed changes to Medicare via bulletins, television ads, newsletters, and its website. According to USA Today, AARP sent 8 million direct letters about health care reform and Medicare policies under consideration in Washington to its members over Labor Day. Additionally AARP has a “Health Action Now!” website that asks seniors to contact Members of Congress using an AARP-drafted letter that seniors can send via e-mail. These communications seem to be largely similar to the communications sent by Humana, other than they are in support of President Obama’s position.”
Well Barrett what is good for AARP is apparently not for Humana. So take your CENSORSHIP! angle and stuff it.
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 5:52 am #
Bob,
Damn you and your fast typing ;-)
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 5:56 am #
I bet Obama’s pal Fidel suggested no dissent on health care. Because Cuba is a model of health care, don’t you know!
Comment by JHo on 9/24 @ 6:03 am #
Following a post that ends with “it’s the Chicago way”, in reference to a thuggish Administration whose hamfistedness daily competes with its mendacity, the first comment
…one finds especially aimless. That it can even be presented in this context in that context smacks of a bunch of bad intent better left not itemized here.
I forgot BB’s professed ideology — the “labors” of which conflict with anything I know I’d stand behind — but until a detailed reply to Carin in #4 is offered, at least, if it dvocates limited, accountable, low-impact government I’ll have to wonder aloud where he left his intent and perspective this morning.
In other words, one day soon we’ll look back on these days as the era we narrowly escaped — the time for which we’ll be making quite a few corrections and wiping quite a few bad orders and laws off the books. This we’ll do because we’ll have learned that liberty requires we abandon that time’s trajectory.
It’d be really useful if we could discuss those points in real time. So thanks for the laborious contribution, BB. Slaving and hot stoves.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 6:05 am #
“…regulations that exist to protect seniors from acting under the pressures of insurers, who control their benefits.”
As opposed to seniors acting under pressure of the government, which I’m sure is just fine and dandy in your book.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 6:08 am #
Medicare Advantage plans are private health care plans that seniors can buy into with federal assistance in lieu of participating in traditional Medicare. Under terms the government erected when it created the system, those insurers face strict limits on how they communicate to beneficiaries–regulations that exist to protect seniors from acting under the pressures of insurers, who control their benefits. In response to a request from Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services has demanded the lobbying effort cease, and is investigating the company to determine whether it violated those rules.
So, this is all the more reason we should EXPAND government control of healthcare?
I get it. Obama doesn’t want Humana to say shit, because they aren’t going to say anything they like (If Humana was advocating for Obamacare, do you think they’d care?) Even if it’s true. Because, you know, Obama said those who don’t support his program are liars.
Let’s expand this argument. Given this scenario … what might we conclude about further expanding government control of Health care?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 6:09 am #
“hey would refrain from engaging in certain sorts of marketing in exchange for the vast amount of taxpayer money the company receives”
So Humana, being under house arrest, is restrained from running across the street to warn the inhabitants of another house that said house is on fire.
Gotcha.
Comment by Joe on 9/24 @ 6:10 am #
Don’t scare the seniors. It is hard to round them up again if you scare them.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 9/24 @ 6:10 am #
Like herding fucking cats it is.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 6:12 am #
And, honestly – BB twists until the argument fits into his nice little package. Humana said it would refrain from certain “marketing” … so all we have to do is call whatever we don’t like “Marketing” and they’re in breach.
“Marketing:the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.”
Advertising. Promoting.
So … Humana customers aren’t allowed to hear anything that might adversely affect their coverage. From Humana. Because … they signed a marketing agreement that they’d only talk fluffy bunny shit.
Comment by JHo on 9/24 @ 6:13 am #
That could get really laborious, Carin, but I’ll start:
In this case even an unclear relationship between the private sector and a onerous Administration shuts down that private sector.
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 6:13 am #
Evidence? Here’s your evidence. And let’s see what Baucus, who made the complaint, said about Humana:
But then, Humana didn’t mislead anyone, did they, Barrett?
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 6:14 am #
And, honestly – this is the best part:
t“hey would refrain from engaging in certain sorts of marketing in exchange for the vast amount of taxpayer money the company receives”
It’s the TAXPAYER’s money, not the governments. You’d think a libertarian wouldn’t need to be reminded of that.
So, BB, you’re ok with the government using our money to shut people up?
Comment by JHo on 9/24 @ 6:16 am #
Wha? You don’t say! We’re among friends, then!
Comment by Pablo on 9/24 @ 6:18 am #
The mask on this one doesn’t hide much, does it?
Pingback by Gag Me « POWIP on 9/24 @ 6:24 am #
[...] got an excellent post up over at Protein Wisdom, talking about the administration’s attempt to gag Humana health services, while at the same time not prohibiting the kick-back bought AARP from backing their ObamaCare [...]
Comment by Eben on 9/24 @ 6:26 am #
I don’t give a rats ass if there’s a law or regulation or whatever, if it’s the farking truth then it shouldn’t be illegal to speak it.
If you were a libertarian you’d agree.
Comment by Darleen on 9/24 @ 6:52 am #
Barrett
More from Insureblog
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 9/24 @ 6:58 am #
Guys, his irrational acrimony to you, because you don’t hate God, trumps his professed libertarianism.
Comment by Darleen on 9/24 @ 6:59 am #
also, Barrett, your analogy is strained, at best. Contractual exclusivity envolving products is not the same as fundamental speech rights.
I suggest you read further the link I provided to Eugene Volokh who cites the specific case precedents that support Humana’s rights to tell its MA policy holders that if Obama’s own stated aims to abolish MA go through they will lose their MA.
You do know, of course, that Obama would like to “bail out” newspapers… make them all NPR. If Humana is any indication, then Rahm will certainly be vetting them too, for all the Correct and Proper News Fit to Print.
Is that where your “libertarianism” leads you?
Trackback by Maggie's Farm on 9/24 @ 6:59 am #
Thursday morning links…
It’s Beerfest time in Germany. Theo keeps us up to date.
Nuclear energy is the only solution. Or is coal the new clean fuel?
Dem health bills and their kickbacks to AARP. Lots of folks are quitting AARP
Pelosi tries to veer health bills to th…
Comment by SBP on 9/24 @ 7:05 am #
I bet Obama’s pal Fidel suggested no dissent on health care. Because Cuba is a model of health care, don’t you know!
Yep. No one cares more about the health of Teh Peeepul than Fidel.
Why, when he gets sick, he goes to all the trouble of importing doctors from Spain so there will be more Cuban health resources left for Teh Peeepul.
How altruistic can you be?
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 7:13 am #
I find this to be a bit strange as on a thread that was about the NEA conference call you in your first comment dived into the Photoshopped picture and then went to a diversion with an analogy the healthcare legislation. A thread which then devolved to a discussion of Thomas Paine led by you.
Is it always this way?
Got to get some coffee, up too late again.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 9/24 @ 7:17 am #
geoffb…you people like God! Or most of you do. You’re the bigger enemy.
Comment by royf on 9/24 @ 8:18 am #
Well who would have guessed another Obama government intrusion into the public base of knowledge which “libertarian” Barrett Brown scrambles to justify.
Comment by royf on 9/24 @ 8:25 am #
It is the rare libertarian which is also agreeable to a side order of fascist propaganda. Quite the combination that is.
Comment by LTC John on 9/24 @ 8:33 am #
I don’t think BB’s definition of “marketing” is the same as what is actually in the guidelines:
The definition of marketing materials, as used in CMS regulations and these guidelines extends beyond the public’s general concept of advertising materials. Pursuant to 42 CFR 422.2260 and 42 CFR 423.2260, marketing materials include any informational materials targeted to Medicare beneficiaries which:
•
Promote the plan sponsor, or any MA or Part D plan offered by the plan sponsor;
•
Inform Medicare beneficiaries that they may enroll, or remain enrolled in, an MA or Part D plan offered by the plan sponsor;
•
Explain the benefits of enrollment in an MA plan or Part D plan or rules that apply to enrollees; and
•
Explain how Medicare services are covered under an MA or Part D plan, including conditions that apply to such coverage.
So, where is it?
Comment by Bob Reed on 9/24 @ 8:43 am #
Thanks for the clarifiation, and the rhetorical ammo Colonel John!
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 9/24 @ 8:48 am #
Roy, to be fair to BB, and I’m not sure why I should, his greater point was that Humana is basically receiving corporate welfare and that is something that most libertarians agree is not something the founding fathers would have advocated. Corporate welfare is kind of out of the purview of founding principles.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 9:55 am #
I do not know one other libertarian or classical liberal that consistently takes positions contra liberty.
It was particularly cute to cite TPM as a source where they were just making shit up.
Comment by Carin on 9/24 @ 10:03 am #
I’m a tad confused regarding the whole corporate welfare argument here. Humana participates in Medicare Advantage.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 10:22 am #
Carin – It is not corporate welfare. That is what is causing the problem.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/24 @ 10:38 am #
BB seems to be operating under the assumption that it’s Humana’s fault that they are receiving government money (“corporate welfare.”) I would suggest that he look elsewhere if the blame game is what he is after.
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 10:40 am #
BJ – He was just burnishing his libertarian/classic liberal bona fides by advocating for the increased government control and stomping on the 1st Amendment.
Comment by rrpjr on 9/24 @ 11:08 am #
Comment by Eben on 9/24 @ 6:26 am #
“I don’t give a rats ass if there’s a law or regulation or whatever, if it’s the farking truth then it shouldn’t be illegal to speak it. If you were a libertarian you’d agree.
That’s my view. I don’t care for subtle arguments about who signed what under what terms when it comes to free speech. And I don’t care for apologists for speech-stifling. If this administration were confident in its policy and truly democratic it would welcome more conversation not less and not get balled up in fear and loathing when any debate spills beyond the narrow margins of its control.
Pingback by Headline questions » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog on 9/24 @ 11:08 am #
[...] he contemptuous of the first amendment? Is there a Soros-Axelrod Axis? We don’t know. We don’t know anything about this guy in [...]
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 11:11 am #
If there were any doubts about Barrett’s mendoucheity, this thread should dispel them.
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 12:36 pm #
Amen JD,
Your identification of BB as a contrarian and Obama apologist were spot on sir!
He claims to have written articles critical of Pelosi and Reid but where are the links when I googled him I found lame religious parodies from years ago and Huffington Post articles.
My guess is if he has been critical of anyone on the left it was either because they were not far left enough or as a lead in to worse criticism of the somneone on the right.
For example this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/inational-reviewi-changes_b_272093.html
Comment by Danger on 9/24 @ 12:37 pm #
somneone = someone
Comment by JD on 9/24 @ 12:56 pm #
Danger – It took no effort to figure that one out. You put in more effort to prove water is wet than he deserved ;-)
Comment by SDN on 9/24 @ 4:15 pm #
There’s a fairly large difference between the government writing a check directly to Humana and the government giving seniors money the seniors can spend at any of several MA insurers…. including Humana.
Comment by McGehee on 9/24 @ 7:18 pm #
SDN, try telling that to people opposed to school vouchers. They’re absolutely convinced that if a government-issued voucher goes to a religious school, the Establishment Clause will have been raped — and not in a smuggled-into-the-country teenage prostitute way.
Comment by SDN on 9/24 @ 9:59 pm #
My experience with people opposed to school vouchers is that they have a vested interest (jobs, graft, patronage) in keeping the government school monopoly. I’m not going to persuade them of anything. The only answer is to remove your kids from government school and oppose any and all efforts to increase its’ looting.
Trackback by InsureBlog on 9/25 @ 12:32 pm #
CMS in Hot Water?…
Earlier today, we reported on the (misguided) decision by CMS to shut d ……
Comment by SBP on 9/25 @ 12:36 pm #
There’s a new large-scale study of school vouchers that will be published soon. I’ve seen a rough draft of it — the takeaway point is that vouchers not only benefit the kids who use them, but also the kids who stay in the public schools.
It appears that competition motivates the public schools to improve. Who would have figured?
Pingback by Friday Night Link Dump: Democrat-Socialists Gone Wild (Health Care Special) - Medary.com on 9/25 @ 5:09 pm #
[...] “Soft Tyranny” This Is Why Obama