Kaplan said the detailed breakdown was an attempt to be "as transparent as possible," while McClellan called it an effort to "divide the components of the [total] Medicare increase into different provisions."
Early last week, Democrats excoriated the administration for not revealing the massive increase in Medicare costs projected for 2006. Government actuaries estimate that the typical 65-year-old would see Medicare costs jump from 20 percent of the average Social Security benefit in 2005 to 37 percent in 2006.
 
Friday's Question:
| | |
|
The administration responded by noting that, beginning in 2006, seniors will receive a valuable prescription drug benefit.
Some experts say a big question is what happens after 2006, when seniors -- and taxpayers in general -- face Medicare increases that threaten to consume more than half the average Social Security check and would necessitate tax increases on younger workers.
"We're in deep trouble," said Robert Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center, as he examined a Medicare chart belatedly released by the administration.
In 2015, for example, 44 percent of the typical 65-year-old's benefit check will be devoted to Medicare premiums, deductibles and co-payments, according to the actuaries' projections. By 2020, it will be half. The typical 85-year-old will lose 50 percent of his or her Social Security check to Medicare in 2015 and 58 percent in 2020.
"That does not count some of the most substantial expenses people have for health care, such as long-term care, vision, dental and preventive services not covered by Medicare," Hayes added. "The debacle facing consumers is even greater than this chart would suggest."
For the past several years, the long-term premium projections have been published in the Medicare Trustees' report. Administration officials said the chart was replaced with a graph this year to show not only the new fees, but also the new drug benefit.
"The line of co-payments goes up, but also going up rapidly is the value of the supplemental benefits," McClellan said.
Even the written report understates the financial impact of the drug law. The narrative asserts that in 2010 the typical retiree will spend 13 percent of his or her Social Security benefit on Medicare premiums and 23 percent on "cost-sharing." But the total out-of-pocket Medicare cost in the newly released chart totals 39.2 percent.
McClellan said the projected spike in costs is largely the result of an expectation that seniors will be taking more medications in the future and that many will be newer, more expensive drugs.
Independent analysts said the Bush administration pushed through policy changes that did little to control health care spending and, in some instances, added to the cost of Medicare.
The Medicare drug law, which Bush recently said upholds a "moral responsibility to honor our senior citizens with good health care," gives managed-care companies an extra $25 billion in Medicare payments between 2004 and 2009. McClellan and Bush have said that the money will result in broader health coverage for seniors who enroll in "Medicare Advantage" plans.
Yet CMS data published in the federal register show that $1.4 billion -- or less than 6 percent of the increase -- will go to benefits.
"That's part of the increased costs, but seniors are getting very little in return," said Ron Pollack, executive director and vice president of the liberal consumer group Families USA.
Researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
