War supplemental spending bill that would block Medicaid rules shows 'inability' of Congress to control spending, opinion piece states

"If Congress stops" a series of proposed Medicaid rules "by amending the defense spending bill, it will have demonstrated its inability to control unnecessary spending -- and abdicated its role to set sound policy," Dennis Smith, former director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations and a senior fellow in health care reform at the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, writes in a Washington Times opinion piece.

Smith writes, "Congress shouldn't surrender policy decisions to consultants who dream up new schemes that designate as 'Medicaid' any state or local problem in search of funding, or to high-priced lawyers paid to draft ambiguous amendments for state bureaucrats who rely upon the lack of clarity in federal rules as their defense."

A delay of the rules would indicate to taxpayers that "lawmakers have no interest in standing up to special interests" and would "undermine the federal-state partnership in Medicaid," according to Smith. He writes, "State officials are supposed to pay their fair share of Medicaid," adding, "It's easy for them to expand eligibility, provide more benefits or increase payments to providers if they can get someone else to pay the bill."

In addition, Smith writes, "It speaks poorly of Congress that it cannot conduct its business through regular order and process." He adds, "Medicaid is to a war supplemental bill as a basketball is to a buffalo." Smith concludes, "Transparency should be a key feature of a highly performing health care system," but "special interests are intent on distorting the debate -- while their allies in Congress hide important Medicaid policy decisions in a special funding bill for our troops" (Smith, Washington Times, 6/25).