GOP readies reply to health care ruling

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are preparing to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Democrats’ landmark health care law, a decision that could arrive anytime between now and the end of the month. But in a gridlocked, election-minded Congress, the plans have less to do with legislating than communicating.

Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta, an obstetrician/gynecologist and chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, met with the House Republican “whip team” last week to discuss how to coordinate a message to the public. Republicans’ primary focus is to present a united front from presidential nominee Mitt Romney on down in any of the possible scenarios: the law is upheld, struck down in part or fully invalidated.

“The leadership expressed a very strong interest in utilizing the talent on the Doctors Caucus to utilize us in press events, media events, to be the spokespersons on what we’re going to do in the aftermath,” Gingrey said.

“The main thing I think is they wanted to make sure we are not scatter-gun but we are more of a rifle shot in regard to alignment with Team Romney, the House and the Senate, and the Doctors Caucus.”

The caucus includes Rep. Tom Price, an orthopedic surgeon from Roswell, and Rep. Paul Broun, a general practitioner from Athens.

Price, who also holds the No. 5 spot in House leadership as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, tested out a leadership message at a news conference last week, repeatedly saying Republicans would provide “a rational, positive transition” in response to whatever the court decides.

On what that transition would be, Price was vague, owing in part to the fact that the court’s decision is unknown. He indicated that Republicans could move forward with some targeted pieces of legislation, as one of their primary gripes is that Democrats wrote a massive bill that few Americans fully understood and took a tortured route to pass it.

Price and Broun both have comprehensive bills designed to invite more cost-containing competition among health insurance plans by tactics such as allowing plans to be sold across state lines and organizations to join together to offer “association health plans.”

But Price said last week that a big bill is unlikely before this year’s elections. He said a more likely outcome if the law is struck down would be to propose small-bore proposals such as giving tax benefits for health savings accounts — like a 401(k) for your medical spending.

Republicans acknowledge that even small initiatives are a long shot to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has acted on little this year.

Some parts of the health care law are resoundingly popular, including funding to close the “doughnut hole” in prescription drug coverage under Medicare Part D and mandating insurers allow children to stay on their parents’ health plans until they turn 26.

On the former, Gingrey emerged from a Doctors Caucus meeting Friday morning pointing the finger at the pharmaceutical lobby. The Obama administration secured support from the lobby — known as PhRMA — and an $80 billion industrywide commitment to fund drug coverage in the doughnut hole in exchange for industry-friendly policies such as not allowing cheap drugs to be imported from Canada.

The deal has returned to the spotlight in recent weeks as Republicans have published newly obtained emails between the lobbyists and the White House when they were hammering out the 2009 deal that contradicted Obama’s campaign pledge to conduct the bill negotiations in public. Gingrey said the deal would stand regardless of the outcome of the law, marking the industry as a possible scapegoat if the law is repealed.

“PhRMA agreed to that deal, didn’t they?” Gingrey said. “Well God bless ’em, that was the risk they took and that’s fine. That problem is solved. Why do we need to do anything to solve the problem with the doughnut hole? It’s been done. I think the check’s already been written.”

But there is no $80 billion check. The deal is written into the law: An industry source pointed to Section 3301, which requires manufacturers to offer a 50 percent drug discount to Part D beneficiaries who are in the coverage gap. If the law is struck down, so is the requirement.

Gingrey spokeswoman Jen Talaber replied: “If PhRMA offered to lower drug prices who are we to stop them?”

As for insuring young adults to age 26, Gingrey said he would be in favor of states enacting such regulations but did not offer a federal solution. Price sounded a similar note, saying, “There isn’t anything that we would do that would preclude the ability of the health coverage entity, the insurance company, from offering that kind of service to citizens.”