Show 10A Standard-Examin- Saturday er Oct 21 1989 Standard-Examin- er OfSIflO "T fsiaosss5" Lean school lunch menu great idea Here’s a novel idea that ought to catch on: serving lean cuisine in Utah school lunch cafeterias It could very well become vogue for the kids to turn up their noses at pizza and hot dogs if Utah schools follow the lead of California and heed the advice of their governor California is the first state to limit the fat and cholesterol in meals served at school Gov Norman Bangerter launched School Lunch Week in Utah by encouraging school lunch cooks to eliminate where possible saturated fat in food preparation Other states and districts should follow suit 0WM6E OF PLANS NASA DECIDES TO SEND A GROUP OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO JUPITER IN A LAST-- MINUTE Ml LAWYER SAYS 1WJ YOU HAVE DELIVER MY BABY HEALTHY The reasons why are numerous With more and more emphasis on good nutrition and with a nation of people conscience of the necessity to maintain a good balance of exercise and eating the proper foods doesn't it make sense to instill good eating habits at an early age? OR TO WE YflLLSUE'fOUL So what better place to start than the school lunch rooms across the America where eating habits are in the formative stage THAT YOU HAD BETTER NOT MISTAKES OR CHARGE TOO MUCH ”MY LAWYER SAYS Last year the surgeon general published a comprehensive study of nutrition in the United States Its chief recommendation: Eat less fat ®HeanBinriB California took the surgeon general’s admonitions seriously With a large minority of California fourth graders showing cholesterol levels above those at considered safe by the American Heart Association the California assembly took a wise course of action nd ordered a change in Was the menus for the school cafeteria MAKE ANY CR WELL SUE''—’ close' M BE EXTRA CAREFUL BUDDY LAWYERCAH DO JUST ABOUT HAD BETTER BECAUSE MY Weber County Health Director Dr Mark Nichols said it would be laudable if Utah’s school system were able to follow such a course but as a practical matter it is not possible right now The interdependency on the federal ANYTHING'! government’s allotments of surplus food is too great he said - He said lunch supervisors in Utah schools are restricted in their menu planning by plethora of food supplies that are provided without cost by the US Department of Agriculture — known to be soaked in saturated fat They include flour butter and milk products HAVE YOUR LAWYER DELIVER 'GOOD! YOUR BABY! I To eliminate this federal infusion of food would create an economic handicap Nichols said He was referring to budgetary limitations: not enough tax dollars to subsidize the schools’ hot meal services This nationwide trend to lighten up food is spreading fast It is a revolution that ought to trickle down with great ease into the school cafeterias Should Congress repeal catastrophic health plan? Salvage worthwhile parts of catastrophic insurance program For Scripps Howard News Service Two years of thoughtful deliberation went into developing the Medicare catastrophic insurance program It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities President Reagan who originally proposed the concept behind this legislation signed the bill into law just 15 months ago It represents the largest expansion of health benefits for the elderly and chronically disabled since the Medicare program was enacted in 1965 From the start the new law suffered from misinformation Many seniors mistakenly believed that they would have to pay the maximum income-relate- d premium which was capped in 1989 at $800 This “supplemental” premium was the principal bone of contention The reality is that this year of the 32 million Medicare beneficiaries only 40 percent would pay any supplemental premium and only 5 percent would pay the maximum reOn Oct 4 the House voted for the near-totdraWhat this about the of brought peal program matic shift in congressional attitudes? Complaints that legislators have been hearing are that beneficiaries do not like the supplemental premium that they feel they already have coverage for many of its acute care benefits and that they want protection from the cost of skyrocketing prescripcare coverage tion drugs and long-ter- In be like throwing the bawould view repeal my by out with the bathwater In the words of Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan “To take back from tens of millions of elderly Americans the comfort of knowing serious illness will not cause them financial ruin will not only be unwise health policy but would simply be an unforgivable act of political expedience” an alternative to repeal that was I supported by all major national senior organizations as well as by diverse groups such as the National Education Association the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of Government Employees Like the straight repeal amendment my proposal eliminated the controversial supplemental premium but unlike repeal it retained essential benefits constituents say they want and need — specifically ed al m ed Rep Biii Gradison ! care bene-jfi- ts ithe prescription drug benefit long-terhealth and of home (namely expansion hospice respite care) coverage as well as to proscreening the Medicaid “buy-in- ” tect the poorest seniors against the financial burden m in-ho- mam-jmograp- hy of Medicare cost sharing and protection for spouses of nursing home residents against impover- j ishment Importantly these benefits are either unavailable or unaffordable to a great many beneficiaries through the private sector Contrary to what many members of Congress may wish repealing the Medicare catastrophic insurance program will not put an end to the controi versy I also expect Congress will hear from beneficiaries who will be shocked at the huge Medigap premium increases that will occur when those policies are adjusted to pick up benefits lost from the catastrophic insurance program Many will be the same seniors who advocated repeal Sponsors of the repeal amendment argued for scrapping the catastrophic insurance program in facare program though ironically vor of a long-terthese same members voted against last year’s concare protection act ofsideration of the long-terfered by the late Rep Claude Pepper Many repeal supporters now urge that long-tercare be put on the front burner Frankly in the present environment consideration of long-tercare and national health care proposals will be moved from the stove to the refrigerator if not the m m m m freezer Make no mistake about it killing the catastrophic insurance program which is cheap by comparison care effectively kills the prospects for a long-terprogram for the foreseeable future Two days after the House action the Senate rejected outright repeal by a three to one margin and by a vote of 99 to 0 accepted a proposal that repeals the supplemental premium and retains the catastrophic program's hospital benefits Medicaid expansions home health respite care hospice care and home intravenous drug therapy benefits The fate of the program will likely rest in the e hands of the budget reconciliation conference We must salvage what is worth keeping and eliminate what is politically unacceptable (Rep Gradison an Ohio Republican is a member of the House Ways and Means and Budget committees) : ' m House-Senat- Mistakes were made with the original bill time to start again For JScnpps Howard News Service When the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was signed by President Reagan in a Rose Garden ceremony last year the book on how to care for the elderly should acute catastrophic illness arise was shut Or so we thought Before the ink dried on the president’s signature senior citizens across the country realizing they would be paying more money out of their own pockets for benefits the vast majority of the elderly already had and will probably never use began voicing vehement outrage over the program When Reagan proposed a Medicare catastrophic program he wanted just two components: protection from long hospital stays and huge physician bills Congress then expanded on that plan As one of the authors — and one of its supporters — I offered the amendment to repeal the plan and go back to the drawing board I did this because we went too far and created a program that duplicated existing coverage and turned out to be much more expensive that we had been told It is important to keep in mind that the initial 'proposal made by President Reagan was very narrow Two benefits: unlimited hospital stays and limits on liability for physician charges — all at a cost to beneficiaries of $490 per month Congress then added a skilled nursing facility benefit prescription drug benefits respite care a drug benefit home health expansion: the list goes cn and on — and so did the cost Last year Congress was told by the Congressional Budget Office that the entire program was going to cost $30 billion Today the CBO has estimated the cost at more than $47 billion The prescription drug benefit originally estimated at $6 billion and not scheduled to go into effect until 1991 doubled to $12 billion And the skilled nursing home benefit according to the CBO skyrocketed 650 percent or $25 billion to $12 billion These costs were not to be paid by us but by the elderly What Congress didn’t see one year' ago when this legislation passed were three fatal flaws that 32 mil- - Rep Brian Donnelly lion beneficiaries saw: The catastrophic program duplicates coverage most senior citizens already have According to the Health Insurance Association of America more than 70 percent of the senior citizens in this country have similar or better insurance coverage than 'what Congress was offering Recently The Wall Street Journal said the figure is closer to 85 percent Senior citizens object to being forced into a system without any say on their health care coverage They want the same “freedom of choice” that other Americans have — and that they had — before enactment of the program Senior citizens rightly object to paying for coverage they already have Before I came to the conclusion that repeal was the only logical direction to take the House Ways and Means Committee tried to solve the problems but we failed again after finding only three possible solutions The first was to transfer the cost of the program to the general population by increasing the payroll tax Second take away existing benefits from retirees that they earned during their working years Third allow everyone to “option out” if they had coverage from prior work or private insurance If we had allowed the latter the program would have collapsed from its own weight The fact is that we gave America’s senior citizens benefits they didn’t want or need and refused to give them what they have been repeatedly asking custodial care coverage for all along: The repeal of catastrophic is not the end It’s the beginning a beginning of a realization that we cannot deal with the health needs of Americans by putting patches over problems It does not work People are too sophisticated to allow it to happen The demographic changes coming in this country over the next 30 years have frightening financial consequences From this point on retirees have to be treated in a far more thoughtful way Hopefully this entire exercise has opened our eyes to the folly that our current health care system is and that we will now begin to forge a consensus carefully thought out to adopt a health care plan for all Americans that is efficient cost effective and responds to the real needs of our citizens (Rep Donnelly a Massachusetts Democrat is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee He wrote the amendment to repeal catastrophic ' long-ter- m |