Q&A on Medicare open enrollment with U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Q:    What does open enrollment mean for seniors?

A:    The Medicare open enrollment period for 2012 is under way.  Any enrollee who wants to change plans needs to do so by December 7, 2011.   The annual enrollment period applies to Medicare Parts A and B, which is traditional Medicare; the alternative to Medicare Parts A and B, which is Medicare Advantage; and Medicare Part D, which is the prescription drug program added to Medicare in 2003.

During open enrollment, Medicare beneficiaries don't have to make changes if they don't want or need to.  They can switch from traditional Medicare to a Medicare Advantage plan, move from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare, or switch from one Medicare Advantage plan to another.  They can enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan, drop Medicare prescription drug coverage, or switch from one drug plan to another.

Helpful consumer information is available at www.Medicare.gov/find-a-plan.

Q:    What happens if plans are discontinued?

A:    Most Medicare enrollees will not need to change plans, and most enrollees whose current coverage won't be available next year - whether it's Medicare Advantage or one of the Medicare drug benefit plans - will be enrolled automatically in a new plan, as spelled out in a Notice of Change that insurers were required to send beneficiaries in October.  However, automatic re-enrollment is not always the case, so it's important to read any paperwork you receive this fall.  You may need to re-enroll yourself.

Some insurance plans make changes to prescription drug plans.  It might be higher or lower costs, or the dropping or adding of medications.  Medicare beneficiaries should examine their plans for 2012 changes.  It's important to review your options every year for both financial and health needs.

For 2012, Medicare beneficiaries have plan options that offer enhanced coverage, including zero deductibles and coverage in the gap for generic drugs.  In Iowa, there are 33 Medicare prescription drug plans available for 2012.  These plans offer additional options, such as coverage in the standard benefit's coverage gap and a deductible below the standard $310, including plans without a deductible.  For 2012, the lowest Medicare prescription drug plan available in Iowa for 2012 is $15.10 per month.  Overall, drug plans have seen a slight decrease in premiums for 2012.  I co-authored the legislation that created the Medicare prescription drug program.  Competition among insurers was built into the program design to keep costs low for enrollees, and the program has delivered consistently better-than-expected results in keeping premiums low and affordable.  Beneficiary satisfaction also is high, with 95 percent of enrollees saying their Part D plan works well, and 94 percent saying it's easy to use, in a survey conducted this year.

Q:    What kind of help is available to sort through enrollment questions?

A:    Many states, including Iowa, have set up Senior Health Insurance Information Programs.  Iowa's program provides confidential guidance to individuals, and it's free of charge.  Those who have questions about plan options or unresolved issues with plans should call the Senior Health Insurance Information Program, or SHIIP, at 1-800-351-4664.

Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder, Nov. 8, 2011

U.S. Guns in Mexico

Attorney General Holder: "[O]f the nearly 94,000 [weapons] that have been recovered that have been traced in Mexico in recent years, over 64,000 of those guns were sourced to the United States of America; 64,000 of 94,000 guns sourced to this country."

FACT

The definition of a "U.S. source gun" used in these often cited statistics was not created by the ATF and is overly broad.  It includes guns manufactured in the United States even if never sold by a federally licensed gun dealer in the United States.  Such weapons may have been legally exported to foreign governments or stolen before falling into the wrong hands.  That cannot be properly blamed on Americans exercising their Second Amendment freedoms.

According to ATF statistics, of the 21,313 guns submitted for tracing by the government of Mexico in 2009, only 5,444 of them (25 percent) traced back to federally licensed gun dealers in the United States.  Similarly, in 2010, of 7,971 guns submitted for tracing by the government of Mexico, only 2,945 (37 percent) traced back to federally licensed gun dealers in the U.S.

The reason for the large disparity between the overall numbers of guns submitted in those two years is that in late 2009, the government of Mexico provided the United States with a large list of guns it had been stockpiling for years.  Accordingly, 2009's numbers do not reflect guns that were seized exclusively in 2009, but rather for a number of the preceding years.

Additionally, any statistics on the percentage of such guns tracing back to the United States are further skewed because of selection bias.  As it has been widely noted, the government of Mexico only provides guns to the United States for tracing that they already have reason to believe originated here.  There is no reason to submit for tracing guns that are known to originate in Mexico.

In a November 8, 2011, court filing, the Chief of ATF's Firearms Operations Division made a declaration that "in 2008, of the approximately 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General's Office informed ATF that it had seized, only 7,200, or one quarter of those firearms, were submitted to ATF for tracing."  Based on these statistics, it's clear that the total sample of guns submitted for tracing is not representative of all the guns found in Mexico, and there isn't evidence that the other 75 percent of those guns were sold in a U.S. gun store.

Documents related to the FACTS.

During his weekly video address, Senator Chuck Grassley says thank you to all American veterans for their outstanding service and tremendous sacrifices on Veterans Day and discusses tax policy to encourage employers to hire qualified veterans who have recently completed their military service.

Click here for audio.

Here is the text of the address:

A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America's interests by serving in the Armed Forces.  The unemployment rate for veterans is higher than for non-veterans nationwide.  These men and women are extremely capable.  They have valuable skills to offer the workplace.  They need job opportunities.  This week, the United States Senate took action to help by passing legislation to encourage employers to hire veterans.

The legislative proposal that passed builds on previous legislation put forward by Senator Max Baucus and me, as part of our bipartisan work on the Senate's tax policy committee.  That law expired at the end of 2010.  What's now been renewed and passed by the Senate would increase the reward for employers for hiring qualified veterans who have recently completed their service in the military.  The new version of the tax credit also would make it easier for veterans and small businesses to use.

Veterans - including those men and women who were activated by their states as members of the National Guard - will be helped by this tax incentive.  It was passed by the Senate as our nation pauses for Veterans Day.

The eleventh day of the eleventh month is designated as Veterans Day to celebrate as a national community and honor America's living veterans for their courage, patriotism and sacrifice.  America's veterans put their lives on the line to defend freedom, protect national security and secure the safety of loved ones here at home.  Like all those uniformed men and women in whose footsteps they follow, members of the Armed Forces continue to make the words "land of the free and home of the brave" ring true.  We owe our liberty and our way of life to them.

So -- to all of those who have answered the call of duty and served -- I thank you for defending my freedom and the freedom of all Americans.  Those words cannot be said enough.  It's our duty and our privilege to honor all American veterans for their outstanding service and tremendous sacrifices on Veterans Day and every day.

WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is leading an effort to make sure the Obama administration is not turning a blind eye to local governments that resist in cooperating with federal immigration authorities and blatantly ignore the immigration status of individuals with whom they come into contact.

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Grassley, along with Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, wrote that they were specifically concerned about the department's handling of Cook County, Ill.  The senators wrote that in a meeting with Gary Mead, the Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff were told that Cook County presents a major problem for immigration enforcement efforts.  In fact, Mr. Mead said that Cook County is the most egregious example of sanctuary city policies and that this situation presents 'an accident waiting to happen.'"

"The Secretary needs to step up and take control of this situation before Cook County's ordinance is copied by other local governments," Grassley said.  "These anti-enforcement policies are allowing criminals to walk free and putting the safety of the public at risk."

In addition, recent press reports indicate that much to the chagrin of local Border Patrol agents, the U.S. Border Patrol ended transportation checks on random busses, trains and airports.  According to agents, the searches were an effective tool for deterring illegal immigration.

"This all adds up to an administration that has little concern with the rule of law.  Sanctuary cities undermine the ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce the laws on the books, and until the administration shows a desire to put an end to the practice, local governments will continue to thumb their nose at law enforcement," Grassley said.

Here is a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed version of the letter can be found here.

November 2, 2011

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

We write to express serious concerns about the Administration's lack of attention to local law enforcement jurisdictions that enact policies that undermine federal immigration law.  Specifically, we are very concerned with policies enacted by Cook County, Illinois, and how your department is responding to them.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 19, you were asked if you had communicated with Cook County officials about a recently passed ordinance that prohibits federal government officials from having access to undocumented persons detained by the county.  This ordinance aims to free suspected undocumented individuals jailed by the county on misdemeanor cases, in spite of requests from federal law enforcement to hold them for possible deportation.  During the hearing, you indicated that you had not participated in any discussions with Cook County.  You also indicated you had not had any discussions with the Justice Department about how they will handle local jurisdictions, such as Cook County, that harbor undocumented individuals.

When briefed by Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff were told that Cook County presents a major problem for immigration enforcement efforts.  In fact, Mr. Mead said that Cook County is the most egregious example of sanctuary city policies and that this situation presents "an accident waiting to happen."  Mr. Mead also reported that the Department is relying on the ICE District Director to resolve the situation, although ICE Assistant Secretary Morton has taken some direct steps to address the matter.

We would like to know what specific steps have been and will be taken by your Department to compel Cook County to reverse its policy of ignoring immigration detainers.  In addition, we would request an overview of meetings held between federal officials and Cook County, including any emails or other documentation that exist, to understand how the federal government has been or is attempting to rectify the situation.

More importantly, we urge you, as Secretary, to take a direct role in this matter.  Cook County's ordinance is a serious threat to the public's safety that requires your immediate and personal attention.  This is too important of an issue to go unresolved, and as a matter of national security, we urge you to take control of the situation so that detainers are not ignored and undocumented individuals are properly detained and put in deportation proceedings.

Finally, we encourage you and your colleagues in the Administration to seriously consider taking action against local or state jurisdictions that enact policies that purposely undermine the law or encourage their officers not to cooperate with the federal government when it comes to immigration enforcement.  Given the current fiscal crisis facing the federal government, serious consideration should be given to withholding federal grant dollars to local or state jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement.  The Administration has a responsibility to ensure that the homeland is protected, and it must not turn a blind eye to such entities that proactively defy the immigration laws we have on the books.

Thank you and we look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley

John Cornyn

Tom Coburn