An editorial published Aug. 24-25 in the Bangor Daily News accused the AFL-CIO of getting the facts wrong on Sen. Susan Collins’ prescription drug record. Unfortunately, that editorial did not carefully examine the senator’s record on the most crucial prescription drug votes. The facts of the advertisement are true. When Collins was presented with two very different plans for a Medicare benefit, she chose to side with the drug companies and private HMOs.

On July 23 the Senate considered two competing plans to offer seniors a prescription drug benefit. The first plan, offered by Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and endorsed by the Democratic leadership, guaranteed seniors a benefit with continuous coverage under Medicare no matter how long their illness or how high their drug costs. For $25 a month, seniors would never pay more than $40 for any brand name prescription or $10 for a generic drug. Every major group representing seniors endorsed the plan, but Collins voted to block the bill.

What Sen. Collins did vote for was a plan that relies on private insurers, like HMOs, to provide seniors with drug coverage. That plan didn’t set a premium, so insurers could charge whatever they liked, and would force seniors to pay more out of pocket for their drugs, especially seniors with high bills. This plan was sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and endorsed by the Republican leadership and was virtually identical to the House Republican plan that the drug companies had helped write a month before. In fact, according to a June 19 report, “A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA to make sure that the party’s prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.” And a few weeks later, Sen. Collins approved the nearly identical Senate version of the drug-industry bill.

Both the bill that Sen. Collins supported and the House Republican bill discriminate against seniors based on spending – even though seniors have no control over drug prices – and would force many seniors to cover their costs entirely from their own pockets. Both proposals let private HMO-style plans decide where to offer coverage and how much beneficiaries would have to pay out of pocket. This is a dangerous deal for seniors, and even a spokesperson for the health insurers admitted to the Florida Sun Sentinel in a July 23 article, “… insurers have worried that only the oldest and sickest would buy the coverage, and that that would make it difficult for companies to make any money.”

Now that the dust has settled, it is clear that Sen. Collins preferred a private drug plan that was written by the drug companies and relies on a benefit insurance executives hope to profit from, instead of supporting a simple, affordable, basic benefit in traditional Medicare. Basically, Collins voted against Medicare and for the drug companies and HMOs.

Ned McCann is secretary-treasurer of the Maine Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.