should be available regardless of the State of residence. We recognize that several of the so-called poorer States may find it exceedingly difficult to provide the necessary matching funds under such a uniform benefit formula. In such event we urge that consideration be given to modifying the Federal matching formula more effectively to aid the States at the low end of the income scale. SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS (TITLE III OF H.R. 6675) Of the many important changes proposed under title III, we would comment on two major features. These are: (1) benefit amounts, and (2) the creditable earnings base. These, in our judgment, need additional strengthening to maintain the OASDI system on a current basis as the major source of income security for the majority of retired workers. The 7-percent increase in benefits (with a minimum of a $4-monthly increase for those retiring at 65 years) and the relating of family benefits to workers' earnings at every bracket in the benefit table are improvements which will be welcomed by all. In our opinion, however, the proposed increases in benefit amounts are disappointingly low, as is the proposed new maximum annual earnings base of $6,600 beginning in 1971. Indeed, the whole level of benefits continues to be related to the low level that was initiated in the beginning of the system and is not related to present wages and standards of living. The proposed increases cannot really be accepted as making up cost-of-living increases since the 1958 benefit increases. And certainly the proposed earnings base of $6,600 will not substantially retain the wage-related character of the program. The recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Council, as you know, recommended an average increase of 15 percent in benefit amounts, and a maximum earnings base of $7,200, effective 1968. Even this earnings base of $7,200 would probably not cover more than 80 percent of total covered earnings in 1968-far below the 95-percent level of taxable total covered earnings contemplated in 1935 when the Social Security Act was written. Substantial increases beyond those contemplated in H.R. 6675 are needed in relation to benefit amounts and the earnings base if we are to provide adequate resources and protection for our retired citizens, commensurate with this Nation's productivity and sense of social justice. From these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I hope you and the members of the committee will draw the conclusion that the UAW, its members and their families, are solidly supporting this bill. This legislation is a historic landmark in the long efforts to achieve a major social objective in American life-a social insurance system to help protect all workers and their families from some of the major hazards of our industrial society. We note, with pride and with satisfaction that the Congress has come this far in its recognition that the health of all Americans is indeed a precious commodity and that there is governmental responsibility in assisting Americans in preserving and maintaining that health. We have referred to certain problems in this proposed legislation, which we hope will receive your earnest and sympathetic attention. The modifications we propose we believe will make an even better measure of the bill before you. Your speedy and favorable support of H.R. 6675 will earn you the gratitude of the Nation. Senator FRANK J. LAUSCHE, CANFIELD, OHIO, May 10, 1965. DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: Dr. John McDonough and I appreciate the opportunity of having talked with you when we were in Washington, Thursday, May 6. You asked me then to send you information regarding H.R. 6675 with particular reference to the proposed Senate amendment to include anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and physical medicine into the medicare bill. This I am happy to furnish. As you know, the bill as passed by the House excludes these specialties from part A (the King-Anderson portion). The services of these specialties would be covered, however, under part B, the extended benefits portion, or the voluntary Byrnes provision of H.R. 6675. We are told there will be an attempt on the floor of the Senate to amend the bill to include these specialties under the KingAnderson part, and this, most doctors of medicine would oppose because it would make these doctors of medicine employees of the hospital. We feel that it is extremely important that these men be permitted to continue to practice and render a fee for their services separate from the room-and-board type of charge submitted by the hospital. I was happy to learn that you favor our point of view and I hope that you will be able to help us in this regard. The second point I'd like to make, Senator Lausche, is that most doctors, at least in Ohio do not wish to be included under social security. Of course, there are some doctors who would like to be covered; for the most part, these are the men close to retirement. In the past the Senate has felt that doctors would be included if they wished to be. May I make a plea at this time that I for one and many of the men whom I represent do not wish to be included. Again, sir, thank you for your time in talking with us about the medicare bill. I have been most pleased with your stand in the past and I have been impressed with your overall voting record. It is clear to me at least that Senator Lausche is not going to rubberstamp everything that comes from the White House. This is an encouraging note in an otherwise rather bleak situation. If I can be of any further help regarding this bill, I shall be most happy to furnish any information upon your request. Sincerely, JACK SCHREIBER, M.D. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.) O |