|
Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
"Working to ensure quality, affordable health care for all Californians." AARP's radio slogan reminds me of Cynthia Smith, a client whom I met a few years ago when I was working in caregiver support. (I've appropriately concealed her real name.) Her dilemma will sound familiar; she and her mother had hit the "doughnut hole" in their Medicare Part D plan, triggering a drastic jump in the price of their medications; The cost of their drugs had pressed Cynthia into cutting prescribed dosages in half and paring down her purchases of other essential items.
The Medicare D Monstrosity
The federal Medicare drug benefit is notoriously complex, allowing private insurers to offer coverage in any combination of deductibles, co-insurance, utilization techniques, and tiers with their own smorgasbord of co-payments, using whatever names they choose for their plans. The program does not standardize prescription formularies, either. There are in-network pharmacies offering discounts versus non-network, and differing co-payments (Avorn 2006; Lieberman 2006). How complicated is it? The parents of the Health and Human Services Secretary himself -under his knowing tutelage-signed up for the wrong program and almost lost their retiree medical coverage (Rost 2006).
Medicare D's expense is an even worse story. Federal money hemorrhages at some 45 to 55 billion dollars a year to support it (Kaiser Family Foundation 2008). The law creating Medicare D forbids the government from negotiating prices with the drug companies, creating a subsidy to the for-profit sector. Currently, drug prices are rising unopposed. In 2007 Consumers Union found most drug plans hiking their costs during the plan year, in one extreme case 28 percent (Consumers Union 2007). Ballooning costs could strengthen claims that the whole Medicare program is simply too expensive. That would, in turn, prompt lawmakers to transform Medicare into a means-tested system restricted to the very poorest seniors. That failure would vindicate the reactionary argument that government-supported health care is doomed, fulfilling a long-term right wing strategy to dismantle Medicare. No less an authority on health care policy than Trudy Lieberman (2006) suggested just that scenario, as has Harvard's public policy specialist Theda Skocpol (2004).
The AARP Role
AARP helped cause Cynthia's problem by throwing its support to passage of Medicare D in 2003, replete with a seven million dollar television campaign (Drinkard and Welch 2003). More recently, AARP also squelched national discussion of single-payer universal health care. Its 2007 televised presidential candidate's health care debate excluded Dennis Kucinich, the one Democratic Party candidate who supported a government-sponsored single-payer system under the banner of Medicare For All (Mokhiber 2007). In a move away from genuine health care reform, AARP floated "Divided We Fail," a campaign with a motley but impressive list of participants, including our own NASW. The Divided We Fail policy statement hails Medicare D as "a good step toward making drugs affordable" (AARP 2008), suggesting its expansion. And nowhere does the web site mention the option of single-payer universal health care. Whether or not our country ultimately selects a system that resembles those of every other affluent nation, single payer health care deserves serious attention in public discussion of alternatives. AARP has maneuvered to squelch it.
What Is AARP?
Wherefore AARP's embrace of Medicare D and its antipathy to single payer universal care? AARP is, above all else, a money-making enterprise, and behaves like one. It sells 17 types of insurance (Cohn and Preston 2008). Founded in 1958 to provide health insurance to retired teachers (its co-founder was a New York insurance salesman), AARP has faced disputes with the Internal Revenue Service and the postal service dating back to the 1980s over income from insurance marketing deals (Johnston 1999). Today AARP is a major broker of health insurance programs, pulling in almost $500 million in 2007 from its insurance partners' royalty and revenue payments (Cohn and Preston 2008). As CEO of AARP Inc and Secretary of the AARP Foundation, William Novelli received well over $900,000 in 2006, putting him in the upper half of the American Institute of Philanthropy's list of top 25 compensation packages for "nonprofits" (American Institute of Philanthropy 2008). Novelli's deferred compensation, reported in the AARP Foundation's IRS Form 990 for the same year, amounted to a handsome $1,797,751.
Contrary to popular perception, AARP is not a genuine membership organization. Where its treasure lies, there lies its heart, and the proportion of AARP income from membership dues accounts for far less than its take from commercial income; in the middle years of this decade, dues provided only 30 percent of AARP's income, and that proportion is decreasing (Skocpol 2004). Aside from the rare e-mail and letter-writing mobilization at the behest of leadership, member participation consists of sending in annual checks to qualify for discounts: only a sliver of the membership actually takes part in anything resembling local chapter activity. AARP does not select its leadership through democratic election either, so governance resides in a self-selecting board (Skocpol 2004).
Image Translates into Money And Power
AARP has carefully cultivated its image as protector of America's seniors, and the effort has paid off impressively. A November, 2008 Harris public opinion poll of Americans' attitudes toward high-profile, politically influential organizations found AARP getting an 82 percent vote of confidence, ahead of all but the Consumers Union and Red Cross in trustworthiness (Harris Interactive 2008).
Selling that confidence is the cornerstone of AARP business, mainly through AARP Services Inc., a for-profit subsidiary that manages AARP's co-branding deals. CEO Novelli has the skills to guide the enterprise, too, having come into AARP leadership from his multinational public relations firm, Porter Novelli. AARP also has a huge membership mailing list, totaling some 35 million seniors. Their media arm's web site brags, "Big Thinkers 50+ --a market of millions worth trillions. And only AARP Media provides exclusive access to this booming demo -wherever + whenever (their emphases)." In short, AARP regards our clients as their market.
AARP derives considerable power in Washington politics from its public relations savvy and its lobbying money, combined with its sheer membership numbers and their geographical spread. AARP's media campaign played a key role in defeating the Bush administration's privatization plan for social security in 2005 (Cohn and Preston 2008). History, however, will probably regard AARP's support for the Medicare Modernization Act as its most stunning political victory. That's Medicare D.
Who Does AARP Serve? The Bigger Picture
AARP does do good works. It hires sincere, dedicated researchers and analysts, and has taken some enlightened policy stances that protect the elderly, such as opposition to privatizing social security. AARP's assistance with tax returns, estate planning and health care advice have aided millions.
Any survey of AARP's service to seniors, however, must look at what AARP members get for their money when they trust the AARP logo.
Belying their image of trust and consumer protection, AARP does not offer the least expensive insurance offerings. The AARP / UnitedHealth basic healthcare policy in Los Angeles costs $428 a year more than an available competitor's policy. The purchaser of an auto insurance policy endorsed by AARP found he was paying twice the average of twelve other companies' offerings. Similarly, life insurance policies endorsed by AARP cost more than competitors' (Cohn and Preston 2008). AARP's array of financial products include investments having higher fees and worse performance than those available elsewhere as well (Kristoff 2007).
Some of AARP's health insurance marketing practices were disingenuous enough to receive the attention last year of the US Senate Finance Committee; plans with names like "AARP Medical Advantage" carried advertising offering comprehensive coverage that did not materialize in the face of high medical costs. In response to the investigation, AARP suspended sales of the policies (Pear 2008). Consumer Reports poked fun last year at AARP's life insurance advertising, which proclaimed availability to anyone 50 and over but excluded anyone over 80 in its fine print.
AARP's biggest beneficiaries are its partners in moneymaking. The most salient example is UnitedHealth Group Inc, America's biggest private health insurance corporation, which began its immensely successful association with AARP in 1996. After passage of Medicare D, UnitedHealth came out on top in the scramble to enroll seniors in new drug benefit plans. They brought in over 3.9 million enrollees before the May 15, 2006 deadline, and their alliance with AARP proved critical to their victory (Lueck and Fuhrmans 2006). In that same year, UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire retired, having accumulated $1.6 billion in stock options (Phelps, 2006). Yes, that's a "b," as in "billions."
What Can Social Workers Do? The Challenge to Our Integrity
You may find this depiction of AARP jarring because you are familiar only with its constructive acts. Please know, though, that many powerful organizations can give with one hand openly while quietly taking much, much more with the other. The task of reframing our image of AARP and examining its role in shaping health care policy affects our nation's well-being, and it has s special urgency today that cannot be overstated. Our country's aging population, burgeoning ranks of the nouveau poor, and an avaricious corporate healthcare bureaucracy are brewing up a perfect storm of unmet healthcare needs. The inevitable call for action at the federal level will spark a firestorm of media blitzes with slick commercials and disinformation from the moneyed players. The scale of that reaction will dwarf the spectacle ignited by the Clinton administration's healthcare reform effort in 1993.
Many actions are available to us, and as creative, conscientious social workers we can think up many more.
If you work in an agency that serves the elderly, share this article with your colleagues and discuss where you stand. Encourage your clients who are purchasing any insurance to do their homework and not simply assume that an AARP product is superior or its promotion more honest. Share your sincere reservations about AARP's actions with an AARP representative, face-to-face.
Our integrity as a profession is a precious commodity, and we should never underestimate the power of legitimacy we lend to those with whom we associate. Unless AARP reforms by cutting all ties with its current for-profit subsidiaries, our agencies should exhaust the search for other resources before collaborating with AARP at the expense of tarnishing our logo and enhancing theirs. That also means asking NASW to withdraw its participation in "Divided We Fail" unless the dialogue includes serious attention to the single payer option. The issue for NASW isn't "public private cooperation." It's the appearance of public service for private gain at everyone else's expense.
We owe it to the seniors whom we serve that we educate them about the reasons for our position. America's economic crisis means that now, more than ever, our clients hunger for honest, reliable sources of information. We have an important part to play in providing it, and that means taking responsibility to identify those who will help us and our clients, and those who will hinder us because of their self-serving agendas. Tag, we're it!
Those of us who are AARP members can drop our membership. If you're old enough to join, please consider refraining. Those of us interested in joining a more genuine advocacy organ for seniors could look into advocacy groups like the Alliance for Retired Americans.
Those of us who teach policy courses in universities and conduct policy-related research should further explore AARP's activities as a major player in national health and welfare policy today. We should delve beneath AARP's "non-profit" surface to contemplate a new kind of creature with agendas benefiting its for-profit affiliates. Responsible and authoritative policy specialists like Trudy Lieberman at the City University of New York and Harvard University's Theda Skocpol, among others, are more than a resource in this quest: they're a treasure. With such inputs, our inquiry will give our students the foundation for a more accurate macro analysis and action plan for combating the exploitation of our clients and our profession. Now that's empowerment.
Does this sound too extreme? All I can ask is that you look into the facts and into your heart. And please think of Cynthia Smith as you do.
References
AARP. Divided We Fail.Org. 2008. "Affordable Health Care."
http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/about_issues/divided_we_fail_platform_affordable_health_care.html
AARP Media. 2008. "Big Thinkers Think 50+." http://www.aarpmedia.org/
Retrieved November 12, 2008.
American Institute of Philanthropy. 2008. "Top 25 Compensation Packages." Last updated October 16, 2008.
http://www.charitywatch.org/Top25.html
Avorn, Jerry. 2006. "Part ‘D' for ‘Defective' - The Medicare Drug-Benefit Chaos." New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:1339-1341 Number 13 March 30. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/13/1339
Cohn, Gary and Darrell Preston. 2008. "AARP's Stealth Fees Often Sting Seniors With Costlier Insurance." Bloomberg.com. Last updated December 4, 2008.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4OkPQIPF6Kg&refer=home
Consumers Union. 2007. Monday, Oct. 1, 2007 "Medicare Part D Plans Continue to Hike Drug Costs After Seniors Sign up for Coverage."
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_health_care/004934.html
Drinkard, Jim and William M. Welch. 2003. "AARP accused of conflict of interest." USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-20-aarp-protest_x.htm
Last updated November 21, 2003. Accessed November 2, 2008.
Harris Interactive. 2008. "Consumer Reports, American Red Cross and AARP Most Trusted Inside the Beltway." Rochester, NY (December 11).
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=983
Johnston, David Cay. 1999."AARP Sets up a Taxable Subsidiary." The New York Times, July 15.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E0DF173FF936A25754C0A96F958260
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008. Fact Sheet: The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. February.
http://www.kff.org/medicare/7044.cfm
Kristoff, Kathy M. 2007. "AARP not always best deal." Los Angeles Times, September 30, p. C-3.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/30/business/fi-perfin30
Lieberman, Trudy. 2006. "Part D from Outer Space." The Nation, January 30 pp.18-20.
Lueck, Sarah and Fuhrmans, Vanessa. 2006. "Large Insurers Are Big Winners in New Medicare Benefit." Wall Street Journal (April 21).
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114557429837631796-ucCmmk0fbNZ0O6QAri451mgoyIA_20060520.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Mokhiber, Russell. 2007. "AARP to Kucinich: Drop Dead." Counterpunch, September 7.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber09202007.html
Phelps, David. "United CEO Says He'll Take No More Stock Options." Minneapolis Star Tribune. Last updated April 18, 2006.
http://www.startribune.com/business/11213701.html
Rost, Peter. 2006. "Winners and Losers in the Medicare Drug Lottery." Posted April 25. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-rost/winners-and-losers-in-the_b_19749.html
Skocpol, Theda. 2004. "A Bad Senior Moment." The American Prospect, 15 (1): 26-29 (January).
The Medicare D Monstrosity
The federal Medicare drug benefit is notoriously complex, allowing private insurers to offer coverage in any combination of deductibles, co-insurance, utilization techniques, and tiers with their own smorgasbord of co-payments, using whatever names they choose for their plans. The program does not standardize prescription formularies, either. There are in-network pharmacies offering discounts versus non-network, and differing co-payments (Avorn 2006; Lieberman 2006). How complicated is it? The parents of the Health and Human Services Secretary himself -under his knowing tutelage-signed up for the wrong program and almost lost their retiree medical coverage (Rost 2006).
Medicare D's expense is an even worse story. Federal money hemorrhages at some 45 to 55 billion dollars a year to support it (Kaiser Family Foundation 2008). The law creating Medicare D forbids the government from negotiating prices with the drug companies, creating a subsidy to the for-profit sector. Currently, drug prices are rising unopposed. In 2007 Consumers Union found most drug plans hiking their costs during the plan year, in one extreme case 28 percent (Consumers Union 2007). Ballooning costs could strengthen claims that the whole Medicare program is simply too expensive. That would, in turn, prompt lawmakers to transform Medicare into a means-tested system restricted to the very poorest seniors. That failure would vindicate the reactionary argument that government-supported health care is doomed, fulfilling a long-term right wing strategy to dismantle Medicare. No less an authority on health care policy than Trudy Lieberman (2006) suggested just that scenario, as has Harvard's public policy specialist Theda Skocpol (2004).
The AARP Role
AARP helped cause Cynthia's problem by throwing its support to passage of Medicare D in 2003, replete with a seven million dollar television campaign (Drinkard and Welch 2003). More recently, AARP also squelched national discussion of single-payer universal health care. Its 2007 televised presidential candidate's health care debate excluded Dennis Kucinich, the one Democratic Party candidate who supported a government-sponsored single-payer system under the banner of Medicare For All (Mokhiber 2007). In a move away from genuine health care reform, AARP floated "Divided We Fail," a campaign with a motley but impressive list of participants, including our own NASW. The Divided We Fail policy statement hails Medicare D as "a good step toward making drugs affordable" (AARP 2008), suggesting its expansion. And nowhere does the web site mention the option of single-payer universal health care. Whether or not our country ultimately selects a system that resembles those of every other affluent nation, single payer health care deserves serious attention in public discussion of alternatives. AARP has maneuvered to squelch it.
What Is AARP?
Wherefore AARP's embrace of Medicare D and its antipathy to single payer universal care? AARP is, above all else, a money-making enterprise, and behaves like one. It sells 17 types of insurance (Cohn and Preston 2008). Founded in 1958 to provide health insurance to retired teachers (its co-founder was a New York insurance salesman), AARP has faced disputes with the Internal Revenue Service and the postal service dating back to the 1980s over income from insurance marketing deals (Johnston 1999). Today AARP is a major broker of health insurance programs, pulling in almost $500 million in 2007 from its insurance partners' royalty and revenue payments (Cohn and Preston 2008). As CEO of AARP Inc and Secretary of the AARP Foundation, William Novelli received well over $900,000 in 2006, putting him in the upper half of the American Institute of Philanthropy's list of top 25 compensation packages for "nonprofits" (American Institute of Philanthropy 2008). Novelli's deferred compensation, reported in the AARP Foundation's IRS Form 990 for the same year, amounted to a handsome $1,797,751.
Contrary to popular perception, AARP is not a genuine membership organization. Where its treasure lies, there lies its heart, and the proportion of AARP income from membership dues accounts for far less than its take from commercial income; in the middle years of this decade, dues provided only 30 percent of AARP's income, and that proportion is decreasing (Skocpol 2004). Aside from the rare e-mail and letter-writing mobilization at the behest of leadership, member participation consists of sending in annual checks to qualify for discounts: only a sliver of the membership actually takes part in anything resembling local chapter activity. AARP does not select its leadership through democratic election either, so governance resides in a self-selecting board (Skocpol 2004).
Image Translates into Money And Power
AARP has carefully cultivated its image as protector of America's seniors, and the effort has paid off impressively. A November, 2008 Harris public opinion poll of Americans' attitudes toward high-profile, politically influential organizations found AARP getting an 82 percent vote of confidence, ahead of all but the Consumers Union and Red Cross in trustworthiness (Harris Interactive 2008).
Selling that confidence is the cornerstone of AARP business, mainly through AARP Services Inc., a for-profit subsidiary that manages AARP's co-branding deals. CEO Novelli has the skills to guide the enterprise, too, having come into AARP leadership from his multinational public relations firm, Porter Novelli. AARP also has a huge membership mailing list, totaling some 35 million seniors. Their media arm's web site brags, "Big Thinkers 50+ --a market of millions worth trillions. And only AARP Media provides exclusive access to this booming demo -wherever + whenever (their emphases)." In short, AARP regards our clients as their market.
AARP derives considerable power in Washington politics from its public relations savvy and its lobbying money, combined with its sheer membership numbers and their geographical spread. AARP's media campaign played a key role in defeating the Bush administration's privatization plan for social security in 2005 (Cohn and Preston 2008). History, however, will probably regard AARP's support for the Medicare Modernization Act as its most stunning political victory. That's Medicare D.
Who Does AARP Serve? The Bigger Picture
AARP does do good works. It hires sincere, dedicated researchers and analysts, and has taken some enlightened policy stances that protect the elderly, such as opposition to privatizing social security. AARP's assistance with tax returns, estate planning and health care advice have aided millions.
Any survey of AARP's service to seniors, however, must look at what AARP members get for their money when they trust the AARP logo.
Belying their image of trust and consumer protection, AARP does not offer the least expensive insurance offerings. The AARP / UnitedHealth basic healthcare policy in Los Angeles costs $428 a year more than an available competitor's policy. The purchaser of an auto insurance policy endorsed by AARP found he was paying twice the average of twelve other companies' offerings. Similarly, life insurance policies endorsed by AARP cost more than competitors' (Cohn and Preston 2008). AARP's array of financial products include investments having higher fees and worse performance than those available elsewhere as well (Kristoff 2007).
Some of AARP's health insurance marketing practices were disingenuous enough to receive the attention last year of the US Senate Finance Committee; plans with names like "AARP Medical Advantage" carried advertising offering comprehensive coverage that did not materialize in the face of high medical costs. In response to the investigation, AARP suspended sales of the policies (Pear 2008). Consumer Reports poked fun last year at AARP's life insurance advertising, which proclaimed availability to anyone 50 and over but excluded anyone over 80 in its fine print.
AARP's biggest beneficiaries are its partners in moneymaking. The most salient example is UnitedHealth Group Inc, America's biggest private health insurance corporation, which began its immensely successful association with AARP in 1996. After passage of Medicare D, UnitedHealth came out on top in the scramble to enroll seniors in new drug benefit plans. They brought in over 3.9 million enrollees before the May 15, 2006 deadline, and their alliance with AARP proved critical to their victory (Lueck and Fuhrmans 2006). In that same year, UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire retired, having accumulated $1.6 billion in stock options (Phelps, 2006). Yes, that's a "b," as in "billions."
What Can Social Workers Do? The Challenge to Our Integrity
You may find this depiction of AARP jarring because you are familiar only with its constructive acts. Please know, though, that many powerful organizations can give with one hand openly while quietly taking much, much more with the other. The task of reframing our image of AARP and examining its role in shaping health care policy affects our nation's well-being, and it has s special urgency today that cannot be overstated. Our country's aging population, burgeoning ranks of the nouveau poor, and an avaricious corporate healthcare bureaucracy are brewing up a perfect storm of unmet healthcare needs. The inevitable call for action at the federal level will spark a firestorm of media blitzes with slick commercials and disinformation from the moneyed players. The scale of that reaction will dwarf the spectacle ignited by the Clinton administration's healthcare reform effort in 1993.
Many actions are available to us, and as creative, conscientious social workers we can think up many more.
If you work in an agency that serves the elderly, share this article with your colleagues and discuss where you stand. Encourage your clients who are purchasing any insurance to do their homework and not simply assume that an AARP product is superior or its promotion more honest. Share your sincere reservations about AARP's actions with an AARP representative, face-to-face.
Our integrity as a profession is a precious commodity, and we should never underestimate the power of legitimacy we lend to those with whom we associate. Unless AARP reforms by cutting all ties with its current for-profit subsidiaries, our agencies should exhaust the search for other resources before collaborating with AARP at the expense of tarnishing our logo and enhancing theirs. That also means asking NASW to withdraw its participation in "Divided We Fail" unless the dialogue includes serious attention to the single payer option. The issue for NASW isn't "public private cooperation." It's the appearance of public service for private gain at everyone else's expense.
We owe it to the seniors whom we serve that we educate them about the reasons for our position. America's economic crisis means that now, more than ever, our clients hunger for honest, reliable sources of information. We have an important part to play in providing it, and that means taking responsibility to identify those who will help us and our clients, and those who will hinder us because of their self-serving agendas. Tag, we're it!
Those of us who are AARP members can drop our membership. If you're old enough to join, please consider refraining. Those of us interested in joining a more genuine advocacy organ for seniors could look into advocacy groups like the Alliance for Retired Americans.
Those of us who teach policy courses in universities and conduct policy-related research should further explore AARP's activities as a major player in national health and welfare policy today. We should delve beneath AARP's "non-profit" surface to contemplate a new kind of creature with agendas benefiting its for-profit affiliates. Responsible and authoritative policy specialists like Trudy Lieberman at the City University of New York and Harvard University's Theda Skocpol, among others, are more than a resource in this quest: they're a treasure. With such inputs, our inquiry will give our students the foundation for a more accurate macro analysis and action plan for combating the exploitation of our clients and our profession. Now that's empowerment.
Does this sound too extreme? All I can ask is that you look into the facts and into your heart. And please think of Cynthia Smith as you do.
References
AARP. Divided We Fail.Org. 2008. "Affordable Health Care."
http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/about_issues/divided_we_fail_platform_affordable_health_care.html
AARP Media. 2008. "Big Thinkers Think 50+." http://www.aarpmedia.org/
Retrieved November 12, 2008.
American Institute of Philanthropy. 2008. "Top 25 Compensation Packages." Last updated October 16, 2008.
http://www.charitywatch.org/Top25.html
Avorn, Jerry. 2006. "Part ‘D' for ‘Defective' - The Medicare Drug-Benefit Chaos." New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:1339-1341 Number 13 March 30. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/13/1339
Cohn, Gary and Darrell Preston. 2008. "AARP's Stealth Fees Often Sting Seniors With Costlier Insurance." Bloomberg.com. Last updated December 4, 2008.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4OkPQIPF6Kg&refer=home
Consumers Union. 2007. Monday, Oct. 1, 2007 "Medicare Part D Plans Continue to Hike Drug Costs After Seniors Sign up for Coverage."
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_health_care/004934.html
Drinkard, Jim and William M. Welch. 2003. "AARP accused of conflict of interest." USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-20-aarp-protest_x.htm
Last updated November 21, 2003. Accessed November 2, 2008.
Harris Interactive. 2008. "Consumer Reports, American Red Cross and AARP Most Trusted Inside the Beltway." Rochester, NY (December 11).
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=983
Johnston, David Cay. 1999."AARP Sets up a Taxable Subsidiary." The New York Times, July 15.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E0DF173FF936A25754C0A96F958260
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008. Fact Sheet: The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. February.
http://www.kff.org/medicare/7044.cfm
Kristoff, Kathy M. 2007. "AARP not always best deal." Los Angeles Times, September 30, p. C-3.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/30/business/fi-perfin30
Lieberman, Trudy. 2006. "Part D from Outer Space." The Nation, January 30 pp.18-20.
Lueck, Sarah and Fuhrmans, Vanessa. 2006. "Large Insurers Are Big Winners in New Medicare Benefit." Wall Street Journal (April 21).
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114557429837631796-ucCmmk0fbNZ0O6QAri451mgoyIA_20060520.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Mokhiber, Russell. 2007. "AARP to Kucinich: Drop Dead." Counterpunch, September 7.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber09202007.html
Phelps, David. "United CEO Says He'll Take No More Stock Options." Minneapolis Star Tribune. Last updated April 18, 2006.
http://www.startribune.com/business/11213701.html
Rost, Peter. 2006. "Winners and Losers in the Medicare Drug Lottery." Posted April 25. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-rost/winners-and-losers-in-the_b_19749.html
Skocpol, Theda. 2004. "A Bad Senior Moment." The American Prospect, 15 (1): 26-29 (January).
