WASHINGTON -- The Medicaid program has received increased attention as Congress sought to provide federal oversight and find savings in the program. Unfortunately, debate about the Medicaid program has been inaccurately distorted.

		U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

This is not a debate about cutting the valuable services provided through Medicaid. Rather, the budget resolution called for slowing the rate of growth in the Medicaid program over the next five years from the projected 41 percent increase to a 39 percent increase.

The Senate recently had the opportunity to debate the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, which is an important and essential tool for maintaining fiscal discipline. During debate, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., introduced an amendment, also known as the "Smith-Bingaman" amendment, that created a reserve fund for the establishment of a Bipartisan Medicaid Commission to consider and recommend appropriate reforms to the Medicaid program, and prohibited any reduction in the future rate of growth or savings for the Medicaid program until the conclusion of the Commission's review.

I am in favor of establishing a Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid that would review and provide recommendations with respect to the long-term goals, populations served, federal and state responsibilities, and the quality of care provided through the Medicaid program. In fact, I am a co-sponsor of Sen. Smith's bill that would establish such a commission. However, I did not support the Smith-Bingaman amendment because it would not allow Congress to find savings or consider curbing costly abuses within the Medicaid program until after a comprehensive year-long study.

While I do support policy-driven reform as a result of such a commission's findings, I believe that delaying the elimination of waste and abuse within the Medicaid program prevents states from maximizing their available resources to provide health care for those with the greatest need.

I find this particularly troubling given that the Senate Budget Committee estimates that many states are receiving up to $6 billion a year in federal Medicaid dollars inappropriately at the unfair expense of taxpayers and, most importantly, Medicaid recipients.

Therefore, I supported an alternative amendment that called for a comprehensive review of the program, but would have allowed the Senate Finance Committee to begin to address waste and abuse within the system this year. This measure would have ensured that Medicaid recipients would not lose coverage as a result of needed reform. Unfortunately, the amendment failed to pass the Senate by a vote of 49-51.

Delaying Medicaid reform for the next year only benefits those who will continue to draw money inappropriately while Congress waits to take action and further jeopardize the future sustainability of the program. Let me repeat: the budget resolution considered by the Senate provided a spending increase of 39 percent over the next five years.

I am deeply disappointed that some individuals have used the recent debates about Medicaid as an opportunity to scare individuals who rely upon this program for their care. Only in Washington would allowing a program to grow by 39 percent be inaccurately described as a severe cut.

I believe that debate over whether or not slowing the future projected growth of the Medicaid program constitutes "cuts" would be far better spent having substantive conversations about how to best strengthen and improve Medicaid and other federal entitlement programs.

Ensuring that all Pennsylvanians have access to quality and affordable health care remains one of my highest priorities. As a member of both the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am concerned about the health care needs of Pennsylvanians, and I am diligently working to improve the accessibility of high-quality medical care in Pennsylvania.