With all the talk in Congress these days about lobbying reform, here's another idea lawmakers should consider: Stop allowing a few members of one party, operating behind closed doors, to make unilateral changes to a bill that cost taxpayers billions at the behest of a powerful industry.

That's what happened to a budget-cutting bill that the House is set to vote on next week. A conference committee was at work over the holidays ironing out differences between the House and Senate versions of the $40 billion package. The Senate bill proposed cutting $26 billion over 10 years by restricting Medicare overpayments to managed-care health plans.

The health-care industry objected to the proposal. And when the health-care lobby talks, Congress listens. The industry has given more than $71 million in campaign donations to candidates for federal office in the last five years (63 percent to Republicans).

So a few powerful Republican lawmakers, such as House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas of California and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa, got together privately and decided to scale back those cuts to managed-care health plans. They settled on $4 billion. Democrats on the conference committee weren't included in these discussions. Although Grassley disputes the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's calculations of the bill's true savings, their action could cost taxpayers up to $22 billion over 10 years.

Lawmakers could have sent that money instead to help the states, which are grappling with a prescription-drug nightmare courtesy of Washington. The new Medicare Part D drug benefit plan, which began Jan. 1, has allowed thousands of low-income seniors to fall through its wide cracks in coverage, forcing at least 20 states to pay for emergency prescriptions for their neediest residents. Gov. Jon Corzine said the gap is costing New Jersey $1.3 million per day. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said this week that the federal government will reimburse states for some costs.

Congress should crack down on gifts from lobbyists and other perks. But any such "reforms" will mean little as long as Congress allows a few lawmakers of one party, working in secrecy, to grant costly loopholes to favored sources of campaign cash.

— The Philadelphia Inquirer.