Remember the Medicare Part D boondoggle for the pharma companies that we are still paying for? Reflubnicans were gung-ho for a drug bill that cost the Government billions extra because it made it impossible to negotiate a fair price the way the Veterans Admin. does. There is a bill to fix it now, finally now that the elephant has left the building.
While we're at it, let's have
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8137943&mesg_id=8137943">Medicare for everyone with a 6% overhead instead of 18% charges from so-called "insurance companies". Those are companies to insure profits for CEOs and 18 level of management, nothing more.
By Liv Osby
HEALTH WRITER
The monthly co-payment for Dan O’Connell’s cholesterol medicine went from $38 in December to $79.65 in January even though he stayed with the same Medicare Part D drug plan.
“That’s almost $500 a year more on this single medicine alone,” he said. “The current situation is out of control.”
A bill introduced in Congress recently aims to allow Medicare to create a plan that would be less costly to taxpayers and seniors like O’Connell, 70, of Greenville.
“That would be great,” he said. “I wish they could put that through.”
The measure, HR 684, is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Robert “Marion” Berry and would allow the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, much the way the Veterans Administration does for veterans.
The original Part D legislation prohibited the government from negotiating lower prices for beneficiaries. Drugs costs through the VA are often 20-30 percent of retail or Part D, said U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a co-sponsor of the bill.
“This will not only save the taxpayers of this country a considerable amount of money, it will also have enough savings to fill the donut hole,” Berry said during a teleconference. “It’s an option we should have had all along.”
However, Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents insurers, said the new program is unnecessary.
“Seniors have expressed very high satisfaction with the Part D program,” he said. “They have access to the drugs they need and a variety of choices at a premium they can afford. And the cost of the program is less than originally projected.”
Ken Johnson, senior vice president for PhRMA, the drug companies’ trade group, agreed, adding that the organization looks forward to working with legislators to ensure seniors continue to have access to the medicines they need.
Berry said that if seniors like what they have, they can keep it.
If half the seniors enrolled in Part D switched to the new plan, it would save $40 billion to $50 billion a year, said Berry, D-Ar. Then $20 billion of that could pay for those who reach the coverage gap known as the donut hole, with up to $30 billion left, he said. This year’s gap is for between $2,700 and $6,153 worth of drugs, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Savings would come from lower drug prices and lower administrative costs, Berry said. That would mean lower premiums for seniors.
“There are very few incentives with Part D plans now to lower costs,” he said. “This program won’t have a profit motive.”
The new plan also would eliminate the confusion many seniors experience at enrollment time as they compare plans to see if their drugs are still covered or their co-pays have gone up too much. For 2009, South Carolinians had 51 stand-alone plans to choose from with monthly premiums ranging from $15.50 to $100.50, according to CMS. And most premiums rose 30 percent.
“The plans change their formularies and costs every single year so (seniors) can’t assume that if they stick with the plan they had last year they’ll be OK,” said Schakowsky, D-Il.
“To process the information is very difficult and the more plans you have the more confusing it is,” O’Connell said. “And each year it becomes more difficult as you get older. I think many people are taken advantage of by default.”
Paul Precht, spokesman for the consumer group Medicare Rights Center, said the bill solves the problems of high costs, changing formularies and shifting restrictions.
“People find they can get drugs cheaper in Canada, and now they can get generics cheaper from Wal-Mart without any government subsidy when we’re paying over $50 billion a year for the benefit,” he said. “This will provide a choice. That’s how it works on Part B. It should be the same on the drug coverage side as well.”
Medicare Part B covers doctor visits and other outpatient care. Beneficiaries have the option of taking the plan offered by Medicare or going with a private insurer.
Columbia health-care economist Lynn Bailey said the bill makes sense in terms of offering some competition to the private plans and in saving taxpayers money.
“I’m in favor of throwing the big dog into the fight,” she said.
Berry’s bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Il., said he will introduce similar legislation in the Senate soon, adding the measure is supported by the Obama administration, and stands a good chance this year with the focus on health-care reform.
Cynthia Chance of Greenville says she hopes it passes. The disabled 51-year-old says she had to stop taking her drugs, which cost more than $1,000 a month, at one point because she couldn’t afford them any more on her Part D plan.
“I don’t understand why our country has all these problems and others don’t,” she said. “We’ve got to come up with something better than what we have now.”
O’Connell, who says he reaches the donut hole earlier every year as drug costs increase, said he would love to have an alternative.
“My out-of-pocket costs last year were around $5,500, not including premiums,” he said. “This sounds like a dream come true.”
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
