Medicare Misery
- From: alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan)
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
The new Medicare bill is about to kick in, and what it offers to seniors isn?t
pretty.
By Robert Kuttner
The New Year brings with it Congressional mid-term elections. Here is an issue
that should be a real political gift to the opposition party ? the colossal
Medicare drug-benefit mess.
It was clear back in 2003, when the Bush administration rammed this bill through
the Republican Congress, that the purpose was not to devise an affordable
prescription drug program for seniors. Rather the administration wanted to help
two friendly industries, the pharmaceutical companies and the HMO?s; and to get
bragging rights for the 2004 election that Bush had helped seniors. Few voters
would grasp just how bad the law was, since its effective date was deliberately
put off until 2006.
Now, as the year of reckoning arrives, the true cynicism of Bush?s program is
becoming evident to each senior citizen (or adult child of senior citizen) who
attempts to fathom what Bush and the industry lobbyists wrought.
For starters, coverage is woefully inadequate. You pay a $250 deductible and
then a 25 percent co-pay on the first $2,250 of drug benefits each year, plus
roughly another $450 a year in premiums. So if your prescriptions cost $2,250 a
year, or about $190 a month, for prescriptions, you pay $1,200 a year all told
and the plan pays just $1050.
That?s pretty shabby. But then, the truly bizarre feature of the plan kicks in.
Coverage simply disappears, until you have spent nearly $3,100 out of pocket.
This is the infamous "hole in the donut." Coverage kicks in again only after a
total of $5,100 in prescription costs.
A great many seniors will never get the coverage because the plan is a bad
bargain, and they just won?t sign up. Of if they do sign up, they will run out
of the ability to pay enough out of pocket before qualifying for needed
benefits. Even with these disgracefully skimpy benefits, the plan is expected to
add over half a trillion to the federal budget over the next decade.
Why would anyone have designed such an insane program?
Because the political purpose was never to deliver good benefits. One
administration goal, running the program through the private insurance industry,
conflicted with the imperative of a clear, cost-effective plan. Seniors must
evaluate innumerable competing private plans, each with subtle differences in
costs and benefits that make an impenetrable program even less fathomable, and
raise total costs because each of these private plans tacks on a profit. This
was a case of privatizing something done far more efficiently through a direct
government program.
The second administration goal, fattening the drug industry, led to a provision
explicitly prohibiting the government from negotiating bulk price discounts from
drug companies, as the Veterans hospitals do. As a result, according to a study
by Families USA, drug prices obtained by the VA are about 48 percent less on
average than those expected to be charged to people enrolled in the Medicare
drug program. Among the twenty most widely prescribed drugs for seniors, for
instance, a year?s supply of Protonix (for ulcers) costs the VA $253, but the
seniors in the Bush Medicare program, which prohibits such bulk discounts, pay a
sticker price of $1,080. That will give you ulcers! A year of Zocor, the
cholesterol-reducing drug, costs the VA $251. Seniors in Bush?s drug plan get
whacked for $1,323.
It was these inflated costs that necessitated some gimmick to keep down the
overall cost to taxpaypers. Hence the notorious donut hole.
If the Democrats have the moxie and the wit, they should propose a
straightforward fix, take it to the country in the 2006 elections, and dare
Republicans to oppose it:
First, get rid of the costly crazy-quilt of private programs and bring the
"Medicare" drug program back into public Medicare.
Second, allow Medicare to negotiate bulk discounts the way the VA does.
Third, get rid of the donut hole, and design a simplified benefit structure with
modest co-pays and then 100 percent coverage after a set annual cap on
out-of-pocket costs.
Finally, if the savings from the bulk price discounts are not quite sufficient
to cover costs of filling in the donut hole, take back a little of Bush?s tax
cuts to the richest one percent.
This debate will also remind voters of a useful meta-lesson. A party whose
mantra is hate-government, and that sees government mainly as a vehicle for
rewarding special-interest allies rather than serving ordinary citizens, can
never be trusted to run government competently.
A happier New Year to all.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect.
© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10792
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
.
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm moving in here
- Next by Date: Re: Ping: Imperial Leader
- Previous by thread: I'm moving in here
- Next by thread: Re: Hey You Gators
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
