Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Medicare Plan Benefits Industry, Not Seniors

By Erin Cassin, The NewStandard. Posted February 15, 2006.


Although the new Medicare drug plan can cut costs to beneficiaries who navigate its bureaucratic maze, critics say it's costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Advertisement

Recent research into the new Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit program shows the pharmaceutical industry poised to reap billions in taxpayer funds under the new plan. The data lends new fuel to the fight led by seniors and their advocates to overhaul the program, which took effect January 1.

Under the design of the current scheme, private insurers -- not the Medicare administration -- provide coverage to enrollees, some of who previously received coverage under Medicaid and others who never had government-subsidized prescription drug coverage.

According to a January report by the progressive think tank Center for Economic Policy Research, the program's cost to state and federal taxpayers -- estimated at $776 billion for the next eight years -- and its notorious complexity are predictable symptoms of the legislation.

"Congress deliberately designed the bill in a way that would ensure that private insurance companies would provide the benefit instead of the Medicare administration or a single designated provider," wrote the report's author, Dean Baker. "This design both substantially increased the cost of drugs and administrative costs in addition to making the drug program much more complicated for beneficiaries," the report states.

A large portion of the 14.3 million enrollees in the program are people who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. These 6.2 million seniors and people with disabilities used to receive prescription-drug coverage through Medicaid, but were automatically switched to the Medicare drug benefit when it went into effect.

When providing drugs through Medicaid, pharmaceutical companies were required to guarantee the government discounts of 15 percent or more on drugs. But under the new plan, the Medicare administration is prohibited from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for lower drug prices.

Instead, the multitude of private insurance companies that are providing coverage to Part D enrollees are tasked with negotiating prices with private drug companies.

According to the CEPR report, Medicare could secure substantial discounts from the drug manufacturers because of the massive amount of business the organization would bring to the pharmaceutical industry. There are currently 42 million Medicare beneficiaries eligible for Part D.

"In principle, as long as drug companies can cover their production costs and earn a normal profit on their sales, they would profit by selling their drugs to Medicare rather than being excluded from this huge market," Baker wrote.

According to Baker's calculations, which are based on prices other countries and other US government agencies are able to negotiate, giving the Medicare administration collective bargaining power could result in total projected savings of between $370 billion and $785 billion over eight years, depending on the scenario.

Baker suggests in his report that the savings could go to lowering drug prices further for beneficiaries and to relieving states and the federal government of a portion of the projected costs of the program.

The CEPR report follows an October 2003 analysis of Part D by the Health Reform Program (HRP) at Boston University School of Public Health. Using Congressional Budget Office estimates, the HRP researchers concluded that "an estimated 61 percent of the Medicare dollars that will be spent to buy prescriptions will remain in the hands of drug makers as added profit. This windfall means an estimated $139 billion in increased profits over eight years and a 38 percent rise in drug-maker profit.

"Federal payments are clearly rising. How much of that ends up on drug-makers' bottom line remains difficult to tell for sure," said Health Reform Program Co-director Alan Sager, who co-authored the 2003 report, in a NewStandard interview earlier this month. "What we do know is that this law is a bad deal for patients and taxpayers."


Digg!

Erin Cassin is a contributor to The NewStandard, an independent, non-profit daily news site.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Observations from the periphery
Posted by: anothername on Feb 15, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) blamed the problems on Democrats because they insisted the poorest Americans be included in the drug program.

The requirement that individuals pay part of their own costs, however small, has increased costs to insurance companies as they must set up systems for billing and collecting monies from individuals whose contributions may or may not cover the expenses of billing them.

Insurance companies also are facing unexpected expenses as the Medicare/Medicaid program has been unable to process all the applications to join programs that it must match against federal records of eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. This means insurance companies are being required to make payment for drug claims when they might never receive any money from the government or the individual for the premium that is supposed to cover the claims.

Be thankful that the stock market is growing in collective value, or insurance premiums for other business (i.e., anyone not on Medicare) would be skyrocketing.

I believe that insurance companies will be able to find a role in a universal health care system. What we need are people to start coming up with ideas and methods in which the insurance companies can benefit under a one-payer system. That will give us, the people, one industry that is not fighting against universal health care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another boondoggle
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 15, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will the American taxpayers wise up to the fact that these prescription drug schemes are just ways to transfer money from the taxpayers to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries?

Neither party is the "party of the people". They both represent the interests of the corporate establishment. Help make "government of the people,by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on JoinUp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try "Free at the Point of Need"!!
Posted by: Lizka on Feb 15, 2006 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Says this Brit!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economy of Scales
Posted by: chaoslegs on Feb 15, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the free market faithful love how the economy of scales works so well for WalMart, then how come they must forbid it by law for Medicare? Because as Molly Ivins says it would be bad for "bidness."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TheGalling hypocrisy
Posted by: BobbyG on Feb 15, 2006 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I simply LOVE being lectured to by the likes of Bush and other "free-market" cheerleaders on how WE have to learn to live with limits and take responsibility for making smart private market "choices" about things like our retirement and health care. I'll think about it every day as I continue to contribute to Bush's lengthy and cushy federal and state taxpayer-financed pensions and comprehensive platinum-plated health care. I have zero doubt that he will quietly lay claim to EVERY taxpayer penny to which "he's entitled" for the rest of his life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Doing As It's Designers Wanted It To Do.
Posted by: doneman2000 on Feb 15, 2006 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is to allow the drug industry to make incredible profits from a government program that they essentially wrote the rules for. That's what you get with the best GOP politicians money can buy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALTERNET NEEDS MORE ARTICLES ON HEALTHCARE!
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 15, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Healthcare costs, unless contained very soon, threaten the health and well being of every american citizen, every american institution and and every american business. I believe this will evolve into a national security threat if left unaddressed much longer. Some project $65 trillion in unfunded Medicare entitlements when boomers retire if we stay on same course compared to $5 trillion gap in Social Security. I do not understand why this is not being widely discussed on a bi-partisan basis immediately?! Progressive Dems and Progressive Independents must get moving now! My blog is http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com Thanks-Dr. Rick Lippin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Long Will It Take?
Posted by: comstock on Feb 15, 2006 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before this long, national nightmare is over? If ever a lesson in life were to be learned, this is it....we left Congress on "auto-pilot" for long. Thinking they were there doing OUR business, when in fact they were there doing their OWN! These medical policies amount to nothing less than the culling of our population of the elderly and poor, just like a farmer culls his herd of the sick and weak. Aren't we proud?
Societies are judged on how they treated their least fortunate and it's sad to admit how we will stand up to that judgment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reality Time
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Feb 15, 2006 11:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you people going to realize that these so-called Representatives and Senators of the American people don't represent you at all? They represent corporate America, they represent special interest groups, they represent the AMA and tax breaks for the rich. They don't care what happens to you and they could give a shit less how you end your life. So you wind up in a nursing home waiting for the Angel of Death? Who cares in America where the young are ideolized and the aged are forgotten?
Start electing people who DO care and you will see a change of policy. But further still, HOLD them accountable for their beliefs. That's the bottom line, people. We need a politali
cal process that can take away as well as give. If you get up there in D.C. and don't do the will of the people, we should be able to vote to boot your ass out. This is what we should be concentrating on...how to get the bastards out that don't do anything that would benefit the people. That would make them think about THEIR future like we have to think about ours.
Here's how the world thinks about America. My wife talked to a girl who is a student at the local University and she told her that there is a saying in China that goes like this...'America is Heaven for the young and Hell for the old.'
Great requiem for a 'SuperPower', don't you think?
Come on, people. You are paying these people to screw you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eality Time Posted by: whutz-up