Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Report: Medicare Drug Plan a $15 Billion Rip-Off in 2007

By Lisa Richwine, Reuters. Posted October 18, 2007.


The law, drafted by Big Pharma's lobbyists, says Medicare can't bargain over price.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

U.S. taxpayers and Medicare patients could have saved almost $15 billion in 2007 if private health insurers had cut expenses for prescription drug coverage and negotiated bigger discounts, a report from Democratic staff of a House of Representatives panel said on Monday.

The Medicare prescription drug benefits offered by private insurers operate with "high administrative costs, sales expenses and profits," the report said.

Staff for Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by California Rep. Henry Waxman, based their conclusions on proprietary cost and pricing data obtained from 12 insurers that provide drug coverage to more than 18 million Medicare patients.

"Use of private insurers to deliver Medicare drug coverage is driving up costs and producing only limited savings on drug prices," the report said.

Republican staff issued their own report saying Democrats distorted the facts and the program was popular among seniors.

Aetna Inc, UnitedHealth Group, Humana and other companies offer drug plans through Medicare, the federal health coverage for the elderly and disabled.

Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said the drug coverage had cost taxpayers and patients less than originally projected and offered more benefits.

"This program has on every level beat expectations," Ignagni said in an interview.

The report said administrative expenses, sales costs and profits of private insurers offering Medicare drug plans are almost six times higher than the administrative costs of traditional Medicare coverage, costing almost $5 billion or about $180 per beneficiary in 2007. The insurers' profits will account for $1 billion, the report said.

The companies failed to negotiate significant rebates from drug makers, the report also said. Insurers did get discounts in the form of rebates that reduced spending by 8.1 percent in 2007. But that was less than the 26 percent the Medicaid program secured from drug manufacturers. Medicaid is a state and federal insurance program for the poor.

When a Republican-led Congress created the Medicare drug coverage in 2003, backers said using private insurers would promote competition and cost savings. The benefits took effect in 2006.

Democratic critics have questioned if private companies can be as efficient and wield as much negotiating power as traditional Medicare.

"Privatizing the delivery of the drug benefit has enriched the drug companies and insurance industry at the expense of seniors and taxpayers," Waxman said in a statement on Monday. He released the report with 12 Democrats on his committee.

Republican staff, however, said the report was based on insurers' bids and not actual costs, which Medicare has said will be $4 billion less than estimated this year.

Administrative costs were higher, the Republican report said, because insurers had to develop lists of covered drugs, design plans, negotiate rebates and market their offerings, rather than just writing checks as traditional Medicare does.

They also said 10-year cost projections had dropped more than 30 percent in less than two years.

"The program operates smoothly and at significantly less cost than expected. As such, the concerns expressed by the majority (Democrats) are relatively minor in scope and not supported by accurate and meaningful analysis," the Republican staff said.

The report is available at http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071015093754.pdf

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: drugs, medicare, presrciption drug coverag

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

Advertisement
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:
Its the Economies of Scale, stupid
Posted by: chaoslegs on Oct 18, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The GOP law purposefully disallows Medicare from bulk negotiation using a larger pool of recipients to negotiate even better discounts.

Apparently it is the free market when Wal-Mart does it to its manufacturers, but somehow evil if the government were to use the same principle.

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

It is so Much worse than that
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 18, 2007 8:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leaving aside the doughnut hole a faustian device if ever there was one . Consider this your Part D provider can drop drugs from their list and YOU can do NOTHING about it . You are Locked in for the ENTIRE year even if THEY change coverage so that the drug you need is no LONGER covered . What kind of contract is that .

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

Just remember -
Posted by: underledge on Oct 19, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was your "elected" officials that voted for this! Who is to blame?

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

A rip-off in more ways than one
Posted by: Amy27605 on Oct 19, 2007 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I had to make a part D decision last year, I chose the least expensive plan offered, one from Humana that was a great deal for my cicrcumstances: a $12/month premium and NO decuctible or co-pay for the first several hundred dollars of generic prescriptions. I have never taken more than 2 drugs simultaneously in my entire life, which is the case currently.

At the end of 2006 I was overwhelmed with other things and didn't take the time to check the literature again, expecting things to remain essentially the same. Was I ever surprised to discover in January that I was suddenly paying $18/month in premiums--a 50% increase--and had a $5 co-pay (an INFINITE increase!). All together, at 2 prescriptions a month, this is a price rise of 133%. If that isn't bait-and-switch in operation, I don't know what is.

Needless to say, I'll be re-examining the plans very closely this year!

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

Public vs Private
Posted by: Urgelt on Oct 23, 2007 1:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This nation has lost its grip on what belongs in the public sphere and what belongs in private hands.

These are the criteria for a public utility:

- Everyone - and I mean everyone - needs it.

- It's not frivolous, but truly necessary.

- Competition doesn't exist or is very weak.

Take public roads. Competition is necessarily weak; you are at point A, you want to go to point B, and it makes no sense to go far out of your way. It doesn't make sense to expect corporations to build competing roads for your trip; competition would be weak or nonexistant, and that's a recipe for monopolistic extortion. Hence roads are, naturally, in the public sphere.

The same can be said for water utilities. It makes no sense to develop competing pipe, pumping and treatment infrastructures, because competition would be limited at best, nonexistant at worst. Privatizing water utilities is a license to extort.

Yet in the US we have other monopolistic utilities that *are* in private hands. Hospitals, for example - it makes no sense to site many hospitals close together in direct competition with one another. Drug patents are a monopoly, too. Some aspects of health care could become competitive - doctors, for example - but it doesn't happen, because the few really large insurance companies set their fees for them, and the rest of the insurance industry goes along.

Everyone needs medical care, sooner or later. When you need it, it's not frivolous. Weak competition in health care is *the* reason prices are escalating so quickly as compared to the rest of the economy; it's a license to extort.

Insurance companies impose an overhead of around 15-30% (depending on the company). For every dollar they take in, 15 to 30 cents pays for the insurance company operations and its profits. In the public sphere, programs like Medicare are administered with overheads in the 1-2% range, *and* they can get lower drug prices. If we put everyone in the same insurance pool, the leverage to negotiate still lower costs will be enormous; we could get our drug prices to line up with what's paid by other industrialized countries. It's a no-brainer.

Health care belongs in the public sphere. This is the conclusion every other industrialized nation has reached. It's time we realized we are wrong and do something about it.

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