Posts
The President of the United States, Barack Obama, has always been a protector of Medicare, a program he cares deeply for. Although, at this time he is proposing cut backs to the Medicare prescription program for it's senior members, by restructuring the way it pays for prescription medications.
The President can't walk on both sides of the fence. His proposed plan would reduce access to prescription drugs for more than 46 million seniors and make it more difficult and increase their costs.
Under President George W. Bush Medicare Part D was passed in 2003 with a more conservative approach to policy design than the fee-for-service parts of Medicare. The Part D plan was to give senior citizens a combination of value and choice, which will likely change under the Obama's plan.
Under Medicare Part D, individual insurers compete for golden agers business by offering different coverage plans. The insurers do work with pharmaceutical companies to bring home the bacon for the medications they will cover, keeps costs down requires competition.
Nationally, premiums have not increased and been $30 a month for four years, even as health insurance premiums are on the rise. Government officials figured Part D plans would be about $61 a month by now and are far lower at this time.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, taxpayers are saving as well and spending on Medicare's prescription drug benefit has come in 45 percent below budget estimates. The fact remains, it's the only part of Medicare that's keeping costs down.
Part D is producing excellent health results In a 2011 study, researchers at the Harvard Medical School, claim that seniors' well-being improved dramatically and hospitalizations was lowered as a result of Part D. Another study found that while prescription drug usage was up by 13 percent among seniors, thanks to Part D out of pocket prescription drug costs fell by 18. percent.
The conservative party is worried about the increasing cost of medicare. Part D offers a blueprint for other parts of medicare to follow by keeping competition and market principles in the forefront.
On many occasions, President Obama and his administration has specifically targeted Part D for cuts. In his latest State of the Union address, the president hinted to "reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies."
President Obama proposes requiring pharmaceutical companies to rebate a set percentage of each prescription sold to seniors who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare assistance. Medicaid, the joint state federal program for the poor, already requires such rebates from the drug makers.
The White House estimates this would save about $156 billion, but don't go running to the bank and expect money back.
The fact is, these "rebates" are a really nice clone of government-imposed price controls. And as pharmaceutical companies try to compensate for their losses, the rebate plan would end up costing all seniors more.
The consultants from the Lewin Group found that the rebate plan would increase Part D out of pocket costs for all senior citizens ranging from 25 to 50 percent. The former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin proposed that premiums would rise anywhere from 20 to 40 percent.
Higher costs and fewer options with this plan are inevitable. A recent study by Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute and Guy King, Medicare's former chief actuary, showed that Obama's rebate plan would limit health insurers from offering plans to low income senior citizens.
Going in this direction is formidably wrong. In a Congressional Budget Office report released last year showed that increasing prescription drug usage by 1 percent among Medicare eligible individuals results in a 0.2 percent decrease in overall medical spending on the Medicare recipients.
Missouri's lawmakers shouldn't hesitate to tout this smart market-based policy reform in Washington. They must protect the state's seniors from Obama's attempt to undermine the Part D success .
The President can't walk on both sides of the fence. His proposed plan would reduce access to prescription drugs for more than 46 million seniors and make it more difficult and increase their costs.
Under President George W. Bush Medicare Part D was passed in 2003 with a more conservative approach to policy design than the fee-for-service parts of Medicare. The Part D plan was to give senior citizens a combination of value and choice, which will likely change under the Obama's plan.
Under Medicare Part D, individual insurers compete for golden agers business by offering different coverage plans. The insurers do work with pharmaceutical companies to bring home the bacon for the medications they will cover, keeps costs down requires competition.
Nationally, premiums have not increased and been $30 a month for four years, even as health insurance premiums are on the rise. Government officials figured Part D plans would be about $61 a month by now and are far lower at this time.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, taxpayers are saving as well and spending on Medicare's prescription drug benefit has come in 45 percent below budget estimates. The fact remains, it's the only part of Medicare that's keeping costs down.
Part D is producing excellent health results In a 2011 study, researchers at the Harvard Medical School, claim that seniors' well-being improved dramatically and hospitalizations was lowered as a result of Part D. Another study found that while prescription drug usage was up by 13 percent among seniors, thanks to Part D out of pocket prescription drug costs fell by 18. percent.
The conservative party is worried about the increasing cost of medicare. Part D offers a blueprint for other parts of medicare to follow by keeping competition and market principles in the forefront.
On many occasions, President Obama and his administration has specifically targeted Part D for cuts. In his latest State of the Union address, the president hinted to "reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies."
President Obama proposes requiring pharmaceutical companies to rebate a set percentage of each prescription sold to seniors who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare assistance. Medicaid, the joint state federal program for the poor, already requires such rebates from the drug makers.
The White House estimates this would save about $156 billion, but don't go running to the bank and expect money back.
The fact is, these "rebates" are a really nice clone of government-imposed price controls. And as pharmaceutical companies try to compensate for their losses, the rebate plan would end up costing all seniors more.
The consultants from the Lewin Group found that the rebate plan would increase Part D out of pocket costs for all senior citizens ranging from 25 to 50 percent. The former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin proposed that premiums would rise anywhere from 20 to 40 percent.
Higher costs and fewer options with this plan are inevitable. A recent study by Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute and Guy King, Medicare's former chief actuary, showed that Obama's rebate plan would limit health insurers from offering plans to low income senior citizens.
Going in this direction is formidably wrong. In a Congressional Budget Office report released last year showed that increasing prescription drug usage by 1 percent among Medicare eligible individuals results in a 0.2 percent decrease in overall medical spending on the Medicare recipients.
Missouri's lawmakers shouldn't hesitate to tout this smart market-based policy reform in Washington. They must protect the state's seniors from Obama's attempt to undermine the Part D success .
About the Author:
Want to find out more about Medicare #1, then visit theMedicare Part D #2 for answers to your Medicare questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment