PDA

View Full Version : President Tells Insurers to Aid Ailing Medicare Drug Plan




zimv20
Jan 16, 2006, 06:43 PM
link (http://nytimes.com/2006/01/16/politics/16drug.html?hp&ex=1137474000&en=f9353ff31dd315be&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


With tens of thousands of people unable to get medicines promised by Medicare, the Bush administration has told insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking, and it said that poor people must not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug.

The actions came after several states declared public health emergencies, and many states announced that they would step in to pay for prescriptions that should have been covered by the federal Medicare program.

Republicans have joined Democrats in asserting that the federal government botched the beginning of the prescription drug program, which started on Jan. 1. People who had signed up for coverage found that they were not on the government's list of subscribers. Insurers said they had no way to identify poor people entitled to extra help with their drug costs. Pharmacists spent hours on the telephone trying to reach insurance companies that administer the drug benefit under contract to Medicare.

Many of the problems involve low-income people entitled to both Medicare and Medicaid.

In a directive sent to all Medicare drug plans over the weekend, the Bush administration said they "must take immediate steps" to ensure that low-income beneficiaries were not charged more than $2 for a generic drug and $5 for a brand-name drug.

In addition, it said insurers must cover a 30-day emergency supply of drugs that beneficiaries were taking prior to the start of the new program.

In an interview yesterday, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that "several hundred thousand beneficiaries who switched plans" in December may have had difficulty filling prescriptions in the last two weeks.

In California, officials estimate that 200,000 of the state's 1.1 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries had trouble getting their medications.

Despite these problems, Dr. McClellan said, Medicare is now covering one million prescriptions a day. With the latest corrective actions, he said, "all beneficiaries should be able to get their prescriptions filled."

In the past, such predictions proved to be premature. New problems appeared as old ones were solved, and some insurers were slow to carry out federal instructions.

Since the program began on Jan. 1, many low-income people have left pharmacies empty-handed after being told they would have to pay co-payments of $100, $250 or more.

About 20 states, including California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and all of New England, have announced that they will help low-income people by paying drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program.

"The new federal program is too complicated for many people to understand, and the implementation of the new program by the federal government has been awful," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a Republican. On Saturday, he signed an emergency executive order making the state a "payer of last resort" for the out-of-pocket drug costs.

The Bush administration said it was rushing to provide insurers with correct information about the extra subsidies available to low-income people enrolled in their plans.

(more)

hm, another boondoggle. and it's a plan that's been trumpeted by the WH ever since its passage. it'll be interesting to see if it has any effect on bush's poll numbers.



blackfox
Jan 16, 2006, 07:24 PM
noticed this mentioned in Gore's speech earlier today.

I can't see how this could possibly play well for Bush, and it should be interesting to see how the GOP handles it - as this manages to piss of a strong voting base (aarp set), and turn traditional conservative fiscal policy/ideology on it's head - giving those in the GOP a stark choice of continuing to support the President, or re-embracing traditional conservative policy in the run up to mid-term elections.

solvs
Jan 17, 2006, 04:49 AM
hm, another boondoggle.
I'd say good for him, but since he's the one who botched it in the first place, no kudos for you GW. Plus, I still think he has it backwards. Government should be picking up the slack for insurances dropping the ball. Not the other way around.

Between this and privatizing Social Security (and stem cell research, and euthanasia), the Dems should be able to grab some of the ever important senior vote.

Ugg
Jan 17, 2006, 05:07 AM
There are two camps here, those who had to pay for their medications out of pocket and will be saving quite a bit and the dual eligibles who will be worse off under the new plan. The dual elibibles are the poorest and most infirm and they probably won't have an impact on poll numbers. Those who will save a bunch through this program could potentially provide a boost in poll numbers if they end up saving what they expect to and if the insurance companies don't screw them over.

There's no doubt that so far this is a total and utter fiasco. Six months from now when the bugs are ironed out it will be interesting to look back and see if it remains one.

skunk
Jan 17, 2006, 07:09 AM
Hmm. I was listening to BBC Radio the other day, where an interviewee said that his drugs cost 20 times more in the States than over here.

Thomas Veil
Jan 17, 2006, 09:23 AM
"The new federal program is too complicated for many people to understand, and the implementation of the new program by the federal government has been awful," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a Republican. On Saturday, he signed an emergency executive order making the state a "payer of last resort" for the out-of-pocket drug costs.

Am I alone in thinking that, had Clinton been the one implementing this program, it would've been done much better, by much more competent people?

solvs
Jan 17, 2006, 02:40 PM
Am I alone in thinking that, had Clinton been the one implementing this program, it would've been done much better, by much more competent people?
Nope not just you. But he got a bj from a young lady who wasn't his wife, so all the good he did is negated. Nice to see a Republican be honest about how bad it is though. Believe it or not, there are some good ones out there.

I saw a report on the drug program when it first started, and could see then how much of a mess it was going to be. Especially the parts involving the internet and electronic kiosks. The Daily Show even did a joke about it, and how old people love technology. I don't know the details of what they're talking about in the article, but somehow I think poor people are going to get screwed. It's sad that it's cheaper for me to get my meds from Canada or Mexico than here in the States even with insurance. I can't imagine how awful it must be for seniors and the poor.

mactastic
Jan 17, 2006, 10:28 PM
Hmm. I was listening to BBC Radio the other day, where an interviewee said that his drugs cost 20 times more in the States than over here.
That's 'cause our drugs are 20 times better. Them's 'Merican drugs.

aquajet
Jan 17, 2006, 10:46 PM
Hmm. I was listening to BBC Radio the other day, where an interviewee said that his drugs cost 20 times more in the States than over here.

Yeah-- well, we can thank the Bush administration and the War on Terror for that. I don't know about you, but Bush certainly has me convinced that the Canadians want to sell us arsenic-laced Viagra. And I'm certain the CEOs of the drug companies are genuinely concerned about the risks of those nasty Canadians who clearly want to kill us.

Thomas Veil
Jan 19, 2006, 10:13 AM
That's 'cause our drugs are 20 times better. Them's 'Merican drugs.:p :p :p