[herring_RN]

Medicare drug coverage is costing most seniors more

Premiums for the top 10 prescription plans are up an average of 16% from last year, a new study finds -- a hardship for many people....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1486824.story

[elkpark]

It was clear from the very beginning that this program was designed by the GOP to be a big giveaway to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, not meaningful help for seniors with their drug costs.

[ocankhe]

Since this program has started my Mom's premiums are up over 30%. Not to mention drugs dropped from formulary and increased drug prices resulting in less coverage for more money. This program has to be fixed.

[lamazeteacher]

Originally Posted by herring_RN

Medicare drug coverage is costing most seniors more

Premiums for the top 10 prescription plans are up an average of 16% from last year, a new study finds -- a hardship for many people....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1486824.story

As a Medicare recipient and victim of employee/insurance company age discrimination, I became aware before Medicare D was offered, that my costs in premiums from the getgo, would be higher than the cost of the drugs. Then the method of determining that was given, along with threats that if seniors didn't enroll promptly, their costs for the program would escalate markedly - and my premise was proven.

At first, when our dollar was stronger than Canada's, I purchased my meds (all from different drug companies) there, and they were affordable for one who works gainfully. Now our dollar has decreased in value, and the costs of drugs in Canada (possibly driven there by Americans cashing in on good deals made by Canada with the drug companies) are prohibitive for me.

So now, I'm like a junkie begging samples from my doctors. When I can't get them that way, I pay $375./month at Costco for one, $250. /month for another, and depending on the availability of generics, about $100./ month for others. Those costs and my mortgages, taxes, minimal food purchases and utilities take up my entire income, and more!

I've lost the last 3 jobs I got, as when the time came for benefits to kick in, despite my claim that I have health insurance, and capabilities and appearance of being at least 10 years younger (not a brag) than I am (69 years old), the employer's healthcare insurance company demands to know my age. Of course HR learns it, and I'm given "fools' errands" and other skulduggery lands me out of work in no time!

It is a crime that seniors aren't given more leverage at work, and employers are subject to insurance companies' whims, but here we are. Perhaps things will get better, but I hold no high hopes.

THANK YOU FOR THIS THREAD

[rph3664]

I was working in retail pharmacy when Medicare Part D(isaster) was announced, and we had a parade of customers who were very curious as to why pharmacists were almost universally opposed to this plan.

One of my colleagues, who had his own pharmacy for many years, said, "When this plan goes online, you will find out just how free it is."

Something has to be done, but this hasn't been it.

[Jolie]

I think this is a harbinger of what government sponsored healthcare would become.

I agree that the Republicans were wrong to push this bill, but it got wide bi-partisan support as both Reps and Dems wanted to be seen as "providing" for our seniors. What a crock!

I know of no-one who is better off under this plan than they were prior to its implementation. My parents who had no prescription drug coverage at all prior to Part D pay much more now than they did then because drug stores have stopped offering discounts to those who lack Rx. coverage. My aunt had excellent coverage thru her late husband's employer, which they dropped like a hot potato once the government stepped into the prescription drug business.

We need less government involvement in healthcare, not more.


The

[rph3664]

Originally Posted by Jolie

I think this is a harbinger of what government sponsored healthcare would become.

I agree that the Republicans were wrong to push this bill, but it got wide bi-partisan support as both Reps and Dems wanted to be seen as "providing" for our seniors. What a crock!

I know of no-one who is better off under this plan than they were prior to its implementation. My parents who had no prescription drug coverage at all prior to Part D pay much more now than they did then because drug stores have stopped offering discounts to those who lack Rx. coverage. My aunt had excellent coverage thru her late husband's employer, which they dropped like a hot potato once the government stepped into the prescription drug business.

We need less government involvement in healthcare, not more.


The

You can look to the VA for an example of what would happen. JMHO.

[elkpark]

Originally Posted by rph3664

You can look to the VA for an example of what would happen. JMHO.

Could you elaborate on what you mean, please?

[traumaRUs]

I work in a nephrology practice and we all know renal patients take a boatload of meds. Many of my pts reach the donut hole (the time when their coverage is maxed out) in Jan-Feb of each year...what the heck do they do til October?????

Its such a mess.

[lamazeteacher]

Originally Posted by elkpark

Could you elaborate on what you mean, please?

While I'm not the poster of the above quote, I think it refers to Veterans' Administration. I have provided Home Health for veterans, and know that they (and/or their families) have to organize the meds they take, to get them by mail or at the clinic when they go there. Usually they're provided without charge in 90 day increments, as doctors ordered them, so I'm not sure why the response was derogatory about government funded plans.

The problem, and it's HUGE, is the "middle-man". In retail businesses, that's the wholesaler who gets products from the source and its country, usually paying "customs" taxes. Then they sell the product to the retailer, having ahown samples of it at industry shows pertinent to the product, who sells it to customers.

In medical/pharmaceutical supplies, the pharmaceutical companies are both the producer and "middle-man", charging accordingly for their services, as well as a surcharge for research to explain the inflated prices. The tro9uble is, they may or may not have done the research. If they did it, you may be sure that government grants covered their costs, so their charges are what's called "double dipping", and the tax deductions they claim for same, make it "triple dipping".

In Canada, negotiations for better prices and/or government subsidation for manufacturing facilities there, drastically cut prices. No claims of research costs were made, and all prescribed drugs are covered without copays, or any cost other than a sliding scale, nominal deduction from paychecks of those who work. The difference in people who live there, is that they don't mind being responsible for the medical costs incurred by non-workers, in fact there's pride in being able to do that. There's usually shame in not working when one can, and the government pays investigators to monitor those who seem to take longer than most to recover from illnesses/ operations.

My sister was an investigator there, working at Equifax and looked so much the nice older woman she was, that neighbors told her whatever she wanted to know about the person of whom she inquired - such as, "Oh he's at work (at another job while receiving workers' compensation from the primary employer)". There are severe financial punishments for that, and jail time, since such an act is traitorous. The 2nd employer is also fined, just as people here who employ illegals, are, as they couldn't file that person as their legal employee and pay them less.

So the "middle person", the insurance companies are eliminated there. The government doesn't decide medical care protocols, only committees of physicians do! Let's follow that example, and leave the employment and insurance company involvement out of it!