Disagreeable
Well-known member
Link below; my emphasis.
When Congress established Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug benefit, in 2002, it promised American seniors and American taxpayers that it would lower drug costs.
Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said that private insurance company drugs plans “are going to be able to purchase in bulk with the pharmaceutical companies and hold down prices.”
I and others in Congress argued that the federal government would save seniors and taxpayers much more if Medicare could negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told us that “competition through the private sector is a more effective means to hold down prices.”
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mark McClellan continues to argue that “the drug plans are negotiating aggressive discounts that are being passed along to beneficiaries and taxpayers.”
I decided to find out whether or not these claims are true.
I asked the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee to investigate.
As I suspected, the facts don’t agree with the Administration’s rosy statements.
Here’s what we found.
The drug prices offered here in Southern Maine by the ten leading private insurance plans for the ten prescription drugs with the highest sales are, on average:
• Almost 80 percent higher than the prices the federal government negotiates for the Veterans Administration;
• More than 60 percent higher than what consumers pay in Canadian pharmacies; and
• More than 5 percent higher than what they cost when purchased from a reliable Internet dealer.
Why is this bad for Maine seniors who now receive the Medicare Part D benefit?
Because their out-of-pocket costs are higher and the purchasing power of the benefit is lower than they should be.
Because they will reach the so-called “donut hole” sooner.
That’s the gap, between $2,250 and $5,100 in drug expenditures, where seniors are responsible for 100 percent of the cost of their prescription drugs.
It means that federal Medicare expenditures will not go as far as they would toward providing more prescription drugs and more health care to more beneficiaries.
The news for taxpayers is even worse.
They are paying the bill and getting ripped off in the process.
They will continue to pick up the increasing tab as the costs for this ill-conceived program grow year after year after year.
It didn’t have to be this way.
And it doesn’t need to stay this way.
The basic problem is and always has been that the Bush Administration designed this program so that it would be profitable, very profitable, for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies
http://www.tomallen.house.gov/article.asp?id=523
When Congress established Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug benefit, in 2002, it promised American seniors and American taxpayers that it would lower drug costs.
Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said that private insurance company drugs plans “are going to be able to purchase in bulk with the pharmaceutical companies and hold down prices.”
I and others in Congress argued that the federal government would save seniors and taxpayers much more if Medicare could negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told us that “competition through the private sector is a more effective means to hold down prices.”
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mark McClellan continues to argue that “the drug plans are negotiating aggressive discounts that are being passed along to beneficiaries and taxpayers.”
I decided to find out whether or not these claims are true.
I asked the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee to investigate.
As I suspected, the facts don’t agree with the Administration’s rosy statements.
Here’s what we found.
The drug prices offered here in Southern Maine by the ten leading private insurance plans for the ten prescription drugs with the highest sales are, on average:
• Almost 80 percent higher than the prices the federal government negotiates for the Veterans Administration;
• More than 60 percent higher than what consumers pay in Canadian pharmacies; and
• More than 5 percent higher than what they cost when purchased from a reliable Internet dealer.
Why is this bad for Maine seniors who now receive the Medicare Part D benefit?
Because their out-of-pocket costs are higher and the purchasing power of the benefit is lower than they should be.
Because they will reach the so-called “donut hole” sooner.
That’s the gap, between $2,250 and $5,100 in drug expenditures, where seniors are responsible for 100 percent of the cost of their prescription drugs.
It means that federal Medicare expenditures will not go as far as they would toward providing more prescription drugs and more health care to more beneficiaries.
The news for taxpayers is even worse.
They are paying the bill and getting ripped off in the process.
They will continue to pick up the increasing tab as the costs for this ill-conceived program grow year after year after year.
It didn’t have to be this way.
And it doesn’t need to stay this way.
The basic problem is and always has been that the Bush Administration designed this program so that it would be profitable, very profitable, for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies
http://www.tomallen.house.gov/article.asp?id=523