Daily Kos

Medicare Part D: or, why I don't want to go to work tomorrow

Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:33:19 AM PDT

Tomorrow I need to go into the office. Tomorrow Medicare Part D, the Revenge of the Sith or that Stunningly Unimpressive Shark in the Fourth Jaws Movie, will take effect. And I'm a little bit scared. I hope I don't need to be. Maybe a better word is apprehensive. So, can we look at this, and see why I'm apprehensive? And maybe the community here can assuage my fears. UPDATE: sequel diary posted here.
Let's begin. I work with sometimes mentally ill, sometimes not, people who have HIV or AIDS. They are almost all on Medicaid or Medicare. In fact the Human Resources and Services Administration notes 60-80,000 people with HIV/AIDS are such "dual eligibles." The new drug benefit changes, therefore, affect those I work with directly.

While I appreciate the "attempt" to simplify the program by our erstwhile government, the fact is that at first sight, it seems Medicare Part D is designed solely for the purpose of driving people into poverty. Consider these quotes:

Medicare eligible beneficiaries not eligible for low-income subsidies can apply for and enroll in the standard benefit. The standard benefit requires that the beneficiary pay a $250 deductible. When the deductible is met the beneficiary then pays 25% of the cost of all prescriptions up to the initial coverage limit of $2,250.

Now one more fact:

Dual-eligibles will lose their Medicaid prescription drug coverage as of January 1, 2006. They will continue to receive other health care services through Medicaid and Medicare. The vast majority of their prescription drug benefits will be provided through Medicare.

Let's call 'em Aid and Air; less confusion. In other words, people who had both Aid and Air - which many HIV+ consumers do, since Air has hospital coverage - will lose prescription  benefits form Aid and are left with the coverage offered by Air. (This is getting kind of ironic.) Under Aid - they paid little to nothing for medication costs; under Air - they will pay quite a bit.

stage 1

During Stage 1 they will have some help. They will only pay 25% of their medication cost until the total cost equals 2,250. So, for example, if your medication costs $100, you will pay $25, and Medicare $75, and so on, until you've hit $2,250. At that point the total cost of contribution from the consumer - your grandma, for example - would be $562.50. The real cost may be higher; formerly, vitamins and supplements would be coverable under Aid if prescribed by a doctor; now, that must be paid from the patient's own pocket. It is still not clear what other medications will not be covered, but a partial list is available from The Body:

These excluded drugs include: drugs for weight gain; barbiturates (used to treat seizures in older people); benzodiazepines (used to treat acute anxiety, panic attacks, seizure disorders, and muscle spasms); and over the counter medications.

stage 2

Stage two, the famous doughnut hole in coverage (and what a misleading moniker!), will leave people without help until their total drug costs:

At this point the beneficiary enters what is known as the "donut hole" and must pay the full cost of each medicine until they spend a total of $3,600 in out-of-pocket expenses (including the deductible and the initial coinsurance). After the beneficiary hits the "catastrophic limit" of $5,100 in total drug expenses the beneficiary will pay $2 for a generic drug and $5 for all other drugs or 5% coinsurance, whichever is greater.

Let's consider this math. First of all, it doesn't make sense. 2,250+3,600=5,850, not 5,100. So, is there another "doughnut hole" between the out-of-pocket expense limit and the point at which the catastrophic limit kicks in? Or, perhaps, that 5,100 is how much the beneficiary themselves must spend before their contribution is considered catastophic?

And hell - I don't really understand why there's a doughnut hole at all. Who's it going to harm? People who worked prior to getting Social Security. Because their incomes will be just too high for that low-income aid; the cap for that seems to be 12,750 (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) So anyone getting more than a thousand a month, in New York City, will have to pay the total cost of their medications for a period of time.

Why does this worry me so much? Because most of these people are on Social Security, have little savings after the economic destruction of the last few years, and if their medications are more than a hundred or so a month, they're going to have to economize into starvation.

For a point of reference - some beneficiaries need thousands of dollars of medication per month.

stage 3

will anyone even get this far? But after catastrophic coverage is reached, at whatever number, the beneficiary will pay either a small percentage or a fixed dollar amount.

thoughts

Mostly worried. I have some consumers who have gotten themselves back into the work force (the goal of my program is empowerment), but still however depend heavily on Medicaid and Medicare to pay for their expensive medications (In one case, 2,500 a month.) There will be a gap in their goverage. They are freaking. And because of the nature of their disability, some of them are just now coming to me with letters and asking me to help. OK, better than never. But how do I explain the change from a seemingly simple system to this monstrous program where they do not know how much they are going to need to contribute, where Medicare itself cannot be counted on for answers? The HRSA notes:

The thing that's difficult to understand about Part D, I think, is that this benefit is really four benefits wrapped up in one. The benefit that the Medicare beneficiary will experience will differ depending on their Medicaid status, what their income is, and what their assets are. So the Medicare benefit for one client that you're serving will be very different than the Medicare benefit for a second Medicare beneficiary that you're taking care of.

There's a lot more I could say but I'd like to leave it at this for now and find out what other people are thinking. How will this change affect you and your family? Have they signed up and also signed up for a plan? (Yep, two types of signing up; three, actually, when you pick your economic level from the private company offering the plan.) one last thing please take the time to comment including any links that might help people get through this, ideas, suggestions, news stories - anything. Be very happy to see it all and if all hell doesn't totally break loose I shall be happy to write a follow up diary or something

Poll

Do you think I'm freaking?

0%3 votes
1%6 votes
0%4 votes
15%74 votes
81%379 votes

| 466 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: medicare part d, social security (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 134 comments

  •  I Was A Geriatric Social Worker... (4.00 / 13)

    ...before I left the job and studied engineering (don't ask!  ;) )

    Anyway, a significant part of my job was to assist people over 60 in difficult circumstances, usually following a health crisis or death of a spouse.  Medicare and medicaid issues were always the most difficult and time consuming...

    And that was in the 80s!  I have no idea how difficult this will be for the people who are case managers now!  I remember hours on "hold" only to get an answer that was wrong or resulted in more "Holds."

    Judging by the experience my parents have had signing up for Part D, if I were you, I'd take a bottle of NyQuil to work with you...After all, it's 25% alcohol!

    ;)

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:35:44 AM PDT

    •  haha (4.00 / 15)

      judging by the number of social workers I've met since starting this who are slowly sliding towards the Great American Alcohol ride, I think I'll just stick with the advil. sigh Lady bless and guide our feet.
      •  It's a Disease of the Career... (4.00 / 4)

        ...especially since you can't smoke at your desk anymore...

        It's weird to remember a time when it was not an unusual thing to share an office with a smoker...they'd sit there and smoke and make client contacts on the phone, filling up the office with ashes, ashtrays and smoke.

        Now you can't smoke here inside, within 25 feet of the door.  Times DO change...

        Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

        by InquisitiveRaven on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:28:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And now, (4.00 / 4)

          At least in California, we smokers pay for your children's day care.  50 cents a pack.  Among other taxes.

          Punishment fit the what now?  And when did it start needing to be punished?

          •  The States pray smokers will NEVER (4.00 / 3)

            QUIT SMOKING, heh, wonderful source of revenue!

            What an excellent day for an Exorcism... SCI/Kenyon

            by DianeL on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:00:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Would be spent elsewhere (none / 1)

              I don't buy the revenue argument - it's just easier to raise taxes on luxury goods than anything else.  I'm sure the long term health expense and lack of productivity is far bigger than the revenues.  At least in Canada, smoking (cigarettes) is revenue negative.
              •  As far as the US, I respectfully DISAGREE (none / 1)

                And whish I had the time to elaborate.  And generally speaking, I will say, that you would be rather disgusted at those entities who procalim war on smoking yet Benson & Hedges is listed in their investment portfolios.

                What an excellent day for an Exorcism... SCI/Kenyon

                by DianeL on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 02:22:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  what disgusts me most (none / 1)

                  as a chemist, is the manipulation of nicotine and other chemicals - in effect enslaving the consumer.

                  The difference between US and Canada (national health care system) is glaring here.

                  In Canada, the imperative is to keep health care costs down by keeping us healthy - since we all pay for it and get to use it.  I wonder if we'll make the same arguments for supporting junk food addicts' health expenses.  i.e. should we be subsidizing bad health choices.

                  In the US the imperative is to keep revenues up, since health care is paid for by private insurance and those that need it will pay for it, or go without.

                  I'd love to read your elaboration, especially as it's national election time here, and we always like to use the health care comparison to scare off the conservative vote.

              •  How can that be? (none / 0)

                Smokers die sooner.  Wouldn't that make them LESS of a burden on the public health system?

                In every stage of these Oppressions...: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury." DoI, TJ

                by ChuckLin on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 04:11:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  hospital care... (none / 0)

                  • operation on lung tumors
                  • emphasema care
                  • cancer screening
                  • heart attack care
                  • strokes etc..

                  this in 1998

                  'increasing the number of new nonsmokers by an additional 1.3 million. This would save the health care system $2.6 billion in smoking-related health care costs.'

                  and from Canada - costs are twice as high as our huge taxes on cigarettes - they are $8 a pack and up in some places..

                  "In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.

                  I think the life expectancy doesn't factor into it, it's the quality of life in the last years, and the cost of ongoing medical care that's needed.  There's more recent numbers, and different for Canada of course, but the dying earlier argument has also been debunked.  

                •  My Dad is/was a smoker (none / 1)

                  He is 67 and has, for health reasons(emphysema-surprise!) been unable to work for 10+ years.  He had a heart attack a year and a half ago.  Since then he has also had pace maker and defibrillator put in.  He has needed several ambulance rides and has been med-flighted to a larger hospital.(medflights are REALLY expensive)If he had to pay out of pocket for his medication it would cost over $2000/month.  Luckily for him he gets VA benefits/ medicare and my Mom has health insurance through work.  My mother can never retire because without her insurance my Dad would probably be dead.  Her insurance paid for the medflight, lots of the hospital costs and picks up a lot of what the other two don't.

                  We figured he has used about $600,000 to $800,000 of health care dollars in just the last two years. If you add up the rest of his family(Wife, 3 daughters, 1 son, three son-in-laws, and 5 grandchildren, with over 382 years of living between us)I don't think we have used that combined in our entire lives. I love my Dad and am glad he is alive but I would say that his smoking has been a pretty big burden on the public health system.

                  Republicans need people to be stupid

                  by strengthof10kmen on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:24:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Don't Worry We'll All Pay For It (4.00 / 3)

      I did a lot of web searching to get my mother a plan. She is dual-eligible (low income).  The gov't randomly assigned her a plan that would actually cost $2500 per year more than the one I found.  When I called the first (more expensive) plan, they said, "dont't worry, Medicare will pay for the part that Medicaid didn't pay. Your mother won't have to pay the extra."  

      What outraged me was that Medicare was going to "pay" $186 per month for a certain medication, when the plan I found AARP Medicare RX only charged $3.
      Go to Medicare.gov and use the calculator to find a drug plan. Then type in the medications and you will get their formulary and prices.

      You see, this whole thing is basically a big giveaway to the drug companies, not the consumers that Bush tried to convince us he had in mind.  And we, the taxpayers will find out just how much this debacle is going to cost us...And then THEY will BLAME the seniors.  And then THEY will cut the benefits.

      The government wants us to ignore the fact that healthcare COSTS are what's driving industries to fail (General Motors, Delphi, United, etc.) NOT the WORKERS.  And drug company prices are to blame for Medicare, not the Seniors.  Why isn't this apparent to everyone?

      Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

      by truebeliever on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 04:46:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, good for you for trying to understand (4.00 / 6)

    and help your clients.  I have heard several horror stories now from people who serve medically-needy groups (seniors with dementia, mentally ill) and it isn't pretty.

    And at Christmas one young woman at the table said she went into the pharmacy for something simple just before the holiday and the pharmacist nearly bit her head off!  She couldn't understand why he was having such a bad day until we began to discuss this plan and its craziness.

    I wish it didn't have to be this way, but this will give us a lot of ammunition for universal health, I'm afraid.  Seniors won't forget, and their kids won't forget this stupid plan.

  •  Medicare Part D is the next BIG scandal (4.00 / 17)

    The entire scheme is a crime against seniors. I hope as soon as Dems control Congress they will launch an investigation. Then immediately introduce new legislation which will make the program simple and a program for the people it is intended to serve, not the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

    This thing is replete with Republican corruption.

    •  Last Straw (4.00 / 4)

      This was the last straw for my step-mother, a lifetime republican who used to love Bush. I saw her this weekend, and she said she voted for Bush but no longer could stand him. We talked much about Plan D. She was not happy about it. She is on Medicaid, and has to go to Plan D. She gets $400 a month social security, and I don't think she will be able to afford medicine now. It is a crime.

      Signature Impaired.

      by gttim on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 04:42:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I always point Medicare Part D out (4.00 / 7)


    -- to our fellow Kossites who think that the Democrats have done a fine job for us. Remember, this legislation was passed right under the nose of the great Ted Kennedy...

    The seniors and other affected people are just going to have to scream and scream.  And those of us who care will have to push for change through electing real representatives who have the spine and will to reframe this legislation to correct it -- though I donot see how if the legislature remains in Republican hands.

    Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

    by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:40:14 AM PDT

    •  Popular outrage... (none / 0)

      reversed one Medicare drug benefit bill. Is it time for the same medicine for the same crime?
    •  re Kennedy (none / 0)

      I think, and I think he thought, that this was our only chance to get rx coverage at all. If we voted against it, on the reasonable basis that it was a monstrosity, we would have been hung out to dry. You would never hear of an rx benefit from the gop again, and when we came up with a decent one, the gop would call it socialist. Now the concept is law, the blame for what sounded good will go to the gop, and the dems (should they stumble into power) can fix it and get credit.
      •  Good point... (none / 1)


        -- The fight had to be way earlier when this thing was in committee.  It should have never been allowed out. I read somewhere that Kennedy was hoodwinked and told that the final bill would be different.  He trusted the WH and got burned.

        Ordinarily, it IS better to have half a loaf.  Unfortunately, the provisions of this law make people WORSE off because they have to give up discounts that they have now that are in many ways better than what they can get under Part D. So you see, not only did Kennedy allow a lesser bill to pass, but he made the seniors worse off. Add to that, this wasnt cheap so all that money that we don't really have is being used to fund a vastly inferior product.  All for him to avoid the POSSIBILITY of being accused of being a socialist?  Ah c'mon.  Shit. Why was he so afraid of that -- more afraid of that than of screwing all these people who cannot afford to be screwed.

        I will also add this: this law is worse than half a loaf.  It will actually damage the credibility and trust that people have in Medicare.  It was a Trojan Horse primarily designed exactly to destroy the program.

        Now -- if I can figure this risk...why couldn't Kennedy who knows the program and DC backwards and forwards and has bright young staff up the yin yang?

        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:06:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Kennedy voted against it (none / 0)

      and so did the majority of Dems, although Feinstein and 10 other Dem Senators voted for it and 9 conservative R's voted against it. Those Democrats who voted for it should be ashamed, but we shouldn't blame the whole party (except for its inability to vote along party lines, but that's another problem).

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 03:36:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hear you but (4.00 / 2)


        when do we get to expect more from them?  

        Its the same story over and over with the Dems. Silence at key points, no passion, no strong opposition.  The only thing that I can assume is that they don't really want the same change that WE do.  They don't mind tweaking stuff a little here and there -- but they don't really want to change that much -- just a little around the edges.  Unfortunately, we passed the point when tweaks would suffice a long time ago.  THAT is what stumps them.  They aren't stupid.  They just don't want to go where the situation is pointing if you are a progressive or liberal.  They keep looking for a triangulation when a whole new way is necessary.  Can't blame them... they are winners in the current way -- if it gets changed, who knows, right?

        We will have to lead this thing...and maybe they will follow then.

        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:05:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They were both right! (none / 0)

        The conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats who voted against this monstrosity were BOTH right, for different but valid reasons.  The liberal Democrats voted against it because they realized that a lot of people would be worse off.  The conservative Republicans voted against it because they thought it would be too expensive.  

        This program has achieved something that few other programs have even come close to accomplishing -- it has added tremendously to the budget deficit while at the same time actually making the people who need it most worse off than they were before.  This thing is SO bad that I really think it may have been a deliberate GOP attempt to discredit any future efforts to expand government involvement in the financing of health care.

        "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

        by leevank on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:16:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  glad you diaried about this important issue (4.00 / 7)

    it is yet another of the examples of how the policies of this administration and this Congress really do not address the needs of the people of this nation.

    I will recommend.  I hope it stays visible long enough for many others to see it and do likewise.

    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

    by teacherken on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:44:31 AM PDT

    •  i would like (none / 0)

      Kos to stay on top of this issue. If for nothing else, than to maybe prevent things getting too hairy.

      Frankly, my kids are afraid, and I'm a mama lion. I got nothing. When I was a kid I thought I was Superman. But I can't protect them from this stuff, and it makes me angry. And there is no "right way out" through the maze - no way I can use my skill and intelligence to find a safe pathway for others until they can do it themselves, which should be my job or the essence of my job, just as yours is to show them how to live in a safe environment, before they get their beau-tox kicked by this so-cruel world.
       

      •  what year were you at HC? (none / 0)

        Major?   Influential profs?? Just curious

        as you know, I was originally '67, did not grad until '73.  Personally closest to John Davison, who was my original freshman advisor, and who remained a close friend until his death.  Srted as history major, finished as music, with a fair amount of history and philosophy

        Relatioship also w/ Roger Lane -- when I was interviewed inOct '62, I had brought down some AP US History papers.  The late Archibald MacIntosh asked to borrow them.  I later found out they were used to interview Lane, whose first official act, so he told me, was to decide how much credit to give me for the AP course and exam (on which I had a 5) -- he gave me a year's worth.  When I returned to College in '71 he and I actually doubledated!!  

        Bill Reese also taught me a lot, as did Aryeh Kosman.  He's the last one of my profs from my first go around still teaching.

        do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

        by teacherken on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:01:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i am so late (none / 0)

          so need to run - graduated from the Ford in '01 - influential profs? Most was McInerney in the English dept - did they have that gorgeous cottage in the 70's too? - at the time I was still struggling with being a deaf person in a hearing college (was one of the first at the Ford, I think) and interpreters usually left right after classes. McInerney actually got one for one lovely evening at her home with other students... and then i discovered this sort of thing went on all the time, for other people. Which led me to the Great Bacardi Binge of '00. But I digress. We should compare experiences sometime.
  •  It is even worse... (4.00 / 9)

    You are right on in your analysis; however, it gets even worse. Many HIV positive persons and others with chronic, long-term diseases who were on Medicare and had PRIVATE plans that previously covered their drug costs through their employers or certain associations such as the Texas Medical Association have gotten letters stating that their private plans will no longer cover their medications due to the fact that they are now eligible for Medicare Part D. If their private plans had a small deductible, such as $1,000, they will have to pay WAY more out of pocket under Medicare. Similarly, some seniors who had a Medicap or other private plan that offered better coverage are either being forced into the Part D coverage or are signing up for it because it is so confusing. They too, will be worse off.

    What is happening is that lots of middle class Americans are being forced off of private plans and onto Medicare Part D.

    •  THANK YOU (none / 0)

      for this information. I do not currently have clients who have private plans, but I WILL need this info at some point. Do you have any links? Thanks!

      One thing though. Although they are being forced onto Medicare Part D, these are government selected private plans - in other words, companies that have come into an agreement with our government. Now, what are the terms of this agreement? Wonder. What happens if they go belly-up?

      •  Not Sure (4.00 / 2)

        My information so far is based upon experience with some of our clients who have gotten letters from their private plans stating that drug coverage will no longer be available and that they have to sign up for a Medicare plan, so I have not found any links yet and don't know how widespread the problem is or will be.

        You make a great point on the government contracting with private companies to adminsiter the plans but I don't know what their agreements are. I do know that one of our clients got a letter from his current private plan stating that his drug coverage was being cancelled because he is Medicare Part D eligible and then the same company mailed him promotional materials for the Medicare Part D plan they are administering for an additional premium!

      •  Insurers can Change Formularies! (4.00 / 3)

        We just discovered a huge problem. The insurance companies that administer the various plans approved by Medicare for drug coverage can change formularies with a 90 day notice. This means, even if we use the Medicare search engine that allows us to identify what plans cover someone's drugs now, that plan could change the formulary after they sign up!

        For someone on HIV medications, they could take the drug off the formulary. Often, such folks don't have good alternatives to their current regimens. It is the same with hypertension and many other conditions. Add to that, if a person needs to change to a new drug because their current one has stopped working, the new drug may also not be on the formulary.

        •  why is Medicare insisting (none / 1)

          that the drug companies have to sign up for a year then? is this true, I am not doubting you but where did you read this. How can anyone choose a plan for a drug that you don't know you need because you have not yet got that disease? that is basically what well people are being asked to do by telling us we shall be severely penalised by a 1% premium increase for each month we don't sign up for after May.  That is pure and unadulterated fear mongering.
          •  it is true (none / 0)

            that they can change what drugs they cover over the course of that year, yes, and also if you develop some disease which requires medication that's not covered, you may be shit out of luck... or you may get lucky. here's how it works. you call up medicare and go through a very long process of getting a medication approved. There's also the possibility that your doctor can do it for you on an emergency basis which is supposed to take 24 hours or so. What the costs involved would be - what the length of time it would take for you to get your medication - unknown.
        •  No, they can't (none / 1)

          ALL HIV meds specifically have to be covered according to DHS regs.  

          One thing to bear in mind is that many state ADAP programs are covering the so-called "donut hole" in coverage.  Here in CA, all ADAP beneficiaries who are Part D eligible are getting their co-pays and deductibles covered by ADAP.  What does stink is that they're requiring people to sign up for Part D, so there's a $25 a month or so cost that wasn't there before with ADAP.  Also, for those who aren't ADAP eligible, Humana has a plan that has no deductible and a minimal co-pay -- it works out to $90 a month for 3 antiretrovirals.  Cost is about $50 to $60 a month -- so $140-150 a month covers everything without the donut hole problem.

    •  righto....a genius of an evil plan (4.00 / 11)

      ..lets see what D did...

      Took 720 billion in taxpayer funds and gave it to corporations to 'encourage" them to continue their retiree employee plans..my company took the windfall and then upped the retiree prescription cost 400%. No joke. Resulting in pushing more formerly making it on their retirement income, into hardly or not making it, on their retirement income.

      Then the doughnut hole assures that marginally sick people will go bust in the doughnut and probably give up some of their drugs, thereby getting sicker.

      "If" they survive the doughnut, then the 50% cost afterward until they reach $5000, will finish them off unless they are rich.

      Someone who reaches $5000 in cost will save about 20% overall, counting their premium paid into the plan.

      What is really amusing, is that there were already drug plans offered by different groups out there that offered the same 20% saving, abeit not on all drugs, but neither do some of the new Medicare D plans....

      Another amusement is the fact that 'some" HMO type medicare plans "already" provided some drug coverage, although these are found mostly in meidcare plans in major population areas...people on Medicare in the sticks had no access to them.

      I doubt that there were many people on Medicare who didn't have some form of discount before D except for the people unable to get Medi-gap policies due to physical conditions anyway.

      so volia!...the corps get 720 billion, the corps get to make up all kind of new companies to "sell" their drug plans under the pea shell game of this year you have the drugs you need, next year we may not offer them, and premimuns and prices are of course subject to increase...depending on which maxmizes their profit the most..cause they can "negotiate" their prices...but the public can't "negotiate" their prices.

      it's pure bull shit...a pure congressional mafia giveaway to the insurers, the corps and the drug companies. it in no way addresses the insane cost of drugs in this country.

      Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

      by Cal45 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:27:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Giveway (4.00 / 2)

          "it's pure bull shit...a pure congressional mafia giveaway to the insurers, the corps and the drug companies. it in no way addresses the insane cost of drugs in this country."

        You are exactly right and I would like to know which of our Congressmen and Senators, Democrats and Republican) voted for this devilish plan.

        anyone have a link?

        •  would like to know too (none / 1)

          ..maybe someone has it and will post it..or we could probably goggle it.

          My repub congressman, Jones voted against it and Ted Kennedy voted against it for two...I don't know who else...

          When AARP endorsed it I sent a lettter to the prez of AARP telling him to go fuck himself and dropped my membership...piss on them...the greed factor in this country is TOTALLY out of control.

          Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

          by Cal45 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:46:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  AARP has a bigger plan in its site (none / 0)

            They felt that getting something passed was important..."getting the nose of the camel under the tent." As someone said above, once the legislation is enacted no matter how insufficient it is, at least it can be improved at a later date.

            Trying to get a bigger package passed in one piece would have been impossible.  Unless there is an overwhelming majority of Dems in congress, it would never happen. And that's  unlikely, even if we do well in 2006. So AARP decided that doing it in steps was the only way to get this type of program on track.

            It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

            by auapplemac on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:41:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  That's exactly what happened (4.00 / 3)

      to my mother! She had decent coverage through her Medicare supplemental insurance (through my now deceased dad's company) and they said they were no longer covering prescription drugs, but we still have to pay just as much premium for doctor/hospital coverage now! So our new Part D plan adds to the premium cost (extra $50.29/month) and has higher deductible, etc. We end up paying more! Luckily, so far her drug costs don't go into the "donut" level. If and when they do, all I can say is ouch!

      It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

      by kathika on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:57:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am not sure you understand the basic benefit! (4.00 / 5)

    I agree with what you are saying in general, but I am not sure you are explaining the true deductible cost to the patient correctly in the basic program. See the link and explanation below!

    This means that beneficiaries must have $3,600 in out-of-pocket costs in 2006 to reach the $5,100 threshold, at which point the program's catastrophic coverage takes effect. This $3,600 figure is the sum of the $250 deductible plus 25 percent of costs up to $2,250 ($500) plus the $2,850 that must be spent before you can climb out of the doughnut hole. An article in the journal Health Affairs concludes that this doughnut hole could be deadly for some: those with high out-of-pocket drug costs are likely to cut back even on essential medications while in this coverage gap. (One way to avoid the coverage gap is to pick a plan with low drug prices, since it is accumulating drug costs that brings you closer to the gap -- not low premiums, co-payments or deductibles.)

    •  well, that's the point of this diary (4.00 / 2)

      My information comes from training sessions at GMHC and through Social Security. The fact is that the language used by Medicare/SSA is specifically vague.

      That being said, I do understand that 3,600 is out of pocket and thought I said that but you added a new level of clarity - thank you! And thanks for the link.

  •  Model (4.00 / 6)

    What you are describing is the model plan.  The actual plans that are being offered vary widely, from no deductible, no out-of-pocket through $2250, to uniform coverage up through $3600 out-of-pocket, and many other variations.  The plan must be "actuarially" comparable to the model, but I don't know what that means.  Also factor in that most of the companies involved have negotiated their own pricing with various retailers, and you could have two substantially identical programs with very different costs, depending on whether your specific drugs are better priced from one of the companies.

    The only way to know which plan is best is to run through them with your specific medications and get pricing.  You can probably get this info from the companies themselves, but you can also go to www.medicare.gov and go through their plan evaluator.  It allows you to enter your specific meds and dosages, and will find all available plans for your region and give you an estimated cost per year.  It's actually not a bad tool, assuming the numbers are reasonably accurate.  It would also be nice to see a detailed breakout of how the numbers were calculated, but that's not there.  For some plans, it's easy to figure out.  For some, not.

    My sister works at a facility where 99% of the patients are on Medicaid.  She and a few others have spent the last several months going through and trying to figure out the best route for their patients.  It is a nightmare for her.

    Government can't restrict free speech, but corporations can? WTF

    by kyoders on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:07:09 AM PDT

    •  call me a cynic (4.00 / 8)

      ..but you realize of course that ALL the plans can CHANGE their prices and drug menu AT WILL. You may suddently find your drug no longer offered or only offered at a premium price..

      Now why do I have the feeling that they will use their initial plan to lure you in and then..so sorry, cost have gone up routine...must be because I am so old I have seen it all before.

      Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

      by Cal45 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:39:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And that's just another benefit (none / 0)

      Keeping her busy on idiotic, useless tasks, vs actually serving people' s real health needs.
    •  Great way (none / 1)

      for .gov to get all your drug info too, eh?

      The only way to know which plan is best is to run through them with your specific medications and get pricing.  You can probably get this info from the companies themselves, but you can also go to www.medicare.gov and go through their plan evaluator.  It allows you to enter your specific meds and dosages, and will find all available plans for your region and give you an estimated cost per year.

      Wonder how they'll use it. Be a great way for the manufacturer to know how they can increase profits most efficiently.

      Hands off my Social Security, John McCain.

      by emmasnacker on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:57:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Family member is in nursing home (none / 0)

      I'm going to have to figure this out.  Have hotlisted this diary so I can come back to it and get the links.

      War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

      by Margot on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:37:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am thinkin (none / 1)

    that this whole thing was deliberately made complicated to discourage people. Is that too cynical? NAW
    •  yes (none / 1)

      but perhaps not in the right way.

      People are signed up for this whether or not they want to. So the confusion isn't about that. I think the confusion is more to make people unsure of what theyre getting, or why, and not to question.

      The way confusion usually is.

      •  indeed n/t (none / 0)

      •  and the government is forcing (4.00 / 2)

        people to sign up for this  Medicare plan D by instituting a percentage penalty per each month a person fails to sign up starting this May. In other words, even if a Medicare recipient has a Medigap policy that covers a majority of their drug needs and at some point of time needs to switch to the Medicare Plan D for financial or other reasons they have to pay a penalty which in a year's time(12 months) would amount to a 12% higher premium. That is one way the government is screwing elders with this plan.

        And also this bill does not allow the government or the insurance companies providing these plans to negotiate with the drug companies for bulk rate lower prices.

        This is a plan that is not for  the benefit of "we the people" but it is a plan to line the pockets of the drug companies and the insurance companies thanks to spineless government officials and the lobbyists they bow down to.

        •  Partly correct (4.00 / 2)

          You are correct about the penalty if you delay signing up for Part D. But if you have an existing plan that offers comparable coverage, which in the jargon is called "creditable coverage", then you are exempt from the penalty, and have 63 days from the ending of the creditable coverage to switch over to Part D before the penalty starts accruing. So if you have coverage from a retirement plan, for example, they should have sent you a letter stating that they offer creditable coverage, and if you've got that, you're okay. (I would save that letter, though.)

          I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

          by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:32:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary jr. (none / 1)

    My parent passed a few years ago. I remember all the hassles I had with Medicare. This new version I can't imagine. Just thankful I don't have to worry about - for the moment.

    Single payer, UHC.

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:29:48 AM PDT

  •  As a senior, let me add my 2 cents... (4.00 / 13)

    I HATE this program.  I am disabled and receive disablity payments and social security.  And since disabled I am on medicare and subscribe to an HMO which deals with medicare.  I HAD a good drug plan.  Then I receive a letter stating that if I do not sign up to Part D, not only will they cancel their existing drug plan, but will cancel my entire policy.  My neighbor (82 yrs and still bright and energetic) has Blue Cross/Blue Sheild and they threatened her too.  Sign up for Part D or lose all insurance.  Voluntary plan? No way.

    What a scam.  And that is what it is.  This is a federal give away to insurance companies WITHOUT any benefit to seniors that I have been able to find so far.  

    It was mentioned that drugs for seizures were disallowed? My ex-husband has epilepsy and has taken massive amounts of barbituates for over 50 years.  Huge cost.  You mean they won't cover these drugs at all???? Did I say this was a scam??

  •  The silver lining, of course (4.00 / 4)

    is that you can tell them the money saved by putting them through this -- yes, even if they die as a result -- is going into the hands of the super wealthy families in this country.

    First, in the form of tax cuts, second in the form of profits to drug companies.

    What's not to like?

    (It's all sarcasm.)

  •  as one of those lucky people (4.00 / 2)

    who are supposed to be the benficiary of this Monty Pyton piece of legislation I think you have every reason to be scared witless.  The entire bill is a scam, a fraud and a calumny!  it benfits only the drug and insurance agencies and they are clueless as is the govrernment regarding how to administer it. It will be a nightmare and America might just as well put its old out to die under the bushes (no pun intneded) like the People of the Kalahari.  I have refused to have any part of it as I practice wellness and don't even take any prescription drugs. I am fortunate that I have that choice, all it will cost me is money, with many people it will cost them their lives. It is murder by corporations.
    •  actually this bill makes perfect sense (4.00 / 4)

      Your problem is that you think of government as a way for people to work together to do things they couldnt do alone to benefit everyone.

      BushCo thinks of Government as a way to tax wage earners and give the proceeds back to their families and friends.  Very much a protection racket, like the mafia.  Deaths which might "happen" are just part of the cost of doing business. Collateral damages.

      This program does not surprise me at all - pharma paid GWB almost 1 million
      and other congress leaders more]  Pharma Lobbyists wrote it, and DeLay held the vote open for 6 hours to intimidate repubs to switch their no votes.

      In sum:

      "The revolving door between the White House and K Street has made the Bush administration indistinguishable from the [pharmaceutical] industry."

      http://www.citizen.org/...

  •  They never told us about the cuts! (4.00 / 10)

    We need MORE diaries like this!

    Finally, more diaries on the subject of the Medicare fiasco.  We were beginning to think that we (or more specifically, my wife's grandmother and those of us helping her) were suffering in silence. Why isn't the media covering this more?   The Democrats should be collectively screaming about it!  My wife, who agrees with me politically but is not a "polictico" by any stretch of the imagination was so angered by the whole mess that after reading this article, she wrote the following letter to the article's author.  It speaks volumes.


    Dear Ms. Pender,
    Thank you so much for your article on Medicare Part D on 12/11/05.   Your article clearly describes the steps needed to choose a  prescription drug plan.  Like you, I have been helping my 90 year old  grandmother who speaks no English choose a drug plan.  She lives in  Washington State and is on Medicare and Medicaid.  I have been reading the government website as well as numerous others sites on  this topic.  All they have done is make me even more confused.  I  have learned more from your article than any of the other information  I have read.  It was also heartening to know that I am not alone in this struggle.  Thank you.

    Prior to reading your article, I tried to call a hotline for help (I  
    can't remember which one, I called so many) and the machine told me  to leave a message and due to the large volume of calls, they will  return my call in a few DAYS!  DAYS!!!  When I tried to look for  information in Chinese on Medicare.gov, it leads me to a Site Error.   So much for providing multi-lingual assistance.

    As described in Victoria Colliver's article today (12/12/05) on dual- eligibles, my grandmother whose income depends entirely on social  security, will have to pay co-pays under this new drug plan.  Though  the amount may seem small, it is a sizable portion of her monthly  income when we add up the number of prescription medication she  takes.  The co-pay she will pay represents a couple days' meal for  her.  Furthermore, under her previous coverage, Medicaid pays for  over-the-counter medication such as cough syrups and eye drops.   Under the new plan, she pays out of pocket.  She is definitely not  
    benefiting from Medicare Part D.

    As a Medicaid recipient, she received a letter assigning her to a no- premium-no-deductible plan.  Sounds good, right?  Wrong.  When I  looked into it, that plan does not cover one of the medication she  takes so her co-pay for that drug was $14.  Total out of pocket would  be over $20 per month if she had followed their suggested plan.  Upon  further research on the web, (again, web sites my grandmother has no  access to, let alone use) I found a plan where her out of pocket is around $10, for now.  Even $10 can buy a lot of food for an elderly  
    person.  Another item to note is that her food stamp assistance  
    amount has decreased from $70 per month from a few years ago to $40  per month.  So not only is she receiving less money for food, she now has to pay out of pocket for medication!  Benefits are being cut left  and right in this country.

    This new Prescription Drug Benefit hurts the poorest and most  
    vulnerable people in this country.  For people who do not have family  who can help them, they are at the mercy of what the government tells them - and in our situation, it was not the right solution for my  grandmother.  Given the scope and impact of this new Medicare plan,  why we are not seeing this on the front page of every major  newspaper?  The path to choosing the best prescription drug plan was  incredibly complex, outrageous, and ridiculous.  And as you mentioned in our article, phone support is virtually worthless.  Unless the  person can navigate the internet (I can but even I was confused!), it  is impossible to get a good answer.

    Thanks again for shedding some light on this topic!

    Sincerely,

    [Name removed]


    "You underestimate Bush at your peril: it takes a brilliant man to feign utter and complete globe-spanning stupidity." Hunter of DailyKos

    by mrclean on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:36:45 AM PDT

  •  Here are some links for ya.... (4.00 / 4)

    I know our local Council on Aging is working overtime to help seniors get signed up....

    Check out www.ncoa.org

    And then check out this access to benefits coalition site; you can search to see if there is a local coalition in your area:

    http://www.accesstobenefits.org/

    I am trying to figure it out as well.... and even when I think I 'understand' Part D, I have no confidence that I really do.

    The bottom line is: this ENSURES that Big Pharm will get massive premiums for very little return...all right up front, until, yes, many people will just get killed off, literally.  It's $10 billion to Big Pharma right off the bat.

    Another evil twist is: an insurer can drop a drug at ANY TIME, and change the cost of a drug at ANY TIME, giving the person 30 days notice.  I think (?) they can elect a new insurance company... but they have to start from ground zero and go through the maze again.

    It's sick, sick, sick.

    I was chatting with a republican 'friend'... whose grandmother can't figure out how to get benefits....in the next breath, she slammed Clinton for having sex in the oval office.  Still harping on and on about that.... as the ONLY defense for her beloved bush.  Even as her grandmother is left twisting in the wind...

    Every dollar a for-profit insurance company spends on your care, is a dollar that goes against the coroporate balance sheet. --nyceve

    by letsfight on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:42:37 AM PDT

    •  "Elect a new insurance company" (none / 1)

      No...the program is designed so that they are stuck with the plan they have for the rest of the year (there is an annual enrollment period at the end of the year when changes can be made). There may be an exception during the first year of the program (I think in May, not sure), but after that, they're stuck...

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:26:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't give you a link (none / 1)

    but heard something on the news warning that there will be an unknown period of time in which you may not be able to get the drugs you need. (Think FEMA efficiency.)

    The Justice Department is no longer a credible defender of the rule of law or the Constitution.

    by Overseas on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:49:17 AM PDT

    •  Read comments above (none / 1)

      about the "doughnut hole".

      It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

      by kathika on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, not the doughnut hole (none / 1)

        More like you will go to the pharmacy to get your prescription filled and they won't be able to do it because the insurer is all screwed up in the paperwork side. So even if you are covered you will have to pay out-of-pocket for x months until the mess is straightened out. Whether you will ever be reimbursed is another matter.

        The Justice Department is no longer a credible defender of the rule of law or the Constitution.

        by Overseas on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:22:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, this scares me too (4.00 / 3)

          This whole plan depends on computers at the point of sale being able to figure out what plan you're in and what to charge you based on your past spending (deductibles, total out-of-pocket, etc.) So all these retail drugstores have to be tied into the Medicare database. My experience so far with doing "personalized searches" on people who have supposedly been assigned to a plan has shown that maybe 40% of the time it actually knows what plan they've been assigned to. So I agree that getting all of this working properly will be another nightmare. I wouldn't like to be a druggist right about now.

          I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

          by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:35:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I hope this leads to form of universal care (4.00 / 6)

    ...I don't give a rats's ass if I or anyone else has to wait a year for non essential surgery ..while a accutely ill person gets ahead of me...that's what the priority should be anyway.

    That's the way it works on the battlefield and that's what we have right now, a battlefield in the war between us and the drug company, insurance company ruled politicans.

    Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

    by Cal45 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:49:21 AM PDT

    •  Your elective surgery may be my (none / 0)

      necessity!

      If you need knee or hip surgery, but it's not life threatening, you try limping around in pain for 6 months or more. If I'm in pain, I guess you would prescribe something like VIOXX (before taken off the market).

      Suppose your kid had a chronic painful condition vs. someone elses childe with a congenital heart problem? Why should your child have to wait in pain?

      I like the idea of some form of universal health care, but waiting for treatment is not the answer.

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by auapplemac on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 02:00:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't blame you (4.00 / 7)

    It won't affect me or my family for a few years, since my wife and I both have a few years to go before turning 65, but from everything I've read about this, I just thank God that they didn't do this when my mother was still in the early stages of Alzheimer's and was desperately trying to maintain her independence by insisting on taking care of things like dealing with Medicare herself for as long as possible.  She would have been even more of a nervous wreck than she was (and that was pretty bad).  

    I have yet to talk to the first person who works in the health care field who thinks this is anything other than completely insane.  It would be bad enough if Medicare beneficiaries were young to middle-aged professionals, since just about everybody I know who fits that description and is trying to help out an elderly relative feels like they're incapable of understanding it, but the typical Medicare beneficiary is old or disabled, is dealing with lots of other sources of stress, and is unlikely to be able to cope with this at all.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

  •  good luck (none / 0)

    I thought I was dreading work today...
  •  I have been working as a volunteer... (4.00 / 6)

    ... two afternoons a week, running the online tool to help people try to figure out which plan is the best for them. After a half-day of training, and another day or so of working with the tool and reading everything I can get my hands on, I think I mostly understand how things work. Everything said above is pretty much correct - it is a huge and horrible nightmare.

    I have been working mostly with dual eligibles who were automatically assigned to a random plan. When you enter their medications, you find that maybe half of them have been put in a plan that doesn't cover all their medications. So we give them a report suggesting where they might want to switch.

    The Massachusetts state plan will help a bit by picking up the costs of the classes of excluded drugs (barbituates, etc.) for those in Medicaid. They also have passed an emergency bill to fund a 30-day supply for people who have been assigned to a plan that doesn't cover their medications, to give them time to switch.

    One thing I didn't see anyone else mention is that if you pay the full price for a non-covered drug, that does not count toward the total "out-of-pocket" of $3600 that gets you into the higher-coverage portion of the plan. The $3600 only counts what you pay towards drugs that are covered by the plan you pick. Quite a nice little catch-22.

    To get the best results, everyone really should run through the online tool with the drugs that they take to be sure they're in the lowest-cost plan. And then do it again every year on Nov. 15 (the start of the annual open enrollment period) to make sure that you're still in the lowest-cost plan. It's quite likely that the plans will change quite a bit every year, in addition to the fact that you will likely change what medications you are taking.

    A bit of a help for dual eligibles - they are allowed to change plans every month.

    If you have any questions relating to your own situation, feel free to send me email at lturek at comcast dot net. I'll try to help you out if I can. I am more familiar with the situation in Massachusetts, however, than in other states.

    I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

    by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:09:25 AM PDT

    •  Could you please post a link to that tool? (none / 0)

      Assuming it's public...

      Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say... (from "Creatures of Light and Darkness", R. Zelazny)

      by SadEagle on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:21:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Directions to the online tool (and a few hints) (4.00 / 3)

        There's a link on medicare.gov (Compare Prescription Drug Plans), but to go directly there it's here.

        You can do a Personalized search (which is supposed to tell you if the person is already in a plan - it seems to work some of the time) or a General Search. If you do a General Search, the next page, you fill in your zip code and answer some questions on your current plan. If you're just trying to get an idea, just select None of the Above, and No for if you're Eligible for Extra Help and click on Continue.

        Next page, click on Choose a Drug Plan Type.

        Next page, you probably want C, Search for Medicare Prescription Drug Plans.

        Next page, go to section B. Enter My Medications.

        Enter each drug name and click Search for Drug. If there is an exact match, it will go into your drug list. If there are several close matches, you'll get a list to choose from. Enter all your drugs. If you have some name-brand drugs in the list, you can choose to uncheck "Use lower cost generic drugs when available". If you leave that checked it will automatically substitute and that might not be what you want. Then click on Continue with Selected Drugs.

        Next you'll get a Yes/No choice. Pick Yes Change/Update my drug dosage and quantity.

        Now for each drug, there will be a menu of standard dosages to choose from. My tip here is to FIRST fill in all the dosages and then go back and put in the monthly quantities. (The reason is that if you do the quantities first, the next time you change a dosage it repaints the screen and erases the quantities. So first do all the dosages, then do all the quantities.) When done, click on Update Dosage/Quantity.

        Now, a little lower on the same screen, click on Continue with Selected Drugs.

        Now you get a Yes/No in regard to pharmacies. My advice is to NOT select a preferred pharmacy at this point. The reason is that sometimes when you do that, your costs look a lot higher than otherwise if you pick a pharmacy that's not in any plan's preferred network. Just click on Continue to Plan List.

        BINGO! You're now at the plan comparison, which is a list of plans in your area in order of increasing monthly costs.

        A few more tips. You can select up to 3 plans (by clicking in the checkboxes) and then Compare up to 3 Plans button. This will show you the monthly premiums and the actual cost to you of each of your medications. If you hit the donut hole, it will show you the costs in the donut hole, and if you hit the 95% level, it will show you those costs also.

        Back in the original list, you might also want to select View Notes for each plan, which will tell you if its a national plan, and other miscellaneous information. Also, very important, if you select View Cost Details, that will show you if any drugs are not on the formulary or have other limitations (look for the little asterisk). And if you click on the # of pharmacies, it will show the preferred pharmacies in your zip code. You can also enroll in a plan right there.

        Further down the page, you can change the number of plans displayed, can select a pharmacy, and can change your medication list.

        I hope this is useful to someone. If any questions, contact me at lturek at comcast dot net and I'll try to help.

        I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

        by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:16:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh. my. god. (4.00 / 3)

      You can't be serious:  other non-covered meds don't count to the deductible????

      Holy starving seniors, batman...that is truly evil....

      I had no idea.

      •  It is evil (4.00 / 4)

        It is similar to the HMO trap whereby if you go to a non-covered provider (even if its the anaesthesiologist in a covered hospital with a covered surgeon where you are having surgery, his/her costs don't count towards the deductible and don't count towards the catastrophic out of pocket maximum either).  I've been personally burned to the tune of 12 k by this ploy.  

        But its even worse for seniors who are on multiple meds--not only are they not equivalent in activity, but what is a stable regimen may well be compromised by a change in one drug.  That's because the changed medication may well alter the absorption or metabolism of the other drugs the patient is on.  So changing meds to try to avoid these extra uncovered costs may also have terrible costs to the health of the patient.

        Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

        by barbwires on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 02:17:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and I don't mean so imply... (4.00 / 3)

        that you aren't serious; as I read that later I was afraid it looked bad....

        I was just so stunned at that revelation I was floundering.

        And what I should have added, lesliet, is that I thank you for your volunteer work with the seniors in my state.  You are a good neighbor.

        I'm sure you have made a difference for many people, you are really knowledgeable about this.

        •  I totally understood (4.00 / 2)

          I've been working hard to understand this plan, but I certainly don't defend it. And after working with it for a month or so, I completely understand people's amazement and outrage. So I totally understood what you were saying, no need to apologize.

          I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

          by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 03:01:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Evil indeed.......... (none / 1)

        I have concluded this "plan" was designed to drive those over 65 into heart attack mode thereby saving the govmint many dollars.

        Two things I haven't seen mentioned are the requirement that beneficiaries may be forced to try a  cheaper drug  than prescribed by their doctor.  Only after experimentation will the plan consider covering what the doctor ordered.  Secondly, insurers can change their formularies every 60 days but the insured can only change plans once a year.

        And about that $2,250 - that is not the amount paid by the insurer, that is the total accumulated by both the insured and the insurer.  And since there is no way to know how much the insurer will claim, there is no way to know for certain when you will "fall into the hole".

        This damn "benefit" is an abomination.  It was all lies from day one.  Advertised at a cost of $400 Billion over ten years when the Medicare actuary had already informed his superiors the true cost would be in excess of $724 billion.  He of course had to keep the truth under wraps when his job was threatened if he told that truth to congress.

        This is about drug and insurance company profits, nothing more.  Democrats should have fillibusterd the bill but knew they'd be accused of hating seniors in addition to loving terrorists.

  •  A crime what the congress has foisted on us. (4.00 / 4)

    It is horrible for all  Medicare and  Medicaid people who need these expensive drugs. My daughter with MS, can't afford health insurance of any kind.

    A lot of seniors, like myself, basically live on S.S., ($900),  and if their meds cost $200 a month; that doesn't leave much to live on . . . and I know the pitch "SS is not supposed to be your only source of income, you were supposed to save all your working years to take care of yourself". In theory, that is fine, but if you had your savings used up in the 80's and in the more recent depression, or lose your pension (Enron), you end up depending on SS to survive.  After 40 it isn't always easy to get a job or hang on to an old one. . .

    As for myself, I am 74, still  working.  

    Thank goodness, I don't need many expensive drugs; what I do need I get from Canada and Australia.    I have no intention of signing up for their Drug Program, which I consider blackmail by the drug and insurance companies.

    I am sure they will cut off my source eventually, and I will have to pay full price for the drugs or go without.

    •  don't despair please (4.00 / 2)

      I think the best action anyone who has that choice is NOT to sign up right now. I still retain faith that eventually the system works itself through these dreadfully misplaced pieces of legislation. I believe the government is trying to scare everone into signing up to benefit the insurance and drug companies. So, unless your absolute life depnds on continuing drug coverage don't sign up. The entire plan's financial success depends on those of us well enough top pay for it without using the benefits. Don't buy into this fearmongering and scare tactics. I wish I were a lawyewr and could figure out if there is somethign illegal about forcing people to buy insurance by cancelling their existing plans. It sure smells to me. Not everyone out here over 65 or even 90 is gaga. We know what is happening and we can stop it.
      •  Read it in the regulations... (none / 1)

        I looked up the regulations, which seem to say they can alter the formulary at each new plan year and 60 days after the plan year with 60 days prior notice (I may be reading that second part wrong -- the regulations are very confusing).

        The larger problem I was trying to get at is inherent with formularies. People often need to change drugs. The drug they need to change to may or may not be on the formulary for the plan they chose earlier.

        •  Changing drugs (4.00 / 3)

          Yes, this is another big gotcha. Of course, people change the drugs they're taking from month to month, not conveniently during the open enrollment period. It's another example of medicine by insurance rather than medicine by doctor.

          There is a provision that your doctor can appeal for coverage of a non-covered drug if they can make a case that the particular drug is medically necessary. I have no idea how cumbersome this process is and how likely it is that doctors will be willing to take the trouble. (And it's more paperwork for doctors - do we wonder why our health care costs are soaring???)

          if you go to medicare.gov and click on Landscape of local plans, you can get a PDF that lists all the plans for your state. For each plan, it shows the percentage of the 100 most common drugs that are covered by that plan. This can give you an idea of which plans are most inclusive.

          I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

          by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 02:06:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you......... (none / 0)

        And apparantly so are millions of others.  Before the weekend only a million had signed on.  The 20 million they advertise are those who were on Medicaid who were automatically transferred and assigned to various insurers.  
      •  Penalty (none / 0)

        The government goons who passed this piece of sh*t legislation made sure they scared the crap out of seniors by adding a penalty. For every month you don't sign up, but were eligible (After May 31, 2006), you have to pay a penalty for the rest of that enrollment year if you decide to enroll at a later time.  So the website warns that you should go ahead and sign up to avoid the penalty. But this is nonsensical, because you may not need medications at this point, yet later on you may.  Different States offer different plans.  In Texas, you have approximately 40 plans to choose from.  You're supposed to assess the meds you take, the location of the pharmacies that sell your brand of meds, and other factors.  However, the drugs can go up in price and companies can change the formularies. So you might get all squared away with company and pharmacy, then find out they no longer carry your medication.  This is probably the most convoluted, cruel legislation I've ever seen.

        "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

        by rlharry on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:54:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Criminal in more ways than one (4.00 / 2)

      I sympathize with all out there who must deal with the Prescription Maze of a plan. A doctor I know says it is and will be horrendous. Take heart, perhaps, in that Sen. McCain said it was a nightmare and must be changed. There must be more outcry, directly to the politicans. Many have not signed up, I suspect, because those who have their own supplemental or a state plan cannot do better than what they have now.

      But here's the criminality: If the legislation passed by the narrowest of margins, 2 votes, and two of those votes are from those who are currently indicted or facing indictment, or had to resign (I am thinking of DeLay and Cunningham, but in hours could there not be more?), can we not demand a re-consideration of such a vote? And besides, it was simply against the rules of the House, as Barney Frank and others have pointed out, to keep the vote open. Keep up the good fight. Complain, give congressmen and the media the specifics. Take heart.

  •  Just add this on to the motherfucking pile. (none / 1)





  •  I'm hopeful (4.00 / 5)

    I'm hopeful, but probably naieve to think that when the mass of baby boomers actually arrives upon the medicare doorstep there will be such a howl of protest the government will actually be forced to re-write the rules.

    I have great empathy for your patients and applaud you for a choice of career that is every bit as necessary and heroic as that of the over-hyped military, firemen and police. But my feelings on that issue should be reserved for another post.

    Your diary prompted me to pull out my family's monthly prescription drug receipts. Our Walgreen's receipts show the actual cost of the prescription, point out how much of that is being paid by my insurance and then lists my co-pay charge.

    For my wife and I, aged 59 and 57 respectively, we are currently purchasing, each month, six separate prescriptions as presicribed by our doctor.

    Those drugs are:

    Benazapril (wife and me) Cost per each: 26.99 co-pay is 5.00 each for a total of 10.00

    Protonix (wife) Cost: 253.99 Co-pay: 15.00

    Levothyroxine (wife) Cost: 15.89 Co-pay: 5.00

    Atenolol (wife) Cost 13.99 Co-pay: 5.00

    Paroxetine (wife) Cost 88.99 Co-pay: 5.00

    The annual retail cost of our prescribed medicines is $5,122.08 for which we pay under my current insurance plan the nominal annual cost of $480.00.

    Upon my retirement we will lose our insurance and prescription drug benefit and move onto the medicare roll.

    Assuming no change in our prescribed medicines at that time, and knowing we will have to apply for drug coverage under the standard benefit, our annual cost for prescribed medicines will change to:

    5,122.08 - 250.00 = 4,872.08   $250.00 deductible

    4,872.08 x 25% = 1,218.02   $1,218.02 co-pay

    250.00 + 1,218.02 = 1,468.02  Annual medicare cost to us of same drugs will be $1,468.02.

    So, if I have this figured correctly, I can expect that when I retire to my fixed income, the cost of necessary prescriptions will immmediately jump from a monthly average of $40.00 to the higher monthly level of $122.34 --- a 328% increase.

    Oh no, I'm not gonna scream bloody murder. Nope, won't scream at all. I haven't even calculated in the additional cost of our prescribed medicines which is not covered beyond the initial coverage limit of $2,250.00. My understanding though is that there is a full coverage window up there somewhere. Need to investigate that a little bit more.

    Thank you for a great diary and forcing me to take a real hard look at what Medicare, Part D means to me.

    •  Some corrections to your calculations (4.00 / 4)

      Rick,

      One mistake you made was adding your and your wife's medications together. Under Part D, each of you must have your own plan. So you will each have the $250 deductible (if you pick a plan that has a deductible), and the donut hole will be calculated on the basis of each of your spending separately.

      There is no full coverage, but there is 95% coverage when you get to $3600 out-of-pocket on drugs. Again, that would be $3600 for each of you, not both added together.

      But because every plan is slightly different, to really be sure, the best thing to do is to run through the online calculator and plug in the actual drugs (including dosages and number of pills/month). The calculator does a pretty good job of showing costs for each of the available plans in your area. Some plans pay for generic drugs in the donut hole; others don't have a deductible. And some have a fixed tiered co-pay instead of a 25% co-pay.

      As a rough rule-of-thumb, the most benefit anyone (who doesn't hit the 95% coverage point) would get from this plan is about $1140. Basically, there is about $2000 worth of 75% coverage, so that gets you $1500, minus the premiums (average premium in MA is about $30/month, so that's $360/year).

      But that calculation is based on comparing costs to paying full retail. If you get drugs from Canada, then you're not paying as much to start with, so you might do just as well continuing to do that.

      I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

      by lesliet on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:55:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, Lesliet (none / 0)

        Thank you, Lesliet. I didn't even think about the issues yo