Monday, November 27, 2006

Is it just a propaganda offensive from drug companies and their GOP allies, or is the prescription-drug benefit actually working?

>


Is it possible that the Medicare prescription-drug program has been a success?

According to yesterday's Washington Post ("Success of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats; Medicare Benefit's Cost Beat Estimates"), it "has proven cheaper and more popular than anyone imagined."

It's not entirely surprising to learn that "drug-company lobbyists, Bush administration officials and many congressional Republicans are preparing to block any effort to increase federal control over drug prices, saying the Medicare benefit is working well."

Already this sounds suspicious, though, because "increase federal control over drug prices" is lobbyist-speak for what most of us would describe as "try to alter the prohibition in the drug-benefit enabling legislation which explicitly banned the government from attempting to negotiate lower drug prices." You do have to wonder--even though you know of course that Washington Post editors and reporters would never, ever let themselves be used as propagandists for the administration and its private-sector partners in the drug and insurance industries.

However, Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee do report:

Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior's drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600. By the latest estimates, 3 million to 4 million seniors will hit the doughnut hole this year and pay full price for drugs while also paying drug-plan premiums.

The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month.

Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.


As someone who has written on a number of occasions that the program was a scam being perpetrated on senior citizens for the benefit of the drug and insurance companies (who certainly seem to be making out like bandits from it), I would love to know if I've been wrong. I admit that I'm unrepentantly suspicious, since it doesn't seem logical that everyone involved is coming out ahead financially and the cost is lower than anyone anticipated. If it is true, I'm inclined to think that it goes beyond good news into the realm of the miraculous.

In which case, I guess we should all shout "Hallelujah!" But first, could we have some independent verification? Believe it or not, this would not be the first time that the Bush administration has used the strategy of getting its story out first, even though the story turns out to be a pack of lies. By my count, it would be closer to, uh, the zillionth time. And I'm embarrassed to have to point out that on a fair number of those occasions, the Washington Post indeed has lent its news space to the propaganda campaign.

Perhaps Mr. Krugman, whose interest in the Medicare prescription-drug benefit is well-established, will be looking into it?

6 Comments:

At 6:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One sign that this is bullshit is that the original "first year projected costs" for the drug benefit was $38.1 billion. Since that number was based on then "current" drug expenditures by seniors, the fact that it only cost $26 billion in its first year suggests that far fewer seniors actually signed up for he program than were anticipated.

Add that to the fact that 20% of seniors are dissatisfied with the program -- suggesting that they aren't getting the benefits they thought they would get -- and you can see why this may well be nothing more than Big Pharma/Bush regime propaganda.

 
At 6:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

80% satisfaction with an insurance plan is horrendous. What you have to remember is that the vast majority of those covered do not spend much on drugs. Many people that have only a few hundred dollars or less have enrolled out of fear. (The penalty for not signing immediately) Also, in only one year, many have not yet had a major illness and have not yet had to deal with the HMO's they were forced into. The way that I read this is that the vast majority who are really affected are dissatisfied. If only 20% reached the donut hole (a guess, but entirely feasible), that translates to up to 100% dissatisfaction. Most people are relatively satisfied with their insurance until they have to use it. Just ask the people in New Orleans if you doubt this.

 
At 7:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it is true, then it portends well for a single payer system.

 
At 2:23 PM, Blogger Santino said...

Por la palabra Democracia, se hacen verdaderas atrocidades.

La lucha de la droga tendria facil erradicacion sino no hubieses tantos intereses, con dejarlas libre mercado y venta en famracias (pues hay peores que es ese tipo de drogas.

Buen Blog, animo amigos/as de EEUU, un abrazo desde EspaƱa

 
At 7:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've heard people on the Washington Journal who call in and say they are hurting because of it and that they voted democratic in the hopes of the Medicare D being either cancelled or seriously overhauled.
My mother never signed on for it so, she was not affected. They said if you didn't sign you'd loose coverage. She has things as they always were.

 
At 1:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Investors watch Eli Lilly shares drop $2.80 post election.

My issue is Zyprexa which is only FDA approved for schizophrenia (.5-1% of pop) and some bipolar (2% pop) and then an even smaller percentage of theses two groups.

So how does Zyprexa get to be the 7th largest drug sale in the world?

Eli Lilly is in deep trouble for using their drug reps to 'encourage' doctors to write zyprexa for non-FDA approved 'off label' uses.

The drug causes increased diabetes risk,and medicare picks up all the expensive fallout.There are now 7 states (and counting) going after Lilly for fraud and restitution.

---
Daniel Haszard

 

Post a Comment

<< Home