> I understand how future increases get passed onto seniors, but there is
> still pressure to cut on the amounts that government will pay starting in
> 2006 itself. This is why big Pharma has feared the bill from the beginning;
> they like the cash coming there way, but it could easily come at a price if
> government gets involved-- as they have in every other country where
> government pays the cost of prescription drugs. It's will just be too big a
> bullseye in the budget to ignore.
But big Pharma loves the Medicare bill this precisely because of the lack of price controls. More money in the pockets of their consumers. Pharma has too be expecting the axe is slowly swinging their way and the Repubs saved their bacon-ex. You are right to suggest government MIGHT get involved at some point but that means currently this bill is a legislated windfall. Any future government price controls/formularies/patent law changes would happen with or without this bill. What's stopping them now?
The bill does promote the use of generics a bit which is a good thing.
> Although the shift of some of the costs of prescription drugs from Medicaid
> to the new Medicare prescription drug program may be one of the most
> progressive results of the bill. The estimate is that this will leave an
> additional $30 billion in Medicaid available for other purposes over the
> next decade-- and probably add up to even more additional funds just by
> relieving the program of the likely escalating costs of prescription drugs
> over time.
This is an excellent and important point. Medicare will be the primary payer for the dually-eligible and this is a good thing for Medicaid. I was very worried when Repubs were trying to make Medicaid the primary payer for the dually-eligible--this is one of the few helpful concessions made in the final bill(I am not sure who to thank but Kennedy is pretty good on Medicaid issues).
>>I do think it is sad that so much of the political leadership in both
>>parties, the media,
>>and Nathan are more concerned with the myriad political implications of
>>this bill's passage than the actual implications to the well-being of Medicare
>> recipients.
> Jim-- unfair shot. I specifically said I thought the bill will lead to
> better results on policy overall. You can cite the areas where it won't,
> but $400 billion in additional spending is not chicken feed and will improve
> the lives of a lot of folks who were too wealthy to get Medicaid, but too
> poor to afford medicine as things stand.
Including your name the list above was unfair but I am pretty exasperated by the superficial analysis and preponderence of insulting political spin (as if Medicare recipients were just stupid sheep). I am sorry.
Well, I am sure the bill will improve some things and it will undoubtedly help a lot. It will also create a lot of unnecessary burden for some. I will note that as written the bill probably does more direct harm than direct good (there is a HUGE hole in the benefits and co-pays, coinsurance and deductibles create a lot burden on the most economically vulnerable).
There is a the direct benefit that the highest pharmacy users get and I think that is a very progressive thing. And, like you I think there is indirect benefits for Medicaid members and potential gains from future expansions.
From red and green to black and blue, Jim