Thu, 7 Feb 2013, 10:13am PST
Like (2) Dislike
The article says Medicare D is spending billions more on drug subsidies paying PhRMA to supply pills to 2% of Americans. That costs most Americans billions, while enriching Billy Tauzin and his cronies at PhRMA. The article does not say whether those 2% would have bought those pills at a higher price, or whether they're better off with the pills Medicare D paid for. It certainly doesn't say that Americans in general saved money - only that Medicare D spent more.
Thu, 7 Feb 2013, 11:24pm PST
Like Dislike (1)
Last year the donut hole closed a little, this year it will be little more. But it only kicks in after Seniors have paid several thousand dollars out of pocket, so I doubt that this has saved anyone this year.
I'll have the actual numbers later today or in the morning, if anyone cares (clients are lining up today, must work). It does mean that seniors and the disabled will have access to medications that they otherwise might not have... but it would be much more cost effective to use the buying power of the millions of Medicare recipients to negotiate better prices (like insurance companies do) rather than to pay full cost.
By the way, lower income people don't even count when it comes to the donut hole - they qualify for a program that doesn't include the donut hole.
Sure - it's helping, but not as much as it should. We should negotiate rates for medications. It only makes sense.