Take cancer patients who need very expensive drugs to survive. If the drugs are obtained from a pharmacy, they may fall under a special provision of the Part D program that requires patients to pay 25 to 35 percent of the cost. Out-of-pocket spending can easily reach $6,000 a year — even with Medigap insurance and Part D drug insurance firmly in place.
If the drugs are administered intravenously — say, at a hospital or doctor’s office — they fall under a special provision of the Part B program. Here, the patient can get hit with 20 percent of the bill with no out-of-pocket maximum. This means Medicare cancer patients can be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars every year for the care they need.
In addition to anticancer drugs, seniors face “specialty tier” copayments for drugs that treat multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C. Private Medicare Advantage plans (serving about one-fourth of Medicare enrollees) also mimic these out-of-pocket requirements — probably to keep from adversely attracting costly patients from the regular Medicare program.
It gets worse. In general, the Medicare (Part D) drug program won’t pay for “off label” uses of drugs. Instead, these drugs fall under Part B, with the unlimited 20 percent copayment. If that doesn’t immediately knock your socks off, you need to know that more than half of all cancer drugs being used today are “off label.”
Basically, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves drugs for uses they have been tested for. But once a drug is on the market, doctors can discover it has other (maybe even more valuable) uses. They write journal articles about their discoveries and other doctors begin taking advantage of the new uses as well. This is the case for over half of all drugs used in cancer care. They were approved for some other purpose before they were discovered to have cancer-fighting properties.
Most private insurers pay for these treatments without imposing extra patient charges, and for good reason. Off label cancer fighting drugs represent the state of the art in the war on cancer. Unfortunately, the Medicare bureaucracy doesn’t see things that way.
If you think that Medicare’s approach to prescription drugs is strange, its treatment of hospital stays is even more bizarre:
• A Medicare patient with a hospital stay of less than 60 days would only pay a deductible of $1,132.
• A patient hospitalized for 90 days would owe a copayment of $9,622.
• An additional month would cost a Medicare patient $16,980 in copayments.
• Medicare patients are responsible for 100% inpatient charges after the 150th day in the hospital.
In other words, Medicare pushes the highest cost sharing onto the sickest patient. As in the case of drug coverage, this design violates all the principles of sound insurance. People should pay out-of-pocket for those services for which it is appropriate and possible for patients to exercise discretion. Third party insurance should pay the bill for services whose costs are prohibitively expensive and where patient discretion is not appropriate in any event.
So what’s the answer? For starters, we do not need to spend any more taxpayer money. Instead, we need to allow seniors access to the same insurance designs that are routinely available to the rest of the population.
For the same money we are now spending, a study by Milliman shows we could provide every senior with comprehensive, catastrophic insurance — paying all expenses in excess of $2,500. Seniors could pay one premium to one plan to get this coverage. They could take money they now spend out-of-pocket and put $2,500 every year into a Roth-type Health Savings Account (after tax deposits and tax-free withdrawals).
If you agree with me on this, let your representatives in Congress know how you feel. Before they cut Medicare benefits any more, they should consider some win-win reforms that would help seniors and taxpayers.
Whether Gun Violence or Abortion Violence, Harming Innocent Human Life Is Always Wrong | Ryan Bomberger
TPP Would Authorize Obama to Set $15 Minimum Wage, Card Check, and CO2 Emissions Regulation—All By Executive Fiat | Michael Hammond
The Heart of the Pro-Life Movement Is a Heart of Compassion: A Response to Colorado | Congressman Diane Black