Democrats Push for Medicare Part D Reform

Everyone is interested in the new bill before Congress on Medicare and the ability of the government to negotiate prices. For those unaware of this issue, a controversial aspect of Medicare Part D was that it left the government without the ability to use its significant buying power as a negotiation tactic.

When a purchaser buys large amounts of prescription drugs, it is often a natural perk that it gets to negotiate discounts. The Medicare Part D program, which makes the government a large purchaser, does not. The Veterans Administration does have such authority.

Therefore, Democrats have cited this as a deficiency in the program they wish to address, in order to make the Medicare program have the same level of negotiation power. Thus, they have introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, also called H.R. 4. As you can see, we are at the beginning of the legislative cycle. There are 189 co-sponsors of the bill, which is something the President will surely veto.

So, what is the answer? The Democrats' argument is logical. But at the same time polls have shown, as demonstrated in an earlier post, that Americans are highly satisfied with Medicare Part D. See a past posting on this issue.

Still, news reports tell us that the costs of the program have been below projection.. Does that mean that the projections were high? Does it tell us that the ability to negotiate would bring costs down even further? No.

This promises to be an on-going hot potato in the coming legislative session. If you would like to track it, go to GovTrack.us where you can monitor this legislation as it moves through the maze.

Comments

[Ronald Jefferson]

Who is the lobbyist and how many drinks were consumed by how many members of congress that took away the government's right to negotiate drug prices in the first place? The next time someone discusses the oncoming train called medicare entitlements and bemones how we are going to pay for it needs to answer the above question first.

Further, the proposition that most people are satisfied with Medicare Part D is false. The reason the program may be costing less than expected can be laid at the feet of the fact that many less people were willing to sign up for this due to the programs own problems of the coverage plan and the silly way that the choices "must be made."

Many people are not opting into D becaused their Med supplements have much better coverage in this area and because the program really is nto as advertized. Inherent in its structure is the problem of "what happens next?", i.e., 70 or 80 plans first is overwhelming from which Medicare covered folks choose, and even with help they choose on the basis of "what they are using NOW" which could change in a heart beat thus leaving them "less than satisfied" with the coverage that will be happening later, sometimes only a short time later. Who is satisifed? Follow the money.

It isn't a matter of "If it isn't broke don't fix it," but rather it is a matter of "No one in their right mind would create a program structured such as this other than a politician."

ron jefferson

2007 Jan 10 04:36 PM