SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (6309)3/7/2003 12:59:31 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model Is a Budget Casualty
The New York Times

March 5, 2003

By TIMOTHY EGAN

PORTLAND, Ore., March 3 - In a state that says it is already
so short of public money it does not have enough to keep all the schools open and
prosecute many criminals,
Oregon took another drastic step this week
to cover budget shortfalls: it cut off medications to thousands of
schizophrenics, manic-depressives, drug addicts and others
who are poor and have no health care.

A decade ago, Oregon was widely hailed as a pioneer in providing
ealth insurance, including prescription drug coverage, not only to the poor but
also to people who make just enough money that they do not qualify
for most federal Medicaid programs.

Now, in a reversal that has stripped a once ambitious program to its core,
Oregon has pared back the insurance, and removed prescription drug
coverage for things like mental illness and drug addiction. Most of the cuts
went into effect March 1, but others started Feb. 1, just days after
Oregonians voted in a referendum against a tax increase to balance their budget.

And while state officials are looking for some way to restore some
of the health program, they admit that they will not be able to offer anything like
the expansive benefits of the past.

So throughout Oregon this week, about 100,000 poor people
are suddenly scrambling for the basic medications that allow them to function.

For Dave Cesario, 45, who is H.I.V. positive, diabetic and on methadone
to stave off addiction to heroin, it meant going cold turkey Saturday.

"I'm just numb; I don't know what to do," said Mr. Cesario, who lives
with his disabled wife and 12-year-old son. "My only hope is that the drug
companies will have mercy and I'll be able to get some free samples."

For Karen Hansen, 50, who has prescriptions for everything
from anxiety disorder to high blood pressure, the cutoff means taking only the few drugs
that will keep her alive. She lives on $689 a month
in Social Security disability payments,
and her monthly prescription bill, without assistance, is
$615.


"I don't buy the newspaper, I eat hot dogs that they give out free and
get other meals from the food bank," Ms. Hansen said. "But that only saves
about $200."

The step is the latest response to a budget crisis that led state
officials to make nearly $600 million in cuts in the last two years, and will require
another $2 billion in reductions, according to projections, in the new
budget cycle that begins this June.

Hit by a harsh recession after a series of tax-cutting measures
pared the budget to the bone, Oregon, which has no statewide sales tax, now lacks
enough money for health care, schools, prisons and criminal prosecution.

Portland schools had planned to cut nearly five weeks off the school
calendar this year. But teachers agreed on Monday to work two weeks without
pay, and that offer - together with a plan for a temporary business tax - looks
as if it will now save the school year. But the state has announced
plans to close a number of schools.


Prisons have let out some criminals early. And starting today,
prosecutions of people arrested for theft and drug crimes are being delayed because
there is not enough money for prosecution or legal defense. Officials say those
arrested are being released and may be tried later, in the summer, if
the legislature can come up with new funds.

The latest round of cuts came after Oregonians considered a
referendum in January on whether to raise taxes temporarily. The measure was
narrowly defeated, after opponents of the tax increase said the state
could find ways to cut without major consequences.

Unable to raise taxes, and having cut financing for police, prosecutors and schools,
state officials turned to the Oregon Health Plan. They ordered
the board that governs the plan to decide how and where to cut. It chose
to revert to more basic coverage, stop paying for many prescription drugs
and charge higher premiums and co-payments.

Dr. Patricia Kullberg, medical director of the health department
of Multnomah County, which covers Portland, said she just did something she had
never done in 21 years as a family physician: she advised a patient
which medications he could stop taking and suffer the least. The patient lost his
prescription drug benefit for arthritis, depression, high cholesterol and hypertension.

"I feel like I'm living in some foreign country where suffering is
routine," she said. "It's scary. What we're doing is condemning people to the
long-term consequences of their diseases."

The hardest hit, say state officials, are the mentally ill. Jim Underwood,
a mental health specialist with Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare in
Portland, said his patient Robert Seaman, 47, a paranoid schizophrenic,
was likely to become delusional again without his medications.

Mr. Seaman had trouble responding to questions in an interview.
"Without his meds, he has trouble with getting food, shopping, all the basic survival
things," Mr. Underwood said.

The legislature is working this week on a temporary patch. The proposal
would take video poker and cigarette tax money and drain a reserve fund to
make up an immediate shortfall of $250 million. If this passes, and
it appears it will, it would restore medications for only about two months.

Mary Ellen Glynn, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat,
said the next two-year budget could be even worse, because voters refuse to
raise taxes. "We're in real double-bind," she said.

Advocates for the mentally ill put the issue more starkly.


David Eisen, clinical director for Central City Concern, a private nonprofit
agency that provides care for drug addicts and the mentally ill, said people
whose basic medical needs were met by prescription drugs costing
the state about $90 a month per person, were now going to start showing up in
hospital emergency rooms, or jail, where they will cost the state far more.

"The people who made this decision thought they could save a few million
dollars," Mr. Eisen said. "But the crime rate will rise, emergency rooms
will be flooded with people, and in the end, the state is going to pay
five to eight times more than they would have saved."

In most states, the federal Medicaid program covers the basic medical
needs of the poor. Oregon was given a waiver to shape its own program
because it promised to provide near-universal coverage for the poor,
something only a handful of states have tried to do. In good times, the plan
worked, and it was widely praised as a resourceful use of limited public funds for health care.

One measure of its success was that Oregon has one of the lowest percentages
of mentally ill people in institutions. Prescriptions and mental
health clinics have allowed people to work, or live in community settings,
without presenting a danger to themselves or others, state health officials
say.


Critics of the plan, however, said it was allowed to grow too fast,
and even though Oregon rationed out services - drawing up a list of what would be
covered and what would not - it still proved too generous.
State Representative Jackie Winters, a Republican, said that over the last 20 years,
social services in the state have quadrupled, far in excess of population growth.

"We expanded beyond the basics, and now we realize
you can't cover everything you want," Ms. Winters said.

Now a number of legislative committees are studying ways
to redo the Oregon Health Plan. Even if state revenues become less anemic, the plan is
unlikely ever to be as ambitious or far-reaching as it was, supporters and opponents say.

And for now, the cutbacks mean that most people
who were given coverage have lost their prescription drugs. Some are now wandering the streets
or screaming in public squares.


About one-fourth of the 400,000 people covered by the
Oregon Health Plan lost prescription coverage in two rounds of cuts
over the last month and half.

Tony Tescara, 66, who lives on $630 in Social Security, relies
on heart medication from the state. When he heard we was cut off - after his
pharmacists refused to fill a prescription - he says he panicked.


"It was a big shock," Mr. Tescara said. "I took extra nitro pills,
just worrying about this medical thing. I called my caseworker and said, `What am I
supposed to do now?' She said call the doctor and ask for samples."

Mr. Tescara said he was ashamed to beg for medicine.
"I feel like I'm a lowlife looking for handouts," he said.
"I'm not. It's the first time in my life I
have to ask for help."

State officials say relying on free samples, which thousands
of Oregonians are doing this week to get their medications, will help only the luckiest.

nytimes.com

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (6309)3/11/2003 2:40:20 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
The Greater Threat
The New York Times

March 10, 2003

To the Editor:

Re " Study Raises Estimate of the Nation's Uninsured" (news article, March 5)::

When I read the report that nearly a third of the American population younger
than 65 were without health insurance at some time during the last two years,
I contemplated the awful predicament of my recently unemployed patient,
now uninsured and unable to obtain necessary tests and treatment for his heart disease.


This made me wonder: is the well-being of the American public threatened
more by the tyrant in the Middle East, or by our colossal failure to provide
our own people with health care?

CHARLES L. BARDES, M.D.
New York, March 6, 2003

nytimes.com
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (6309)3/14/2003 4:54:30 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Bush's Medicare Case Uses Faulty Diagnosis
newsday.com
March 13, 2003

It's a world newly defined by certitudes - good versus evil, with us or against us, French versus freedom fries.

This hardly seems an appropriate moment to mention that one of the great certainties that drives those who would "reform" Medicare - to save it, supposedly, from itself - is at best uncertain and at worst plain false. That is President George W. Bush's belief that private insurers can rescue a Medicare system that is antiquated in its benefits and "on the brink" in its finances. The ideology holds that the insurance industry can better contain health care costs than the government.

But except for a brief period in the early 1990s when rigid HMOs flourished and insurers squeezed down rising health-care costs, managed care hasn't managed this feat. Double-digit premium increases for employer-provided health insurance are again routine - outpacing medical inflation, overall inflation and the growth in workers' earnings since 1998, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Hewitt Associates, the consulting firm, predicts a 15.4-percent average increase in employer health costs again this year.

And what of Medicare, that hard-to-control monster? A new study by two Urban Institute researchers shows that over three decades, the government ogre has done as well - even better - than the supposedly lean-and-limber insurers at controlling spending.


Between 1970 and 2000, researchers Cristina Boccuti and Marilyn Moon found, Medicare's average annual spending growth rate per enrollee was 9.6 percent, compared with 11.1 percent for private insurers.
To make a fair comparison, the researchers excluded types of care each system provides that aren't comparable to the other's. Medicare spending for home health and skilled nursing care - rarely used by the younger patients insured by private plans - wasn't counted. Spending on outpatient prescription drugs - which has been rapidly driving up private insurance costs but which is unavailable to most Medicare patients - wasn't counted, either.

They examined spending on hospital and physician visits, the two categories they found most comparable.
They found comparable rates of spending growth for physician and clinic visits until the late 1980s,
when Medicare began doing much better than private insurers at holding down
expenditures - largely due to tight reimbursement rates imposed by Congress.
As for hospitals, the two systems turned out to be roughly the same
in their rates of growth, with Medicare ending up just slightly higher
in spending than the private insurers by 2000.


The analysis did not account for differences among patients who tend to be insured under each system. No allowance was made for the advanced age of Medicare patients - who are sicker, overall, than patients in younger families insured by private plans.

"It's not the case that you can say Medicare spending is out of control on a per-patient basis," said Moon, a former trustee of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. "If you do that, you would have to say private plans also are out of control."


It would, no doubt, be no use to await such an admission. Karen Ignani, president of the American Association of Health Plans, questioned the study's methods, particularly its exclusion of drug costs. She said Medicare had done better on controlling expenditures for doctor visits because the government has been "starving physicians" with low reimbursements.

"It looks like the study worked hard to draw a political conclusion that's not supported by the data," Ignani said.

So then, what supports the president's conclusion that Medicare should be "reformed" by handing its patients over to private insurers? Where is the evidence that they do better at cost control for anyone, let alone the oldest, sickest patients? Why, if there is to be a drug benefit added to Medicare, does the president want to push elderly patients toward private insurers when the government could become a huge buyer of drugs - with say, the combined purchasing power of Wal-Mart, Target and Kmart - and force deep discounts?

Don't expect answers. There is no certainty like that which is sustained by faith rather than the testing of fact.
Email: cocco@newsday.com
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.



To: Mephisto who wrote (6309)3/21/2003 10:16:48 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bush's Medicare game a cruel one

"In most cases, the claim denial comes after the medical
service is already received. If the claim is denied, the beneficiary
must pay thousands of dollars in medical bills."

OUR VIEW

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 3/21/03 ]




accessatlanta.com
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 3/21/03 ]



Even as President Bush and various members of
Congress court the retiree vote with promises of an
expensive prescription drug benefit, the
administration is trying to make it easier for
Medicare to deny payment for health care services
already guaranteed by law.


The administration has plans to propose legislation and rule changes that would
limit the independence of federal administrative law judges who now decide whether
Medicare has unfairly denied payment of claims. In some cases, the changes would
also allow Medicare bureaucrats to decide in binding arbitration whether other
Medicare bureaucrats had made correct decisions in denying claims.

Administration officials say the proposed changes would create more "flexibility" in
the appeals system and make it more "efficient and effective." In fact, these
changes would do nothing but subvert due process of law and allow the government
to save money by denying more claims under a program that purports to ensure
medical care for the elderly.

In most cases, the claim denial comes after the medical service is already received.
If the claim is denied, the beneficiary must pay thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Over the past year, administrative law judges have ruled that denied claims were
actually valid under Medicare's rules 53 percent of the time. That percentage of
reversals would no doubt decrease dramatically under Bush's proposal.

Many doctors already refuse to take more Medicare patients because
reimbursements are so low. If it becomes increasingly difficult to get the claims
paid, elderly patients may find themselves searching for access to health care
providers.


Certainly, the nation must address the spiraling costs of Medicare, but it is
duplicitous to hold out a promise to spend even more money to pay for prescription
drugs, while at the same time quietly moving to deny payment of valid medical bills.



To: Mephisto who wrote (6309)9/23/2003 1:22:56 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Cash-Strapped States Curb Medicaid Drug Lists
Mon Sep 22,12:13 PM ET
story.news.yahoo.com
Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Kim Dixon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Gaping holes in state budgets will lead to a
doubling in the number of U.S. states cutting pricey prescription drugs
used in the Medicaid health plan next year, a study said on Monday.

A $70 billion shortfall in budgets is leading states to trim the use of
prescription drugs, slash benefits and hike co-payments for the
one-in-nine low-income Americans who rely on the government's
Medicaid health insurance, according to the study by the nonprofit
Kaiser Family Foundation.

The number of states set to limit prescription drugs in the Medicaid
program will likely more than double to 30 in 2004, from 14 this year, the
report said.


"States are taking action on prescription drugs," said Vern Smith,
principal at Health Management Associates, which co-authored the
study.

The restrictions have been a limited success, he said, reflected in a
slowing in average state spending growth on Medicaid of 9.3 percent in
2003, compared with 12.8 percent growth in 2002, according to the
report.

That contrasts with movement in the private sector, where health
premiums jumped 13.9 percent this year, up from 12.9 percent a year
ago, according to Kaiser data.

The drug industry loathes use by states of so-called "preferred drug lists"
because they can discourage doctors from prescribing the most
expensive drugs when cheaper ones could suffice.

The industry has gone to court to fight states and the federal government
over the issue.

States are trying to stem double-digit prescription drug inflation by
adopting so-called preferred drug lists. The lists are similar to formulas
used by private health insurers.

The drug industry calls the lists illegal, claiming they cut patient access
to life-saving medicines.

Another strategy states are taking to limit drug costs is slashing or
freezing payments to doctors, hospitals and nursing homes, the report
said. About 50 percent of states took that step in 2003, compared with
22 percent in 2002, the study said.

The biggest culprit in states' fiscal woes is the precipitous drop in state
tax revenue, the report said.

"The big picture is states are really trying to restrain their spending, but
they are going to get to the end of their fiscal rope soon," said Diane
Rowland, executive director at the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and
the Uninsured.



To: Mephisto who wrote (6309)9/23/2003 1:25:11 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Survey: States Cutting Medicaid Benefits
story.news.yahoo.com Mon Sep 22, 9:00 AM ET

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - States cut Medicaid benefits and increased
copayments in 2003 to slow spending growth in the low-income health
insurance program for the first time in seven years, according to a survey
released Monday.


Average Medicaid spending growth in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia was 9.3 percent, down from 12.8 percent a year ago, said the
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Enrollment in the
program over the same period increased 7.8 percent.

By comparison, premiums for employer-sponsored private health
insurance increased 13.9 percent over the year.

Diane Rowland, the commission's executive director, said the trends
portend uninsured parents and children finding themselves shut out of
the program and the elderly and disabled seeing their coverage erode.

"Many will get less care and others will lose it altogether," she said.

The commission is an arm of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation,
which supports health research. It has conducted the Medicaid survey
annually for three years.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia took some cost-containment
actions as they grappled with declining revenue and budget deficits, the
survey found. All also said they plan to impose more spending
constraints next year.

Most often, states froze or reduced payments to physicians, hospitals,
nursing homes and other health care providers. Another popular
cost-control strategy curbed payments for prescription drugs with
preferred drug lists or copayments. A few states required Medicaid users
to buy generic drugs or limited the number of prescriptions that could be
filled each month.

Eighteen states responded to the fiscal pressure by reducing benefits,
and 20 states plan similar actions next year. Most of the changes
involved dropping optional benefits, including some geared toward
children. Eliminated coverages included visits to chiropractors,
podiatrists, speech therapists and psychologists. Some states imposed
limits on hospital stays and annual hospital visits.

Half the states limited eligibility for Medicaid. The changes typically
affected few people. Six states tried to drop large numbers of people
from the program, but each case they had to delay or cancel the action.
About 400,000 people would have lost coverage if the states had carried
out their plans, according to the survey.

Seventeen states increased their copayments, and 21 states plan
increases for next year.

The problem promises to get worse in 2005 when states exhaust a $10
billion federal windfall that temporarily increased the federal Medicaid
matching rate. The survey found states do not expect their fiscal woes to
be over when the federal aid runs out.


The nation's economic downturn pressured Medicaid from two directions.

As people lost their jobs or private health coverage, they became eligible
for Medicaid benefits. A slow economy also deprived states of the
revenues they needed to keep the program running.

"The biggest source of blame here is the economy," Rowland said.
"They really get put under much more pressure from Medicaid when the
economy tanks. At the same time, when the economy goes negative,
states' revenues drop off."

___