Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8123)	8/10/2009 6:08:49 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> Seriously, that something comes in under budget tells you nothing useful. Nonsense. The argument against Part D has been that Medicare was not allowed to negotiate directly with the drug companies. yet, Part D has been a proven success. At least, by comparison with Parts A & B and practically every other government health program. Following are some remarks from CMS about Part D late in '06. If you believe these are insignificant you are totally not getting it. These results fly in the face of chronic bitching by the Left about Part D prohibiting direct negotiations between Medicare and Pharma. Clearly, this program is functioning well, and you can't say that about any other government health care program. ================================= The costs of Medicare Part D continue to turn out to be much lower than had been expected. Since the President’s Budget in February, projected Federal costs for the Part D program have declined again, by roughly $34 billion for 2006-11 and $76 billion for fiscal years 2006-2016. The reductions since last year’s Mid-Session review are much larger, $110 and $302 billion, in part reflecting lower costs per beneficiary enrolled in the program than had been expected. The drug plans competing for Medicare beneficiaries have been able to establish greater than expected savings from aggressive price negotiation, very low-cost coverage for generic drugs and less costly brand-name drugs, and other steps to keep drug costs down. In addition, beneficiaries have overwhelmingly selected less costly drug plans. While the average premium expected a year ago was $37, enrollees are actually paying premiums that average less than $24. Some of the estimated cost reductions result from more refined enrollment assumptions, which take into account actual Part D participation rates for 2006. As of June 11, 2006, more than 38.2 million people with Medicare were receiving coverage for prescription drugs through Part D or other plans that provide coverage as good as or better than Part D. Thus, 90 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have good drug coverage, including 3.5 million Federal retirees (in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program and TRICARE) and 5.4 million beneficiaries who are continuing other sources of coverage (such as job-related coverage and VA coverage). Finally, the lower Part D cost estimates also reflect lower actual growth in drug costs in 2004 and 2005 than had been expected, with single-digit percentage increases for the first time in more than a decade and a continued expectation of slower growth in actual drug prices and costs in the next few years, as more generic drugs become available and aggressive steps to keep down drug costs continue. State payments for a portion of the costs for drug coverage for Medicare-Medicaid “dual eligible” beneficiaries that the states would have incurred under Medicaid are projected to be more than 25 percent lower than had been projected one year ago. State payments are now estimated to be $111 billion for fiscal years 2006-2016, which is about $2 billion lower than the estimates in the President's Budget and about $45 billion lower than last year's MSR.