|
MrRodgers -> RE: Ronald Reagan on Debt Ceiling (7/21/2011 1:46:30 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: ladyneedshelp
The government has never underestimated anything!!! ..
Not quite. Bush's Prescription Med plan has come in under cost projections, primarily because of its effective doughnut hole design.
It came out under projections because by law the govt. cannot negotiate the lowest prices leaving it described and accurately so...as a retail only plan. Existing insurance provides in many cases, a better price than the govt. plan.
The govt. plan wasn't to provide drugs to seniors, it was designed as usual...for a profit for the drug companies. Hey, we are here to make some fucking money people...the overriding American culture.
Too bad you dont know wtf youre talking about.
http://www.amview.com/amview_contents/news/hlcmedicare.pdf
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/6/1735.full
Is this serious ? You site nothing more than an opinion survey to explain why the drug benefit came out less than projected on costs ?
It's in the numbers and I know several people not to mention much that has been written on the subject that the numbers are as follows:
It being of little or no price advantage at all and in fact often more for by far most prescription users of by far most typical drugs, i.e., not experimental drugs, the insured were as well or better off without using the federal benefit. Didn't mean they didn't enroll, or use it or think they got savings or not. The numbers were that the drug benefit on 90% of the most used drugs wasn't there...nada. I have procure drugs for elderly and none are in the program because their private insurance beats the price already.
Even in your own piece, anywhere from 6-10 million never did even enroll so the question is why not ? EVERYBODY enrolls in Medicare, so why not the drug program ? It is as likely and your piece suggests it isn't complicated, there was no price advantage...no matter what people think or their opinion in a survey. The numbers tell the story...there is little to no benefit in the drug benefit and by far most of the savings to users is because they otherwise received no price break at all, having no private insurance.
As for the second post, it even qualifies their conclusions based on pricing with this :
There was a gradual but substantial increase in relative utilization by the elderly between December 2005 and June 2006; it increased almost 19 percent. In the second half of 2006, as relative user cost increased, relative utilization declined by about 6 percent. The increase in relative utilization from December 2005 to July 2006, and the smaller decline in relative utilization from July 2006 to December 2006, could have been attributable to factors other than changes in relative user cost, but it is not apparent what those factors might be.
Could have been ? Plus one can discover much by comparing elderly with non-elderly but to what end ? The non-elderly do not qualify for Medicare Part D. Even when considering everything, your pieces come out with at best an improvement for about 12% (18-6) of all actual medicare qualified and enrolled.
|
|
|
|
