NYT: There is an idea re: the penalties for late enrollment being floated about. Today would be last day one could sign up for a Part D policy until November. However, if one signs up late, the person would be expempt from the permanent surcharge that would increase premiums by 7 percent or more.
If Part D is an issue in the mid-terms, it is possible that an increasing number of Republicans would agree to this.
As in January, some who are low-income are being overcharged at pharmacies. Others are in different drug plans different plans, instead of the one they had selected.
In a memorandum to the insurers, the auto-enrollment
“trumped a beneficiary election” [and the Part D recipient’s request was not changed was not approved]…because of computer “processing errors” at the federal Medicare agency. [In addition,]”plans have reported that some members are disappearing” from these lists, the administration said…
Gov. John Baldacci of Maine
“More than four months after the start of this benefit, many low-income Maine residents remain unable to obtain their drugs through Medicare.”
William D. Novelli of the AARP
People had been intimidated by the application form, which warns beneficiaries that they “may be sent to prison” if they do not disclose the value of life insurance policies and money set aside for funeral expenses.
The penalty was at first considered to be an incentive to get people to sign up before the deadline. However, some insurance companies claim they
dislike the penalty because they will have to collect it, and they say the cost of collection will often exceed the amount of the penalty.
Karen M. Ignagni, president of AHIP, a trade group for the the insurance industry, stated
waiving the penalty for 2006 was “a good proposal.”
Barbara F. Horne, 80, doesn’t take any prescription medicines. However, she signed up to avoid the penalty and said,
“We are being penalized for being healthy.”
William Q. Beard, 74, a retired chemist,
“I have a Ph.D., and it’s too complicated to suit me.”
Beverly J. Hines, 75
“The new program is not going to help at all.”
She will have to pay $1,799 in one year alone for prescriptions drugs that cost her nothing, as she and her husband were $240.00 above the limit for receiving extra help.
NYT via Truthout: Part D is another example of the results of a policy implemented by a government that is uninterested in governing. Those who were appointed to positions to oversee Part D took no personal responsibility for its implementation.
Robert Hayes, of the Medicare Rights Center, re: a conversation with Mark McClellan:
“I was sitting in McClellan’s office and I said, ‘Look, even if you get this transition 99 percent right for the people losing Medicaid coverage, you’re still going to have 64,000 people without drug coverage come Jan. 1.’ And [McClellan] said ‘No, we have everything under control.”
Senator Charles Shumer: re: Michael Leavitt
“…he wasn’t really aware of the problems. I was surprised by that.”
In addition, merely adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare would have lessened the cost of Part D, and the expense to the taxpayers, as Medicare was previously able to negotiate for the best price of prescription drugs, just like the VA.
However, that would be considered bad politics to conservatives, who want to privatize social programs, as opposed to improving them. In addition, administration officials and allies in Congress had their reason not reduce the profits of insurance and drug companies. Both the insurance industry as they are major campaign contributors. After Part D was passed, those who drafted Part D become lobbyists.
Part D serves the administration’s friends and its political agenda, not the beneficiaries. Part D is a mishmash subsidies to private insurance companies. The administration insisted on privatization that is providing little, in some instances, no value, as opposed to a Part D program that is operated by Medicare.
Newsday: Rep. Nancy Johnson intends on introducing legislation in the fall to waive the penalty.
Johnson heads the House Ways and Means Committee on health.
“The bottom line is this is a democracy, and the Congress responds to the people and shapes the program so it’s good for them. I think it’s fair and reasonable to eliminate the penalty [for 2006.]
However, Charles Grassley refuses to consider any changes until January 1 of next year, as he wishes to review the enrollment figures. He is quoted as saying
“If I told you on April 15 you didn’t have to file your income taxes until April 30, you wouldn’t do it.”
In 2002, prior to Part D being passed, Grassley received $846,471 from theFinance/Insurance/RealEstate sector and $470,504 from the Health sector in campaign contributions. After Part D was passed, in 2004, Grassley received the following campaign contributions: $1,124,005 from theFinance/Insurance/RealEstate sectors and $949,860 from the Health sector. And, the amounts that are statedfor 2006 are, $1,086,531 from the Finance/Insurance/RealEstate sectors and $968,947 from the Health sector.
