many low-income elderly barred from getting drug benefit

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by SmarterThanYou, May 27, 2005.

  1. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    WTF!!! This medicare program could cost as little as 500 billion and as much as 1.2 trillion but who the hell are we covering on this crapass legislation???

    yahoo news

    As many as 2.4 million low-income people will miss out on generous savings when the Medicare prescription-drug benefit begins next year because they have too many personal assets.

    Even though their incomes are low enough to qualify for coverage that pays 85 to 98 percent of their drug costs, millions of retirees won't get the benefit because the size of their bank and retirement accounts and other assets makes them ineligible for it.

    Despite those assets, most of these people are far from wealthy.

    A disproportionate share are older, widowed women with modest incomes who live alone, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly 60 percent of these women, and others who live alone, have life savings of no more than $51,500, the study found. For married couples, the figure is $63,000.

    That's not a lot of money for retirement savings, said David Rice, a UCLA researcher who co-authored the Kaiser study.

    The cutoff for eligibility in personal assets is $11,500 for individuals and $23,000 for married couples. Republican lawmakers added that restriction to the Medicare Modernization Act because they were under pressure to keep the drug benefit's 10-year price tag below the widely touted but erroneous figure of $400 billion. The benefit would have cost another $10 billion without the limits, Medicare figures show. In fact, the whole program is now estimated to cost $534 billion over 10 years, with some estimates as high as $1.2 trillion.

    By excluding low-income people from better drug coverage, experts say, the asset caps hurt retirees whose only transgression was doing what most experts and the government advised: saving for their retirement years.

    "Now those who listened to that message and saved are the ones who are being penalized because they can't get the (low-income) benefits," Rice said. "I don't think there was any ill intent on the part of Congress, but the benefit was set up in a way that needy people will be unnecessarily disqualified."

    The government began mailing the first of nearly 20 million applications for the low-income drug benefit Friday. The new prescription-drug program starts Jan. 1.

    Medicare estimates that 14.4 million people, roughly one-third of its 43 million beneficiaries, are eligible for the special drug coverage because their incomes are below $14,355 for individuals or $19,245 for married couples.

    Rice's estimate that another 2.4 million Americans will lose out on the special coverage is higher than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of 1.8 million, because he used a different method to calculate income and eligibility.

    Low-income people who don't qualify will miss out on drug coverage that requires low or no premiums and deductibles, sets no coverage limits and offers co-pays ranging from $2 to $5. Instead, they can get the standard Medicare drug benefit, which will require them to pay out-of-pocket costs such as a $250 deductible and an annual premium that averages $444.

    Rice fears that those prices and the drug benefit's "doughnut hole" - in which coverage stops when drug costs reach $2,250 each year and doesn't kick in again until $5,100 is spent - will lead low-income seniors to bypass the program altogether.

    That's what Thomas Walker, a retired ironworker from Kissimmee, Fla., who has disabilities, said he planned to do. Instead, he plans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada.

    Walker, 52, receives $10,740 from Social Security and meets the income guidelines for Medicare's low-income drug coverage. But his assets - $35,000 in stock holdings - exceed the program's asset limit for individuals.

    Walker's diabetes, high blood pressure and psychiatric medications, which would cost about $4,452 per year, are paid for now by drug company patient-assistance programs. But he'll lose that coverage in January once he becomes eligible for Medicare's drug benefit. Under Medicare, Walker's out-of-pocket drug costs will be roughly $3,500 annually. At that rate, he'd exhaust his life savings in less than 10 years.

    "If I have to pay Medicare, in a matter of time I'm going to be broke," Walker said. "I have no way to put those assets back. What am I supposed to do when my roof fails? My truck is 20 years old, and I'm going to have to replace it at some point. ... I just don't think it's fair, and there's nobody to lash out at."

    Belongings that count toward the asset limit include: real estate other than one's primary residence; bank accounts such as checking, savings and certificates of deposit; stocks; bonds, including U.S. savings bonds; IRAs and mutual funds; cash at home and elsewhere.

    Assets that don't count toward the limit include: vehicles; household goods and personal possessions; resources not easily converted to cash, such as farm machinery, jewelry and livestock; and federal income-tax refunds.

    John Rother, the policy director at AARP, said the asset test was inappropriate because Medicare, like Social Security, was a social insurance program, not a welfare program.

    "It should look at income but it should not be looking at assets precisely for this reason. So we object to any asset test and will continue to push for elimination of it," he said.

    Rother said it was unlikely that Congress would take up any legislation to amend the drug bill this year, but that efforts to change or eliminate the asset test could gain steam next year.

    Medicare spokesman Gary Karr said the test was designed to make sure the neediest people got coverage. He said the test was more lenient than those for federal assistance programs such as Medicaid and Social Security Insurance.

    And most importantly, it's required by law.

    "This was a decision that Congress made. ... It's in the law and we must follow it," he said.
     
  2. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Wait for the effects of the new Bankruptcy Law on the seniors..
    It ain't gonna be good..cept for BIG BUSINESS, same as this drug program.
     
  3. Merlin
    Offline

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ponchatoula, La.
    Ratings:
    +61
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Which is why the government shouldn't be in the business of health care in the first place...
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Healthcare in this country was doomed the day Wall Street figured out how to make money off of it. I've seen what happens when the share-holders take precedence over the patients in a for profit institution...patient care suffuers and staff burn-out sky-rockets as staff cut-backs are made to save money.

    I've seen what it costs inner-city hospitals when "boutique hospitals" cherry-pick the least complex cases and private-pay patients, leaving the high risk, high complexity, uninsured patients to the inner city hospitals. More and more of those hospitals are cutting back services to the clients who need them most.

    For profit organizations don't have any business in healthcare unless they put the patients ahead of the share-holders. I'd also be happy to see certificates of need re-instated before hospitals expand.
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I'm not in the profession, so I don't know the ins and outs, but I would certainy trust a for-profit hospital before I trusted a gov't run hospital.
     

Share This Page