Posted on Tue, Jan. 13, 2004story:PUB_DESC
Daschle wants to fix the fix

Aberdeen (S.D.) American News

If the United States has enough money for a mission to Mars, it can overhaul what Tom Daschle sees as a flawed Medicare bill.

The Senate minority leader was in his hometown of Aberdeen on Monday and talked about how he thinks the bill can be improved.

Speaking to roughly 275 people at the Veterans of Foreign Wars post, Daschle said the new Medicare measure will cost $40 billion a year. That's not adequate, he said. If the nation can afford to spend $160 billion a year in Iraq and has $800 billion to send astronauts to Mars, it should be able to find $70 billion a year to take care of senior citizens.

The Medicare plan has some good aspects, Daschle said. They include:

• Payments made to doctors in rural areas will increase for a couple years when it takes effect in 2006.

• Some low-income people who don't qualify for Medicaid will, if they don't have many assets, be eligible for a benefit to cover many of their costs.

• Access to generic drugs will be increased.

• There's what he says is a marginal benefit from a prescription drug discount card.

But those advantages aren't worth the plan's cost, Daschle said. He also listed what he sees as many of the measure's shortcomings:

• It doesn't provide any price control for medications.

• It prohibits the reimportation of name-brand drugs from Canada.

• It includes a prohibition on the government negotiating lower drug costs for senior citizens as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does for veterans.

• An estimated 4.3 million Americans, including 5,000 South Dakotans, will be moved from Medicare to private plans.

• The benefits offered erode over the years.

Daschle said the VA purchases Zestril, a high blood pressure medication, for 10 cents a pill. At a drug store, he said, the medication is $1.20 a pill. The savings is 93 percent, he said, also listing other examples.

Of the parts of the Medicare bill Daschle doesn't like, he thinks it's most likely the Canadian import clause can be changed first. There is bipartisan support for doing so in both the Senate and House, he said.

That's something Monday's audience wants to happen. They said they don't understand why medications are so much more expensive in the United States than in Canada. To that end, Daschle provided examples similar to those he used for his negotiation argument. In Canada, a 90-day supply of the ulcer drug Prevacid costs $202. In the United States, it's $352. The savings in Canada is 43 percent, he said.

Answering a question from the audience, Daschle said there are at least three reasons Canadian drugs are cheaper:

• Each Canadian province negotiates prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

• Drug companies spend too much money on marketing their drugs and claim they need the high prices for research. But, Daschle said, most research money comes from the U.S. government.

• Concerns about quality drugs that are reimported from modern countries such as Canada are a sham, yet the drug industry has great influence over many U.S. politicians, he said.

Not allowing reimportation from Canada amounts to a breach of free trade, Daschle said.

In short, the senator said the Medicare bill is a boon for pharmaceutical companies. Daschle said he will introduce what he's calling the Medicare Reform Act, which he hopes will combat the problems.

The AARP has endorsed the existing Medicare bill as a step in the right direction. However, Daschle said he thinks that decision was largely a business one based on the fact the AARP could benefit because it offers insurance.

Here's how the prescription drug benefit in the measure would impact senior citizens in 2006. They would pay:

• A $35 a month premium.

• The first $250 of their drug costs as a deductible.

• 25 percent of their drug costs from $250 to $2,250.

• All of their drug costs from $2,250 and $5,100.

• 5 percent of their drug costs above $5,100.

In 2013, those numbers are different. Under the optional plan, seniors would pay:

• A $58 monthly premium.

• The first $445 of their drug costs as a deductible.

• 25 percent of their drug costs from $445 to $5,066.

• All of their drug costs from $5,066 to $9,066.

• 5 percent of their drug costs above $9,066.

Monday's meeting was paid for by Daschle's campaign. He made reference to policy, but not to President Bush or John Thune, his likely Republican opponent in the November election.

The Macon Telegraph

June 17, 2003

Most patients nowadays don't stay in the hospital very long, thanks to pressure from Medicare and private insurance providers. Home health care is important not only for the infirm elderly, but for younger people whose mobility has been curtailed by operations, accidents or acute illness.

Home health services can range from chemotherapy to housekeeping help, from physical therapy to pain management, from using light-emitting devices to treat jaundiced newborns to maintaining ventilators for the elderly.

Home health agencies offering such varied services (some owned by hospitals) can provide needed care for much less than it would cost to keep a patient in a hospital to receive them. And most patients benefit from being treated in familiar surroundings.

Problem is, Georgia's regulations can delay patients' access to such services. At best, they reduce the choices open to patients in some areas.

Georgia's Division of Health Planning wants to keep the supply of services offered by home health care agencies from outrunning the demand for them. Accordingly, it issues certificates of need allowing agencies to operate in a given county or group of counties. These agencies must show they have the competence and financial strength to provide high-quality care over the long run.

But DHP decisions can be appealed. And providers who have been operating in a county can use the involved and lengthy process to keep competitors out when DHP decides there is room for another provider or two. (Such seems to be the case in Laurens County.) It also happens that when DHP decides only one provider is needed and chooses it, the losers can and do appeal.

The state is rightly concerned to uphold quality standards and keep fly-by-night operations from the marketplace. But the process needs streamlining.

As it stands the unintended outcome is that the waste of time and money involved can deter competent providers from moving into underserved areas. That means that people who can't wait can have trouble obtaining the quality care they need when they need it.