HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

gdpawel · 02-13-2009, 08:40 AM

The Medicare D Plan was filled with lots of holes. The biggest problem was in designing the program. The previous administration did not want the Medicare drug benefit to be administered directly by the federal government (where Medicare is run efficiently). Instead, it devised a public program run by hundreds of competing private plans, each with it own prices and coverage policies.

With oncology drugs accounting for about 69% of total Part B spending on prescription drugs and related services, the Part D plan made it more important for Senior cancer patients. A study published in the journal Health Affairs discovered that Part D expanded access to cancer therapies and required only low co-payments.

Researchers found that the most commonly prescribed cancer drugs were available and when a brand-name drug was not covered, its generic equivalent was. Apparently Medicare has gone far in accomplishing the task of making many cancer drugs available to our Seniors. Nearly all generic cancer drugs and 70% of brand-name cancer drugs are covered by the Part D plans.

As far as the subject at hand, "comparative research" is not rationing health care. The research funding doled out in the Stimulus Package would go to the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to focus on producing the best unbiased science possible. Nothing in the legislation will have the government monitoring treatments in order to guide your doctor's decisions. Doctors will still have the ultimate decision, along with the patient.

Comparative research has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work. This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the "industry" wants to share. Companies want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it. Just about the way they are controlling data now.

It's been difficult for the Medicare program to contol the substantial costs of cancer drugs. In a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, an article by Dr. Peter Bach stated that the costs to Medicare of injectable cancer drugs given in doctors' offices increased from $3 billion in 1997 to $11 billion in 2004, an increase of 267% at a time when the costs for the entire Medicare program increased 47%.

It also states that there was a huge reduction in Medicare expenses that occurred when the off-label use of ESAs (drugs for anemia-related issues) was found to actually cause harm to patients. The drugs were proven to be over-used and the net result of expose was that use of these drugs quickly dropped and the costs to Medicare dropped from over $1 billion a year to just $200 million.

In 2003, in the political payback deal of the century, Congress guaranteed premium pricing for pharmaceuticals, by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices, and it provided hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer subsidies to pay for these premium drug costs. Now the specter of "rationing" is raised.

Dr. Bach stated ways that the Medicare program could control costs. One of those ways was to fund a comparative-effectiveness program to assess whether or not treatments (mostly the newer targeted regimens) are really better than older treatments. Decisions are being made about what cancer treatments patients can actually afford.

02-13-2009, 08:40 AM	#13
gdpawel Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,080	Comparative Research The Medicare D Plan was filled with lots of holes. The biggest problem was in designing the program. The previous administration did not want the Medicare drug benefit to be administered directly by the federal government (where Medicare is run efficiently). Instead, it devised a public program run by hundreds of competing private plans, each with it own prices and coverage policies. With oncology drugs accounting for about 69% of total Part B spending on prescription drugs and related services, the Part D plan made it more important for Senior cancer patients. A study published in the journal Health Affairs discovered that Part D expanded access to cancer therapies and required only low co-payments. Researchers found that the most commonly prescribed cancer drugs were available and when a brand-name drug was not covered, its generic equivalent was. Apparently Medicare has gone far in accomplishing the task of making many cancer drugs available to our Seniors. Nearly all generic cancer drugs and 70% of brand-name cancer drugs are covered by the Part D plans. As far as the subject at hand, "comparative research" is not rationing health care. The research funding doled out in the Stimulus Package would go to the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to focus on producing the best unbiased science possible. Nothing in the legislation will have the government monitoring treatments in order to guide your doctor's decisions. Doctors will still have the ultimate decision, along with the patient. Comparative research has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work. This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the "industry" wants to share. Companies want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it. Just about the way they are controlling data now. It's been difficult for the Medicare program to contol the substantial costs of cancer drugs. In a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, an article by Dr. Peter Bach stated that the costs to Medicare of injectable cancer drugs given in doctors' offices increased from $3 billion in 1997 to $11 billion in 2004, an increase of 267% at a time when the costs for the entire Medicare program increased 47%. It also states that there was a huge reduction in Medicare expenses that occurred when the off-label use of ESAs (drugs for anemia-related issues) was found to actually cause harm to patients. The drugs were proven to be over-used and the net result of expose was that use of these drugs quickly dropped and the costs to Medicare dropped from over $1 billion a year to just $200 million. In 2003, in the political payback deal of the century, Congress guaranteed premium pricing for pharmaceuticals, by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices, and it provided hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer subsidies to pay for these premium drug costs. Now the specter of "rationing" is raised. Dr. Bach stated ways that the Medicare program could control costs. One of those ways was to fund a comparative-effectiveness program to assess whether or not treatments (mostly the newer targeted regimens) are really better than older treatments. Decisions are being made about what cancer treatments patients can actually afford.