Well, the answer is nothing. It does what it is designed to do, protect the elderly from being uninsured. And everything.
In 1966, when Medicare was young, it covered the elderly for the first time. At the time it was passed, only one in eight elderly persons had health insurance. Commercial insurers disdained this group as unprofitable due to their high medical costs. Medicare gave Social Security recipients some protection from the high cost of medical care. Without this protection, much of the elderly person’s income could be eaten up in medical costs.
Of course, mistakes were made. I came on the scene in 1970 as a nurse, and vividly remember old people who definitely misused their coverage. Such as one old gent who would get his bowels bound up, report in for an enema, and be admitted for a couple of days to get him straightened out. Whereupon he would order from the kitchen a grilled cheese sandwich, apparently the only thing he ate. Which is why he had the problem in the first place. Eventually these things made the cost of the program go up, and things like co-pays and deductibles were added to the program to keep costs down.
Medicare has four parts nowadays, labeled A, B, C, and D. At first Medicare only had Part A and B. Part A is hospital insurance, and it doesn’t have a premium. You get it when you get your Social Security. Part B is coverage for doctors and some other things liked durable medical equipment. It is not mandatory, and has a premium. The original premium was $3 in 1965. In 2000, it was $45.50. Today in 2008, it is $96.80, having increased 96% in the last eight years. Thank you President Bush. Need I mention that our Social Security COLAs (cost of living allowances) haven’t gone up anywhere near 96% in the same time period?
Part C is the Medicare Advantage plans, which are also voluntary. Many of them are administered by HMO’s, and will give you more coverage than Original Medicare. For instance, the plan I am in will cover minimal dental and vision care, something not covered by Original Medicare. These plans were an attempt to sneak in some privatization of Medicare. Unfortunately, they are heavily subsidized and will probably be cut as inefficient and costly in the near future. Many insurance companies are dropping them. It is relatively expensive, and the cost is on top of the Medicare Part B premium, and you must maintain your Part B coverage to be eligible for them. Did I mention the 96% rise in Part B premiums over the last eight years? I did?
Medicare Part D is prescription drug coverage. It is more or less mandatory, in that if you don’t sign up for it when you are eligible, it costs you more when you do sign up. It has been a boon, I am sure, to some people who didn’t have drug coverage previously, but for many others, it is known as Medicare D(isaster) for good reasons. The people hardest hit were the so-called “dual eligibles”, those people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. They went from paying nothing for their prescriptions on Medicaid, to at least having a $1-3 copay for their prescriptions. These people live on SSI, which now is about $650/month. Suddenly having this cost affected their already meager income adversely. At that income, their food stamps are also meager, less than $50/month, and so now they are faced with buying food or buying their medications that used to be free.
The other “wonderful” part of Medicare D(isaster) is the “donut hole”. This is a level of coverage where you must pay full costs of your prescriptions after you and the insurance company combined have paid a certain amount. After you have accumulated another amount, coverage kicks back in at 100%, so called catastrophic coverage. The intent was to encourage people to use generic drugs whenever possible to lower costs. Only two of my seven prescriptions are non-generic, and I will still hit the donut hole sometime towards the end of the year. Which combined with the deductible that will be due in January, makes for a fun and exciting Christmas season.
So, how would I, in my infinite wisdom, change Medicare?
A) Reverse priorities. Make doctor’s care primary and hospital care secondary. Make keeping people out of hospitals a priority. Hospitals are the most expensive component of medical care. To do this, increase what primary physicians are paid to see Medicare patients in their offices to a decent level, and increase preventitive screening programs.
B) Pay for folks drugs. Really, if most people took their meds as ordered, it would keep a lot of them out of the hospital and ER. Especially if they didn’t have to choose between eating, heating and their medications. I really hate January because of the deductibles and the high heating costs. Did I mention how much fun Christmas is with the doughnut hole?
C) Have the fiscal year start in July instead of January, when heating costs are high. Then the deductibles wouldn’t be such a pain. Of course, you could leave them in January in areas of the country where cooling costs are higher than heating costs.
D) Eliminate the donut hole. I imagine that the administrative costs of this thing outweigh any savings it produces for the government. And while we are at it, allow the government to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies for the lowest cost of drugs.
E) With the proliferation of $4 generic drug programs, allow elders to get their generics from one of those programs, and just cover the non-generic prescriptions. It would save me money, because my generic co-pay is $5, and maybe then my non-generic co-pay could be less than the present $35 for Tier Two meds. God help me if I ever need Tier Three or Four meds.
Right now I am paying approximately 25% of my income just in insurance premiums and co-pays. I don’t know if I can continue to afford this. But since I don’t have any savings, if I don’t continue with the Medicare Advantage plan, the deductibles for Original Medicare will kill me. This way I never see the money, so I don’t miss it as much. If I had it, I would probably spend it on something foolish, like food or heat. Go figure.
June 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Disclaimer: I am aware that you are a health care professional. My comment is not intended to be either insulting or personal.
I recently had a small dialog with another blogger who posted a negative slanted comment on the Canadian system of universal health care.
My first disagreement is in the labelling of “health care”. It is no such thing. It is the delivery of “medical services”.
Our current model of “medical service” delivery seems to have evolved into one driven primarily by profit and greed. It was initially propagated by medical doctors back in the early 20th century. Pharmaceutical companies had a look, saw an opportunity, grabbed and we’ve been away to the races ever since.
It’s hard for people to hear sometimes that their lifestyle may have been causative to medical conditions experienced later in life. Maybe that’s why physicians don’t tell people that, preferring instead to issue prescription after prescription rather than finding root cause and actually effecting a cure rather than band-aiding symptoms.
Admittedly, I don’t know much about most of the maintenance medications that are used nowadays; what they are, what they’re for and worst of all, what they do to the human body. (And I’m on a maintenance med myself as I unwillingly gave up my thyroid to a suspected carcinoma more than a decade ago).
What’s really egregious is the costs associated with pharmaceuticals for really serious illness, like cancer. As long as drug companies can make the money they make off of sick people seeking hope wherever they can find it, do we seriously believe anyone will try really hard to find the cause and, more importantly, a cure?
Okay, I’ve probably gone off a bit and I’m probably ranting. It just seems that so much of our current societal structure is geared towards putting us into a corner and keeping us there, sucking the very life blood from us so a select few can get rich.
I did not mean to offend and, if I have, I apologize.
June 3, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I agree with a lot of what you have said Rob, and it’s worse in the US. We don’t negotiate with BigPharma like you do, we don’t cover everybody, we just let them hang out to die. A lot of money could be saved if we offered decent health care, ie, to provide a facility for someone with disabilities like me to exercise, to make good, fresh, whole food available to everyone at every income level, to reduce pollution, stress, overwork, smoking and industrial accidents, etc. However, even if we had all those things, there would still be some people ill or disabled through no fault of their own. And again, we don’t know all what we pretend to know, and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Since I am about 100 or so lbs overweight, I have had doctors try to sell me on gastric bypass. However, my blood pressure is managed with a very mild diuretic, and if I’d get around to losing the 10 or 20 lbs that is all I’m likely to lose under any circumstances at this point, I probably wouldn’t need that. I am not diabetic, or even “pre-diabetic” at this point. I have mostly things that greatly inconvenience me, fibromyalgia and severe osteoarthritis of the knees, not anything that is likely to kill me. And since the grandmother that I resemble lived to be 89, I might well live that long, too, despite the dire predictions. However, if I had the gastric bypass, I would immediately have a mal-absorption syndrome caused by the surgery, probably have daily diarrhea, and be at nutritional risk for the rest of my life, with no guarantee of losing all the weight, changing any of my health problems, or maintaining the weight loss for a significant period of time. I would have at least a 25% chance of having complications from the surgery. Does this sound like they have my best interests at heart, or do they want to do an expensive surgery that will make me even more disabled than I am so they can charge lots of money for my care? You decide.
June 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Silverstar: I wouldn’t presume to decide anything for another.
When my late wife’s doctors pressured her to have what amounted to a total of three surgeries, I also said she needed to have the surgeries. When you’re told that you – or a loved one – have/has cancer, the instincts take over and you just want it out of you as soon as practicable. She had the surgeries and, given that she was in better than average shape for a 43 yo woman, she bounced back resiliently from each one.
She underwent a late stage surgery about 7 weeks before she died to repair a perforated duodenal ulcer. (Not sure if that was caused by melanoma tumours or by some of the CAM supplements she was taking.)
I, too, rushed into surgery for a thyroidectomy after a (mis-)diagnosis of papillary carcinoma.
Nowadays, I would be very reluctant to submit to surgery.
I also don’t care to put manufactured pharmaceuticals into my body either. I will avoid things like antibiotics at nearly all costs, because of the overall havoc they wreak on the system.
Admittedly, I do have to take synthroid daily. If a headache does not give way to water, caffeiene or ice packs, then I will swallow a couple of NSAIDs (and I know they are hard on the liver).
I try to be somewhat selective in what I eat. But it’s difficult to know what you’re getting these days, even with fresh fruits and vegetables.
My doctor says I don’t get enough exercise. I try (at times) but it’s difficult to find the time around and amongst all the other things that need doing. (Maybe I should cut down on my blog-reading/blogging?)
It can be difficult. We have to start from where we are currently – no looking back on the coulda’s, shoulda’s, woulda’s – and make the best of what we have. It comes down to knowledge and desire, essentially. The knowledge lets you determine the best of course of action and the desire pushes you to do the things you know you should.
If only it were really that simple, eh?