Overall, seniors are satisfied with their Part D coverage
This article has been sitting in my browser for a couple of days now. With all the nonsense in the mainstream media, it's nice to see an article that's not inflammatory and tells the other side of the story.
Most senior citizens who signed up for Medicare's new prescription drug coverage say they are happy with their plans, but some report that they are not saving money and many say the overall program could be better designed, two new independent studies show.
That right there is the overall gist of the piece, and I can't say I disagree with any of it. I will, however, qualify two of the three pieces a little bit.
First of all, some seniors are not saving money, and I knew this would happen. Many seniors were on plans that offered better coverage either because they were paying for them out-of-pocket, or through some sort of retirement packages. Many of these plans were eliminated by the companies offering them in favor of Part D plans. The way Part D works is that the government essentially makes a big bowl of money available to private insurers who create plans that fulfill certain guidelines. As a result, some plans that existed before were scrapped or morphed into something other than what they began as. As a result, some seniors aren't saving as much as they might have before.
In aggregate, however, seniors are saving money.
The second topic — the fact that choosing a plan is overwhelming — can't really be helped either. Too many choices creates choice paralysis — and this is something that UnitedHealth and AARP jumped all over with their one-size-fits-all approach. It's making them boatloads of money, and the majority of their customers are happy because the plan is easy to understand. However there is a segment of their customers that aren't happy. They're realizing now that they should have done their homework a little better, and maybe chosen a plan without a doughnut hole. I hope these people make the necessary adjustments to their coverage for next year so we can avoid all this unnecessary media caterwauling. It's truly a case of a vocal minority garnering more publicity than they perhaps warrant.
In general, one-size-fits-all medicine isn't the way to go. It can be made to work — to a degree — but there are always trade-offs, as evidenced by the problems in countries with socialized medicine. (Anyone care to wait 9 months for a colonoscopy? I didn't think so.)
[tags]Medicine, pharmacy, Part D, health insurance[/tags]
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
I know several senios who are not satisfied with medicare D…where did you get your facts? I didnt get a survey about this nor did anyone I know…I pay much more than when we had insurance with my husbands factory ..which they got rid of the retirees….they said the goverment let them…why do I have to pay the same as someone who is rich for my medicare?
Comment by patsy twibell — October 28, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
The first two words of this blog entry link to the article which is where my facts are from.
What the fuck difference does that make? Why SHOULDN'T you pay as much as someone with more money than you? People are poor because they make bad decisions. Whether that's having children they can't support which leads to a lifetime of poverty, or not planning properly for retirement.
And for the record, rich people buy private insurance, so this whole discussion is pointless anyway.
Comment by RJS — October 28, 2007 @ 11:42 pm