New AARP poll shows 86% of Americans over 18 believe Medicare should have bargaining power for prescription drugs

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As the U.S. Senate prepares to take up legislation that gives Medicare the power to bargain for lower prescription drug prices, AARP today announced the results of a national poll showing 86 percent of Americans over the age of 18 support allowing Medicare to have that authority.

“An overwhelming 86 percent of Americans agree that it’s common sense to leverage the buying power of 43 million Medicare members to help bring drug prices down,” said AARP Legislative Counsel and Policy Director, David Certner.

“Americans understand that buying in bulk saves money; this poll shows widespread support for giving Medicare bargaining power over drug prices. Senators preparing to vote on legislation allowing negotiations should take note.”

In the weeks ahead, the Senate will vote on repealing the ban on Secretarial negotiation of drug prices. AARP supports a common sense approach to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the opportunity to develop a workable negotiation process for prescription drugs, with the ultimate goal to lower drug costs. This is especially needed for drugs for which there is little competition.

The AARP poll found that a similarly high number of voters — 85 percent – – felt drug prices were “too high.”

“Drug prices continue to increase at unacceptable rates, nearly twice the level of inflation,” continued Certner. “The pharmaceutical companies continue to talk about allowing the open market to do its job; I can think of no better way to address their concern than by allowing Medicare to use its purchasing power to negotiate for better prescription drug prices.”

A total of 1,007 adults ages 18+ responded to the national AARP poll. The sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent. More than a dozen states were also polled on the same questions with similar results.

To get a complete copy of the poll data, “Medicare Price Negotiation of Prescription Drugs — A National Poll,” e-mail nwood@aarp.org.

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. We produce AARP The Magazine, published bimonthly; AARP Bulletin, our monthly newspaper; AARP Segunda Juventud, our bimonthly magazine in Spanish and English; NRTA Live & Learn, our quarterly newsletter for 50+ educators; and our website, http://www.AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.…

Read More »

This is yet another example of the influence of  big pharmaceutical companies over our elected officials. And this $2 million year a job is just one of many for which the pharmas are paying such sums…all the while citing the need for high US prices to fund R&D.  Read on to find out how pharmaceutical companies work in DC.

GOVERNMENT ETHICS The K Street shuffle, or how a Congressman who opposes price controls on pharma is rewarded

Reprinted from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

IN 1995, THEN HOUSE REPUBLICAN Whip Tom DeLay of Texas and conservative activist Grover Norquist launched what they called their “K Street Project.” The idea: for Republicans to take over the big lobbying firms as successfully as they already had taken hold of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DeLay and Mr. Norquist, who own four of the sharpest elbows in Washington, pushed relentlessly. They went after not only campaign contributions for GOP candidates, but also high-paying jobs for members of Congress who wanted to enter the private sector. Their message was clear: If you want to get along with us, get yourself some Republicans.

Nine years into the project, K Street – whose shiny office towers are home to so many of the nation’s trade associations – has turned Republican red. The symbiosis is in full flower and the revolving door is spinning merrily.

Consider: Last year Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, led the fight to keep price controls out the new Medicare prescription drug benefit bill. The government will be underwriting the cost of drugs for senior citizens, and the pharmaceutical industry wanted to make sure the government paid the going, exorbitant, rate. Thanks in no small part to Mr. Tauzin’s efforts, price controls were outlawed. Nor is the government even allowed to try to negotiate volume discount p s will pay more for the program. Either way, Big Pharmaceuticals comes out way ahead.

Now, by sheerest of coincidences, Mr. Tauzin has decided to retire from Congress. And who should come along to offer him a nice office a block north of K Street and a reported $2 million annual salary but the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America?

Predictably, Democrats are outraged. “If you want to know the price of selling seniors down the river, it’s approximately $2 million a year,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
Even some conservatives are ticked off. In a column headlined “Republican Rot” on The Wall Street Journal’s online editorial page, conservative author John Fund wrote, “One way you can tell that Republicans have become the dominant political party in Washington is to watch them cash in.”

To be sure, since the founding of the republic, Democrats, Republicans – and before them, Whigs – have been cashing in on government service. Mr. Tauzin added a new wrinkle, lobbying for a lobbying job even before he announced his retirement, playing the Motion Picture Association of America against the pharmaceutical manufacturers and driving his price up.

Also new is the methodical, systematic and shameless approach that Mr. DeLay and Mr. Norquist have taken to all of this. They have taken influence-peddling out of the dark corners where it skulked for 225 years and brought it into the bright light of day. They’re betting that a jaded and cynical public no longer expects anything better. What’s worse, they may be right.rices. This means either that seniors will get fewer benefits.…

Read More »

More than 75 percent of the credit counseling services operating in Massachusetts are doing so illegally, according to a report from a Senate committee scheduled to be released today.

Credit counseling agencies in the state are supposed to be nonprofit organizations, but more than 75 percent operate for profit, according to a statement from the office of Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham), chairwoman of the Senate Post Audit Committee.

Jacques is expected to call on the Legislature today to update the laws governing the credit counseling industry in the state.

“Current regulations are inadequate to control a more aggressive generation of (credit counseling) agencies,” the statement said.

Jacques’ staff would not release a copy of the report yesterday, and would not provide further details on the findings.

The report comes at the end of a six-month study of the industry, which works with people to turn around bad credit histories.

“Credit counseling agencies should be regulated,” said Mel Stiller, executive director of Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Southern New England. The nonprofit group works with people with poor credit in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Stiller said he would like to see the state require credit counseling services to be licensed to do business here.

Consumer advocates said the people seeking credit counseling are often vulnerable and need all the protection the law can provide.

“Given the economic downturn, more consumers will be in need of counseling,” said Deirdre Cummings, consumer advocate at the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. “These are the people who are trying to do the right thing and straighten out their credit.”

Cummings had not seen the report, but said she “could only guess this is an industry ripe for abuse.”

Many people are attracted to credit counselors by the abundance of advertisements, many of which promise consumers both a turnaround in credit problems and extra cash on hand, Cummings said.

“Yet they are probably getting deeper into debt because the product they are buying is not adequate,” she said.…

Read More »

The following statement was released today by the American Legion:

“Where has the moral fiber of the U.S. Congress gone?”

That is the question Ronald F. Conley, national commander of The American Legion is asking after the House of Representatives removed $1.8 billion in health care funds for medical treatment of veterans, funds that were previously approved by the same body. “These lawmakers agreed on $27.1 billion in April. Now they pass a bill in July that is $1.8 billion short of that. This is a moral outrage,” Conley said.

“How can members of the House of Representatives possibly cut veterans health care funds as America’s men and women are fighting and dieing every day in the war on terrorism?” Conley asked.

“I was at the U. S. Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany where three plane loads of wounded arrived every day.

“Just a week ago I visited with wounded military men and women in Walter Reed Army Hospital, a short cab ride from Capitol Hill. The heroes I met I will remember forever. A young man from Micronesia, a triple amputee. Another from Pennsylvania, my home state, who lost both eyes and parts of one hand and a leg. Still another, just 21-years-old missing a right leg,” Conley related.

“I visited more than 60 VA medical facilities in the past 10 months. While they provide great care, they are starving for money,” Conley said.

“Removing the agreed upon funding from the final bill is outrageous! Every American should understand that at a time when our nation is fighting a war on terrorism members of the House have provided funding to restore a theater in West Virginia, build a science center at a university in New York and more than 1,000 home district projects. Veterans deserve better than being considered pigs at the trough,” Conley said.

“In our nation’s history tens of millions have returned from war changed. Some physically. Some emotionally. All needing medical care. Cutting health care funding for veterans while the battle still rages is unprecedented in history. Normally, it is a few years after the guns fall silent before lawmakers forget who purchased our freedom. Today, U.S. lawmakers have forgotten — and the guns still roar. Why don’t they jump in a cab and go to Walter Reed and look these wounded heroes in the eye? Then go back to Capitol Hill and try to live with themselves?

“I urge every American to contact their lawmakers in the House to express their outrage at this failure to do what is morally right,” Conley said.…

Read More »

A fellow I know has two wonderful old cars, 1964 and 1963 Chevrolet Impalas, that he has refinished. They are beautiful automobiles, wonderful performers and a thrill to drive. But, in fear of damaging them, he keeps them in a garage, taking them out only for special occasions. When he does drive them, they are the object of admiration and even a bit of awe from those who see them.

That is somewhat the way it is with older workers or job applicants. Loaded with style and potential, they have been garaged, considered almost as a museum piece. As a result, each day, literally hundreds.. perhaps even thousands of employers across the nation violate the nation’s civil rights’ laws. How? They discriminate against a resource that represents one of this country’s biggest losses in terms of skills, productivity, creativity and just good business operations by turning away the older worker.

That such discrimination exists is undeniable. To prove it, however, is more difficult, since the illegal act is cloaked in terminology such as “you are too qualified…we can’t afford someone of your talent and experience…we have changed our focus and need someone with less experience and salary requirements…you have a wonderful background, but it doesn’t fit our needs…”

As a result, the talents of our older citizens too often are cast aside in favor of lower-cost and less-experienced employees. Of course, they deserve their opportunity as well as the older workers, but the chance should be based upon competitive factors in which skills and talents are measured not in terms of age, but by the ability to get the job done.

There are those employers who will claim that they need to build their workforce with younger people, who will be with them much longer than an older employee. However, the question of age is becoming less and less of a factor in longevity with a company. There is no guarantee that the younger employee will remain with an employer longer than the older worker.

As a matter of fact, the odds are likely that the younger worker will move more frequently as he or she builds a career.

Also, age is becoming more and more of a relative factor. Actually, it is highly likely that the older worker might be in better shape physically and emotionally than a younger employee. This is reflected as the retirement age (if there is such a thing) creeps upward on the part of employers and the Social Security Administration.

What then is to be done? The first thing is the establishment of a proactive program by organizations representing the rights of aging adults to aggressively work to ensure that the rights of these workers are being protected.

But, this is not enough. There must also be a proactive communications effort in which the abilities of aging workers are not only explained to potential employers, but in which there is a greater public appreciation of the contributions of older employees to our society in terms of the experience and knowledge they offer. In short–it is time to work to help ensure that older workers and job applicants receive public support for their contributions and that they not merely be regarded as one might view an older automobile that offers design, style, memories and performance, only to be stored in a garage until the next time they are hauled out for a curious public to view and and admire.…

Read More »

How Congress and the drug industry created a trap for American seniors and people with disabilities The costly, confusing, and corrupt design of Part D will cause dire health consequences as 7 million Americans fall into a doughnut hole from which few will escape

By Jeff Cruz & Roger Hickey

Executive Summary

When Congress created the Part D prescription drug program in 2003, they designed the program to benefit the pharmaceutical industries and their other special interest campaign contributors, rather than for American seniors and disabled people. The resultant drug benefit is needlessly complicated, confusing and costly, forbids Medicare from negotiating lower prices like the Veterans Administration does, and doesn’t allow enrollees the choice of a guaranteed benefit directly from Medicare.

Another major flaw in the design is the coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole, into which about 7 million Americans are expected to fall.1 This directly punishes middle class retirees and disabled people who’ve worked their entire lives and don’t qualify for special poverty assistance, yet still need to live on meager fixed incomes. The median per capita income for retirees is $14,664. Many individuals who hit the doughnut hole are forced to choose between eating dinner and getting their prescription drugs.2 This doughnut hole actually costs taxpayers more money, as those without coverage report worsening health and an increase in emergency hospital visits which are covered by traditional Medicare.

Tragically, mortality rates have increased by nearly 25% where prescription drug coverage has been capped, such as with the doughnut hole.3

The average senior who enrolled in Medicare at the beginning of this year will hit the doughnut hole on September

22. Many individuals will enter the doughnut hole much sooner. Out of those individuals who enter the doughnut hole, which perhaps more appropriately should have been called the black hole, few will have the resources to escape. Those who do manage this feat will quickly be plunged right back into the hole the following year. Unfortunately, the doughnut hole will grow each and every year, worsening its effects.

Congress needs to fill in the doughnut hole by fixing the fundamental flaws in the design of Part D. Legislation, such as the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, would save enrollees and taxpayers alike by offering a benefit directly from Medicare with negotiated prices. These savings should be used to eliminate the doughnut hole.

3.Introduction/overview of doughnut hole

The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act was created to provide a badly needed prescription drug benefit for American senior and disabled citizens, but it unfortunately included many provisions that are actually harmful to the intended beneficiaries. These misguided provisions include forbidding Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, forcing seniors to choose among private plans without the option of getting a benefit directly from Medicare, and allowing these private plans to change their prices and drugs covered at any time while American seniors and disabled people are not allowed to change their enrollment until the next open season. Another particularly harmful provision was the creation of a coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole, which was included in the fundamental design of the program. The consequences to seniors who fall into the doughnut hole are dire, and in some cases can even be fatal.

Under Part D, standard enrollees will have to pay the first $250 of their medications (in 2006). After this initial deductible, 75% of their drug costs will be covered, leaving the beneficiary to pay the remaining 25%. However, once the total medication costs have exceeded $2,250 (in 2006), the senior or disabled person must pay for their drugs completely out of pocket, while still paying a monthly premium. This is the gap in coverage that is known as the doughnut hole.

Individuals can only escape the doughnut hole if their total drug costs exceed $5,100 (in 2006), when the catastrophic coverage kicks in and 95% of drug costs are covered. But very few Americans who enter the doughnut hole are expected to get out, and those who do will quickly plunge back into it the following year.

This poor design has many consequences for seniors and the disabled. The best case scenario is that it only makes …

Read More »