the DEA told Newsweek it’s not responsible for pts inability to get prescriptions

DEA Says It Doesn’t ‘Regulate Practice of Medicine’

Amid Patient Backlash to Proposed Opioid Prescription Cuts’

After hundreds of chronic pain patients begged the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reconsider its proposed cuts to opioid production,

the agency told Newsweek it’s not responsible for their inability to get prescriptions.

If the DEA adopts the cuts, they would reduce production of some of the most commonly prescribed opioids in the United States for the fourth year in a row, drastically cutting fentanyl and oxymorphone, by 31 percent and 55 percent, respectively, as well as hydrocodone (19 percent), hydromorphone (25 percent) and oxycodone (9 percent).

These cuts should have no bearing on the decisions made by caregivers and their “legitimate pain patients,” according to the DEA.

It’s possible patients are getting caught in the crossfire from a flurry of recent federal policies aimed at culling illegal abuse of the drugs, but it’s not clear which policy, if any, is at fault for their reported lack of access.

Millions of Americans Addicted
Tablets of oxycodone from a prescription. A recent DEA proposal would reduce production of some of the most commonly prescribed opioids in the United States for the fourth year in a row. Eric Baradat/Getty images

In proposing the aggregate production quota, the DEA looks at the total amount of substances needed to meet the country’s medical, scientific, industrial and export needs for the year, including dispensed prescriptions, the DEA told Newsweek in a statement. That means the agency’s production limits should match, not control, demand.

The DEA “does not regulate the practice of medicine. We do not get between a doctor and his or her patient,” a DEA spokesperson said. “We also want legitimate pain patients, their families and caregivers to know that DEA does not seek to limit or take away their vital prescriptions.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the surgeon general have implemented their own agenda to combat the opioid epidemic, issuing strict guidelines for doctors prescribing the drugs in 2016. On October 10, the Trump administration told physicians to use more caution in applying the guidelines, following widespread reports that people were cut off their prescriptions or even turned away, according to The New York Times.

It’s possible the guidelines, or the general stigma now associated with prescription painkillers, have led to the tapering off of supply reported by many chronic pain patients to the DEA. One patient, a stroke survivor, said he took prescription opioids without problems until 2017, when he said federal regulations made the drugs too hard to obtain. Since then, medical cannabis has helped but became less effective when his condition deteriorated. Now, he can’t travel or leave his home much because of the pain.

In 2018, an investigation by former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill exposed financial ties between some of the world’s biggest producers of painkillers and third-party advocacy groups. Purdue Pharma, Mylan, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and other major drugmakers donated more than $10 million to patient advocacy groups like the National Pain Foundation, the American Geriatrics Society and the American Chronic Pain Association.

 

 

NY Times reporter looking for pts having trouble getting controlled med Rxs filled

ellen.gabler@nytimes.com

 

Putting artificial intelligence to work for you

Here is a link to a interesting program… it is called ChatGPT and here is a explanation on WIKIPEDIA   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT

Basically you click on the link below and ask (type in ) a question and it will give you back a answer to your question. It is free to use and it has only been around for a few months.  It is not PERFECT, but I posted below the question that I “asked it” and its response.

https://chat.openai.com/chat

filing an appeal with Medicare denial of payment ?

o file an appeal with Medicare denial of payment:

  1. Review the Explanation of Medicare Benefits (EOMB) statement and determine the reason for denial of payment.
  2. Follow the instructions on the EOMB for appealing the decision.
  3. Prepare a written request for a redetermination of payment, stating the reason for the appeal and any supporting documentation.
  4. Submit the appeal within 120 days of the date on the EOMB.
  5. Wait for a response from Medicare, which will be in the form of a revised EOMB or a notice of additional review.

Correcting the misperception of palliative care

Correcting the misperception of palliative care

https://www.mcknights.com/blogs/guest-columns/correcting-the-misperception-of-palliative-care/

Compared to other medical subspecialties, palliative care is relatively young, but it has grown substantially in the last 20 years. As of 2019, 71.5% of US hospitals with more than 50 beds have a palliative care program, compared to just 7.0% in 2001 (Morrison & Meier, 2019). More recently, palliative care outside of the hospital setting has increased in popularity.

But palliative care is an often-misunderstood term. Even for patients and providers who believe they understand what it is, there is evidence that many misconceptions exist. Recurrent misunderstandings and misrepresentations of palliative care prevent patients from getting the care that they need when they need it. We must, therefore, correct the record for all clinicians treating seriously ill patients.

Palliative care is specialized medical care for people living with serious illness. Focused on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illness, the goal is to improve quality of life for both the patient and the family.

Provided by a team of specialists who work together with a patient’s other doctors to provide an extra layer of support, palliative care is based on the needs of the patient, not on the patient’s prognosis. It is appropriate at any age and at any stage, and it can be provided along with curative treatment.

How do we do this? We do this by providing complex pain and symptom management, and in-depth communication geared to quality of life. We acknowledge that our patients are humans with feelings, emotions, and lives outside of the exam room. We view the whole person, provide the facts – and we listen. We allow space for silence and we validate feelings. We do all of this while our patients receive disease-targeted treatment.

Palliative care provides an extra layer of support while people get the best of what medicine has to offer in terms of cure. It is recommended that palliative care be provided all the way upstream, even upon diagnosis, if the need to mitigate complex symptoms and stress is there. Patients who are mothers, fathers, daughters and sons deserve this.

Minnesota bill: states that EVERY INDIVIDUAL has a fundamental right to make individual autonomous health decisions

This post is not about Roe v. Wade or Doe v. Gomez or Abortion rights in general. Our Declaration of Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness states the following: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness

Is this just one more example of bureaucrats at numerous levels of city/county/state/federal – slicing & dicing the sacred & undeniable rights granted to each and everyone of the citizens of the USA. I wonder if any of these women who are seeking an abortion in MN, would also have individual autonomous health decisions about her PAIN MANAGEMENT ?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minnesota-senate-passes-abortion-bill-opponents-call-most-extreme-nation

Abortion rights advocates said Minnesota bill is necessary to make it more difficult for a judge to erode abortion rights in the future

After 15 hours of contentious debate, the Minnesota Senate passed legislation early Saturday morning that guarantees the right to abortion, a bill pro-life Republicans have called the “most extreme” in the nation. 

The Protect Reproductive Options (PRO) Act passed the state Senate 34-33, after Republicans had unsuccessfully tried to amend the bill 35 times. The bill states that “every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health.” 

Democrats had fast-tracked the legislation in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last summer to overturn Roe v. Wade – ending federal protections for abortion. While the right to abortion was previously guaranteed in a 1995 decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Doe v. Gomez, abortion rights activists and Democrats said the PRO act was necessary to codify abortion rights into state law, as well as rights to contraception, fertility treatment, and pregnancy. 

“What Minnesotans are afraid of is to see, potentially, that what happened at the federal level with our U.S. Supreme Court could eventually, in some future time, happen here in Minnesota,” said bill sponsor state Sen. Jennifer McEwen, a Democrat from Duluth. “The decisions of our courts, the upholding of our fundamental human rights, are only as strong as the judges who uphold them.”

Abortion protesters on both sides pack the halls outside the Minnesota Senate chamber on Friday, Jan. 27, 2023, at the State Capitol in St. Paul, Minnesota. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski)

Pro-life and pro-choice protesters flocked to the Minnesota State Capitol building to voice their opinions on the PRO Act Friday. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski)

Supporters of the bill say it will not change the status quo in Minnesota. 

“The PRO Act solidifies Minnesotans’ human rights into state law and is an insurance policy that our rights won’t be taken away by politicians or judges,” said Dr. Sarah Traxler, chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood North Central States. 

“All I want, and doctors across Minnesota want, is to provide the best care we can to our patients. And by passing the PRO Act into state law, the Minnesota Legislature will allow us to do just that,” she added in a statement. 

The Minnesota Senate passed a bill Saturday to write broad protections for abortion rights into state statutes, which would make it difficult for future courts to roll back. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski)

Opponents disagree, arguing the bill establishes a right to abortion up until the moment of birth. Republicans had attempted to amend the bill with “guard rails” that would restrict abortions in the third-trimester, but the newly-elected Democratic majority blocked their amendments. 

“Today we are not just codifying Roe v. Wade or Doe v. Gomez, as the author has indicated, we are enacting the most extreme bill in the country,” said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, of East Grand Forks during debate. 

The PRO Act now heads to Democratic Gov. Tim Walz’s desk for his signature. He has said he supports the bill and will sign it into law. 

It is Time for Policymakers to Protect Patients from Predatory Practices of Insurers and PBMs

It is Time for Policymakers to Protect Patients from Predatory Practices of Insurers and PBMs

https://www.acsh.org/news/2023/01/17/it-time-policymakers-protect-patients-predatory-practices-insurers-and-pbms-16816

Policymakers often talk about protecting patients against the predatory practices of insurers and PBMs. It is about time for state and federal legislators to support such legislations to ensure that ONLY patients benefit from such patient assistance programs and to stop PBM and insurers from profiteering on the backs of patients.

The following is a snippet of a 1/15/23 article written by Dr. Robert Popovian (American Council on Science and Health advisor) and Louis Tharp for Healthcare Business Today,

Although per capita patient out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on prescription medications has dropped, averages are deceiving. In the U.S., a modest percentage of patients are burdened with unsustainable OOP biopharmaceutical spending. These are the patients who depend on brand-name medicines that have no generic or biosimilar equivalents. The primary contributor to the OOP burden is the changing of pharmaceutical benefit design. Such evolution from fixed-cost co-payments to percentage-based coinsurance and the expansion of high-deductible plans has dramatically increased the OOP share of drug costs paid by those patients. 

In addition, pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs) and insurers have devised a payment model in which patients do not directly benefit from multi-billion-dollar concessions, rebates, and fees collected by PBMs and insurers from biopharmaceutical companies. In contrast to physician or dentist visits, where a patient’s coinsurance or deductible is based on lower prices negotiated by the insurer, patients’ shares of medication costs are based on the inflated list price. Subsequently, biopharmaceuticals are the only segment of the health system in which patients do not realize the benefit of lower prices negotiated on their behalf.

Over the past several years, biopharmaceutical companies have offered assistance to eligible patients to help offset OOP costs. The monetary value of these manufacturers’ patient assistance programs (PAPs) places the pharmaceutical companies among some of the largest U.S. charities. To devalue PAPs, PBMs and insurers have instituted accumulator and maximizer programs. These initiatives prohibit the patient assistance funds provided through pharmaceutical companies from counting toward the insured individual’s deductible or maximum OOP spending. Consequently, accumulator and maximizer programs force patients to double-pay. The insurer and PBM collect the patient assistance funds provided by the biopharmaceutical industry meant for the patient, while patients must continue making OOP payments until they meet their maximum requirements. Simply put, PBMs and insurers increase profitability on the backs of patients.

CVS, Walmart to Cut Pharmacy Hours as Staffing Squeeze Continues

CVS, Walmart to Cut Pharmacy Hours as Staffing Squeeze Continues

Operating schedules remain ‘pain point’ as chains seek to improve work environment

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cvs-walmart-to-cut-pharmacy-hours-as-staffing-squeeze-continues-11674796388

CVS says most of its reduced hours will be when there is low patient demand or when a store has only one pharmacist on site.Photo: GABBY JONES for The Wall Street Journal

CVS Health Corp. CVS 0.14%increase; green up pointing triangle

and Walmart Inc. WMT 0.77%increase; green up pointing triangle

are cutting pharmacy hours in the midst of a pharmacist shortage that has plagued the nation’s biggest drugstore chains throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

CVS, the largest U.S. drugstore chain by revenue, plans in March to cut or shift hours at about two-thirds of its roughly 9,000 U.S. locations. Walmart plans to reduce pharmacy hours by closing at 7 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. at most of its roughly 4,600 stores by March.

Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. previously said it was operating thousands of stores on reduced hours because of staffing shortages. Combined, the three chains operate some 24,000 retail pharmacies across the U.S. 

Walmart last year raised pay for pharmacy technicians.Photo: Ryan David Brown for The Wall Street Journal

Earlier in the pandemic, CVS and Walgreens struggled to meet demand for Covid shots and vaccines. The chains cut hours and, in some cases, closed pharmacies for entire weekends. Walmart, which sells a wider variety of goods, cut overall store hours, in part, to cope with Covid-related labor shortages and make time to restock empty shelves as demand for basics such as toilet paper surged.  

CVS, in a recent notice to field leaders, said most of its reduced hours will be during times when there is low patient demand or when a store has only one pharmacist on site, which the company said is a “top pain point,” for its pharmacists. 

CVS said in a statement it periodically reviews pharmacy operating hours as part of the normal course of business to ensure stores are open during high-demand times. “By adjusting hours in select stores this spring, we ensure our pharmacy teams are available to serve patients when they’re most needed,” the company said, adding that customers who encounter a closed pharmacy can seek help at a nearby location. 

At Walmart, the shorter hours offer pharmacy workers a better work-life balance and best serve customers in the hours they are most likely to visit the pharmacy, said a company spokeswoman. “This change is a direct result of feedback from our pharmacy associates and listening to our customers,” she said. Some Walmart pharmacies already close before 9 p.m., which will become standard across the country after the change.

An online community message board for Holliston, Mass., a small town about 30 miles outside Boston, was populated with messages last month from locals venting about the unpredictable hours of the CVS in town, said resident Audra Friend, who does digital communications for a nonprofit. Ms. Friend said she struggled for a week in November to refill a prescription for a rescue inhaler at the store because the pharmacy was sporadically closed.

“I would go in, and there was a note on the door saying, ‘Sorry, pharmacy closed,’” said Ms. Friend, who switched her prescriptions to a 24-hour CVS about 5 miles away. She said it would be better to have consistently shorter hours if that meant fewer unexpected closures. “At least that way we’re not just showing up at CVS to find out the pharmacist isn’t there,” she said.

A CVS spokeswoman said that in recent weeks the Holliston store has had no unexpected closures.

The drugstore chains have been working to stop an exodus of pharmacy staff by offering such perks as bonuses, higher pay and guaranteed lunch breaks. Pharmacists were already in short supply before the pandemic, and consumer demand for Covid-19 shots and tests put additional strains on pharmacy operations. Walgreens recently said staffing problems persist and remain a drag on revenue. 

Retail pharmacies, which benefited from a bump in sales and profits during the pandemic, are now reworking their business models as demand for Covid tests and vaccines decline and generic-drug sales generate smaller profits.

CVS and Walgreens are closing hundreds of U.S. stores and launching new healthcare offerings as they try to transform themselves into providers of a range of medical services, from diagnostic testing to primary care.  

This past summer, Walgreens was offering bonuses up to $75,000 to attract pharmacists, while CVS is working to develop a system in which pharmacists could perform more tasks remotely. The median annual pay for pharmacists was nearly $129,000 in 2021, according to Labor Department data, which also projected slower-than-average employment growth in the profession through 2031. 

In the past year, the chains have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into recruiting more pharmacists and technicians but staffing up has proven difficult. Pharmacists remain overworked, pharmacy-chain executives have acknowledged, and fewer people are attending pharmacy schools. The number of pharmacy-school applicants has dropped by more than one-third from its peak a decade ago, according to the Pharmacy College Application Service, a centralized pharmacy-school application service.

Meanwhile, many pharmacists who aren’t quitting the field are leaving drugstores to work in hospitals or with other employers. 

Walmart raised wages for U.S. pharmacy technicians in the past year, bringing average pay to more than $20 an hour. Walmart said it planned to raise the minimum wage for all U.S. hourly workers in its stores and warehouses to $14 next month, from $12.

CVS and Walgreens last year raised their minimum wages to $15 an hour.

 

Per two pain experts: we must reintegrate pain with the rest of human suffering as a necessary part of a full life

Image

DOES $ 50.00 for a PAPERBACK seems a bit HIGH ?

I have not bought this book, nor read this book, nor The American Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, contains these famous words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (emphasis added).

Our Founding Fathers in our Declaration of Independence  Is the Pursuit of Happiness a God Given Right 

The American Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, contains these famous words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (emphasis added).

especially during the 20th century, our federal government implemented a number of “social safety nets” intended to help mitigate or solve a number of “human suffering” most notably social security, Medicare, war on poverty (Medicaid), Affordable care act ( Obamacare), unemployment, 12 yrs of a no cost public education.  Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness is seriously intertwined. Did our Founding Fathers intend for their successors in the three branches of our Federal Gov to codify what the definition of those three words encompassed ? If “we” allow bureaucrats to define or limit the scope of mean of any one of these unalienable rights will impact the meaning and/or scope of the other two unalienable rights

Here is a link to a large selection of the text from the book   https://www.amazon.com/Right-Relief-Other-Opioid-Epidemic-ebook/dp/B0BNW1Y4QB/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3Q6RV8U00ZVOH&keywords=the+right+to+pain+relief&qid=1674693039&sprefix=the+right+to+pain+relief%2Caps%2C127&sr=8-1&asin=B0BNW1Y4QB&revisionId=deb20416&format=1&depth=1

The Right to Pain Relief and Other Deep Roots of the Opioid Epidemic offers a new lens through which to view the opioid epidemic as a consequence of serious misunderstandings of both opioids and pain. Based on their extensive research and experience with chronic pain care, science, ethics, and policy, the authors look beyond the usual villains-pharmaceutical companies and pharmacotherapy distributors-to examine the ethical and scientific concepts about pain that made the opioid epidemic possible.

The book explores the history of pain in Western society, the role of innovation in end-of-life care, the conception of pain control as an important medical responsibility, and the various models of pain that have led to our current understanding of it, ultimately arguing that

we must reintegrate pain with the rest of human suffering as a necessary part of a full life.

Containing patient vignettes as well as scientific and policy controversies that have emerged as the opioid epidemic has evolved, The Right to Pain Relief and Other Deep Roots of the Opioid Epidemic examines these implications in a more human and holistic way than has been ever addressed before by the popular press and professional literature.

When part of Medicare is controlled by a for profit insurance company: Medicare Part D Plan Prices May Change Unexpectedly

Medicare Part D Plan Prices May Change Unexpectedly

How many seniors end up paying more than they thought they would?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/102834

What if you leased a car, then realized the monthly payment would increase as soon as you drove off the lot, costing you hundreds more?

What if the warranty covers much less than what the dealer advertised?

Welcome to Medicare Part D.

It’s a huge problem for patients, many physicians say. Some who fail to checkopens in a new tab or window their next year’s drug prices during the annual re-enrollment period end up shocked in January when the same drugs they’ve been taking for years, and/or their premiums, end up costing hundreds more in the same plan.

For those who do check, there can be surprises when the posted prices on the Medicare Plan Finder turn out to be wrong, or they’re later contradicted by Part D pharmacy representatives.

Drugs that were the least expensive — even some generics — in Tier 1 may jump to the more expensive Tier 2, 3, or 4 the following year. In any given year, a drug can be priced by one plan in Tier 1, but somehow lands in Tier 2, 3, or 4 in other plans.

What beneficiaries pay may go from a flat copayment to coinsurance, which is a percentage — say 17% or 50% — of the insurance plan’s cost the following year. They may not realize these changes until they get to the pharmacy, or the charge shows up on their statement. The drugs can be exempt from the plan’s deductible, or not exempt.

To make matters even more confusing, Medicare’s rules allow Part D plan insurers to change their formularies after the first 60 days of the year, or immediately if a new generic is released or if there are safety concerns, and in certain other situations too, said Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for the Medicare Rights Center.

Simple, Not Simple

Medicare urges beneficiaries to use its Medicare Plan Finderopens in a new tab or window to pick their next year’s plan during the annual enrollment period, Oct. 15 to Dec. 7, to compare drug plan premiums and drug costs. Plans report these “estimated” prices to the agency for the upcoming year.

Ideally, the process of selecting the best, least expensive plan is supposed to be simple. You type in your zip code, list the drugs you take, the number you need, the frequency, and five pharmacies at a time. The mail-order option is usually among the least expensive.

The finder sorts dozens of plans from least to most expensive in terms of total costs, separating the costs for premiums versus prescriptions. But it can be especially bewildering when the plan’s formulary booklet arrives in the mail telling a different story, and plan phone representatives quote far costlier drug prices.

That’s what happened to me.

The Medicare Plan Finder identified the Cigna Saver Rx PDP as my best option. It would cut my monthly premium from $44.50 to $12.70, thus costing me $381.60 less than if I stayed in last year’s plan. One generic statin I take would cost zero, and the second, ezetimibe, 10 mg, would cost only $118.80opens in a new tab or window for the year.

To make sure I didn’t miss something, I called Cigna representatives twice before enrolling, and a third time after my enrollment card arrived. All three reassured me that $118.80, or $29.70 for a 90-day supply, was all I would pay. I verified this on Cigna’s own websiteopens in a new tab or window.

But the new year brought an alarming twist. The Cigna plan formulary — a small telephone book — arrived Jan. 3. There on page 14, ezetimibe is listed as a Tier 3 drugopens in a new tab or window, which is usually reserved for brand-name drugs. Page 5 showsopens in a new tab or window that preferred mail-order cost-sharing for a Tier 3 drug is $120 for a 90-day supply, or $480 a year, not $118.80.

I double-checked Medicare’s Plan Finder again, and it still said $118.80. On Jan. 4, I called Cigna to complain, and a representative repeatedly confirmed that my price would be $480 for the year. I asked for a supervisor, but after a 17-minute wait, I lost patience and hung up.

I called again a few days later after receiving a letter from Cigna suggesting I should call customer service about my Jan. 4 “grievance.” That representative said adamantly, “the 90-day supply is $120.” Not $29.70. The price for the year is $480.

I complained to 1-800-Medicare, and a representative who researched my concern confirmed that the prices on the finder and in the Cigna book were indeed different. She kept me on the phone as she filed an “official complaint” with Cigna. If this happened to me, I thought, it’s happening to other beneficiaries. What’s the point of the plan finder if its prices are wrong?

Preparing to write a story about the issue, I queried Cigna’s press office, and spokeswoman Justine Sessions replied: “Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I’m sorry for the frustration and the confusion you’ve experienced. First, related to your questions about the medication costs: the Plan Finder and our formulary book are consistent and correct.

“As outlined in your plan documentsopens in a new tab or window Page 36, section 5.2opens in a new tab or window and Page 49, section 5.4opens in a new tab or window, if the cost of the drug is lower than the tier copay, you pay the lower price. So, for a 90-day supply of ezetimibe 10 mg via preferred mail order, you would pay $29.70 rather than the standard Tier 3 copay of $120. For a 90-day supply of rosuvastatin 20 mg via preferred mail order, you would pay $0, since it is a Tier 1 medication.”

That didn’t make sense. The booklet she referenced doesn’t list the plan’s cost for that drug. Nowhere is the amount $29.70 listed.

Cigna: “We Fall Short”

I wondered if I was being allowed the lower price because I am a journalist who complained.

Sessions’ response continued: “Second – we take feedback from customers like yourself very seriously, and are always looking for opportunities to improve. Cigna is proud to be among the leaders in Net Promoter Score for Medicare, which measures our customers’ willingness to recommend us to friends and family members, but sometimes we fall short of our high standards, as we did in your case. When this happens, we strive to address any issues quickly and use them as an opportunity for additional training and education for our colleagues.”

I asked Sessions how enrollees could know what the cost would be from the formulary book, especially when representatives are giving much higher prices. I was persistent, but I worry that many seniors who have neither the skills nor the patience to investigate and complain will end up enrolling in more expensive plans and end up paying more for their drugs than they should.

Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Kaiser Family Foundation Program on Medicare Policy, agreed that Medicare “has become far more complicated than it once was. There’s clearly some upside to having many health and drug plan choices, but there’s a downside too, particularly if choosing among them is too tall an order.”

Too Complicated

Some Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) members are also concerned about the complexity and confusion surrounding Part D.

At its meeting Jan. 13, policy analyst Shinobu Suzuki reported that while 80% of beneficiaries in 2020 reported overall satisfaction, “they tended to be less satisfied with the ability to understand the program and the information they received,” and fewer than 75% “were confident their coverage met their needs.” One-fourth of beneficiaries reported problems with affordability.

That prompted commissioner David Grabowski to express concerns. “It strikes me that MedPAC could think a little bit about the Plan Finder tools and how beneficiaries are matched to their plans,” he said, suggesting that improvements can prevent beneficiaries from being matched “to coverage that doesn’t meet their needs.”

In an email to MedPage Today, Grabowski elaborated that the plan finder “is often not helpful” and that “far too many beneficiaries are still struggling with the tool.”

It’s also a problem for doctors. Numerous studies document that when prices rise, patients skip doses or don’t fill their prescriptions, especially patients with disabilitiesopens in a new tab or window or depressionopens in a new tab or window. Doctors also complainopens in a new tab or window that insurance companies pressure them to write cheaper prescriptions for generics. And one San Diego physician realized this year, as a patient, that she could save “hundreds of dollars annually” on her insomnia drug, eszopiclone, if she skipped her Part D plan and just paid cash at Costco.

In official correspondence, the American Medical Association has told CMS it has concerns about the lack of formulary transparency at the point of prescribing, as well increasing formulary complexity. That complicates plan selection for beneficiaries. When physicians can’t get accurate cost information for their patients, it hurts their ability to provide patient care.

New Year Surprises

“The whole fault with this current system is that you really don’t know what to expect,” said David Weil, program manager for the San Diego regional State Health Insurance Assistance Program, a federally funded counseling service for Medicare beneficiaries. “Part D is especially frustrating for most people because it represents a large portion of healthcare costs and lacks the kind of control that could make more information available to the public.”

Tatiana Fassieux, a counselor with California Health Advocates, reported that a San Mateo SHIP counselor saw on the plan finder that the dry eye medication Restasis was covered by Wellcare’s Part D plan. With the new year, however, she learned that it wasn’t because the drug has a generic version.

A pharmacist in Los Osos, California, told her that as soon as open enrollment closed, Wellcare changed the tier for Eliquis, a drug to prevent blood clots, which changed the copay from $45 per month to more than $200.

“As Eliquis is one of the more widely prescribed brand-name drugs, this is going to affect many patients,” the pharmacist said.

Weil and other advocates advise beneficiaries who believe they enrolled in a plan based on misinformation — either by a plan representative or the Medicare Plan Finder — to call their State Health Insurance Assistance Programopens in a new tab or window, sometimes called the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program, representatives for help. They also can complain to 1-800-Medicare. In some cases, Medicare may allow the beneficiary to enroll in a less expensive plan even though the enrollment window has closed.

“The more these are reported as complaints, the more likely the plans will be sanctioned or at least made to rectify these situations,” Weil said. “This should also be made clear to Congress that they need to do more to protect beneficiaries from some blatant manipulations all in the name of greater profits.”

Congress has started to realize how difficult the Part D system is for seniors. It has capped beneficiaries’ Part D out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 per year starting in 2025, and has made other changes, such as capping insulin costs at $35 a month for seniors. But even there, seniors weren’t able to see their costs change because the Medicare Plan Finder failedopens in a new tab or window to include it, although it does now.

That cap can’t come too soon.

Something you will never hear the DEA say : “Cutting people off from Opioids may not be the best solution”

Something you will never hear the DEA say : “Cutting people off from Opioids may not be the best solution”

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/478859728/think#:~:text=Cutting%20people%20off%20from%20opioids,in%20pain%20still%20need%20help