Most of us have watched or have heard about Family Feud. They ask members of a family how they would answer certain questions and then compare those answers to how a group of 100 people answered those same questions. Sometimes the family member matches many of the same answers the survey group came up with; often they don’t, which leads to some very entertaining situations. I think the producers of the show realize that a family of four people may have some quirks and unusual experiences that leads to entertaining answers. In fact, I think they’re counting on it.
It seems to me that Washington, in its feverish haste to look like they are doing something for older Americans, has forgotten to find out how their older constituents feel about Medicare’s prescription drug Part D program. They are letting political quirks and their own small view of the issue cause them to come up with answers that are a far cry from what their older constituents want. It may make for entertaining campaigning, but it doesn’t really solve the problems.
Every year since 2007 the Healthcare Leadership Council has conducted a survey of older Americans to ascertain how they feel about Part D. The satisfaction in 2007 was at 86%. That is unheard of when referencing a new broad government program. Now, 15 years later, our latest survey shows that seniors in our nation are still very satisfied with Medicare Part D. The nationwide survey of 1000 seniors found that 88 percent of senior enrollees are still satisfied with their Part D coverage and 86 percent agree that their plan is a great value. That’s not bad for a government program that has come in almost 40% under the budget estimates calculated at the program inception. I challenge anyone to identify a government program that has come in 40% under budget with an almost 90% satisfaction rating. A satisfaction rating that’s not from those who run the program, not from the providers or insurance companies, not from the politicians in Washington, but from those who are directly served by the program. One of the basic questions I need to ask is, “why do we need to fix a program that is under budget and wildly successful?” My father always said, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
While these satisfaction numbers continue to be excellent, year after year, there is another part of this survey that is extremely important given the current Part D changes that are being proposed. These proposed changes would allow the government to set the prices of an ever-expanding number of drugs. It would enforce prohibitive fines against price increases that go over the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is a measure of inflation. Just as an aside, given the current rate of inflation the drug manufacturers would be allowed to raise their prices three times above what the average price increase has been in the last three years. Again, Congress wants to insert themselves into a successful program that will most assuredly cause unintended consequences, to say nothing of the intended consequences that will limit choice and access and have very little to do with saving out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Given these proposed changes I think it is extremely important to hear what those that will be impacted by these changes have to say.
Here’s what the survey said:
- Two-in-three Part D enrollees said prescription drug plans should negotiate prices directly with the biopharmaceutical manufacturers instead of letting government set prices and determining which drugs will be covered under Part D formularies.
- 83 percent of seniors are concerned that federal involvement in pricing could reduce choice and options for prescription drugs for seniors and individuals with disabilities in the Medicare program.
- 82 percent of seniors are concerned government price setting policies would limit access to newer prescription medicines.
- 81 percent said it is important to them to have a variety of plans from which to compare and choose.
It should be evident to even the most casual observer that the people who are impacted by the proposed changes aren’t convinced that they are in their best interest. Political expediency and leverage are not reasons to make these types of basic changes to a very successful program.
I do want to point to one positive part of the proposed changes. While fixing prices would not lower out-of-pocket costs, capping the yearly drug out-of-pocket costs to $2,000 will most certainly give a great relief to those who were suffering the most from high prices and the impact of high deductibles or co-insurance. There’s no middleman or arbitrary selection process or other regulations to be gamed, it’s a simple benefit that is applied to those who have been impacted the most. It takes away the worry of wondering what would happen if you suddenly needed some lifesaving expensive medicines. It takes a huge variable out of retirement planning. I have advocated for this change for over 10 years.
We all listen intently when Steve Harvey says, “survey says!!!” Why don’t those who represent us in Washington take a moment to listen intently to what their older constituents say? We have many government programs that don’t work. It doesn’t seem logical to try to fix one that is working just fine.
Click here if you want to tell your Representative or your Senators how you feel about these proposed changes. Your voice is powerful when you choose to speak out.