More Corruption - Corporatized Medicare

I know that most of you groaned along with me when Washington decided to "privatize" Medicare and the prescription plans. Well, now we know we were right to groan. The New York Times reviewed 91 Medicare provider audit reports and the tally is grim:

Tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been victims of deceptive sales tactics and had claims improperly denied by private insurers that run the system's huge new drug benefit program and offer other private insurance options encouraged by the Bush administration...

The top providers all had problems, and the top eleven have already been fined $770,000 for marketing violations. Now that is just in the sales area and not fines for problems with service provision. The top eleven companies were fined for using misleading marketing in the sale of the Medicare programs.

Of course, misleading (or outright false) advertising was not the only problem"

The audits document widespread violations of patients' rights and consumer protection standards. Some violations could directly affect the health of patients -- for example, by delaying access to urgently needed medications.

However, Bush administration officials are proud of "their efforts to police the Medicare market, and they say that competition among private plans has been a boon to beneficiaries, offering more choices at lower cost than anyone expected.."

Lower cost you say? Could that have anything to do with termination of service to those with H.I.V., AIDS, and other "expensive" conditions? "In July, Medicare terminated its contract with a private plan in Florida after finding that it posed an "imminent and serious threat" to its 11,000 members."

This system is "saving" us so much money. How much are the ones denied service paying? How much are we paying to police the new system? But most importantly, are people actually getting better care and access than prior to the "improvements" (corporatization) of the system? Those questions were apparently outside the review done by the Times, and likely is not being monitored by responsible parties in government either.

The administration points to the dramatic increase in the number of people enrolled in the private plans as demonstrating the success of the program (4.7 million in 2003 - 8 million currently). However, it isn't as if the process was optional for many. With some providers, they designated a default plan in the person did not select one. On others, the not private plans were eliminated. Growth in "participation" is not necessarily a sign of "happiness" or "popularity."

A personal example.

My partner's mother is a long time customer of Kaiser. When the new plans came out, Kaiser sent out packets regarding the choices. None of the choices was to stick with her existing coverage. Instead, if one did not select a coverage then one was subscribed to a plan that most closely matched existing coverage. That did not mean expanded coverage. In fact, the cost of co-pays for both service and prescriptions have continued to increase. While some of those cost increases might have been there without the change, there was no "savings" - at least not under Kaiser. Further, her original coverage was eliminated, and the interface between Medicare and Kaiser seems to have gotten more complicated - not less.

I wish some of our representatives would request a full GAO report on the "effectiveness" and "savings" of corporatization .. Medicare, public education, "security," intelligence. We are paying dearly to be "sold" down the river.

Posted by rowan at October 7, 2007 11:55 AM | [eMail this article!] |