Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYT: How Insurers Are Finding Ways to Shift Costs to the Sick
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/upshot/how-insurers-are-finding-ways-to-shift-costs-to-the-sick.html?src=twr&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=2&referrer=Health insurance companies are no longer allowed to turn away patients because of their pre-existing conditions or charge them more because of those conditions. But some health policy experts say insurers may be doing so in a more subtle way: by forcing people with a variety of illnesses including Parkinsons disease, diabetes and epilepsy to pay more for their drugs.
Insurers have long tried to steer their members away from more expensive brand name drugs, labeling them as non-preferred and charging higher co-payments. But according to an editorial published Wednesday in the American Journal of Managed Care, several prominent health plans have taken it a step further, applying that same concept even to generic drugs.
...
Generics, which come to the market after a name-brand drug loses its patent protection, used to have one low price in many insurance plans, typically $5 or $10. But as their prices have increased, sometimes sharply, many insurers have split the drugs into two cost groupings as they have long done with name-brand drugs. Non-preferred generic drugs have higher co-pays, though they are still cheaper than brand-name drugs. With brand names, theres usually at least one preferred option in each disease category. Not so for generics, the authors of the editorial found.
One of the authors, Gerry Oster, a vice president at the consulting firm Policy Analysis, said he stumbled upon the issue much as I did. He went to his pharmacy to pick up a medication he had been taking for a couple of years. The prior month it cost him $5, but this time it was $20. As he looked into it, he came to the conclusion that this phenomenon was unknown even to health policy experts. Its completely stealth, he said.
Insurers have long tried to steer their members away from more expensive brand name drugs, labeling them as non-preferred and charging higher co-payments. But according to an editorial published Wednesday in the American Journal of Managed Care, several prominent health plans have taken it a step further, applying that same concept even to generic drugs.
...
Generics, which come to the market after a name-brand drug loses its patent protection, used to have one low price in many insurance plans, typically $5 or $10. But as their prices have increased, sometimes sharply, many insurers have split the drugs into two cost groupings as they have long done with name-brand drugs. Non-preferred generic drugs have higher co-pays, though they are still cheaper than brand-name drugs. With brand names, theres usually at least one preferred option in each disease category. Not so for generics, the authors of the editorial found.
One of the authors, Gerry Oster, a vice president at the consulting firm Policy Analysis, said he stumbled upon the issue much as I did. He went to his pharmacy to pick up a medication he had been taking for a couple of years. The prior month it cost him $5, but this time it was $20. As he looked into it, he came to the conclusion that this phenomenon was unknown even to health policy experts. Its completely stealth, he said.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 776 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT: How Insurers Are Finding Ways to Shift Costs to the Sick (Original Post)
Scuba
Sep 2014
OP
How about allowing us to buy our drugs in Canada.. Medicare part D would save a fortune
LiberalArkie
Sep 2014
#3
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)1. The only fix for this is ending medicine-for-profit
People in the health care (investment) game are there to make more and more money and will never stop trying.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)2. Single payer...nt
LiberalArkie
(15,707 posts)3. How about allowing us to buy our drugs in Canada.. Medicare part D would save a fortune