A big Pharma give away?

[William Bloode]

I got an interesting letter last week. It was about my Medicaid. Seems they made a change or two. What was changed kinda boggled my mind for a bit. What they done was to change copays on medication. The letter stated that they were going to start charging $3 copay(up from $1)for generic drugs, while name brand copay remained the same at $3?!?!?!

Yes you read it right. I still have a choice, but i pay the same for generic or name brand. Does not make sense to me, except as a give away to large pharmaceutical companies.

In times past we on Medicaid here in N.C. were more or less encouraged to help the program and yourself save money and buy the generic. Not now, it seems we are now encouraged to purchase the more pricey name brand. Thus costing the state more money.

An example of this is one of my common meds is $25 name brand, $10 generic (with out medicaid/uninsured). Choosing the generic saved myself and the state a good deal of money. I don't see how a $2 raise in the cost of copays negates encouraging folks to choose the doubly priced name brand.

I would be interested if any one could explain how this is supposed to be more efficient and cost effective? I am quite sure it was done at the behest of lobbyist to help further line the pockets of big pharma.

Too me it sounds like a bad idea. Yet i am open to ideas as how this is supposed to be any kind of improvement that helps any one other than big pharma.

[jbnow]

1. Good point

the money they make from the copay won't be near the loss if people switch from generic.

The extra $2 that the name brand cost really would encourage generic. The level of income where you qualify for medicaid is unrealistically low and every $2 of cash matters.

Imagine this administration doing what's best for corporate America. Every choice is for them.

The Medicare plan coming is bad for consumers, bad for taxpayers, great for corporate America. Really.

[William Bloode]

3. Yup,

You ar not kidding that $2 makes a difference when you are on disability/s.s.i. Thats $2 per medication for 10 medications.

It hurts my pocket and the program itself as i see it. More money saved equals more people helped.....or so you would think.

[ohio_liberal]

2. Medicaid in Ohio doesn't cover a lot of the name brands

People HAVE to get the generics. One of my friends has to pay out of pocket for Synthroid because she's allergic to something in the generic.

[William Bloode]

4. Thats why i liked our plan.

We could choose whether we wanted generic or name brand. You just had to pay more for the name brand. Now it is the exact same.

Most folks i know on Medicaid chose to use generics. Both to save themselves some coin, and the state. Now we don't have that choice.

Personally i say phuck you to big pharma, and still get the generic even though i can get the name brand for the same. Them phuckers don't need anymore of my money.

[Sgent]

5. That's federal law

They can't charge more than $3 for a perscription co-pay -- else you would have a $20 / $30 plan...

They are charging you the max.

[William Bloode]

6. Does not explain why they raised,,,,,,,

The copay for gereics to the same "max" copay as namebrand. Makes no sense....period!

Generic are made to be less expensive, not equally priced. Being equally price removes all incentive to use generics.

[emald]

7. of course it makes sense

profit before country. Profit before people. Profit before anything else. Its the american way.
Greed is ruining our country.

[Sgent]

8. Because

its the state -- not the feds who make that decision.

$3 copay = less money out of states pocket.

I bet (and I maybe wrong) that if you tried to go in and get Prosac, you would get generic prosac, not name brand prosac.

[William Bloode]

9. Indeed you would be wrong.

I did and still do get too choose whether i want generic or name
brand. So if i choose Prozac, i get Prozac not no name flouxetine. Just like one of my pain meds, i was perscribed Percoset, and could choose it or the generic endocet for the same price ($3).