Medicare Rule Changes May Restrict Drug Choices for Seniors
http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/medicare-rule-changes-may-restrict-drug-choices-for-seniors/
(from Easy Browser)
The CMS decisions about which drugs to protect were supposed to be based on whether the drugs were needed to prevent increased doctor visits, hospitalizations, persistent disability, incapacitation or death that would otherwise occur within seven days if the drugs were not given. The choices about which drugs to remove from protection fail that test because, with acute mental illness, seven days without medication could easily lead to hospitalization, incapacitation or death. The same constraint exists for some 500,000 transplant patients. Seven days without the right medication could result in transplant rejection.
The quote above is from the article linked. My jaw dropped when I read it. CMS is proposing to drop certain drug classes from the status of protected medication. The idea is to save money. The article says it may save around 10% I believe.
My jaw dropped when I read the criteria. It basically says that if doing without a drug for 7 days wont kill you, incapacitate, or put you in the hospital you really didnt need it to the point where your access to the medication is guaranteed to begin with.
WHAT ABOUT THE EIGHTH DAY??
Is it just me or does this not sound simply stupid, simply arbitrary and simply mean? How in the world do you decide as a matter of cost containment that if someone doesnt die fast enough that dont really need a medication? Who should have that kind of power?? Should anyone??
I read all the stuff about percents...percents of cost...percents of savings. There is another "p" word-- PEOPLE. Somehow it seems like it got lost.
Larry Drain at HOPEWORKSCOMMUNITY
RSS Feed