Opinion | Editorials, Opinion Pieces Discuss
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit

Several newspapers recently published editorials and opinion pieces on the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, for which enrollment began Nov. 15. Summaries appear below.

Editorials

• Akron Beacon Journal: Medicare beneficiaries "can -- and should -- take their time to gather the relevant information and help before committing to any drug plan," a Journal editorial states. The editorial concludes, "For all the complicated options, the new benefit promises measurable savings, especially for low-income seniors, those with high drug bills and those who currently have no drug coverage" (Akron Beacon Journal, 11/20).
  
• Atlanta Journal-Constitution: The Medicare prescription drug benefit is a "woefully bad idea" that is "massive and costly," a Journal-Constitution editorial states. The editorial concludes, "Apparently we would rather design a complex, largely unworkable and hugely expensive Rube Goldberg machine that diverts huge profits to private industry, because that's exactly what we've done" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/20).
  
• Bergen Record: Prescription drug coverage "for the elderly didn't have to be so complicated," and "it didn't have to be so expensive for taxpayers," according to a Record editorial. The editorial states that administration of the prescription drug benefit by Medicare, rather than private health insurers and others, would have resulted in a "far simpler" program with lower costs, adding, "We hope that its exorbitant cost will force ... a restructuring" (Bergen Record, 11/21).
  
• Boston Globe: The Medicare prescription drug benefit is complicated because the congressional Republican leaders who developed the program "loaded it up with special exceptions and limitations to further the goals in their political agenda," a Globe editorial states. The editorial concludes, "In the future, the benefit needs to be streamlined and improved by politicians who are sympathetic to its core purpose: to provide prescription drugs, simply and affordably, and to keep elderly people in good health" (Boston Globe, 11/21).
  
• Lincoln Journal Star: The Medicare prescription drug benefit is "bewildering," but "those who don't bother to check out the new program may miss out on significant benefits," a Journal Star editorial states. Medicare beneficiaries "should take the time to understand their options and make sure they are comfortable with their selection before they make it final," the editorial states, adding, "For most people, working through the confusing array of options will produce moments of pure frustration. Save those thoughts. First select the plan to save money. Then let Congress know what you think. There's no deadline on that" (Lincoln Journal Star, 11/21).
  
• Manchester Union Leader: "If few people use the plan, it will cost less" than the estimated $1.2 trillion over the first 10 years, according to a Union Leader editorial. The editorial adds, "For $1.2 trillion, the U.S. government could buy the world's ten largest drug makers ... and give the drugs away to everyone" (Manchester Union Leader, 11/20).
  
• Philadelphia Inquirer: Medicare beneficiaries are "grappling with a government program practically guaranteed to drive them 'round the bend," an Inquirer editorial states, adding, "Choice is fine, but in areas as complex as health benefits, government has to organize the market, has to create a rational, comparable array of options, for choice to be meaningful." The editorial concludes, "Americans do not always find choice and competition superior to a straightforward, government-run entitlement (like 'old' Medicare)" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/21).
  
• Raleigh News & Observer: Medicare beneficiaries who seek to enroll in the prescription drug benefit "face many problems" and options that are "complicated and difficult to compare," according to a News & Observer editorial. Although the "concept of covering prescription costs through Medicare is worthwhile," the "plan now going into effect smacks of political taint" because Republicans and the Bush administration "vowed to do something about drug costs for seniors but wanted at the same time to protect drug manufacturers and insurance companies no matter what," the editorial states (Raleigh News & Observer, 11/22).
  
• Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: The problem with the Medicare prescription drug benefit "is that this is a massive and untried entitlement ... being run through the private sector, with all the attendant competition, advertising hype and perplexing array of prices and products," a Rochester Democrat and Chronicle editorial states. "It is important to move now to try to cut through the confusion, and to relax any deadlines that could heighten public tension," the editorial states, adding, "Medicare as a whole needs reform, not just the drug plan. The current confusion is yet another sign of Medicare's larger crisis" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 11/21).
  
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Some people say the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is hard for older Americans to understand and even harder to sign up for," but the program is "hard for any American to understand, young or old," a Post-Dispatch editorial states. According to the editorial, the problems with enrollment in the program "have people exasperated" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/20).
  
• South Florida Sun-Sentinel: The Medicare prescription drug benefit is "bogged down in confusion and frustration," and "beneficiaries deserve better," according to a Sun-Sentinel editorial. The editorial states that CMS should extend the enrollment period for the program because Medicare "beneficiaries are overwhelmed by the choices," adding, "The right prescription for this reform is more time" (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 11/19).
  
• Tennessean: "The federal government cannot assume" that individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid -- whose prescription drug coverage will shift from Medicaid to the Medicare prescription drug benefit in January -- "understand how their benefit is about to change," a Tennessean editorial states. According to the editorial, "Now, while it still can, it needs to assure that the transition period is flexible enough so that Medicaid-Medicare eligible enrollees keep access to medicine" (Tennessean, 11/21).
  
• USA Today: A "uniform" Medicare prescription drug benefit "would be less complicated but wouldn't be suited to individual needs," a USA Today editorial states, adding that the "drug plan is an experiment to see whether market forces and competition can achieve better results than a government-run program can." The program will be "useful -- not just as for drug coverage but also for learning how to redirect a health care system beset by ruinous inflation and which leaves 46 million uninsured," the editorial states, adding, "In time, many seniors might find Medicare Rx is cause for thanksgiving. You'll find a different view, though, among the younger generation, to whom Congress handed the bill" (USA Today, 11/22).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Benjamin Zycher, The Hill: Medicare could negotiate larger discounts on prescription drugs than pharmacy benefit managers, which have such authorization under the 2003 Medicare law, but "federal price negotiations over drugs represent a looming threat" to the free-market economy, Benjamin Zycher, senior fellow in economics at the Pacific Research Institute, writes in an opinion piece in The Hill. According to Zycher, such negotiations would amount to "price controls" on prescription drugs that would compromise the "long-term alleviation of human misery" (Zycher, The Hill, 11/22).
  
• Ron Pollack, USA Today: A Medicare prescription drug benefit is "long overdue," but the current structure of the program "is needlessly complex" and will have "very damaging consequences for seniors and taxpayers," Pollack, president of Families USA, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. Pollack writes that provisions in the 2003 Medicare law under which Medicare cannot directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for discounts or administer the prescription drug benefit will have "harmful effects," adding, "It is time for Congress to correct these structural flaws before there is an understandable revolt by seniors and taxpayers" (Pollack, USA Today, 11/22).
  
• Robert Goldberg, Washington Times: Medicare must address three factors to obtain the "trust of consumers" and defend against the "inevitable political attacks that emerge this year" about the prescription drug benefit, Goldberg, director of the Center for Medical Progress at the Manhattan Institute, writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Goldberg, Medicare must "scale back the amount information it is giving out" about the program, reverse "a disturbing trend on the part of drug benefit plans to skimp on new medicines even before the program starts" and revise a policy that allows prescription drug plans to "refuse to pay for ... drugs that treat eating disorders or help treat metabolic diseases" (Goldberg, Washington Times, 11/21).
  
• Alan Reynolds, Washington Times: The "solution to 90% of the problem" that the Medicare prescription drug benefit seeks to address "at such huge bother and expense has always been obvious, simple and free: Just announce seniors are entirely free to buy any drug insurance policy they choose -- just as free men and women under age 65 have always been free to purchase every other sort of insurance," Reynolds, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes in a Times opinion piece. "Despite ample evidence to the contrary, legislators and bureaucrats continue believing they should dictate what sort of insurance coverage seniors should be allowed to buy," he adds (Reynolds, Washington Times, 11/20).