Posted on 07/31/2012 9:04:32 AM PDT by IbJensen
CNSNews.com) – Sixteen states have set a limit on the number of prescription drugs they will cover for Medicaid patients, according to Kaiser Health News.
Seven of those states, according to Kaiser Health News, have enacted or tightened those limits in just the last two years.
Medicaid is a federal program that is carried out in partnership with state governments. It forms an important element of President Barack Obama's health-care plan because under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--AKA Obamcare--a larger number of people will be covered by Medicaid, as the income cap is raised for the program.
With both the expanded Medicaid program and the federal subsidy for health-care premiums that will be available to people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, a larger percentage of the population will be wholly or partially dependent on the government for their health care under Obamacare than are now.
In Alabama, Medicaid patients are now limited to one brand-name drug, and HIV and psychiatric drugs are excluded.
Illinois has limited Medicaid patients to just four prescription drugs as a cost-cutting move, and patients who need more than four must get permission from the state.
Speaking on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Monday, Phil Galewitz, staff writer for Kaiser Health News, said the move “only hurts a limited number of patients.”
“Drugs make up a fair amount of costs for Medicaid. A lot of states have said a lot of drugs are available in generics where they cost less, so they see this sort of another move to push patients to take generics instead of brand,” Galewitz said.
“It only hurts a limited number of patients, ‘cause obviously it hurts patients who are taking multiple brand name drugs in the case of Alabama, Illinois. Some of the states are putting the limits on all drugs. It’s another place to cut. It doesn’t hurt everybody, but it could hurt some,” he added.
Galewitz said the move also puts doctors and patients in a “difficult position.”
“Some doctors I talked to would work with patients with asthma and diabetes, and sometimes it’s tricky to get the right drugs and the right dosage to figure out how to control some of this disease, and just when they get it right, now the state is telling them that, ‘Hey, you’re not going to get all this coverage. You may have to switch to a generic or find another way,’” he said.
Arkansas, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all placed caps on the number of prescription drugs Medicaid patients can get.
“Some people say it’s a matter of you know states are throwing things up against the wall to see what might work, so states have tried, they’ve also tried formularies where they’ll pick certain brand name drugs over other drugs. So states try a whole lot of different things. They’re trying different ways of paying providers to try to maybe slow the costs down,” Galewitz said.
“So it seems like Medicaid’s sort of been one big experiment over the last number of years for states to try to control costs, and it’s an ongoing battle, and I think drugs is just now one of the … latest issues. And it’s a relatively recent thing, only in the last 10 years have we really seen states put these limits on monthly drugs,” he added.
We must eliminate “Obamacare!
I'm guessing -- call me crazy! -- that this might inhibit the supply of available services. Not to mention blocking any possible advances within the field.
I disagree strongly with Alabama's decision to not cover psychiatric drugs - lord help us, we have enough crazy people on the streets as it is! Stopping psychiatric drugs is not only a medical issue, but a public safety one.
These hospitals better stop the wagon because it’s all going to be flushed in November. Actually it’s already having an effect against Obama in the election. As the idiots who voted for him finally get the drift of what they are facing in Odingacare.
......and what about King Bozo Oostberg’s LGBT Lobby and restricting HIV drugs, eh?
The health care plan I have had for more than 40 years through my employer, now my former employer, has always had the restriction of, if a generic is available and you choose the name brand, you pay a much higher co pay. It makes perfect sense to me.
......and what about King Bozo Oostberg’s LGBT Lobby and restricting HIV drugs, eh?
Yo, Galewitz, get back to me when you end up in that group.
You know how libs are always making comments at times when you can’t rebut them politely?
I was telling someone about a family that took bankruptcy over medical bills for their child who was born sickly and required a lot of medical care to keep him alive.
My lib-in-law commented in the other room that it was a great thing we had 0bamacare now so that these situations wouldn’t happen, no one would have to take bankruptcy over medical bills for a child.
Of course, the answer is that the IPAB wouldn’t have approved of treatment for the newborn, so he would have died. Of course, this would have avoided bankruptcy, now, wouldn’t it?
This is nothing new.
Medicare is already rationing.
It’s not a case of being a fussy ‘begger’. Drug effectiveness is a big one, and so are allergic reactions. Not all generics are created equal. People DIE when their asthma medication doesn’t work.
Soon, EVERYBODY will be facing these issues if Obama care takes hold. It won’t be just ‘beggers’. We will ALL be beggers who will pay through the nose for something we aren’t getting.
I agree. When name brand and generic are the same go generic. I take a thyroid med that has no generic - Medicare will not cover it.
That’s the problem. Some desk jockey is making medical choices without reason.
My understanding is that HIV treatment can be extremely expensive - as with any disease, I think the state has a right to insist on sane, cost-effective treatment. But just because HIV is mainly (but not entirely) associated with homosexuals and intravenous drug users, I don't feel treatment should be denied. Neither do I feel that this one disease category has a "right" to the most expensive, state-of-the-art "Cadillac" treatments. So HIV should be covered just as other non-curable illnesses are, neither better nor worse.
But I also said: "There should probably be an appeal process for the limited number of cases where there is a good reason why a name brand drug must be used." I realize there are people who legitimately need more expensive brand-name drugs. But they are a small minority.
I am a LPN nurse and have been studied Nutrition and Medicine. I have found that most of the drugs given senior citizens are poison and not needed. For an example Statin drugs. I wrote a blog on it
The Cholesterol Myths
http://coconutcreamcare.com/2012/07/12/the-cholesterol-myths/
All this brought to you by the same fools that made the rules that brought us the lending institution meltdown, that practically destroyed our nation.
Ooooohh goodie, I can’t wait.
I agree 100%, but it is the Regime who are going to regulate these prescriptions...in the end...
Pretty soon Massachusetts is going to need a program to provide bus fare for their people to get to New Hampshire to see their doctors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.