Back in April, we previewed MedPAC’s recommendations and expressed concern and opposition to the sweeping recommended changes to Part D that taken together could harm beneficiaries by eroding coverage and protections for many of the most vulnerable enrollees in the program.
In the wake of MedPAC’s June 2016 report, a broad group of stakeholders has weighed in with concern about these recommendations and their negative impact on beneficiaries. Here’s a look at what they are saying.
- Avalere Health noted in Kaiser Health News, “For many people, this [the proposal] will actually increase spending, while our results aren’t finalized yet, our generalized finding is that a small number of beneficiaries would save a lot of money … but a lot would spend more.”
- The Partnership for Part D Access said to POLITICO, it “will continue to fight for the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries to have access to the full range of therapeutic options.”
- America’s Health Insurance Plans raised concern in POLITICO that some proposals could “jeopardize the program’s affordability for beneficiaries.”
- The National Alliance for Mental Health told The New York Times in April, the proposals “could adversely affect people with serious mental illness who are below the poverty level.”
- Morning Consult reported in April that more than 250 groups asked MedPAC not to move forward with the proposals. The groups said, “Generic utilization is already high among Part D beneficiaries and has increased every year since the program began […] Further, increased cost sharing for vulnerable beneficiaries could reduce adherence, increase spending on other health care services, and worsen health outcomes.”
For more on Medicare Part D, visit phrma.org/PartD.