• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

All hail the time of the bunny!

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

This really is a full service blog.

This chaos was totally avoidable.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

Trump should be leading, not lying.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Dear elected officials: Trump is temporary, dishonor is forever.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Fixing Medicare Part D

Fixing Medicare Part D

by David Anderson|  September 16, 20197:00 am| 15 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

At the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Stacie Dusetzina, Nancy, Keating and Haiden Huskamp review several of the possible redesigns for Medicare Part D.  Right now Medicare Part D is not truly insurance.  It is a payment assistance program that has insurance like features for broad segments of the population but there is ongoing catastrophic exposure.  This catastrophic, open ended exposure is becoming more and more important as ultra-high price drugs are becoming more common and more broadly prescribed.

Right now, Medicare Part D has a deductible, then a region of spending where there is a 25% coinsurance paid by the patient, and after that first co-insurance level, a smaller, but never capped 5% coinsurance paid by the  patient. For most people, this is not too relevant as they are not taking $100,000 or more year drugs.  But for the folks who are on $100,000 to $500,000 year drugs and more importantly are on them for the rest of their  lives, it is a significant failure of insurance as it is not protection against a tail risk, but protection against a mid point of the distribution.

There are three proposals to provide some catastrophic protection.  These proposals all have trade-offs.  If we are holding actuarial value constant and providing a catastrophic  limit to the few people with very expensive claims, then the money has to come from somewhere.  And that somewhere is from people who have lower levels of claims or the entire covered population.

Holding lower claim spending benefits constant means higher premiums or a new infusion of federal money.

Medicare as it is currently constructed is a weird set of choices that have their roots in either the 1964 Blue Cross and Blue Shield business model or jello wrestling between Capital Hill and the Congressional Budget Office to get a good enough score. Without supplements, Medicare is not true protection against catastrophic claims. It is usually good enough for most enough, but not good enough for the most unusual. Medicare Part D just shows this even more bluntly than it is evident in the hospital component of Medicare.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « On the Road and In Your Backyard
Next Post: A Big Middle Finger in the Eye of the Lost Causers »

Reader Interactions

15Comments

  1. 1.

    Another Scott

    September 16, 2019 at 7:42 am

    Capital Hill Capitol Hill.

    Yup. It needs to be redesigned and more money needs to come from those who have most of it.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  2. 2.

    Wag

    September 16, 2019 at 7:43 am

    Until Medicare is allowed to negotiate drug prices like the rest of the insurance community, Part D will remain as it is now, an insurance illusion whose primary goal is maximizing profits for pharmaceutical companies.

    Part D is better than no coverage, but has a long way to go before delivering on it’s full promise.

  3. 3.

    Ohio Mom

    September 16, 2019 at 8:15 am

    Totally ignorant question: is this true even in an an advantage plan?

    Another uninformed question: isn’t this the handiwork of Bush #2?

  4. 4.

    ragbatz

    September 16, 2019 at 10:03 am

    I think there may be a third “root” of the original Part D benefit structure. The politics of passing the bill. Most of the benefit of the bill goes to middle class voters with mid-level claims experience. Something for everyone! At the catastrophic level, low and middle income voters will reach Medicaid somewhat later than they might have.

    For high income individuals, Part D coverage for claims below the catastrophic level is of little consequences. But these are the only people who can afford to self-pay at that that level, and 95% discounts for ultra-high priced drugs was a real selling point.

    Over all, the original benefit structure offered relatively little value for the poor, better than nothing value to attract the middle, and a boon to well-off. Kind of like the Bush Republican tax cut plan.

  5. 5.

    Gary Ratner

    September 16, 2019 at 10:17 am

    The Part D benefit design has Bush #2 tax cut thinking in its DNA.

    The third “root” of the benefit design was collecting support for its passage. The middle class get a “better than nothing” benefit to meet mid-level drug spending, but are facing real hardship in the coverage gap, even before they hit the catastrophic level. High income individuals, the only people who can comfortably meet net drug costs all the way through the coverage gap, get a whopping 95% discount on ultra-high cost drugs.

  6. 6.

    Barbara

    September 16, 2019 at 10:28 am

    Or, you know, drug prices could be lower.

  7. 7.

    Lizacat

    September 16, 2019 at 10:35 am

    I’m retired. I dislike my drug plan because it does not cover drugs that are prescribed for me. My endrocrinologist prescribed a new drug that would treat my thyroid issue better than the usual drug prescribed for me. But it is not covered by my insurance and costs approximately $350 a month. GoodRX does not provide a discount for the drug. While the drug is not life-saving and does not cost the outrageous amounts for some drugs, I would prefer a plan that covers more drugs. A friend of mine does have a life-threatening condition and her life-saving drug costs $8,000 a month. Although she has worked something with the drug company so that she can get the drug, she is very assertive and intelligent; I doubt that most people would have the energy skills to negotiate.

  8. 8.

    Richard Guhl

    September 16, 2019 at 10:45 am

    The long tail problem with Medicare Part D illustrates, indirectly, why arguments over whether people do or do not love their private health care insurance are silly. Since most people make little, or even no, use of health care, let alone insurance, over the course of a year, it’s existence is just a matter of reassurance.
    And as for how it gets paid for, that, too, has a certain level of unreality for those who get it through employment. As long as there’s no reduction in take-home pay, it all feels like Monopoly money.
    When I had a hip replacement surgery in 2010, the hospital and orthopedic surgeon bill came to $75,000, but my health insurance said, “No, we’ll give you $15,000, and I would be responsible for a $500 co-pay to the orthopedic surgeon.”
    Effectively, the surgery cost me $500, and all those other numbers were just numbers.

  9. 9.

    Kelly

    September 16, 2019 at 10:55 am

    I’m 63 and have begun looking at Medicare plans. From what I see so far my Obamacare plan is around $2000 a year cheaper than a comparable Medicare advantage plan. Straight Medicare has no out of pocket limits which is unacceptable, although the most docs are in network aspect is nice. I haven’t priced the supplement plans. I’d rather keep my $3 a month Bronze HSA Obamacare.

  10. 10.

    Barbara

    September 16, 2019 at 11:20 am

    @Kelly: What you need to focus on is the total out of pocket costs in the plan finder tool that Medicare has.

  11. 11.

    Karen

    September 16, 2019 at 6:54 pm

    The Doughnut hole sucks. Period.

  12. 12.

    Starlene Roe

    September 16, 2019 at 8:02 pm

    I agree with Karen the doughnut hold sucks.
    And why can’t you get help from the drug companies just because you have Medicare , but they can put in the doughnut hole and put you on a drug with more side effects and have to take it more often.

  13. 13.

    Karen Carasik

    September 17, 2019 at 9:29 am

    Ask for the “cash” price. Pharmacists now have to tell you. It is sometimes less than the copay.

  14. 14.

    Linda brown

    September 17, 2019 at 3:35 pm

    My husband has. Diabetes and the doctor put him on invokana and ozempia and they were helping until they got too high and we couldn’t afford them because of the coverage gap and we can’t get any help anywhere that is so sad we are on social security and have humans advantage

  15. 15.

    MCrowell

    September 17, 2019 at 10:59 pm

    @Gary Ratner: Thank you Gary for including the Gap as a hardship for low & middle incomes, not to mention those of us who are retired, elderly, and on a fixed income. To add to the hardship, consider those same retirees, among others, who need to take a controlled Rx which most Part D companies will not cover.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - lashonharangue - Along the Zambezi River [2 of 2] 8
Image by lashonharangue (7/8/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Wisconsin Is A Reminder of Why We Should Never Give up (Jul 8, 2025 @ 8:21pm)
  • BlueGuitarist on Wisconsin Is A Reminder of Why We Should Never Give up (Jul 8, 2025 @ 8:19pm)
  • Martin on Open Thread: The Dignity of Honest Work (Jul 8, 2025 @ 8:19pm)
  • Chetan Murthy on Sportsball Open Thread: Suprise! FIFA Says It Can Work With Don TACO (Jul 8, 2025 @ 8:17pm)
  • Martin on Open Thread: The Dignity of Honest Work (Jul 8, 2025 @ 8:17pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!