Health Care and Productivity, a National Cost

Having just returned from my family physician (who stayed open past hours to see me), perhaps you will forgive me if, not feeling well myself, I dwell for a moment upon the cost of illness and inefficiency. Not as a matter of out of pocket cost, per se, but as a matter of macroeconomic cost—a roughshod (I am sick) calculus based upon diminished productivity and national opportunity cost: simply put, if I am busy being sick, I may well have to forego the productivity of work—or I may perform that work at a lesser level ( I suppose this post will tell).

In addition, if my family physician and his staff of two are grudgingly forced to devote numerous hours to a maddening array of paperwork and phone calls (“it gets worse every year”) in an attempt to navigate the various streams of insurance authorizations and payments (“some of it seems designed solely to frustrate and slow or prevent payment”) —he will not be seeing patients. Tomorrow, he will not be seeing patients; he will be trying to catch up on paperwork—as will his staff.

Perhaps then, when we consider that Health Care costs amount to 16% of the GDP, we might also consider that this number does not take into account the difficult to guage loss of national productivity. And although the sickness of one can be the work of another, the exchange does not seem to be an even one as it relates to national production: the doctor functioning, in a sense, as a support and enabler to the productivity of others. Having said that, if that doctor is unavailable (through lack of insurance or remoteness) to remedy the ills of the now unproductive (or the less productive) the nation suffers for it. If the doctor is needlessly enmeshed in tasks, inefficient and ancillary to patient treatment, the nation suffers for it.

One of the first national health lessons this country received came on the heels of World War I.

With the United States' entry into the battle, hundreds of thousands of military personnel were drafted and trained for combat. After the war was fought and won, statistics were released from the draft with disturbing data regarding fitness levels. It was found that one out of every three drafted individuals was unfit for combat and many of those drafted were highly unfit prior to military training. Government legislation was passed that ordered the improvement of physical education programs within the public schools.

During the period from September 1917 through November 1918, records show that 2,801,635 men were inducted into the Army. Out of the approximately 10,000,000 registered men, roughly 2,510,000 were examined by local draft boards. During the first 4 months of mobilization, roughly one in three men were rejected on physical grounds, but the rejection rate dropped to one in four during the following 8 months. (p. 149)

Having put forth the effort to remedy such, we were better physically prepared when it came time to fight World War II. We will be fortunate if some cataclysmic event does not lead us now to some statistical reckoning of our “unfit” and “extremely unfit” as regards our national productivity.

I do not point this out as a means of suggesting that we need to actively prepare ourselves for some form of larger global military conflict. But perhaps in some ways the “event” has already occurred, and only the reckoning remains. In his inaugural address President Barack Obama entreated us:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

He’s right. We must "come forth to meet it." We cannot turn back and we cannot falter as we struggle to deliver this hard won gift of freedom to future generations. And it would be best if as we brave these icy currents in this winter of our hardship-- we were not sick. And if we were sick, that we all had doctors. And if we all had doctors, that they were not too busy filling out paperwork designed to frustrate them. As we learned through World War I, as a nation, we simply cannot afford to squander our physical and intellectual capital.

Donut Holes: How Much is that Prescription in the Window?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has “finalized a rule meant to curb an industry practice that has inflated drug costs for some patients with Medicare drug coverage.”

The new rule regards the way that one calculates the cost basis for Medicare prescription drug benefits for the purposes of reaching the initial cap on coverage. This initial cap on prescription benefit coverage can result in what CMS refers to as “the coverage gap” or what is often referred to as the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole.”

The Dallas Morning News has offered this explanation of “the doughnut hole”

Seniors with Medicare's standard drug benefit for 2008 pay the full price once their total drug expenses – both Medicare's costs and their own out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments – reach $2,510.

They are then on their own for the next $3,216, until their total drug spending exceeds $5,726. At that point, catastrophic coverage kicks in, and Medicare pays 95 percent of their drug costs.
Some seniors are able to avoid the doughnut hole because they qualify for extra government help or buy extra insurance. But everyone else has to mind the gap, which lawmakers included in Medicare's drug benefit to hold the line on federal costs.

The WSJ Health Blog reports that in 2009, “The coverage gap will open up after beneficiaries and their drug plans have spent a total of $2,700 on medications…. Seniors are then on the hook for the next $4,350.”

In response to that expense, the Kaiser Foundation has shown that many seniors cease or diminish the use of their medications.

The new rule, which will go into effect on January 1, 2010, alters the price basis for how the initial cap amount is met (in 2007 the initial cap was $2,400, in 2008, $2510, in 2009 it will be $2,700, and in 2010, presumably, it will be somewhat higher than that).

WSJ explains that at present the cost of a Medicare beneficiary’s prescriptions for initial cap purposes are not calculated as the amount that was paid to the pharmacy which dispenses the drugs, but by the amount which insurers paid to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) who function as administrators of prescription plans and middlemen between insurers and pharmacies.

PBMs may “lock in” a drug price with insurers, and then often negotiate with pharmacies for a lower price. The PBMs then keep the brokered difference. According to WSJ, “the size of that difference is typically secret.” At present, the higher amount the insurers pay to the PBM is the amount that is used to calculate a Medicare beneficiary’s cap calculation. As such, the higher rate can get beneficiaries to the cap—and the subsequent coverage gap— quicker.

WSJ reports that "Under the new rule, plans can still use the lock-in approach. But the amount paid to the pharmacy -- not the higher price paid by the insurer -- will have to be what is used to determine patients' pace to the doughnut hole."

The New York Times reports that “President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending….”

At present, Medicare is itself unable to negotiate drug pricing. In Obama’s campaign health plan, he stated that he would

Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug pricing. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs' negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion, to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality (footnotes omitted).