FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Pharmacy

Health insurance companies are constantly looking for new ways to make money. Two of the major impediments to their quest are sick people and the drugs they need.   Clever, as a good corporation should be, they have figured out how to overcome the second of these obstacles. Two techniques are employed.  The first is practicing medicine just the way doctors do even though few, if any, insurance companies have attended medical school.

When a doctor prescribes a specific drug for a patient (whom it has never met) the insurance company may decide that the generic equivalent of that drug is just as good for the patient as the one that the physician prescribed and refuse to pay for the physician prescribed drug. In that event, if the patient wants to use the prescribed drug the patient must pay for the drug out of his or her own pocket.

There is, however, a built in appeals process that patient and doctor can go through if they would like to prove that the trained doctor’s decision is more medically accurate than the corporation’s but it is a somewhat cumbersome process. Why the company insists on substituting its judgment for the doctor’s judgment is best known to the insurance company. As creative as this is on the part of the insurance company, it is not the most dramatic example of saving money through creative insuring.

A recent report in The New York Times discloses that some insurance companies have realized increased profits by reducing the amount of money they are willing to pay for certain prescription drugs taken by their insureds.  It seems like such an obvious thing to do that the only remarkable thing is that the insurance companies have not thought of it before now.

Before the companies became creative in reimbursing for drug costs, the insured was required to pay a fixed amout (known as a co-pay) for a prescribed drug that that went anywhere from approximately $5.00 to $50 the amount of the co-pay being determined by the company and on whether the drug was a Tier 1, 2 or 3 drug.  The insurance company paid the difference between the drug’s co-pay and its actual cost to the insurance company.   Then, a funny thing happened on the way to the pharmacy.  The insurance companies invented Tier 4 into which they placed REALLY expensive drugs.

People taking Tier 4 are the beneficiaries of the new policy.  Here is how three randomly selected insurers have made themselves its beneficiaries.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) requires patients taking Tier 4 drugs to pay 30 percent of the cost of the drugs with no limit on how much the insured ultimately has to pay.  The drug Sprycel is a tier 4 drug that blocks the growth of cancer cells and eliminates the need for chemical infusions.  It costs $13,500 for a 90-day supply.   AARP requires the insured to pay $4,500 for each 90-day prescription and AARP pays the balance. First Health Life & Health also charges a flat 30 per cent  for Tier 4 drugs without any limit on what the insured pays.

Kaiser Permanente, by contrast, tempers profitability with mercy.  It requires its insureds to pay only 25 percent of the cost of Tier 4 drugs and places a $325 limit on how much the insured has to pay for each prescription.

Increasing the insurance companies’ profitability is not the only benefit from the new program.  For Medicare beneficiaries who have to pay 5 percent of their drug costs after they’re through what’s known as the doughnut hole, the increased amount they are forced to spend gets them through the doughnut hole more quickly.  (Not all Medicare beneficiaries will see the benefit in that.)  Another benefit that will, however, be obvious to its beneficiary is the cost savings that inures to the benefit of employers who furnish health insurance to employees.

Karen Ignagni is president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, an organization that represents most of the health insurance industry.  She pointed out in the New York Times story that lower outlay for prescription drugs means the insurance companies can charge employers lower premiums, thus providing a cost benefit to employers.  Adding those benefits to those enjoyed by the insurers makes it obvious that the new policy is a win-win except, of course, for those who can no longer afford to take drugs.

In George Bush’s United States 47 million people have no health insurance.   In George Bush’s United States 9 million children have no health insurance.  Thanks to the creation of Tier 4, we will soon have a new class of citizen.  It will comprise people who have insurance but are unable to pay for the drugs needed to keep them in or restore them to, good health.  In a few years we will know how many people are members of their class.  They will join the uninsureds as statistics.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: brauchli1@comcast.net

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail