PHRMA has recently agree to cover half of the medication costs while Medicare Part D patients are in the doughnut hole period, the coverage gap where patients pay 100% of the drug costs between $2700 and $6154. So this means that PHRMA will actually reimburse the government for half of the cost of the brand name medications which patients take during the doughnut hole period. So why is PHRMA being so generous? PHRMA is interested in keeping patients on high cost brand name medications and will take only a small loss on this pay out, whereas they would lose the entire amount of the patient if they changed therapy to a cheaper therapeutic alternative which may come in a generic form. PHRMA is looking out for the interests of pharmaceutical companies, which have every right to make
and sell innovative and expensive medication treatments and we should not interfere with that right. However if we are concerned with costs we may have interests that are better met by using alternative therapies.
The doughnut hole is the section where the Medicare Part D plans recoup some of their money spent on covering elderly patients and has patients become responsible for their costs. However, even in cases where patients are taking many medications, the doughnut hole is not necessarily something that patients must reach. If appropriate medication management is performed, patients can reduce their costs for medications as well as cost of medical care for society. Pharmacists are well trained and qualified to recommend changes to medication therapy to patients and doctors in order to reduce medications and lower medication costs through altered therapies. By reimbursing pharmacists for this process and encouraging patients, Medicare Part D or not, we would reduce costs of medical care across the board.
How can we reform health care? I know that many ideas have been presented; however, many of them only shift the burden of health care costs from one group of people to another. That is not in the interest of everyone nor is it reducing the cost of health care. We could let all the people who cannot live without health care die off and reduce our costs, but that is not really a good solution for those who would have to die. Yet it brings forth an interesting point… some people are born premature die young and have lifelong medical conditions, is that a situation we, as a civilized society should support? Wouldn’t it be better to support allowing these children to not have to live a life in pain and allow them to die early? Are we playing the role of God by trying to force tiny infants to try to survive in a world they are not able to handle by attaching them up to electronic life support? The question of mortality has been recently in my mind and I think that currently I probably am not healthy enough to survive without all the amenities that the developed world offers, such as cars, health care, air conditioning, and supermarkets. I couldn't survive outside in 90 degree weather with 80% humidity trying to chase and hunt some food. My asthma would act up and I'd be left hungry and chewing on some grass. So I am happy that I do have these luxuries, but how much is too much when it comes to medical care? When are the parents thinking more of their desires for a child than of the suffering of the child growing up in conditions that it cannot handle?
This is of course brought to you by someone who desperately wants a "world's greatest not a dad" T-shirt.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v1o27EwO2Zua4AYGeQrHqOSP_-CmOF_E5qGNlABljob68iLbTCEczoNmc-pjyd2Sacw_W8SCkWt_cONhgaVVbUPJUc2SXhGrBVIGbuYtrJqmH9AMX8v2-oqqXkkpj53UHNwh0JkIQhW6eilRXJDOM=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v2H05q5SQK4vqiTvtFcxupaTBM4iw3qTV0FYMXiEKJqegMUfdAkj-4zALDpUZ6jfOpheZ2_pXhj1rU6jm7NLyKHr06hzKbI4b4ylL2QUX_puFMprbqa7xbsgTH_3wDkXZqx04X0ILQYS2XIl9VBR0h=s0-d)
