APA’s optimism unwarranted…

Ruth Ratzlaff has pointed out to me hat the APA missed the mark somewhat on its premature anticipation of the scope of Part D coverage for various mental health-related medications.  The article I mentioned went to press before actual regs were issued.  For details of Part D’s mental health medication coverage and other issues, see CMA’s paper, Will My Prescription Drugs by Covered?

Ed.:  CMS seems more concerned these days with how to characterize various aspects of the Part D benefit (which I learned on Friday is not to be called “the Part D benefit”) than educating seniors about the true consequences of the 2003 legislation…for example, the 1%.month penalty applied to those who don’t enroll in the program when first eligible is not a penalty, it’s “an increased cost.”  My prediction:  the doublespeak won’t stem the tide of outrage when the nation’s 35 million seniors figure out on Jan. 2 just what their drug benefit really costs them–and that they can’t insure themselves against the $3000 donut hole of out of pocket costs that they’ll have to pay when the initial benefit runs out at $2250 of drug costs….see the KFF website’s prescription drug calculator for more info.