Medicare Part D in 2025: A First Look at Prescription Drug Plan Availability, Premiums, and Cost Sharing

[Fisher]

Fisher did not say what you have him quoted as saying up there ^^^

 

[annon123]

Fisher did not say what you have him quoted as saying up there ^^^

Sorry about that.

I quoted what someone else said who had both posts in their post. I'll have to go looking to see who said it and fix that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

EDIT - so I deleted that post and hit quote to the original post again and pasted my comment back in. Now it should be attributed correctly. Again I appologize. Not sure how that happened as I just hit reply.

 

[annon123]

That's depressing and I hope things don't go that way. The oldest baby boomers are 78 and have been withdrawing money from retirement savings since they were 70 1/2, but we haven't seen this problem manifest just yet.

It's not like every retiree has investments. Many have little to no savings, and live on social security alone. Some have pensions - while pensions are disappearing, older people are the ones still most likely to have them. Those who have retirement savings, it's not all in stock and stock mutual funds (or shouldn't be, it's too risky to be all in). They have bond funds, bonds, CDs, cash too. And the ones forced to sell investments to meet their Required Minimum Distributions, but who don't actually need the money, will just repurchase the same investments in their non-retirement brokerage accounts.

What you are describing is a kind of financial doomsday, and there are always commentators out there predicting the next crash, just as there are always the over-exuberant.

But I agree that housing is a total mess. There is not enough entry level housing available, and the housing available doesn't match what retirees need - like a flat entry on the ground floor, no interior stairs, wider hallways, walk-in showers... No one has built towards those needs. The shortage of such homes is in the millions. (60 million seniors over 65.) Maybe 10s of millions! I guess some homes can be retrofitted, but not everyone wants to put motorized chairs on their staircases. So then what happens? People close off their upper levels and turn their dining room into a bedroom? That's a depressing thought.

Aging does have some s good points - it's better than the alternative.

We need to hit the point where most boomers are retired (the youngest have some years to go yet) AND the amount going in to retirement accounts annually by the generations under them is less than what is coming out due to required minimum distributions. Those minimum withdrawals start at age 73 now with the younger boomers getting to wait even longer. We are still stacked on the side of more going in than coming out. The younger boomers are still under 65 and contributing to retirement funds. Supply/demand... it will be slow decline.

This is where legal immigration of skilled younger people would help. It would even out the population demographics a bit and so there would be less of a proportional bubble on the over 65 end of things. Then the ratio (it's called the old age dependency ratio) of working adults to seniors wouldn't continue to have fewer and fewer working adults per senior. All you have to do is look at Japan and what has happened there. That country is the canary in the mine.

And yes some things in the economy may change the projection somewhat but we can't stop the fact that the post WW2 birth rate created a population bubble that influences everything it touches due to it's sheer size in proportion to all other age groups.

Housing - there is a shortage of senior HUD already for the poorer folks who mostly are surviving off of social security. Waiting lists already now are often 2-5 years. I think we are going to see a growing number of homeless seniors who don't have kids they can move in with or whose kids won't let them move in with them. Rent plus utilities is only supposed to take 1/3 of your income (that is how HUD figures rent - the senior's income is adjusted by a percent of someone's medical expenses). Then medicare B plus MOOP's for MAP's and/or supps and D can come to a whopping amount if they actually have to use their health insurance. Never mind assisted living which neither medicare nor medicaid cover. And only medicaid covers a nursing home (if you have $2000 or less left to your name and the nursing home gets to take most of your social security) after the medicare limit on temporarily use of one. And if people didn't get them when younger the premiums are too expensive for many. I think as the boomers get older we are going to have a real crisis on our hands with respect to the ones surviving mostly on SS.

 

[annon123]

Sorry about that.

I quoted what someone else said who had both posts in their post. I'll have to go looking to see who said it and fix that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

EDIT - so I deleted that post and hit quote to the original post again and pasted my comment back in. Now it should be attributed correctly. Again I appologize. Not sure how that happened as I just hit reply.

PS now it looks like what I originally hit reply to has been changed. At least now it is attributed correctly.

 

[InsuranceGuy29]

to bundle MAPD and stand alone PDP into the same basket is a lame attempt at inflating the numbers to make a bad situation look better.

Almost half the population will not consider an MAPD.
The other half will not ever consider a PDP.
It is a relatively small slice of the people that will actually consider crossing the line from MAPD to OM and vice versa.

So immediately, those numbers are cut in half at least.

looking at just PDP in Florida you only have 14 plans across 6 carriers. Of which 1 carrier with 2 plans, Florida Blue, is not really competitive. And there are another 6 plans offer by another 4 carriers that is not very competitive at all. And then another 2-3 plans that are moderately competitive in any given scenario.

What you are left with in the typical Rx scenario is, at best, 3-4 plans (but usually 1, maybe 2) plan options for the customer.

Its horrendous.

10 years ago we had something like 34 different plans offered by 9 or 10 different carriers. And often had 6 or 7 drug plans within a few dollars of each other in total cost. It was true competition.

Just like everything else it touches, government interferes way too much, drives the price up insanely high, which disincentivizes companies to offer them, and therefore decimates competition.

If it wasn't for the current heavy government subsidies, most companies wouldn't even offer Part D plans, anymore.

Democrats play dumb, but in my opinion, this is all by design, and they want to control everything. Therefore they destroy it and then go "Oopsie, did I do that??? Here....let me just take it over and run absolutely all of it now...." Uh yea, no thank you.

Government deliberately destroys it, blames corporations and their "greedy," gaslights the public into thinking it's the corporations fault, and then plays "savior." It's the same exact blueprint and game, time-and-time again.

I'm also not saying corporations are perfect by any means, but there is only so much money to go around. Again, money is REAL. It's a real thing.

The truly intelligent commies at the top know exactly what they're doing, in this being a controlled demolition, and their low IQ lemmings who did (and do) too many drugs think this is a good thing, as they think humans/companies are somehow motivated to work for no monetary incentive.

They think it's gonna just be a utopian dream where money doesn't matter, or grows on trees, and it's all just gonna figure itself out and work, by the unaccountable government running it all.

And yet modern society and human history proves them wrong time-and-time again. Commies never factor reality or money into their ideas.

 

[annon123]

If it wasn't for the current heavy government subsidies, most companies wouldn't even offer Part D plans, anymore.

If medicare could negotiate all drug prices like all other insurance companies, the VA and medicaid, prices would come down and there would need to be less government help to make drugs affordable. Are you saying that seniors need to be wealthy to be able to afford their drugs?

Also the amount of subsidy MAP's get is way more than OM so maybe that should stop too? If that stopped I am sure not only would fewer "extras" be offered, commissions would come down and some of the for profit companies would dump that business line as it would no longer be as (or at all) profitable.

EDIT: since people are now claiming I am against subsidies let me make it clear I am not. What I am saying there are other ways to bring down costs besides subsidies and we don't appear to be doing enough of that either. And by association would as many people sign up for MAP's if they only got in government funds/subsidizes the same as OM? I'd suspect extras would go away, premiums would go up and commissions would go down if the subsidy level was the same as OM.

 

[straightnochaser]

If medicare could negotiate all drug prices like all other insurance companies, the VA and medicaid, prices would come down and there would need to be less government help to make drugs affordable. Are you saying that seniors need to be wealthy to be able to afford their drugs?

Also the amount of subsidy MAP's get is way more than OM so maybe that should stop too? If that stopped I am sure not only would fewer "extras" be offered, commissions would come down and some of the for profit companies would dump that business line as it would no longer be as (or at all) profitable.

Why do you want to take popular, helpful benefits away from people?

 

[annon123]

Why do you want to take popular, helpful benefits away from people?

I didn't say that. I said that if prices could be negotiated that would bring prices down. Then clearly seniors could more easily afford their drugs without high subsidies - this was in response to others complaining about government subsidies of D. I also pointed out the government subsidized MAPs more than OM and so if they are complaining about subsidies they needed to include that as well.

I think how medical care (premiums, drugs, copay, MOOP, etc.) take up such a high percentage of so many seniors heath care means so many can't afford care, their meds, etc... and contributes to our shorter life span than other first world countries despite the quality of our medical care overall.

 

[straightnochaser]

I didn't say that. I said that if prices could be negotiated that would bring prices down. Then clearly seniors could more easily afford their drugs without high subsidies - this was in response to others complaining about government subsidies of D. I also pointed out the government subsidized MAPs more than OM and so if they are complaining about subsidies they needed to include that as well.

I think how medical care (premiums, drugs, copay, MOOP, etc.) take up such a high percentage of so many seniors heath care means so many can't afford care, their meds, etc... and contributes to our shorter life span than other first world countries despite the quality of our medical care overall.

You said:

"Also the amount of subsidy MAP's get is way more than OM so maybe that should stop too? If that stopped I am sure not only would fewer "extras" be offered, commissions would come down and some of the for profit companies would dump that business line as it would no longer be as (or at all) profitable."

I'm not sure how reducing the funding MAP's get will in turn reduce seniors costs. Care to elaborate?

 

[annon123]

You said:

"Also the amount of subsidy MAP's get is way more than OM so maybe that should stop too? If that stopped I am sure not only would fewer "extras" be offered, commissions would come down and some of the for profit companies would dump that business line as it would no longer be as (or at all) profitable."

I'm not sure how reducing the funding MAP's get will in turn reduce seniors costs. Care to elaborate?

It wouldn't but the original post was people complaining about subsidies and I was pointing out the MAP's that so many people sell that have zero premiums, higher commissions, etc. and extras rely on subsidies too. So if you object to subsidies then you need to think about all the things in senior medical care subsidized, not just D.

Not sure how people presumed I was against subsidies. I'm not because how senior health care (including drugs) is now structured is not affordable for many seniors.