- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,022
- Reaction score
- 9
Cost-saving policy forces new kidney transplant
Woman’s case highlights anomaly in Medicare coverage of crucial drugs
SAN DIEGO - Melissa J. Whitaker has one very compelling reason to keep up with the health care legislation being written in Washington: her second transplanted kidney.
The story of Ms. Whitaker’s two organ donations — the first from her mother and the second from her boyfriend — sheds light on a Medicare policy that is widely regarded as pound-foolish. Although the government regularly pays $100,000 or more for kidney transplants, it stops paying for anti-rejection drugs after only 36 months.
The health care bill moving through the House of Representatives includes a little-noticed provision that would reverse the policy, but it is not clear whether the Senate will follow suit. The 36-month limit is one of several reimbursement anomalies — along with inadequate primary care payments and incentives that encourage unneeded care — that many in Congress hope to cure.
Ms. Whitaker, 31, who describes herself as “kind of a nerd,” has Alport syndrome, a genetic disorder that caused kidney failure and significant hearing loss by the time she was 14. In 1997, after undergoing daily dialysis for five years, she received her first transplant. Most of the cost of the dialysis and the transplant, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, was absorbed by the federal Medicare program, which provides broad coverage for those with end-stage renal disease.
Limits on reimbursement
Despite that heavy investment, federal law limits Medicare reimbursement for the immunosuppressant drugs that transplant recipients must take for life, at costs of $1,000 to $3,000 a month.
Once Ms. Whitaker’s Medicare expired, she faced periods without work and, more important, without group health insurance, which disregards pre-existing conditions. Struggling financially, she soon found herself skipping doses of anti-rejection drugs.
By late 2003, her transplanted kidney had failed, and she returned to dialysis, covered by the government at $9,300 a month, more than three times the cost of the pills. Then 15 months ago, Medicare paid for her second transplant — total charges, $125,000 — and the 36-month clock began ticking again.
“If they had just paid for the pills, I’d still have my kidney,” said Ms. Whitaker, who shares an apartment in the La Jolla neighborhood with her boyfriend, Joseph D. Jamieson. “I’d be healthy, working and paying taxes.”
The Medicare program is not sure how many of the country’s 100,000 transplant recipients are without insurance for their immunosuppressant drugs. Officials with the National Kidney Foundation said some dialysis patients never put themselves on transplant lists because they fear that they will not be able to afford the drugs.
Currently unemployed, Ms. Whitaker is nervous that in two years she will again find herself without health coverage. She and Mr. Jamieson, who have been together five years, said they would marry if necessary so he could insure her under the group policy provided by his employer, the drug manufacturer Pfizer. But nothing is guaranteed.
“If Joe were ever to lose his job or medical coverage, I do feel it would be possible for me to find myself without insurance again,” said Ms. Whitaker, who reads lips to compensate for her hearing loss. “I’m extremely nervous about whether I’m going to be able to afford my medications once my coverage runs out.”
Bills have been introduced in Congress since 2000 to lift the 36-month limit and extend coverage of immunosuppressant drugs indefinitely. They have never made it to a vote, largely because of the projected upfront cost; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that unlimited coverage would add $100 million a year to the $23 billion Medicare kidney program.
But the cost-benefit analysis would seem obvious. The most recent report from the United States Renal Data System found that Medicare spends an average of $17,000 a year on care for kidney transplant recipients, most of it for anti-rejection drugs. That compares with $71,000 a year for dialysis patients and $106,000 for a transplant (including the first year of monitoring).
“It doesn’t make any sense at all,” Ms. Whitaker said. “Somebody’s not looking at the numbers.”
CONTINUED : Provision is in House bill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32836554/ns/health-the_new_york_times/
Woman’s case highlights anomaly in Medicare coverage of crucial drugs
SAN DIEGO - Melissa J. Whitaker has one very compelling reason to keep up with the health care legislation being written in Washington: her second transplanted kidney.
The story of Ms. Whitaker’s two organ donations — the first from her mother and the second from her boyfriend — sheds light on a Medicare policy that is widely regarded as pound-foolish. Although the government regularly pays $100,000 or more for kidney transplants, it stops paying for anti-rejection drugs after only 36 months.
The health care bill moving through the House of Representatives includes a little-noticed provision that would reverse the policy, but it is not clear whether the Senate will follow suit. The 36-month limit is one of several reimbursement anomalies — along with inadequate primary care payments and incentives that encourage unneeded care — that many in Congress hope to cure.
Ms. Whitaker, 31, who describes herself as “kind of a nerd,” has Alport syndrome, a genetic disorder that caused kidney failure and significant hearing loss by the time she was 14. In 1997, after undergoing daily dialysis for five years, she received her first transplant. Most of the cost of the dialysis and the transplant, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, was absorbed by the federal Medicare program, which provides broad coverage for those with end-stage renal disease.
Limits on reimbursement
Despite that heavy investment, federal law limits Medicare reimbursement for the immunosuppressant drugs that transplant recipients must take for life, at costs of $1,000 to $3,000 a month.
Once Ms. Whitaker’s Medicare expired, she faced periods without work and, more important, without group health insurance, which disregards pre-existing conditions. Struggling financially, she soon found herself skipping doses of anti-rejection drugs.
By late 2003, her transplanted kidney had failed, and she returned to dialysis, covered by the government at $9,300 a month, more than three times the cost of the pills. Then 15 months ago, Medicare paid for her second transplant — total charges, $125,000 — and the 36-month clock began ticking again.
“If they had just paid for the pills, I’d still have my kidney,” said Ms. Whitaker, who shares an apartment in the La Jolla neighborhood with her boyfriend, Joseph D. Jamieson. “I’d be healthy, working and paying taxes.”
The Medicare program is not sure how many of the country’s 100,000 transplant recipients are without insurance for their immunosuppressant drugs. Officials with the National Kidney Foundation said some dialysis patients never put themselves on transplant lists because they fear that they will not be able to afford the drugs.
Currently unemployed, Ms. Whitaker is nervous that in two years she will again find herself without health coverage. She and Mr. Jamieson, who have been together five years, said they would marry if necessary so he could insure her under the group policy provided by his employer, the drug manufacturer Pfizer. But nothing is guaranteed.
“If Joe were ever to lose his job or medical coverage, I do feel it would be possible for me to find myself without insurance again,” said Ms. Whitaker, who reads lips to compensate for her hearing loss. “I’m extremely nervous about whether I’m going to be able to afford my medications once my coverage runs out.”
Bills have been introduced in Congress since 2000 to lift the 36-month limit and extend coverage of immunosuppressant drugs indefinitely. They have never made it to a vote, largely because of the projected upfront cost; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that unlimited coverage would add $100 million a year to the $23 billion Medicare kidney program.
But the cost-benefit analysis would seem obvious. The most recent report from the United States Renal Data System found that Medicare spends an average of $17,000 a year on care for kidney transplant recipients, most of it for anti-rejection drugs. That compares with $71,000 a year for dialysis patients and $106,000 for a transplant (including the first year of monitoring).
“It doesn’t make any sense at all,” Ms. Whitaker said. “Somebody’s not looking at the numbers.”
CONTINUED : Provision is in House bill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32836554/ns/health-the_new_york_times/
