Changes in the Medicare law will mean more beneficiaries can receive help with their prescription drugs under the Extra Help program. Before this change many individuals were disqualified from the Extra Help program because their resources were too high. Life insurance policies are no longer considered a resource, which may pave the way for many beneficiaries to now qualify. Also any assistance you receive in paying your bill will no longer be considered as income.
Anyone with limited income and on the Medicare drug program and not on SSI should apply to see if he or she can qualify. It could save you a lot of money on your drug bills.
Everyone To Get ‘Extra Help’ Rx Benefit | Sweetness & Light
About 32 million seniors are enrolled in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. About 30 percent of them are enrolled in the extra help program, also known as the low-income subsidy. So now everybody will get “extra help. …
Extra Help for Medicare: Social Security Announces a New “Twist …
Changes Make it Easier to Qualify for Extra Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Chubby.
Changes Make it Easier to Qualify for Extra Help with Medicare …
Chubby Checker and Social Security Commissioner Astrue Announce a New “Twist” in the Law Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Chubby Checker, Grammy Award winner and rock and roll legend, today launched a new campaign …
1million more Seniors will have access to drugs …the program is …
Anyone who has Medicare can get Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. Some people with limited income and resources are eligible for Extra Help to pay for the costs–monthly premiums, annual deductibles, and prescription …
It Is Now Easier To Qualify For Extra Help With Medicare …
The extra help program currently provides assistance to more than nine million senior and disabled Americans — saving them an average of almost $4000 a year on their Medicare prescription drug plan costs. To apply for extra help, …
It is so typical of the federal government to pretend to offer a solution to the populace only to give only partial relief. This is what happened with Medicare Part D, prescription coverage.
Part D Medicare covers the cost of prescriptions up to $2700. If the cost of an enrollee’s prescriptions exceeds $2700, then the enrollee must pay the next $3453 of their prescriptions drugs in full. There will be no assistance in paying for this. This is the donut hole. You must pay for $3453 in prescriptions before another penny will be paid for by Part D Medicare. That’s the equivalent of paying $287.75 per month to climb out of this hole. This is in addition to paying the monthly premium for whatever plan that you selected plus the co-pay and deductible that you have already paid.
Many enrollees in Part D Medicare are blindsided when the hit $2700 in prescriptions expenses. Even though each plans advises them of the $2700 limit, many do not understand what it means until they come face to face with the donut hole.
Unfortunately, in 2007 more than 50% of the enrollees fell into the hole by July and most would up paying for all their prescriptions for the remainder of the year.
There are ways that you can minimize your risk of ever reaching the $2700.
Request your physician to write your prescriptions for generics. Generics are generally cheaper than brand names and are required to be just as effective by the FDA.
Request that your doctor writes all your prescriptions for 90 days as opposed to 30 days. Mail-in prescriptions are generally much cheaper and you do not have to run to the pharmacy every 30 days to get your prescription filled. Also many pharmacies have a list of generics drugs which they will fill for a set amount, such as $10 for a 90 day prescription. Ask your pharmacy for a list of which drugs are covered under this plan. Some of the larger retail stores haves pharmacies and also have similar plans. This could be a significant savings if your drug is listed on their plan.
Some Medicare Part D plans offer some coverage for the donut hole, but these are usually the higher premium plans. You should check these out, but be sure to compare the increased premium that you will be paying to what you will be paying in prescriptions charges.
Widows, throughout history, have been the most disadvantaged. Even today, as a group, they rank among the poorest of all groups over 65. Although they can receive benefits on their deceased husband’s record, it is often too little to pull them from the ranks of poverty. Even with all the information pointing to this very obvious fact, little has been done over the years to give this very vulnerable group much relief.
To receive Social Security benefits, a widow must be at least 60 years old, or 50 years old if disabled. At her full retirement age, a widow receives the same amount from Social Security that her deceased husband would have received. For example, if her deceased husband would have received $1500 a month if he had been living when his widow attains age 66, she would receive $1500 per month. But should she be only 60 years old at the time of his death, she would receive $1072 per month. If she is able to delay starting her benefits until age 66, she would receive $1500 plus any cost of living increases. Unfortunately, many widows cannot wait.
Let’s look at a common situation that I have seen many times during my years with Social Security. A widow comes in to file for her widow’s benefit. He husband has just died. He was working earning $40,000 per year. She is working earning $20,000 a year. Using the example in the above paragraph, she will receive $1072 per month. She may also be able to receive a pension from her husband’s work, but chances are there won’t be any pension. Her only income will probably be what she receives from Social Security and what she is earning.
But, because she is working, she will not receive widow’s benefits for all 12 months of the year. Based on 2009 amounts, she can only work and earn $14,160 for the year to receive all her Social Security benefits. Because she is earning $20,000 a year, she will have $2920 withheld from her initial benefits. That means that her first three checks will be withheld before any benefits from Social Security will begin. Her income for the year will be the $20,000 she earns plus what she receives from Social Security, or $9944.
It is estimated that when one member of a couple dies, the surviving member must have at least 79% of the total income received to maintain his/her current standard of living. In my example, which is a fairly common, the widow has less that 50% of the income she and her husband received prior to his death.
Even more frightening is what will happen when the widow can no longer work. She may be able to receive more on her own record, but how much more will it be? Not much, with earnings of $20,000!
The plight of a widow has improved only marginally over the centuries. They remain the most impoverished of any group over the age of 65, and more in the U.S. than most European countries.
For the last several years it has been forecast that Social Security will take in less money than they will pay out in 2015. Now it is being forecast Social Security will start paying more out that they receive in 2010.
This should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention to the economy for the last year.
Social Security has been financing the government for over 20 years. They are holding trillions in government bonds that are supposedly redeemable upon demand. We have been paying into Social Security every time we receive a paycheck with the promise that we will receive our benefits when we qualify, whether it is retirement, disability, or survivor benefits.
I just read Allan Sloan’s article in Fortune discussing the problems that the Social Security Administration is facing. The title of the article is “The Next Great Bailout,” referring to Social Security. This title is not only erroneous but insulting to the millions of people who have been paying Social Security taxes year after year. Social Security does not need a bailout! Redemption of the trillions of dollars of government bonds they are holding is not a bail out. It is money that is owed to Social Security by the Federal government who has for years confiscated, although legally, the billions of extra Social Security taxes paid and used to make the federal deficit look smaller than it truly was. Now the Feds have to step up to the plate and pay off their debt, probably by borrowing from another source.
Allan Sloan compares the previous bailouts of “incompetent banks, faddish mortgage borrowers, General Motors, AIG, GMAC, and Wall Street” as “pigs feeding at Uncle Sam’s trough. To say the least, I loved the comparison, particularly with the almost daily news that we here about how these pigs are using the bail out money.
There is no question that Social Security needs fixing. It cannot continue paying the benefits they are currently paying and hope to continue to be solvent, especially with the onslaught of the baby boomers. Change is needed. But let’s call it what it is.
Pfizer , Inc. has been hit with the largest settlement in history.
They will be paying $2.3 billion for illegal promotion of their drugs. Pfizer is the largest drug manufacturer in the world. This is not their first run in with the law and illegally pandering their drugs.
“To promote the drugs, authorities said Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks. They were entertained with golf, massages, and other activities,” said Mike Loucks, the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.”
Apparently, all the doctors who were seduced to write prescriptions as a result of their wining and dining walk away Scot free. It appears to me that they are just as guilty as Pfizer. They allowed themselves to be bought for little more than “golf, massages, and other activities.”
These doctors should pay for their misconduct.
Pfizer, is of course feeding us the normal blather that corporate America tries to feed us when they are caught with their pants down.
Amy W. Schulman, senior vice president and general counsel of Pfizer stated, “Corporate integrity is an absolute priority for Pfizer,” she said, “and we will continue to take appropriate actions to further enhance our compliance practices and strengthen public trust in our company.”
Hopefully Pfizer will be watched must closer by the authorities than they have in the past, since this action, accompanied the previous actions, show that they have very little corporate conscience.
Social Security mailed 3900 stimulus checks of $250 to prisoners. Unfortunately, 2200 got entitled to them because of the way the law was written. They were eligible for the checks because they were not in jail during the three months prior to the enactment of the stimulus package. Social Security correctly sent the prisoners $250.
The media does not seem to be in the least concerned that 2200 prisoners legally received the stimulus checks because the law was poorly written.
Why didn’t Congress exclude them from receiving the checks if they were in jail at the time the checks were mailed?
All the attention has been focused on the 1700 prisoners that received the checks that were not eligible to them. They received the checks because Social Security was not aware they were prisoners. Most of the checks were returned by the prison facilities upon receipt.
The government did not lose $425,000 as the media has suggested.
Social Security will take aggressive action to get ALL the money back that was erroneously mailed and not returned. I would bet at the time I am writing this that there are less than 500 outstanding payments.
I think that Social Security did an awesome job minimizing the error rate in this area. Incidentally, the error rate involving prisoners to the entire group was .003%.
It was recently reported that three Regional Commissioners for the Social Security Administration received cash awards averaging $54,000 each.
Am I the only one who thinks this isn’t right?
Consider this – The dedicated employees on the field offices awards averaged less than $1,000. And, only the top 20% of employees received an award!
I was in management and had input or made the final decision on who received an award in my office.
When I am talking about awards given in the field offices where the claims are taken and processed, where there are constant demands to do more with less and almost all contact with the public occurred, the awards ranged from about $200-$900.
That was also about the same amount management in the offices received.
The higher up in the bureaucracy that you go, the higher the awards. There is little consideration given to how the individual contributed to the overall success of the agency.
Social Security field offices are understaffed.
It has been Congressional policy for at least the last 20 years to reduce the number of SSA employees every year. Now it is practically impossible to accomplish all the work that is expected of them and do it with any degree of quality.
Yet Congress continues to whittle away at the staffing while wringing their hands and declaring that more work has to be done faster.
But yet, somehow, while decreasing staffing, the funds can be found for $54,000 awards for those at the top.
Thoughts?
The Social Security Administration began issuing debit cards last year to those who did not have direct deposit and wanted an easier way to receive their monthly benefits other than by check. SSA has always had problems with checks being lost, stolen or delayed in the mail. With the advent of direct deposit, much of this problem was resolved. But there were many who did not have bank accounts.
And paying benefits digitally rather than by paper is a big savings to SSA. It cost about $1.00 to mail a paper check and only 10 to 12 cents to do it by automated transfer. With the 500,000 people already signed up for the debit card, it is saving the SSA about $440,000 each month. And SSA needs every one of those dollars!
Along came the debit cards. Each month, the amount of the Social Security benefit is added to the card. There are no fees for signing up and you can get one free replacement card each year if you should lose the card.
Sounds like a safe and easy way to receive your money. It is if you use it carefully and know about additional fees that can be charged if you are not careful. Some of those fees include a $4.00 charge for a second replacement card in a year, $.75 for a monthly statement by mail, $.90 for each ATM withdrawal after the first one, plus additional fees if you use an out-of-network ATM machine, which seem to be difficult to find. If you need cash, your best bet is to get cash back when you purchase something.
This is a very positive step by SSA in resolving many of the problems revolving around lost, stolen, or delayed checks. Kudos for SSA!
It’s rumored that there will be no cost of living adjustment (COLA) for 2010. And the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is saying that there might not be another COLA until 2013.
But Medicare Part B (doctor’s insurance) premiums will continue to increase. There is no slowdown in health care costs. Most current Social Security recipients are protected from having their benefits reduced due to Part B premium increases under a “hold harmless” provision in the law.
Medicare Part B premiums are set up to cover about 25% of the cost of Part B insurance. The premium increases with COLA’s for 2010 to 2012 were projected to be $103 going up to $109.
Because 75% of those currently on Medicare won’t have their premiums increased, the FEDS have come up with a really equitable(?) way to make up for the loss.
All newly entitled Medicare beneficiaries will carry the brunt of the load. Their Medicare premiums in 2010 is projected to be $119, for 2011 $123, and for 2012 it is projected to be $128.
By 2012, a newly entitled Medicare recipient will be paying $259.20 more for Part B insurance than someone that is currently entitled to Medicare!
Just because of their date of birth or date of entitlement to disability.
For the same coverage!
Unfortunately, this is typical of our government. Chose a small group, with little or no voice and stick it to them.
Everywhere you go on the internet, there is talk about health care reform. Looking briefly at Obama’s plan for health care reform, the face of health care will be drastically changed.
But, is such an extreme overhaul necessary? The reasons given for reform are there are so many without health insurance it and the spiraling rise in the cost of health care.
The population of the US is about 304 million, based on 2008 estimates. It is estimated that about 46 million people do not have health insurance. About 20% of these are illegal aliens.
So, do we need to completely disrupt our health care service delivery to accommodate 1/6 of our population?
There is no question that something needs to be done to help the 46 million who do not have health insurance.
Most of the uninsured are uninsured because they do not have enough money to pay for health insurance. At $200-$300 for an individual and $700-$800 to insure a family, many just cannot afford health insurance.
The federal government already runs two huge health delivery systems—Medicare and Medicaid. Both are rife with fraud and mismanagement.
I worked for the Social Security Administration for over 33 years and have first hand knowledge of the problems within the Medicare program.
Medicare is a program on the verge of insolvency, yet $500 million will be taken out of the Medicare program to finance Obama’s health care reform. Where will that leave the seniors and disabled—with an even more inadequate health insurance coverage?
A very small percentage of fraud within the Medicare program is addressed simply because there are not enough investigators to handle all the cases. After years of downsizing, the federal government just does not have the personnel to handle the workload. And anyone with the resources carries a supplemental policy to their Medicare simply because of the inadequacy of their coverage.
But after the criticisms have been leveled, both programs do provide health care coverage to their targeted groups, even though it is inadequate. It is better than no coverage at all.
Can we expect anything more from the massive health care reforms being sold to the country now?
I have had the same health care policy for over 30 years. It is not perfect, but I reared two wonderful children on this policy. It has covered all our illnesses and surgeries that occurred during our lifetime with reasonable co-pays. My wife and I feel it is among the best for the money.
Now I am being told that, if this reform passes, that I will have to give up this insurance and switch over to a government administered policy. This scares the daylights out of me and makes me very angry at a government that is supposed to be representing all of its citizens. There are millions of people that probably feel exactly as I do.
I do not want to give up what has proved to be good insurance for a program that is run by the federal government. I do not believe that the millions who have had adequate health insurance want that either.
With the federal government’s track record on administering health care, who would want to give up a proven product?
As an alternative, use the Medicaid program as a framework, since it is already geared to the poor. Open it up to the working poor and others with inadequate or no health insurance, establish premiums based on income, and paid for entirely by the federal government.
Most, if not all of the uninsured and under-insured would have access to health insurance, if the cost is reasonable. I know that this is a very simplistic approach, but something along these lines might just work without destroying the entire framework of our health care.