Author Topic: Penny Wise, Pound Foolish? Coverage Limits on Immunosuppression after Transplant  (Read 3259 times)

cschwab

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
  • just an old bird dog
John S. Gill, M.D., and Marcello Tonelli, M.D.

N Engl J Med 2012; 366:586-589February 16, 2012

Article
References

    As a treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), kidney transplantation is superior to dialysis for improving patient survival rates and quality of life. Its long-term success, however, requires ongoing treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Ironically, although many of the pivotal discoveries related to immunosuppression have been made in the United States, U.S. kidney-transplant recipients do not benefit from a coherent funding policy for these drugs, and thousands of such patients are therefore at risk for allograft failure and premature death. Ensuring lifetime access to these medications for all Americans with kidney transplants would save lives as well as reduce the total cost of treating patients with ESRD.

    Under current Medicare rules, coverage for immunosuppressive drugs abruptly ceases 3 years after kidney transplantation for all Medicare patients, except those who are 65 years of age or older or have work-related disabilities. This policy differs from those of other industrialized countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada, where lifetime, state-funded coverage of immunosuppressive drugs is provided to all kidney-transplant recipients
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 09:11:53 AM by cschwab »
Proud member of DialysisEthics since 2000

DE responsible for:

*2000 US Senate hearings

*Verified statistics on "Dialysis Facility Compare"

*Doctors have to review charts before they can be reimbursed

*2000 and 2003 Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports on the conditions in dialysis

*2007 - Members of DialysisEthics worked for certification of hemodialysis
technicians in Colorado - bill passed

*1999 to present - nonviolent dismissed patients returned to their
clinics or placed in other clinics or hospitals over the years

cschwab

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
  • just an old bird dog
There was a question about this: "thought that the insurance changes put forth through Obamacare would take care of this - as there would be no more pre-existing conditions and everyone would be covered. "


We had a discussion about this awhile back:

http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=18225.0

Unless something has changed the following from PNHP still worries me:

"Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles."
http://pnhp.org/news/2010/march/pro-single-payer-doctors-health-bill-leaves-23-million-uninsured

Looks to me, having transplant meds covered separately would be a very good idea.
Proud member of DialysisEthics since 2000

DE responsible for:

*2000 US Senate hearings

*Verified statistics on "Dialysis Facility Compare"

*Doctors have to review charts before they can be reimbursed

*2000 and 2003 Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports on the conditions in dialysis

*2007 - Members of DialysisEthics worked for certification of hemodialysis
technicians in Colorado - bill passed

*1999 to present - nonviolent dismissed patients returned to their
clinics or placed in other clinics or hospitals over the years