MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116994896 · doi:10.1176/pn.41.1.0001

APA Offers Members Help With Medicare Part D Concerns

2006· article· en· W2116994896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Moran

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric News · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidMedicare Part DFormularyGovernment (linguistics)Prescription drugMedical prescriptionFiscal yearHealth careMedicineAdministration (probate law)Family medicineBusinessPolitical scienceNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Next article Association NewsFull AccessAPA Offers Members Help With Medicare Part D ConcernsMark MoranMark MoranSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:6 Jan 2006https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.41.1.0001Some 6.5 million Americans ceased receiving coverage for their prescription drugs under the Medicaid program on December 31, 2005, and began receiving them the next day under the long-awaited, hotly debated Medicare prescription drug program.Those 6.5 million “dual eligibles” who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid—an estimated 2.5 million of whom have mental illness—are the first and possibly most difficult test of the new government program. How well they fare may determine whether the new program will fulfill the promises made by the Bush administration or succumb to the worst fears of critics who have predicted a fiscal and logistical catastrophe.APA is closely monitoring the rollout of the new benefit and has established an e-mail address—[email protected]—for psychiatrists and others to write in with complaints, questions, or comments about their experience. Psychiatrists can also call (866) 882-6227.At press time, Irvin (Sam) Muszynski, J.D, director of APA's Division of Healthcare Systems and Financing, said that while the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) appeared to be making its best effort to ensure that beneficiaries are properly enrolled and that plan formularies meet their needs, it was less certain how prescription drug plans (PDPs) would carry out those policies.The CN Tower, which lays claim to being the world's tallest building, dominates the skyline of Toronto, which will host APA's 2006 annual meeting in May. See Original article: page 25.Tourism TorontoOne move made by CMS just weeks prior to the initiation of the new program was the establishment of a point-of-sale “fail-safe” policy by which dual eligibles who showed up at a pharmacy with identification showing their participation in Medicare and Medicaid would leave with their prescriptions even if they were not enrolled in a PDP.CMS Administrator Mark McClellan, M.D., M.P.H., made the announcement during a telephone conference in mid-December. It followed filing of a lawsuit by eight advocacy organizations against the government claiming that not enough was being done to ensure enrollment of dual eligibles (Psychiatric News, December 16, 2005).“CMS is making its best effort to identify and auto-enroll all dual-eligible beneficiaries prior to the effective date of their Part D eligibility,” McClellan said. “However, it is possible that some beneficiaries may go to pharmacies before they have been auto-enrolled in a Part D plan. For this reason, CMS has developed a process for a point-of-sale solution to ensure dual-eligible individuals experience no coverage gap when Part D coverage commences.“If a beneficiary presents at a pharmacy with evidence of both Medicaid and Medicare eligibility, but without current enrollment in a Part D plan, the beneficiary will be able to leave the pharmacy with their prescriptions, and a CMS contractor will immediately follow up to validate eligibility and facilitate enrollment into a Part D plan,” McClellan said.“CMS and its contractor will provide a uniform and straightforward set of instructions that all pharmacists can follow no matter which plan network they are in or where they are in the country,” he said.“ To achieve this objective, CMS is contracting with a single national plan to manage a single national account for payment of prescription drug claims for the very limited number of dual-eligible beneficiaries who have not yet been auto-enrolled into a Part D plan at the time they present a prescription at the pharmacy.”The contractor for CMS is Wellpoint, of Indianapolis, Ind.Muszynski said the mechanism was a positive development, but he remained cautious about how the Part D program would play out for the neediest and most disabled.While it seems clear that most of the relevant antidepressants and antipsychotics are included on plan formularies, it remains uncertain whether they would be available in all necessary formulations and dosages. Also uncertain is the degree to which they might be subject to prior authorization or step therapy.And PDPs have not been forthcoming about details of their plans. For instance, Virginia has reported that one PDP filed suit to prevent the state from issuing “scorecards” so that beneficiaries could compare plans.Also very unclear even just days before the new program was to begin was the status of medications for substance abuse.“The availability of substance abuse medication is highly variable across plans, spotty, and inadequate,” Muszynski said. “There remains a fair amount of uncertainty because much of the information is unavailable. With the point-of-sale protection, CMS appears to be trying to do all the right things. The question is whether their policies will hit the mark. APA is prepared to monitor this situation diligently, and we welcome psychiatrists reporting to us about the issues as they occur.”(Benzodiazepines are explicitly excluded from coverage in the formularies by the Medicare Modernization Act.)In an interview with Psychiatric News, one pharmacy manager for a PDP that has been endorsed by AARP said that all dosage strengths and formulations of psychiatric drugs would be available to its enrollees.Mike Anderson, Pharm.D, director of clinical programs and education for Ovations (the business segment within United Health Group that manages services for Medicare beneficiaries) said PDPs typically send one National Drug Code (NDC) to the government for every drug they intend to cover.“We send the government one proxy code for every drug, but when we do that it is CMS's expectation that we will provide every formulation and strength of the drug that is available,” he said. “Risperdal, for example, is available in a number of forms: tablet, syrup and injectable. We submitted our most highly utilized NDC for Risperdal, which was a one milligram tablet. But by doing that I have obligated us to cover all strengths, dosages, and formulations.” ▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8570.748

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric NewsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207