A fellow I know has two wonderful old cars, 1964 and 1963 Chevrolet Impalas, that he has refinished. They are beautiful automobiles, wonderful performers and a thrill to drive. But, in fear of damaging them, he keeps them in a garage, taking them out only for special occasions. When he does drive them, they are the object of admiration and even a bit of awe from those who see them.

That is somewhat the way it is with older workers or job applicants. Loaded with style and potential, they have been garaged, considered almost as a museum piece. As a result, each day, literally hundreds.. perhaps even thousands of employers across the nation violate the nation’s civil rights’ laws. How? They discriminate against a resource that represents one of this country’s biggest losses in terms of skills, productivity, creativity and just good business operations by turning away the older worker.

That such discrimination exists is undeniable. To prove it, however, is more difficult, since the illegal act is cloaked in terminology such as “you are too qualified…we can’t afford someone of your talent and experience…we have changed our focus and need someone with less experience and salary requirements…you have a wonderful background, but it doesn’t fit our needs…”

As a result, the talents of our older citizens too often are cast aside in favor of lower-cost and less-experienced employees. Of course, they deserve their opportunity as well as the older workers, but the chance should be based upon competitive factors in which skills and talents are measured not in terms of age, but by the ability to get the job done.

There are those employers who will claim that they need to build their workforce with younger people, who will be with them much longer than an older employee. However, the question of age is becoming less and less of a factor in longevity with a company. There is no guarantee that the younger employee will remain with an employer longer than the older worker.

As a matter of fact, the odds are likely that the younger worker will move more frequently as he or she builds a career.

Also, age is becoming more and more of a relative factor. Actually, it is highly likely that the older worker might be in better shape physically and emotionally than a younger employee. This is reflected as the retirement age (if there is such a thing) creeps upward on the part of employers and the Social Security Administration.

What then is to be done? The first thing is the establishment of a proactive program by organizations representing the rights of aging adults to aggressively work to ensure that the rights of these workers are being protected.

But, this is not enough. There must also be a proactive communications effort in which the abilities of aging workers are not only explained to potential employers, but in which there is a greater public appreciation of the contributions of older employees to our society in terms of the experience and knowledge they offer. In short–it is time to work to help ensure that older workers and job applicants receive public support for their contributions and that they not merely be regarded as one might view an older automobile that offers design, style, memories and performance, only to be stored in a garage until the next time they are hauled out for a curious public to view and and admire.…

Read More »

How Congress and the drug industry created a trap for American seniors and people with disabilities The costly, confusing, and corrupt design of Part D will cause dire health consequences as 7 million Americans fall into a doughnut hole from which few will escape

By Jeff Cruz & Roger Hickey

Executive Summary

When Congress created the Part D prescription drug program in 2003, they designed the program to benefit the pharmaceutical industries and their other special interest campaign contributors, rather than for American seniors and disabled people. The resultant drug benefit is needlessly complicated, confusing and costly, forbids Medicare from negotiating lower prices like the Veterans Administration does, and doesn’t allow enrollees the choice of a guaranteed benefit directly from Medicare.

Another major flaw in the design is the coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole, into which about 7 million Americans are expected to fall.1 This directly punishes middle class retirees and disabled people who’ve worked their entire lives and don’t qualify for special poverty assistance, yet still need to live on meager fixed incomes. The median per capita income for retirees is $14,664. Many individuals who hit the doughnut hole are forced to choose between eating dinner and getting their prescription drugs.2 This doughnut hole actually costs taxpayers more money, as those without coverage report worsening health and an increase in emergency hospital visits which are covered by traditional Medicare.

Tragically, mortality rates have increased by nearly 25% where prescription drug coverage has been capped, such as with the doughnut hole.3

The average senior who enrolled in Medicare at the beginning of this year will hit the doughnut hole on September

22. Many individuals will enter the doughnut hole much sooner. Out of those individuals who enter the doughnut hole, which perhaps more appropriately should have been called the black hole, few will have the resources to escape. Those who do manage this feat will quickly be plunged right back into the hole the following year. Unfortunately, the doughnut hole will grow each and every year, worsening its effects.

Congress needs to fill in the doughnut hole by fixing the fundamental flaws in the design of Part D. Legislation, such as the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, would save enrollees and taxpayers alike by offering a benefit directly from Medicare with negotiated prices. These savings should be used to eliminate the doughnut hole.

3.Introduction/overview of doughnut hole

The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act was created to provide a badly needed prescription drug benefit for American senior and disabled citizens, but it unfortunately included many provisions that are actually harmful to the intended beneficiaries. These misguided provisions include forbidding Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, forcing seniors to choose among private plans without the option of getting a benefit directly from Medicare, and allowing these private plans to change their prices and drugs covered at any time while American seniors and disabled people are not allowed to change their enrollment until the next open season. Another particularly harmful provision was the creation of a coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole, which was included in the fundamental design of the program. The consequences to seniors who fall into the doughnut hole are dire, and in some cases can even be fatal.

Under Part D, standard enrollees will have to pay the first $250 of their medications (in 2006). After this initial deductible, 75% of their drug costs will be covered, leaving the beneficiary to pay the remaining 25%. However, once the total medication costs have exceeded $2,250 (in 2006), the senior or disabled person must pay for their drugs completely out of pocket, while still paying a monthly premium. This is the gap in coverage that is known as the doughnut hole.

Individuals can only escape the doughnut hole if their total drug costs exceed $5,100 (in 2006), when the catastrophic coverage kicks in and 95% of drug costs are covered. But very few Americans who enter the doughnut hole are expected to get out, and those who do will quickly plunge back into it the following year.

This poor design has many consequences for seniors and the disabled. The best case scenario is that it only makes …

Read More »