Before the chat began, Lilly encouraged followers to ask questions: "Hope you can join @Modernmeds for a Twitter chat on #Medicare tomorrow at 4:00. Ask questions now via #mmeds" @Modernmeds is the Twitter account associated with The Campaign for Modern Medicines, which is sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.
The TOP TEN contributors (in terms of posts made) to the #mmeds chat were:
- @Modernmeds
- @pharmaguy
- @LillyPad
- @WVRx
- @HoosiersWFH
- @PhRMA
- @GHLForg
- @mikecapaldi
- @Outlandes
- @patientaccess
I am #2 primarily because I kept asking questions, many of which went unanswered, such as:
- What's Lilly's position viz-a-viz republican proposals to privatize Medicare or raise premiums for higher-income seniors?
- To reduce deficit, should gov't raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 from 65?
- Who wants to "break" Medicare Part D and how exactly? Let's go lite on the buzz words, pls. (posted in response to @Modernmeds tweet: "Medicare Part D is a government program that is not broken; let's not break it.")
- why does pharma think Part D is at risk of being "broken?"
- Can you summarize the "proposed changes" u are talking about please? (posted in response to @Modernmeds tweet: "The proposed changes would also cause higher Part D premiums for seniors.")
I immediately opened up @ellsbelles3's Twitter profile and found that despite the fact that the account was opened up more than 6 months ago, this was @ellsbelles3's FIRST and only tweet!
I just had to ask her: "@ellsbelles3 C'mon... you're a PhRMA agent, right? #mmeds". No answer.
That's @ellsbelles3 profile photo above (entitled "xmas_card_reasonably_small.jpg"). She's located in Washington, DC. The vast majority of people that @ellsbelles3 follows on Twitter are politicians and media correspondents -- exactly the types of people a public policy wonk like Amy O'Connor (aka, @Modernmeds and @LillyPad) would follow. In fact, Twitter says @aoconnorND (Amy O'Connor's personal Twitter account) is an account with a very similar profile to @ellsbelles3. So, sorry, Amy. You don't work for PhRMA (directly).
During the chat @Modernmeds and @PhRMA pushed out talking points such as "Medicare Part D is a government program that is not broken; let's not break it.", "Medicare Part D works, has high satisfaction rates, and the select committee should avoid mirroring Medicaid", "Recent #JAMA study found access to Part D saves $1200/yr per senior in healthcare costs", and "We are supportive of a market based system for Medicare Part D." @LillyPad mostly RT'd these points.
Eventually, I figured out what Lilly et al were most concerned about: a proposal by lawmakers (democrats, I presume) to require pharma companies to offer "rebates" to help cover the out-of-pocket costs incurred by seniors who find themselves in Medicare Part D's infamous "doughnut hole" (ie, where Medicare no longer pays for meds). The industry labels this proposal "price controls."
In the end, after 30 minutes, we all agreed that the discussion just began. I wish there was more discussion in the beginning rather than the very end. I tried my best, but it's difficult when the chat organizers have an agenda and dominate the "discussion" with talking points, buzz phrases, and calls to action.
Lilly et al obviously have a different view of what a Twitter chat should be than do I. To them it's a press conference, not a conversation. Like a press conference, they can duck tough questions or just ignore inquisitive journalists (and bloggers) in the "audience." In fact, that's what I felt like during this chat: just another member of the "audience" who is expected to soak up and repeat talking points.
"We will have a chat next Wed at 10 AM, with our President of Lilly USA, Dave Ricks," said @Modernmeds at the end of yesterday's chat. Unfortunately, Mr. Ricks won't be using his own Twitter account (I don't believe he has one), but will "he will be using @Modernmeds's Twitter handle next week," said @Modernmeds. Which leads me to question whether Dave Ricks will actually participate in the chat or if @Modernmeds (Amy O'Connor) will just play the part of Dave Ricks (ie, be his "mouthpiece" as they say in the PR world).
John,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to thank you for your participation in the chat last week. I appreciate your feedback in this post and hope you will join us for the next one.
It definitely could have gone a bit smoother, and we ran out of time faster than I thought we would. I am sorry if that gave you the impression we were trying to duck tough questions. It was also hard to respond to some of the more complicated and detailed policy questions in the Twitter format. That is something we will need to get better at. If it wasn't clear, we always had the intention to collect all of the questions and answer the ones we didn't get to in the chat on our blog.
We will post the full list on our blog (modernmedicines.com) when we finish answering them. For now though, I thought you might appreciate the ones you mentioned:
Can you summarize the "proposed changes" u are talking about please? (posted in response to @Modernmeds tweet: "The proposed changes would also cause higher Part D premiums for seniors.")
Congress, in an attempt to reduce the country’s deficit, is considering a change to the Medicare prescription drug program (also known as Part D) that would impact all beneficiaries. Currently, the Part D program allows insurers to compete in the free market to offer beneficiaries the best coverage at the lowest cost. This creates a marketplace where insurance companies negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers over the cost of their drugs. These negotiations keep costs low.
The proposal before Congress would upset this system by mandating that pharmaceutical companies pay the government a set mandatory 23.1% “rebate” based on the amount of their drugs sold to certain populations covered by Part D (e.g. if manufacturer X sold $10,000 worth of their medicine, they would have to pay the government a “rebate” of $2,310.) Mandating such a rebate would severely restrict any ability for pharmaceutical companies to negotiate with insurers (as described above) -- leading to higher premiums for Part D beneficiaries.
Who wants to "break" Medicare Part D and how exactly? Let's go lite on the buzz words, pls. (posted in response to @Modernmeds tweet: "Medicare Part D is a government program that is not broken; let's not break it.")
why does pharma think Part D is at risk of being "broken?"
We are all aware of the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.” As it currently operates, Medicare Part D “ain’t broke”-- it costs less than the CBO originally projected in 2005, and keeps a large majority of beneficiaries (>80%) satisfied with their prescription drug coverage. Medicare Part D has become a central focus in the nation’s deficit reduction debate, with members of the Congressional Super Committee proposing to change the successful, competitive nature of the system that keeps beneficiaries’ drug costs and premiums low.
What's Lilly's position viz-a-viz republican proposals to privatize Medicare or raise premiums for higher-income seniors?
To reduce deficit, should gov't raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 from 65?
While these questions discuss issues that are important to older Americans, they fall out of the scope of our Twitter discussion on Medicare Part D. On these questions, Lilly does not have a position.
Thanks again, and I look forward to tweetchat part two tomorrow.
Thanks,
Amy O'Connor
Director Digital Government Affairs
LillyPad
Campaign for Modern Medicines