My first reaction is....awwwww...mufffin 
So, men want Medicare to cover their erectile dysfunction drugs. As a woman...I gotta say, that's pretty silly. If there is a valid, medical cause for the problem that can be identified and proven that it affects more than their "self-esteem" then maybe...
But...here's a thought for a gal's perspective...Women do not necessarily always 100% of the time enjoy sex...in fact, I'd have to say there is an equally significant portion of the female population (as to the men with penis problems) who "can't get it up" in a figurative sense - and yet, little research is spent on this, and if there were treatment for women, would you, as a man, feel it's valid for medicare to cover it?
My perception, as a woman, is that men are becoming more sensitive to the fact that the girl should be having fun too...but in general, it's a non-issue so long as the dominant man gets some.
Discuss
Companies Fight to Ensure Coverage for Erectile Drugs
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: February 22, 2005
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 - Drug companies are strenuously resisting bipartisan efforts in Congress to prohibit Medicare from paying for Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction.
The issue of whether Medicare's new prescription drug benefit should cover such treatments is raising broader questions of ethics, economics, politics and health policy.
"It's a huge issue," said Jonathan P. Weiner, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. "We cannot pay for everything, but, unlike many advanced industrial countries, the United States has no explicit process to analyze the cost and value of medical goods and services."
The debate centers on whether a drug used to enhance sexual performance should even be eligible for Medicare coverage. Proponents of providing the coverage say that erectile dysfunction often has a physical cause and that treatment can significantly improve the quality of a man's life. Opponents say that Medicare, already growing at an unsustainable rate, cannot afford to pay for "lifestyle drugs."
Administration officials said recently that, under their reading of the new Medicare drug benefit, they had to pay for drugs like Viagra, Levitra and Cialis when they were prescribed.
This came as a surprise to many members of Congress. Their concern was heightened by new estimates indicating that the overall drug benefit would cost much more than they were told when they voted on the legislation in November 2003.
"The thought of Medicare wasting vital resources on performance-enhancing drugs is unconscionable," said Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa. "The focus should be on providing coverage for needy seniors."
Mr. King has introduced a bill that says Medicare cannot cover drugs "prescribed for the treatment of impotence."
Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, a co-sponsor, said: "Here we are using money that could go to cancer, heart disease and other life-threatening illnesses and diverting it into the sex performance of men over 65. It's a scandal."
But Kindra L. Strupp, a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly & Company, which sells Cialis, says that 17 percent of that drug was dispensed to men over the age of 65.
"Erectile dysfunction is not a trivial thing for men who suffer from it," Ms. Strupp said. "We've heard from thousands of men that it can interfere with their intimacy, erode their relationships with their partners, damage their self-esteem and lead to depression."
In addition to Cialis by Lilly, Pfizer makes Viagra and GlaxoSmithKline markets Levitra. All three are pushing to ensure Medicare coverage and cite a number of reasons.
In an interview and an e-mail message, Andrew B. McCormick, a spokesman for Pfizer, said his company was focusing on three areas:
¶"Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition," recognized by doctors and by other health insurance programs.
¶When men seek treatment for erectile dysfunction, doctors often find evidence of underlying conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure that would otherwise have gone undetected.
¶Medicare drug plans can prevent abuse of Viagra and similar drugs by using "restrictive formularies," requiring prior authorization, charging higher co-payments or limiting the number of pills that can be dispensed. Private plans sometimes cover the drugs, with those kinds of restrictions.
In older men, erectile dysfunction is often caused by disease or surgical procedures that damage the nerves or obstruct the flow of blood.
"For a 70-year-old man with hardening of the arteries caused by smoking, for a man with diabetes or multiple sclerosis, or a man who has had pelvic surgery for cancer, there are clear medical indications for these drugs," said Dr. William F. Gee, chairman of the health policy council of the American Urological Association.
But the drugs are promoted to a much larger audience. In November, the Food and Drug Administration sharply criticized Pfizer for television advertisements suggesting that Viagra could restore the sexual appetite of a man shown gazing into the window of a lingerie shop. "The TV ads omit the indication for the drug, namely, treatment of erectile dysfunction," the F.D.A. said in a letter to Pfizer.
Under the new law, drug coverage will become available in January 2006 to all 41 million Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their income or assets.
The drug benefit will be delivered by private insurers, subsidized by the government. Under the law, insurers have to cover "drugs in all therapeutic categories and classes," but not necessarily every drug in every class. "Impotence agents" are among the 146 categories and classes recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia, a private nonprofit group that advises the government.
Since the creation of Medicare in 1965, the federal government has made coverage decisions about items and services including barium enemas, PET scans, mammograms and implantable defibrillators.
In passing the Medicare bill, lawmakers said they wanted to get out of the business of making such decisions. But the case of Viagra shows that some members of Congress are unwilling to relinquish the responsibility.
"There's no reason we should be covering lifestyle drugs for senior citizens such as Viagra and Cialis," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "There's no reason a working American should have to pay for that type of drug if, for example, Bill Gates needs it when he retires."
Gordon B. Schatz, a Washington lawyer who specializes in Medicare coverage and reimbursement, said: "In the past, Medicare officials rarely considered cost as a factor in national coverage decisions. But the drug benefit, the biggest expansion of Medicare since its inception, is forcing them to consider costs in ways they never did before."
For people without insurance, the retail pharmacy price for Viagra is typically $9 to $11 a pill. In 2001, the drug was added to the list of those covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is entitled to certain discounts by law and negotiates additional discounts. The V.A. says it pays less than $5 a pill.
But the agency recommends that its doctors prescribe no more than four tablets a month. Veterans received 1.9 million prescriptions for Viagra through the V.A. health care system last year.
Drugstore.com, the online pharmacy, charges $90.99 for 10 pills. Prices for Levitra and Cialis are similar.
The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, estimates that Medicare drug plans "can initially achieve an average cost reduction of 15 percent" in 2006, by negotiating discounts and taking steps to manage use of various drugs. Savings will grow to 25 percent in five years, Mr. Foster predicts.
There are sharp divisions on the question of whether erectile dysfunction drugs are medically necessary.
"These are essentially lifestyle drugs," said Daniel J. Callahan, co-founder of the Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute in Garrison, N.Y. "This is not a good way to spend a limited amount of money, at a time when other medical needs are greater. In many men, impotence is simply a function of age, though it may also be a result of disease."
"A possible compromise solution," Mr. Callahan said, "would be to set specific medical criteria allowing Medicare coverage for these drugs when erectile dysfunction can be traced to some identifiable medical condition other than age."
Robert P. George, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, endorsed that approach.
"If impotence occurs in the normal course of a human life, as a consequence of aging, these drugs should not be covered," said Mr. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. "But if there is a real health problem, I am inclined to say the drugs should be covered."
Health officials in Germany, Britain, Sweden and other countries have struggled with the same issue and made similar distinctions.
Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the issue had forced policy makers to ask, "What emphasis will we give to quality of life as a goal for pharmacological intervention?"
"Erectile dysfunction drugs don't save anybody's life, but make life more meaningful," Mr. Caplan said. "A fundamental principle of medical ethics is respect for the patient's right to self-determination. If you ask Medicare beneficiaries what they want, you will find that sexual function is high on the list. Many men would say that sexual dysfunction is just as important as loss of the ability to hear or to walk a mile."
So, men want Medicare to cover their erectile dysfunction drugs. As a woman...I gotta say, that's pretty silly. If there is a valid, medical cause for the problem that can be identified and proven that it affects more than their "self-esteem" then maybe...
But...here's a thought for a gal's perspective...Women do not necessarily always 100% of the time enjoy sex...in fact, I'd have to say there is an equally significant portion of the female population (as to the men with penis problems) who "can't get it up" in a figurative sense - and yet, little research is spent on this, and if there were treatment for women, would you, as a man, feel it's valid for medicare to cover it?
My perception, as a woman, is that men are becoming more sensitive to the fact that the girl should be having fun too...but in general, it's a non-issue so long as the dominant man gets some.
Discuss
Companies Fight to Ensure Coverage for Erectile Drugs
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: February 22, 2005
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 - Drug companies are strenuously resisting bipartisan efforts in Congress to prohibit Medicare from paying for Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction.
The issue of whether Medicare's new prescription drug benefit should cover such treatments is raising broader questions of ethics, economics, politics and health policy.
"It's a huge issue," said Jonathan P. Weiner, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. "We cannot pay for everything, but, unlike many advanced industrial countries, the United States has no explicit process to analyze the cost and value of medical goods and services."
The debate centers on whether a drug used to enhance sexual performance should even be eligible for Medicare coverage. Proponents of providing the coverage say that erectile dysfunction often has a physical cause and that treatment can significantly improve the quality of a man's life. Opponents say that Medicare, already growing at an unsustainable rate, cannot afford to pay for "lifestyle drugs."
Administration officials said recently that, under their reading of the new Medicare drug benefit, they had to pay for drugs like Viagra, Levitra and Cialis when they were prescribed.
This came as a surprise to many members of Congress. Their concern was heightened by new estimates indicating that the overall drug benefit would cost much more than they were told when they voted on the legislation in November 2003.
"The thought of Medicare wasting vital resources on performance-enhancing drugs is unconscionable," said Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa. "The focus should be on providing coverage for needy seniors."
Mr. King has introduced a bill that says Medicare cannot cover drugs "prescribed for the treatment of impotence."
Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, a co-sponsor, said: "Here we are using money that could go to cancer, heart disease and other life-threatening illnesses and diverting it into the sex performance of men over 65. It's a scandal."
But Kindra L. Strupp, a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly & Company, which sells Cialis, says that 17 percent of that drug was dispensed to men over the age of 65.
"Erectile dysfunction is not a trivial thing for men who suffer from it," Ms. Strupp said. "We've heard from thousands of men that it can interfere with their intimacy, erode their relationships with their partners, damage their self-esteem and lead to depression."
In addition to Cialis by Lilly, Pfizer makes Viagra and GlaxoSmithKline markets Levitra. All three are pushing to ensure Medicare coverage and cite a number of reasons.
In an interview and an e-mail message, Andrew B. McCormick, a spokesman for Pfizer, said his company was focusing on three areas:
¶"Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition," recognized by doctors and by other health insurance programs.
¶When men seek treatment for erectile dysfunction, doctors often find evidence of underlying conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure that would otherwise have gone undetected.
¶Medicare drug plans can prevent abuse of Viagra and similar drugs by using "restrictive formularies," requiring prior authorization, charging higher co-payments or limiting the number of pills that can be dispensed. Private plans sometimes cover the drugs, with those kinds of restrictions.
In older men, erectile dysfunction is often caused by disease or surgical procedures that damage the nerves or obstruct the flow of blood.
"For a 70-year-old man with hardening of the arteries caused by smoking, for a man with diabetes or multiple sclerosis, or a man who has had pelvic surgery for cancer, there are clear medical indications for these drugs," said Dr. William F. Gee, chairman of the health policy council of the American Urological Association.
But the drugs are promoted to a much larger audience. In November, the Food and Drug Administration sharply criticized Pfizer for television advertisements suggesting that Viagra could restore the sexual appetite of a man shown gazing into the window of a lingerie shop. "The TV ads omit the indication for the drug, namely, treatment of erectile dysfunction," the F.D.A. said in a letter to Pfizer.
Under the new law, drug coverage will become available in January 2006 to all 41 million Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their income or assets.
The drug benefit will be delivered by private insurers, subsidized by the government. Under the law, insurers have to cover "drugs in all therapeutic categories and classes," but not necessarily every drug in every class. "Impotence agents" are among the 146 categories and classes recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia, a private nonprofit group that advises the government.
Since the creation of Medicare in 1965, the federal government has made coverage decisions about items and services including barium enemas, PET scans, mammograms and implantable defibrillators.
In passing the Medicare bill, lawmakers said they wanted to get out of the business of making such decisions. But the case of Viagra shows that some members of Congress are unwilling to relinquish the responsibility.
"There's no reason we should be covering lifestyle drugs for senior citizens such as Viagra and Cialis," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "There's no reason a working American should have to pay for that type of drug if, for example, Bill Gates needs it when he retires."
Gordon B. Schatz, a Washington lawyer who specializes in Medicare coverage and reimbursement, said: "In the past, Medicare officials rarely considered cost as a factor in national coverage decisions. But the drug benefit, the biggest expansion of Medicare since its inception, is forcing them to consider costs in ways they never did before."
For people without insurance, the retail pharmacy price for Viagra is typically $9 to $11 a pill. In 2001, the drug was added to the list of those covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is entitled to certain discounts by law and negotiates additional discounts. The V.A. says it pays less than $5 a pill.
But the agency recommends that its doctors prescribe no more than four tablets a month. Veterans received 1.9 million prescriptions for Viagra through the V.A. health care system last year.
Drugstore.com, the online pharmacy, charges $90.99 for 10 pills. Prices for Levitra and Cialis are similar.
The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, estimates that Medicare drug plans "can initially achieve an average cost reduction of 15 percent" in 2006, by negotiating discounts and taking steps to manage use of various drugs. Savings will grow to 25 percent in five years, Mr. Foster predicts.
There are sharp divisions on the question of whether erectile dysfunction drugs are medically necessary.
"These are essentially lifestyle drugs," said Daniel J. Callahan, co-founder of the Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute in Garrison, N.Y. "This is not a good way to spend a limited amount of money, at a time when other medical needs are greater. In many men, impotence is simply a function of age, though it may also be a result of disease."
"A possible compromise solution," Mr. Callahan said, "would be to set specific medical criteria allowing Medicare coverage for these drugs when erectile dysfunction can be traced to some identifiable medical condition other than age."
Robert P. George, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, endorsed that approach.
"If impotence occurs in the normal course of a human life, as a consequence of aging, these drugs should not be covered," said Mr. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. "But if there is a real health problem, I am inclined to say the drugs should be covered."
Health officials in Germany, Britain, Sweden and other countries have struggled with the same issue and made similar distinctions.
Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the issue had forced policy makers to ask, "What emphasis will we give to quality of life as a goal for pharmacological intervention?"
"Erectile dysfunction drugs don't save anybody's life, but make life more meaningful," Mr. Caplan said. "A fundamental principle of medical ethics is respect for the patient's right to self-determination. If you ask Medicare beneficiaries what they want, you will find that sexual function is high on the list. Many men would say that sexual dysfunction is just as important as loss of the ability to hear or to walk a mile."
).
neaky:
ink: ) but instead come in with vague complaints of pelvic discomfort.
have a great afternoon.