Medicad Coverage - Viagra

E Wart

I am livid and wondered if anyone else saw/read the news this week. They discussed Medicad covering Viagra (for sex offenders) and the comment that in 2006 (I think is what they said) Medicare will begin covering it.
What is our government thinking of. I DEFINITELY don't think this should be covered for sex offenders or any Medicad/Medicare recepient for that matter. You and I pay for these programs. I am all for having some type of assistance (especially when I see former employees who have no insurance due to circumstances beyond their control and really need it.) However, I don't consider Viagra as treating something that is a "life threating disease". May be it would make some folks quality of life better, but not required to extend their life. (Guys, I know you will put your two cents in on this one. We don't pay for their movies or alcohol or other extra activities!!)
In the same breath they say that Medicade covers Viagra but not birth controll pills. WAKE UP!!! Somehow I don't think they have their priorities straight or they haven't learned where babiers come from. I can see the Medicade population doubling!!
I know some of you guys are going to say give them a break. But, I feel this is a prime example of our government at work. (Especially where paying for hairbrain requests are concerned.) Our Company's group plan doesn't cover Viagra. Why should they get better benefits?
Also, I know of a couple of conditions where our employees have children covered under government sponsored insurance programs. Burns me up since they can cover them under our plan and they make good money and can afford to pay for this.
Oh well, thanks for listening. (You can be sure my Senator and Rep. will be hearing from me and I hope you.)


E Wart

lorrie

xclap xclap xclap

I am with you. Last week I got a call from SRS to confirm an employees salary, because she is on maternity leave and wants to take all 12 weeks of FMLA but only received STD for 6 weeks, then 2 weeks of vacation pay, and she wants SRS assistance for the rest! She is a full-time worker and makes decent money, lives with the father of her baby who is perfectly capable of working and providing support also. It seems so senseless that our government would pay for this! I made sure I let the SRS rep know that this employee is certainly able to return to work at any time and the remaining FMLA leave is her choice. (Of course she probably already has a case file open with SRS, since she only carries the single health plan at work also.)

nietra

This is very troubling to me.. I have a friend whos son (13 years old) is using viagra for a cardiac condition and is showing great improvement. They are having to pay it out of pocket as their plan will only cover 3 pills a month!

LivindonSouth

This is no surprise to me. This story gained popularity at least two years ago when there was a series of newspaper articles and television stories about the failing state medicaid program. At that time I admit I was surprised at this, but, I really can't say that anything involving a government program should surprise me.

I think it is also true that government funds won't pay for birth control pills but will pay for abortions. Go figure.

mushroomHR

Yep. I see red every time I do new employee orientation and they tell me they don't need our insurance because they have the government-sponsored insurance. Then the employee eventually comes off the government insurance but the kids are still on it. This does not seem fair. If an employer offers health insurance no one in that family should be allowed to continue the government-sponsored insurance.

I also agree about the Viagra. How insane! But why should we be surprised.

nietra

The state of Iowa just today removed Viagra from the list of drugs available for Medicaid. At least they are on the ball with some issues!