Government

Erectile dysfunction drugs won't be covered

The new law's supporters say Medicare and Medicaid should not pay for "lifestyle" drugs, but doctors argue the same drugs treat a real health problem.

By David Glendinning — Posted Nov. 21, 2005

Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin

Washington -- Physicians who prescribe drugs such as Viagra, Levitra and Cialis to their elderly and disabled patients may want to tell them that the federal government soon will stop footing any part of the bill.

Medicaid, in some states, covers erectile dysfunction drugs for patients with impotence, and Medicare will begin paying for the meds when the prescription drug benefit launches next year. But under a bill that President Bush signed into law last month, Medicaid beneficiaries will stop receiving federal help in buying the pills starting in January 2006, and Medicare coverage will end one year later.

The new law means that by the beginning of 2007, no federal Medicaid or Medicare dollars can go toward paying for medication to treat any sexual dysfunction. Sponsors of the legislation estimate that the government will save nearly $700 million over five years by cutting off what bill supporters call government subsidization of seniors' recreational sex.

The move was designed to help pay for expansions of health and unemployment benefits that lawmakers included in the final legislative package for the benefit of low-income people and Hurricane Katrina survivors, said Senate Finance Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R, Iowa).

"This legislation extends very important benefits for people who live on the edge of poverty," he said. "And the provision included to offset the cost of these programs recognizes that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for certain lifestyle prescription drugs through Medicare and Medicaid."

But physicians counter that sexual dysfunction drugs are necessary to treat a very real health problem that is often the result of more serious diseases and that affects millions of seniors and men with disabilities. Doctors who treat such patients can see how crippling the underlying conditions can be, said Ira Sharlip, MD, a urologist in San Francisco.

"There's no logic in singling out drugs that can restore an essential bodily function, especially for patients who have erectile dysfunction because of something like prostate cancer," said Dr. Sharlip, a spokesman for the American Urological Assn. "Sexual function is really important to overall health and well-being, and I strongly disagree with the view that it is a lifestyle drug."

If the congressional move were fair and consistent, lawmakers would also have to ban coverage of myriad vital medications and procedures that do not actually save lives or prolong longevity, he said. Doctors often prescribe treatment for urinary incontinence and for skin disorders that are mostly cosmetic, for example, drugs that have no direct effect on how long people live but are covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

Dr. Sharlip predicted Medicare drug plans would experience a run on impotence drugs toward the end of 2006 as physicians aim to get subsidized medications to senior patients before the prohibition kicks in. After that, patients who use the medications twice a week, for example, would pay about $80 a month, he said.

Exceptions to the rule

Not all patients will be out of luck when it comes to financial help for these drugs.

States deciding that the treatments are medically necessary may continue to cover them, but they will not be able to claim federal matching funds. The Medicare drug plans launching in January 2006 also may decide to continue paying for the drugs through supplemental coverage that does not use federal health dollars.

Already it appears that many Medicare insurers will need to make a decision on erectile dysfunction drug coverage next year. In Florida alone, more than 270 drug plans will cover Viagra starting in January 2006, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The statute also provides an exception for cases in which the impotence drugs are used for treating conditions other than sexual dysfunction. Bill sponsors said they left this door open for essential applications of the drugs.

But Dr. Sharlip said erectile dysfunction drugs have only one FDA-approved use in this area -- to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension -- and physicians already prescribe them, under a different trade name, for this relatively rare condition.

Doctors will bear the burden of proof when it comes to getting coverage for the medications for treatment of other conditions for which the drugs have shown promise, he said.

Back to top


ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISE HERE


Featured
Read story

Confronting bias against obese patients

Medical educators are starting to raise awareness about how weight-related stigma can impair patient-physician communication and the treatment of obesity. Read story


Read story

Goodbye

American Medical News is ceasing publication after 55 years of serving physicians by keeping them informed of their rapidly changing profession. Read story


Read story

Policing medical practice employees after work

Doctors can try to regulate staff actions outside the office, but they must watch what they try to stamp out and how they do it. Read story


Read story

Diabetes prevention: Set on a course for lifestyle change

The YMCA's evidence-based program is helping prediabetic patients eat right, get active and lose weight. Read story


Read story

Medicaid's muddled preventive care picture

The health system reform law promises no-cost coverage of a lengthy list of screenings and other prevention services, but some beneficiaries still might miss out. Read story


Read story

How to get tax breaks for your medical practice

Federal, state and local governments offer doctors incentives because practices are recognized as economic engines. But physicians must know how and where to find them. Read story


Read story

Advance pay ACOs: A down payment on Medicare's future

Accountable care organizations that pay doctors up-front bring practice improvements, but it's unclear yet if program actuaries will see a return on investment. Read story


Read story

Physician liability: Your team, your legal risk

When health care team members drop the ball, it's often doctors who end up in court. How can physicians improve such care and avoid risks? Read story