I don't normally agree with the New York Times editorial page, but it looks like they agree with me.
On Monday morning, I posted CMS as a PDP: A Part D compromise? suggesting a compromise on Part D that could avoid a Presidential veto:
"Medicare beneficiaries will have the option, but not the obligation, to enroll in a national plan based on directly negotiated prices. The current system of regional PDPs will remain, in effect putting the government into competition with private plans."
On Tuesday morning, The New York Times ran an editorial called Lowering Medicare Drug Prices, which states:
"The approach that most appeals to us would direct the secretary of health and human services to set up one or more government-operated drug plans to compete with the private plans. "
Interesting coincidence, don't you think?
