Why do we have high prescription drug costs? Because over and over again, our political system — including and especially Democrats — decides that it’s going to enable it.
Example 1: Richard Neal. The Obama administration tries to scale back the incentive (!) that docs get for prescribing expensive drugs. Richie Neal writes a letter!
House Democrats Push Back On Obama Plan To Cut Drug Prices.
WASHINGTON — A group of House Democrats is organizing an effort that could slow down an Obama administration plan to reduce drug prices, according to a letter obtained by The Huffington Post.
The Department of Health and Human Services is working toward finalizing a new rule that would experiment with ending the financial incentive doctors have for prescribing some extremely expensive medications. The rule has been well-received among some patient advocates, but congressional Democrats have been largely silent, while the pharmaceutical industry and medical community have waged an aggressive campaign to stop it.
The campaign is bearing fruit. The letter from House Democrats, according to Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), was made necessary because Big Pharma and oncologist lobbyists had pushed many Democrats to the brink of signing a much more aggressive Republican letter. The letter expresses concerns with the proposed rule, but doesn’t call for it to be withdrawn.
… Hammill said Pelosi is urging members to sign the letter, which is being circulated by Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.).
Well how about that. Glad someone is looking out for the little guy.
And look at what happened to poor Sen. Mark Montigny a few weeks ago – who actually was trying to do something about profiteering pharma companies? Smacked down left and right, he had to back off of price caps for stuff like life-saving hepatitis-C drugs because bad for business!
This is in a state where we can’t even sustain a ban on small-time bribery of doctors and their offices, with sandwiches and presentations. Yes, Dr. Purity Yale Cabot Lowell VIII, all your protestations to the contrary, the PhRMA gang knows precisely what a cheap date you are. They have departments for this stuff, with the numbers to prove it. They know what docs prescribe what drugs. It’s their job!
Of course we have obscenely high prescription drug prices. That’s what we voted for, apparently.
jconway says
A lucrative funder of both main party candidates in the last gubernatorial election which exerts an usurious 80% control over the hospital marketplace in Massachusetts, avoids taxes as a “non-profit”, and is shutting down hospitals
in critical areas such as Union Hospital in Lynn which largely serves poor and minority patients.
Sensible legislation to control health care costs won’t see the light of day, but the SEIU has put forth a ballot initiative to pass an All Payer Rate System and price controls which have dramatically curbed costs in MD and were endorsed by the UIP in the last election as its healthcare plan.
Implementing single payer in a vacuum as a state simply socializes these high costs and makes them the government’s problem, as Vermont found out the hard way. I am still philosophically in favor of it, but at the state level the smart thing to do first is control and contain the costs, break up the hospital monopolies, and begin standardizing care delivery and costs. It’s shameful these simply fixes have not been proposed by our legislature, which largely is in the pocket of these industries.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
What?! Partners is non profit?
I did not know that. They are the most profitable hospital network in the state. They can’t be non profit. Something is not right.
johnk says
over time there is cost savings with preventative care and having people insured so that they have covered annual exams, etc. But a large part with ACA are these measures with the larger pools of people you have to leverage costs. Pharmacy is #1 on the list to negotiate prices, the same song and dance about investments on research make me crazy. Let Richard Neal show how the financial statements of these drug companies and highlight for us how they will go bankrupt without gouging people for health care. Time to get primaried?
merrimackguy says
If they said “we’re going to raise taxes in order to provide health insurance for 40-50 million people who currently have none” I doubt it would have passed. The health savings were the big benefit that the administration led with.
johnk says
I was describing what’s supposed to happen under ACA and it looks like Richard Neal is trying to push it out to a committee and analysis in order to prevent that cost savings from happening. We see that all the time in Washington, delay after delay with basely reporting and analysis.
merrimackguy says
How do we “get behind” something, when it seems like a bait and switch?
Donald Green says
but the same problems that plague the cost of care continue under any plan that is supported. It is always a matter of how much money Americans are willing to pay for care. However Single Payer is still the most efficient insurance mechanism to lower bureaucratic costs, and this is the biggest difference between our hodge-podge system, and universal systems.
Green Mountain Care failed for a few reasons. The big one is, it was not Single Payer. Several insurers remained to create their own billing and payment apparatus. Also the front person to put the plan together was someone opposed to Single Payer. In other words big player politics interfered once again, and maintained bureaucratic disadvantages.
Once everyone is assured payment for their services with prescribed fees, the incentive to open redundant programs is reduced. As for drugs, by having a central system lower drug prices can be negotiated downward.
Unless you figure out how to reduce the number of practitioners working, you don’t lower costs. With increasing numbers of professionals, costs go up, not down. At present in the US, our senior population is less than any other developed nation, and if better care changes the demographic, more citizens reach old age. That population at present makes up 12%, while they spend 30+% of health care dollars. If prevention does its job, an admirable goal, that will mean higher costs, not less.
Lastly we already pay 64% of health care through tax dollars. This includes Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, government workers at all levels, and, one often forgotten, the tax exclusion of insurance through employers. Why shouldn’t use our tax dollars more appropriately.
pogo says
…allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate price discounts from Pharma.
Charley on the MTA says
That was the Dems’ major objection to Medicare Part D when it was passed.