[Try accessing the articles referenced below from this page.]
OK, OK, so I just got around to reading the Economist from a couple of weeks ago … and I’ll have what they’re having:
Stronger FDA enforcementof post-marketing studies and stronger signals from payers?especiallythe federal government, which will cover much of elderly America’s drugbill from 2006?are needed to encourage drug firms to provide rigorous,unbiased evidence of the cost-effectiveness of their new products. Thisis something drug firms ought to welcome, despite short-term costs. Inthe long run, it is better for them, as well as for the public, to havepricing based on reliable evidence than on politicians currying popularfavour. An industry which prides itself on science should surelywelcome a more scientific approach to its own regulation [my emphasis].
Say whaaaa? That is some good stuff they’re on in England. "Oh, of course, out of jolly good old-fashioned economic principle of free markets, they should welcome it, dear lad!"
Uh … What. Ev. Er.
As I’ve said before, we’ve got the mother lode of market ignorance over on this side of the pond, and Big Pharma is pumping us like derricks. Luckily some states are fighting back:
But a few stateshave been successful [in controlling drug costs]. The Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds,which covers 240,000 public workers, retirees and their dependants,managed to reduce its drug bill by 23% last year, while maintaining thesame level of prescriptions. The secret, says Eric Stanchfield, head ofhealth-care purchasing, was a strict reimbursement list based on drugs’clinical effectiveness, a pharmacy benefits manager with transparentaccounting and a willingness to be tough in negotiations with drugfirms [my emphasis]. The programme is so successful that the governor plans to expandit to cover the uninsured, and General Motors has also been taking alook.
Do we have anything like that in MA?
