PhRMA is freaking out over the possibility of gift restrictions to docs, and urging the Gov to amend or veto S.2863, the big fat Act To Promote Cost Containment, Transparency, and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care.
There's no way around it — one person's cost containment is a threat to another person's revenue stream. And if you think health care's too expensive … that means you want to not spend as much money on it. Right?
And while we hear the predictable responses from the Mass. High Tech Council and MA Biotech Council, I'm baffled as to why this isn't a bigger priority for the non-pharma businesses. Look what happens when oil prices go down. That's bad for the oil industry — and therefore bad for America, right? Actually, the stock market likes it. Hmmm …
I don't understand why health care cost control shouldn't be the same kind of thing. Industry in Massachusetts (and across the country) is stunted by our enormous health care costs. Other businesses have something to gain from not having to pay as much to give employees their drug benefits. Rather than nibbling around the edges with the kind of cost-shifting we tend to see (higher deductibles, co-pays, lifetime limits, etc.), wouldn't it be better to have more efficient, effective health care, and an end to double-digit premium increases? Why is this not the cause du jour of the rest of Massachusetts business?
By the way, as far as I can tell, there's no necessary inconsistency between the life sciences law and the gift restrictions, as the pharma co's imply. Ostensibly, the life sciences law exists primarily to encourage innovation and public value, with profits resulting therefrom. Pharma gifts exist to boost sales volume — effectiveness is simply not a consideration, one way or another. So the cries of “you don't love us anymore” are just not that compelling. What's in it for the rest of us, PhRMA?
Just sign it, Governor — as is.
BTW — the Globe article makes mention of twenty-four House reps who kowtowed to PhRMA, signing a letter asking the gov to strike the drug gift restrictions. Anyone out there know who they are? I'll put them on our Wall of Shame, so that we'll know to vote for someone else.
God help the Guv if he caves on this, already watered-down, provision.
between preventing PhRMA companies from partaking in certain sales practices in order to keep the costs down for MA consumers, and then turning around and collecting tax revenue from those MA consumers in order to subsidize those same PhRMA companies? I know that the Life Sciences bill was sold as creating jobs and innovation here in MA, but couldn’t the exact same case be made that artificially inflating the cost of pharmaceuticals gives the PhRMA companies more profits with which to create more jobs and innovation? I see blatant hypocracy from all those who trumpet Gov. Patrick’s Life Sciences bill as a great success and then turn around and support Sen. Murray’s PhRMA bill.
<
p>And for the record, I support Sen. Murray’s PhRMA bill, I just didn’t see a reason for the 0 tolerance aspect that prevented even de minimis gifts, and I oppose Gov. Patrick’s Life Science bill.
I had previously linked the PhRMA bill with the Life Sciences bill when both bills were being debated.
July 17, 2008 comment
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
June 2, 2008 comment
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
May 22, 2008 post
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>No one responded to any of the PhRMA-Life Sciences links. Everyone loved the PhRMA companies when Gov. Patrick was giving them $1 billion from the MA taxpayers. Now they are the bad guys when they are believed to be profiting by inefficiently serving MA consumers. When they profit by means of the inefficient bureaucracy known as the US health care system they are bad guys, but when they profit by means of the inefficient bureaucracy known as the MA government then they are the good guys. I just don’t get it.
I don’t follow. How do subsidies “artificially inflate” the cost of pharmaceuticals? I would think that they’d reduce the over-the-counter cost (while, of course, the total cost would ultimately remain the same). Isn’t that what subsidies do?
1) Where does the money come from that is being used to subsidize the Life Science companies?
Answer – the MA taxpayers.
2) Which costs is the PhRMA bill trying to reduce?
Answer – the costs for MA health care consumers.
<
p>If there is significant overlap between MA taxpayers and MA health care consumers, then the two laws are contradictory.