info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A plan for drug-price scrutiny
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Don Roberto
Feb 18, 2016, 8:43:19 PM2/18/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
A plan for drug-price scrutiny
DAVID LAZARUS
2/16/2016
Los Angeles Times
UNDER OBAMA’S budget plan, drugmakers would have to say how much they
spend to develop, manufacture, distribute and market certain
prescription meds.
Picture
Buried deep within President Obama’s $4-trillion budget plan are a
couple of healthcare proposals that could change everything for U.S.
consumers.
The fact that the drug industry wasted no time in dismissing the ideas —
and that their Republican friends in Congress said they wouldn’t even
look at them — should tell you something big was afoot.
The Department of Health and Human Services broke out Obama’s healthcare
proposals in a 173-page document. You have to wade all the way to page
75 to find what may be the single most important policy idea.
It’s labeled “Establish Transparency and Reporting Requirements in
Pharmaceutical Drug Pricing,” which is a bureaucratic way of saying that
drug companies should have to justify their ridiculously high prices.
“Currently, limited public information exists on how pharmaceutical
manufacturers price drugs, and no law requires manufacturers to report
on the costs driving their pricing decisions,” HHS says.
“To bring greater transparency to prescription drug pricing, this
proposal requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to publicly disclose
production costs, including research and development investments and
discounts to various payers for specific high-cost drugs that the
secretary identifies through regulation based on the public’s interest,”
it goes on to say.
That means exactly what it looks like. Drug companies would have to say
how much they spend to develop, manufacture, distribute and market
certain prescription meds so that health authorities could make sure
that people aren’t being ripped off.
While administration officials have been floating trial balloons for
months about the need for greater drug-price transparency, Obama gave
the idea significantly more political heft by including it in his
official budget plan.
You don’t have to look farther than recent headlines to understand why
such a measure is warranted. Gilead Sciences raised eyebrows when it
priced its hepatitis C drugs at about $1,000 a pill.
Former Turing Pharmaceuticals Chief Executive Martin Shkreli bought the
rights to a 62-year-old drug used to treat infections in AIDS patients
and others and raised the price 5,000%.
And as I reported recently the price of a drug commonly used since the
1970s to treat swimmer’s ear in kids has soared by about 3,000% after
licensing rights changed hands multiple times through a series of
mergers and acquisitions.
When I asked the current manufacturer of Cortisporin-TC Otic Suspension,
Endo International, why a drug that once cost a few bucks now goes for
$200, I was told that “Endo has taken price increases in line with
market conditions and competitor product pricing.”
In other words, Cortisporin costs a small fortune because drug companies
can get away with charging that much.
The Obama administration is proposing that Endo and others come up with
a better explanation than that — or, presumably, face the possibility of
a regulatory crackdown.
Stephen J. Ubl, head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America, a.k.a. PhRMA, a.k.a. the lobbying group that showered $18
million on lawmakers last year, was not amused.
He called the price-disclosure requirement “harmful and misguided,” and
said it would “hurt patients.”
“Mandating public disclosure of proprietary information would undermine
our competitive market-based system and incentives for innovation,” Ubl
insisted.
Really?
“It’s hard to see how that would be the case,” said Trevor Gallen, a
health economist at Purdue University. “It certainly would undermine
their bargaining power. But from a market perspective, more information
is good.”
On the other hand, Gallen said he was wary of a government agency
“picking winners and losers” by applying increased scrutiny to pricing
of specific drugs.
“Why only have disclosure for drugs in ‘the public’s interest?’ ” he
asked. “Why not for all drugs? Anything that allows for the discretion
of political figures is fairly suspect.”
It’s unclear from the budget proposal what government officials would do
with this pricing information. Would regulators set limits on how much
could be charged to consumers? Would they settle for shaming drugmakers
by publicizing the data?
Joel Hay, a health economist at USC, said setting limits on
prescription-drug prices could backfire for consumers. He said drugs are
more widely available when manufacturers can cut deals at different
prices with different insurance systems.
Then maybe what’s needed is a leveling of the playing field. Right now,
Medicare is prohibited by law from negotiating prices with drugmakers.
If pharmaceutical companies’ pricing is to remain a closely guarded
secret, at the very least we should allow our largest public insurance
system to flex its market muscle on behalf of patients.
Obama is proposing that as well in his budget. The Health and Human
Services secretary would be empowered “to directly negotiate prices with
manufacturers for high-cost drugs ... covered under Part D,” Medicare’s
prescription-drug program.
Drugmakers would be able to access Medicare’s 52 million beneficiaries
only if they agree to haggle and to “supply HHS with all cost and
clinical data, as well as other information, necessary to come to an
agreement on price.”
Private insurers almost certainly would demand equal treatment in their
own negotiations with drug companies, thus placing even more downward
pressure on prices.
PhRMA’s Ubl hates this idea too.
He said allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would “fundamentally
alter the structure of this successful program ... jeopardizing access,
driving up premiums and reducing choice.”
The drug industry clearly likes things the way they are, operating in
the shadows and to a great extent being unchallenged on pricing.
It doesn’t seem a stretch to think that Obama is doing a little
grandstanding in his last-ever budget plan.
This much is clear, though: U.S. drug prices are out of control and
something needs to be done.
Also, any time that business interests say greater oversight would harm
consumers, and any time that Republicans say there’s no need to even
consider additional regulation of an industry, they’re almost always
acting out of self-interest, not the best interests of society.
And that’s just sick.
David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays.
Send your tips or feedback to david....@latimes.com.
DAVID LAZARUS
2/16/2016
Los Angeles Times
UNDER OBAMA’S budget plan, drugmakers would have to say how much they
spend to develop, manufacture, distribute and market certain
prescription meds.
Picture
Buried deep within President Obama’s $4-trillion budget plan are a
couple of healthcare proposals that could change everything for U.S.
consumers.
The fact that the drug industry wasted no time in dismissing the ideas —
and that their Republican friends in Congress said they wouldn’t even
look at them — should tell you something big was afoot.
The Department of Health and Human Services broke out Obama’s healthcare
proposals in a 173-page document. You have to wade all the way to page
75 to find what may be the single most important policy idea.
It’s labeled “Establish Transparency and Reporting Requirements in
Pharmaceutical Drug Pricing,” which is a bureaucratic way of saying that
drug companies should have to justify their ridiculously high prices.
“Currently, limited public information exists on how pharmaceutical
manufacturers price drugs, and no law requires manufacturers to report
on the costs driving their pricing decisions,” HHS says.
“To bring greater transparency to prescription drug pricing, this
proposal requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to publicly disclose
production costs, including research and development investments and
discounts to various payers for specific high-cost drugs that the
secretary identifies through regulation based on the public’s interest,”
it goes on to say.
That means exactly what it looks like. Drug companies would have to say
how much they spend to develop, manufacture, distribute and market
certain prescription meds so that health authorities could make sure
that people aren’t being ripped off.
While administration officials have been floating trial balloons for
months about the need for greater drug-price transparency, Obama gave
the idea significantly more political heft by including it in his
official budget plan.
You don’t have to look farther than recent headlines to understand why
such a measure is warranted. Gilead Sciences raised eyebrows when it
priced its hepatitis C drugs at about $1,000 a pill.
Former Turing Pharmaceuticals Chief Executive Martin Shkreli bought the
rights to a 62-year-old drug used to treat infections in AIDS patients
and others and raised the price 5,000%.
And as I reported recently the price of a drug commonly used since the
1970s to treat swimmer’s ear in kids has soared by about 3,000% after
licensing rights changed hands multiple times through a series of
mergers and acquisitions.
When I asked the current manufacturer of Cortisporin-TC Otic Suspension,
Endo International, why a drug that once cost a few bucks now goes for
$200, I was told that “Endo has taken price increases in line with
market conditions and competitor product pricing.”
In other words, Cortisporin costs a small fortune because drug companies
can get away with charging that much.
The Obama administration is proposing that Endo and others come up with
a better explanation than that — or, presumably, face the possibility of
a regulatory crackdown.
Stephen J. Ubl, head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America, a.k.a. PhRMA, a.k.a. the lobbying group that showered $18
million on lawmakers last year, was not amused.
He called the price-disclosure requirement “harmful and misguided,” and
said it would “hurt patients.”
“Mandating public disclosure of proprietary information would undermine
our competitive market-based system and incentives for innovation,” Ubl
insisted.
Really?
“It’s hard to see how that would be the case,” said Trevor Gallen, a
health economist at Purdue University. “It certainly would undermine
their bargaining power. But from a market perspective, more information
is good.”
On the other hand, Gallen said he was wary of a government agency
“picking winners and losers” by applying increased scrutiny to pricing
of specific drugs.
“Why only have disclosure for drugs in ‘the public’s interest?’ ” he
asked. “Why not for all drugs? Anything that allows for the discretion
of political figures is fairly suspect.”
It’s unclear from the budget proposal what government officials would do
with this pricing information. Would regulators set limits on how much
could be charged to consumers? Would they settle for shaming drugmakers
by publicizing the data?
Joel Hay, a health economist at USC, said setting limits on
prescription-drug prices could backfire for consumers. He said drugs are
more widely available when manufacturers can cut deals at different
prices with different insurance systems.
Then maybe what’s needed is a leveling of the playing field. Right now,
Medicare is prohibited by law from negotiating prices with drugmakers.
If pharmaceutical companies’ pricing is to remain a closely guarded
secret, at the very least we should allow our largest public insurance
system to flex its market muscle on behalf of patients.
Obama is proposing that as well in his budget. The Health and Human
Services secretary would be empowered “to directly negotiate prices with
manufacturers for high-cost drugs ... covered under Part D,” Medicare’s
prescription-drug program.
Drugmakers would be able to access Medicare’s 52 million beneficiaries
only if they agree to haggle and to “supply HHS with all cost and
clinical data, as well as other information, necessary to come to an
agreement on price.”
Private insurers almost certainly would demand equal treatment in their
own negotiations with drug companies, thus placing even more downward
pressure on prices.
PhRMA’s Ubl hates this idea too.
He said allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would “fundamentally
alter the structure of this successful program ... jeopardizing access,
driving up premiums and reducing choice.”
The drug industry clearly likes things the way they are, operating in
the shadows and to a great extent being unchallenged on pricing.
It doesn’t seem a stretch to think that Obama is doing a little
grandstanding in his last-ever budget plan.
This much is clear, though: U.S. drug prices are out of control and
something needs to be done.
Also, any time that business interests say greater oversight would harm
consumers, and any time that Republicans say there’s no need to even
consider additional regulation of an industry, they’re almost always
acting out of self-interest, not the best interests of society.
And that’s just sick.
David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays.
Send your tips or feedback to david....@latimes.com.
mainframetech
Feb 19, 2016, 8:08:02 AM2/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-5, Bob wrote:
> A plan for drug-price scrutiny
> DAVID LAZARUS
>
> 2/16/2016
> Los Angeles Times
>
> UNDER OBAMA'S budget plan, drugmakers would have to say how much they
> spend to develop, manufacture, distribute and market certain
> prescription meds.
> Picture
> Buried deep within President Obama's $4-trillion budget plan are a
> couple of healthcare proposals that could change everything for U.S.
> consumers.
>
> The fact that the drug industry wasted no time in dismissing the ideas --
> A plan for drug-price scrutiny
> DAVID LAZARUS
>
> 2/16/2016
> Los Angeles Times
>
> UNDER OBAMA'S budget plan, drugmakers would have to say how much they
> spend to develop, manufacture, distribute and market certain
> prescription meds.
> Picture
> Buried deep within President Obama's $4-trillion budget plan are a
> couple of healthcare proposals that could change everything for U.S.
> consumers.
>
> and that their Republican friends in Congress said they wouldn't even
> look at them -- should tell you something big was afoot.
An answer to the problem is to take the price list used by the VA for veterans, which are low, negotiated prices. It would save negotiating which may produce high prices anyway, since the drug makers all have a pretty good idea what their competition's costs are. They've raised prices together in the past, no reason they wouldn't do it during negotiating. Th VA price list is a finished product and would save the government a fortune that was spent by Geo. W. Bush who made the Part D deal.
Chris
Don Roberto
Feb 21, 2016, 3:18:49 AM2/21/16
to
notch or two, and that won't happen unless Obama can get another
reasonable voice onto the Supreme Court and/or Clinton becomes
president, which, given the hard time she has with Sanders, is not a given.
There is, of course, the chance that the US Courts puts tax dodger Apple
into it's place after Tim Cook trying to put the company above the law.
Don Roberto
Gys de Jongh
Feb 21, 2016, 6:13:43 AM2/21/16
to
F00
Feb 21, 2016, 8:06:55 AM2/21/16
to
owning the white house and congress all at the same time. Federal laws
that could have been passed were not. What everyone tends to forget is
that the USG can regulate interstate as well as international commerce,
and that corporations are the creations of "the state." The power of
congress over taxation is, for all practical purposes, limitless. There
are so very many tools available to solve such problems, demanding full
unfettered appreciation of power in all three branches of government by
any one political party is really asking for the sort of trouble we
cannot afford.
Without even having to jump to reach high hanging fruit, Jimmy Carter
(some think he was the worse president ever, and he never achieved a
second term) managed "voluntary" price controls. If Jimmy could do
that, any president can, without the need to implicate SCOTUS.
I do not like what socialism represents. My parents brought me to the
US to escape it in all it's glory and I learned the practical
implications from my cousins who remained behind. But what Bernie
Sanders, socialist par excellence, has been saying is absolutely true.
So long as big money funds election campaigns in the US, Wall Street
and entities like the pharmaceutical industry will have their way.
And that, friends and other folks, is precisely what has been happening
to keep our pharmaceutical prices artificially inflated. Protected
monopolies (consider the phone company of yesteryear and the AT&T of
today) without adequate controls invariably run amok. I hope you like
whoever big pharma and Wall Street select as the next POTUS! After all,
we are paying for it. If we are lucky, perhaps not.
And as matters stand, we're likely to keep on paying for it if you get
your wish, DR. Sad to say that the two least desirable candidates, IMO,
are the only ones offering salvation from this and many other economic
woes. Although the two are running under opposing political banners, the
two are in many ways cut from the same cloth, with one financially
successful after a million dollar loan from his dad. But interestingly,
neither has gotten campaign contributions from big pharma or Wall Street.
Even if we disagree, I wish us the best of all possible worlds, with
due reverence afforded to Candide.
Don Roberto
Feb 22, 2016, 10:04:29 PM2/22/16
to
Obama nor wishing for a Clinton presidency - what I did was hope for a
"reasonable" voice on the Supreme Court. By "reasonable" I mean someone
who doesn't buy into idiocies such as "corporations are people too",
i.e., my beef in my response to Chris was more about the power and
cockiness of large corporations than anything else.
An example is Pfizer which although for all practical purposes is an
American company, was bought by a much smaller company in Ireland just
so it could pretend it is now headquartered in a country where it pays
less taxes. Not to mention that Allergan, the smaller "Irish" company
also is a former US company that had fled the country for tax purposes.
And I also used Apple as an example, another company that not only is
bending over backwards to avoid paying taxes, but now is trying to
refuse a court order to make up for it's waning economic prowess.
I agree that the "two least desirable candidates are the only ones
offering salvation" - all others on the GOP side (except Kasich) appear
to have a screw lose, and Hillary is running on her vast experience as
Bill Clinton's wife.
Here's a good "analysis" of the candidates by LA Times columnist Steve
Lopez. Lopez is a bleeding heart liberal but he knows how to write:
http://eeditionmobile.latimes.com/Olive/Tablet/LATimes/SharedArticle.aspx?href=LAT%2F2016%2F02%2F21&id=Ar02503
Don Roberto
Feb 22, 2016, 10:06:03 PM2/22/16
to
Don Roberto
------------------------------
To live is to war with trolls.
--Henrik Ibsen
Gys de Jongh
Feb 22, 2016, 10:35:02 PM2/22/16
to
Then, being lazy, I deleted all entries in the brand new profile on my
laptop and copied the profile from my desktop to it.
I was a bit amazed and impressed that it worked :)
I can now send Posts to Asd from the pancake restaurant when looking
after my granddaughters. Don't click if you want Low-Carb
Gys
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 24, 2016, 1:57:41 PM2/24/16
to
On 02-22-2016 22:34, Gys de Jongh wrote:
> Just installed the latest version of ThunderBird on my laptop
> Then, being lazy, I deleted all entries in the brand new profile on my
> laptop and copied the profile from my desktop to it.
> I was a bit amazed and impressed that it worked :)
I moved the profile to my Dropbox folder and put a symlink to it in the
> Just installed the latest version of ThunderBird on my laptop
> Then, being lazy, I deleted all entries in the brand new profile on my
> laptop and copied the profile from my desktop to it.
> I was a bit amazed and impressed that it worked :)
standard location on each computer. That way they all have the same
list of what I have and haven't read. And the same killfile.
--
Wes Groleau
W. Baker
Feb 24, 2016, 3:08:05 PM2/24/16
to
Gys de Jongh <jonghSevenH...@planet.nl> wrote:
You are a brave diabetic( or ossibly a fool) to accompany your
Granddaughters to the ancake house:-) I am unapy stoping with teh kids
for pizza, let alone pancakes!
Wendy
Granddaughters to the ancake house:-) I am unapy stoping with teh kids
for pizza, let alone pancakes!
Wendy
Gys de Jongh
Feb 24, 2016, 3:37:02 PM2/24/16
to
Brilliant thought :)
Gys
Gys de Jongh
Feb 24, 2016, 3:45:34 PM2/24/16
to
congratz on your bithday
xxxxxxxxxx
Gys
W. Baker
Feb 24, 2016, 6:32:16 PM2/24/16
to
Gys de Jongh <jonghSevenH...@planet.nl> wrote:
woudl meana lotof control and not that musch thrill should the control
fail:-)
Wendy
0 new messages