Remember Melody Peterson? She used to cover the pharmaceutical beat for the New York Times until she was, well – until she didn’t any more. Now her occasional column inches appear where they belong – on pages designated "opinion." On Saturday (10/10/09) she had an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. The title of her piece, “Healthcare reform without drug price controls? That's sick.”
Really? Cardiologists, oncologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, and just about every other specialist – as well as internists would likely disagree – and strongly. Thirty years ago was 1979. Does Ms. Peterson need a list of 30 years worth of pharmaceutical innovation? Looks like it.
She continues:
“When Congress expanded Medicare in 2003 to cover the cost of prescriptions, the industry's lobbyists got language into the bill that made it illegal for the government to negotiate prices and act like a savvy medicine shopper.”
Melody refers to the Non-Interference Clause -- but gets her facts wrong. That particular codicil was initially drafted not by “industry lobbyists” during the Bush Administration, but during the Clinton years by then Senators Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy. Pesky facts!
Relative to government-dictated pharmaceutical price controls, Ms. Peterson writes that, “… studies have shown it would save billions of dollars a year.” She then forgets to cite any studies.
Well, consider this statement from Stanford Business School's Alain Enthoven and Kyna Fong, “Neither economic theory nor historical experience suggests government price negotiation will achieve lower drug prices.”
And this, according to that mouthpiece of the right-wing conspiracy, USA Today -- "Both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and Medicare actuaries have said they doubt the government could negotiate lower costs than the private sector.”
Facts? They just get in the way when the end justifies the means.
Melody writes,
“Nearly one of every five dollars that we spend each year goes to the drug companies, doctors, hospitals and the rest of the medical system.”
Yes – but how is this money spent? Well, since her essay is about on-patent pharmaceuticals, it would have been useful (one would think obvious and necessary) to offer a breakdown. Here’s what she omitted – our national percent spend for on-patent medicines is about 8% of the total. Less than a dime on the dollar.
Towards the end of her, um, opinion piece, Peterson writes, “Congress must pass legislation to ensure that every American has access to medical care. And study after study has shown we can do that without breaking the bank -- if only we reform the system to hold down costs. But the drug companies, which are spending more on lobbying than any other industry, are determined to make sure that doesn't happen.”
So many studies! Not one listed. And – last I looked -- the pharmaceutical industry is spending tens of millions of dollars in advertising in support of healthcare reform.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
-- Aldous Huxley
