Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Then he keeps on claiming he can reduce premiums by $2500. An exaggeration that is on the verge of a lie... Half of that is supposed to come from costs generated fromo electronic health records! But his estimate of "savings" from EHRs is based on productivity gains which themselves are estimates drawn from private sector examples in the auto industry over ten years. The other amount comes from "disease managment" savings achieved by getting doctors to practice guideline driven medicine. That's called rationing. Also unlikely. And even David Cutler, one of the smartest health care analysts in America acknowledges that the $2500 doesn't translate into reduce premiums:
Obama health adviser Cutler confirmed that the campaign's $2,500 per family projection doesn't represent only out-of-pocket savings for individual Americans. It includes savings to the government, employers and insurers, savings that could, Cutler says, trickle down to families in the form of lower taxes, higher wages or reduced premiums. In fact, Cutler says the $2,500 figure simply comes from dividing an overall savings estimate that's somewhat larger than $120 billion by an approximate number of four-person families in the U.S. "[W]e take the total and divide by the total population, then consider a 4 person family,"
Read More
Barack Obama:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003
Guess what
Mammograms: 88.6% of American females 40-69 had ever had a mammogram compared to 72.3% of Canadians.
Women are ten percent less likely to survive five years with a breast cancer diagnosis in Canada and 20 percent more likely to die from breast cancer in Canada. If rates were adjusted for race and stage the difference would likely be higher.
Though the breast cancer drug Herceptin was approved in 1998 it was first used in Canada in 2005 and even then it's access to high responders was rationed.
Read more here
Change we -- and women with breast cancer -- don't need.
So does hopeful money -- since October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
That being the case, which candidate deserves to wear the Pink Ribbon?
A few questions to consider before answering:
Which candidate supports a platform that would accelerate the pharmaceutical community and the FDA down the Critical Path?
Which candidate supports a program that believes in getting women with breast cancer the most appropriate care as early in their disease state as possible?
Which candidate supports a program that understands the value of incremental innovation and the "price/value" equation?
Will either candidate speak up for "the four rights" -- the right medicine for the right patient in the right dose at the right time?
Will either candidate wear a pink ribbon tonight?
Will either candidate wear a pink ribbon for reasons other than optics?
Barak Obama's campaign released a horribly misleading ad about McCain's health care proposals, claiming that it would lead to millions losing health care coverage, raise taxes and hand over cash to insurance companies.
The claims have failed every fact-check – from CBS[1] to the Washington Post.[2] John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class families....
Transforming The Tax Code To Create Greater Equity: The McCain plan transforms the current tax code to provide all American families – including the self-employed and the uninsured – the same tax benefit, a $5,000 refundable tax credit ($2,500 for individuals) that was previously only available to those with employer coverage. Families can use this credit to purchase insurance of their choice, including keeping their current coverage. This is an approach supported by Barack Obama's own Senior Economic Advisor Jason Furman who wrote that "we could scrap the current deduction altogether and replace it with progressive tax credits that, together with other changes, would ensure that every American has affordable health insurance."[3]
· Better Than "Members of Congress": Under the McCain Plan, your employer can provide you with health insurance as good as a "Member of Congress", and you would pay no more in taxes – regardless of your tax bracket. In fact, you would have some additional money left over from the McCain tax credit to put in a health savings account.
· On The Issue Of the Congressional Plan – There Are Options, But All Are Under The FEHB Program: A good example is the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, which has combined monthly premiums for family coverage of $1027.95, for an annual cost of $12,335.40.
| Income Tax Liability | McCain Tax Credit | TOTAL Tax Savings |
10% Bracket (Up to $15,650) | $1,200 ($12,000 x 10%) | $5,000 | +$3,800 |
15% Bracket ($15,650 -63,700) | $1,800 ($12,000 x 15%) | $5,000 | +$3,200 |
25% Bracket ($63,700-128,500) | $3,000 ($12,000 x 25%) | $5,000 | +$2,000 |
28% Bracket ($128,500-195,850) | $3,360 ($12,000 x 28%) | $5,000 | +$1,640 |
33% Bracket ($195,850 -349,700) | $3,960 ($12,000 x 33%) | $5,000 | +$1,040 |
35% Bracket (349,700 and over) | $4,200 ($12,000 x 35%) | $5,000 | +$800 |
· Where Is The Middle-Class "Tax Increase"? If you or your family is in the 28% bracket, with an income of $180,000, you could receive employer provided health insurance even better than a Member of Congress, with a cost of almost $18,000, with no increase in taxes. Even the liberal leaning Tax Policy Center, agrees that the McCain proposals will result in a "net tax benefit" of more than $1,200 for an average tax payer.[4]
· Helping Those Without Employer Coverage: If you are a middle-class American today without employer provided health care, the McCain plan would give you a tax credit of $2,500 as an individual, or $5,000 for a family, to help you buy your own health insurance coverage, including across state lines. American families – not government bureaucrats or insurance companies – will choose the coverage that best meets their needs. Today, the government does nothing to help you. Why does Barack Obama oppose this?
· McCain Health Plan Puts Families in Charge: In another desperate attack, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have said that McCain health care tax credits to help families buy coverage "will go straight to the insurance company." Here is what they fail to mention – the credit goes to the insurance company that the American family chooses to get coverage from, anywhere in the nation. The power of choice lies with the family – not government bureaucrats or insurance companies. Ridiculing this line of strange attack, The Associated Press stated, "Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer."[5] Furthermore, any additional money left over after purchasing coverage will be controlled by the family in a portable health savings account.
· McCain Health Care Plan Protects Our Vulnerable Population: John McCain believes that no American should be denied access to quality and affordable coverage simply because of a pre-existing condition. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow – a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP – that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage.[6] There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.[7]
· McCain Health Care Plan Gives American Families More Choices: John McCain believes that American families should be given more choices by allowing them to purchase policies across state lines. In a move derided by fact checking organizations including Fact Check, the Obama campaign used this as an opportunity to falsely accuse John McCain of deregulating health care markets akin to Wall Street.[8] A recent study showed that simply allowing Americans to purchase across state lines would reduce the number of uninsured by almost 12 million.
· McCain Health Care Plan Preserves Employer Coverage: The McCain health plan builds on the employer-based system. Employers will have the same incentive to provide health insurance as they do today since they will continue to deduct the cost of health insurance they provide to employees. Nothing will change. In addition, payroll taxes will be protected from taxes under the McCain plan. Millions of American families with employer sponsored coverage in all tax brackets with the same coverage as a "Members of Congress" will now come out ahead with additional funds going into a portable health savings account. Importantly, younger and healthier employees with the McCain health care tax credit will have a bigger incentive to stay with the employers. For example, a 25-year-old employee in the 25 percent tax bracket with a $2,500 tax credit could either purchase a policy in the individual market for the same amount or stay with his employer plan and receive a $5,000 policy with an additional $1,250 to invest in a portable health savings account. Why would people choose worse insurance and less money? Finally, the McCain plan through comprehensive cost-containment policies addresses the single biggest threat to employer coverage – rising costs.
The truth about Senator Obama's health plan:
· Barack Obama's Plan Continues The Push Toward Government-Run Healthcare: The Obama plan will create a brand new government-run health plan at the cost of $243 billion a year – a financial burden of more than $3,000 a year on American families.[9]
· Barack Obama's Plan Will Harm Employer Coverage: The Obama plan includes a $179 billion a year employer mandate.[10] The mandate requires employers to either provide "meaningful" coverage or pay a tax towards the government plan.[11] Faced with tough economic conditions and rising health costs this creates a clear incentive for employers to drop coverage and move families into the new government plan. A Lewin Group study which examined a similar employer mandate combined with a national plan, like the Obama plan, concluded that almost 52 million individuals would lose their private employer coverage.[12] To maintain their competitive edge, others employers will follow - spelling the demise of the employer coverage system.
· Barack Obama's Plan Will Damage Private Coverage: The government-run plan will have a clear advantage over private insurance since it will be subsidized by American taxpayers. A recent analysis of both plans by the nonpartisan CATO Institute concluded that the Obama government-run plan will be able to "keep its premiums artificially low…since it can turn to the U.S. Treasury to cover any shortfalls" resulting in "undercutting the private market."[13] According to Wall Street Journal, the goal of the Obama plan "…like HillaryCare in the 1990s, is to displace current private coverage and switch people to the default government option."[14]
"A new study suggests that free drug samples, an effective marketing tool for the drug industry, do little to help the poor and may put children’s health at risk.”
No. According to the report (published today in Pediatrics), once in a doctor’s office, children who do not have health insurance are more likely to receive free drug samples than children with health insurance. And here's the important context part --
So how do free samples “do little to help the poor?” Is there some sort of socio-economic biomarker we need to know about?
But, “… of greater concern, the authors wrote, are the kinds of drug samples that physicians provide.” Indeed, the issue of pediatric safety is an important one, but all drugs have risks as well as benefits -- and the Precautionary Principle isn't going to help poor kids get better any faster. But what it will do is create even wider health disparities. It's also important to note that the report does not conclude that free samples are causing pediatricians to inappropriately prescribe anything.
According to the Times, “The study’s lead author, Dr. Sarah L. Cutrona, an instructor at
Hey, what about all those generic sampling progams?
Of course sampling is a marketing technique. But does this make sampling deliterious to pediatric health? That’s the implication (the headline of the story is "Study says Drug Samples May Endanger Children").
"Just" a marketing technique? What about the therapeutic benefits?
This is another important issue – but the answer is not to provide second class care to one cohort of children and a higher quality of care to another. And banning samples doesn’t make things better -- it exacerbates the problem.
Check here and then click on the smart looking guy in the maroon-striped tie.
Here's a taste, "We have to stop walling-off reality when it comes to discussing healthcare reform."
Say it ain't so, Joe.
In recent years Katie and her crew have gone after vaccine makers and the make believe link between vaccines and autism, taking up the cause of trial attorneys on the one hand and glossing over the scientific data demonstrating no relationship on the other...
Back in June 2007, “CBS Evening News” featured a story titled “Vaccines suspected in rise in autism rates.” CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported on the hardships of the parents of an autistic child and their fight to win money from a federal fund for “vaccine damages.”
“Twelve-year-old Michelle Cedillo doesn't know it, but she's the center of a landmark case that started today in federal vaccine court, one that could open the door for thousands of autistic children to be paid by a government fund,” Attkisson said on the June 11, 2007, “CBS Evening News.” “The controversy: whether their autism was caused by their childhood shots.”
Seven months later, the study, supported through the California Department of Public Health according to a press release, got little fanfare. It got only a brief mention on “CBS Evening News,” despite CBS airing six stories over the past two-and-a-half years that sounded alarm bells over thimerosal, according to a Nexis search.
One CBS story, aired on July 15, 2005, included the ranting and ravings of environmental extremist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “The science connecting brain damage with thimerosal is absolutely overwhelming,” Kennedy said.
See here.
In June of 2008, Attkisson was at it again, this time trying to discredit scientists and organizations who support immunization because they receive support from vaccine companies (ignoring the fact that Robert F Kennedy and others she provided fawning coverage for are on the trial attorney take...) Here's the lead into a story on Katie's show one month after the California study came out:
"For years some parents and scientists have raised concerns about vaccine safety, including a possible link to autism and ADD. Many independent experts have sided with government officials and other scientists who say there's no possible connection. But how "independent" are they? "
Now it turns out that Katie is bringing another reporter into her stable with close ties to trial attorneys whose history is writing about health litigation issues – principally sourced from class action litigators, Heather Won Tesoriero.
Heather Won Tesoriero is brand new to CBS and this is probably working now on her very first stories. At the beginning of September she joined a leading talent agency ( N.S. Bienstock) which helped her move from medical and law reporter at the Wall Street Journal to CBS NEWS as a field producer covering medical issues. It appears she’s trying to make a big leap and name for herself with Katie Couric. Will CBS and Couric become the latest platform for Tesoriero’s history of big class action law firm-sourced attacks? If Atkisson's autism crusade is any indication what's to come, the answer is yes.
While a WSJ staff health reporter and blogger she primarily focused on medical-related fraud/litigation issues and is clearly well-connected to the plaintiff’s attorneys side quoting their claims and interviewing them unchallenged on WSJ-TV. She was “co-counsel” for the WSJ Law Blog. She’s done several reports on drug side effects (clearly promoted by class action litigators), some environmental-linked health claims and other purported health fraud topics. No one should be surprised if she brings the same sources, bias and unbalanced reporting to CBS.
Links to other related stories written by Tesoriero on behalf of class action litigators:
· Oil Firms Settle Claims In MTBE Leak Cases – article
· Video interview with plaintiff attorney by Tesoriero on MTBE leak
· Patients Sue Icelandic Drugmaker Over Recalled Heart Drug
· Health-Care Fraud: Keep an Eye on the Small Fry
· Wayward Medical Records Sold as Scrap Paper for $20
· Whistleblower Law Blog: Tesoriero and quitam lawsuit
· Vioxx Study Casts Doubt on Merck Claim
See here.
So along comes the supposedly non partisan Commonwealth Fund with a report claiming that the Obama plan will do a better job in reducing the number of people without health insurance.
See here.
Unfortunately media reports ignore the fact that the Commonwealth Fund also produced a study this past summer "demonstrating" that something like the Obama plan would only cost $165 billion over ten years and touted the features of the Obama plan including a National Health Exchange, expanding Medicaid, subsidies for large corporations, etc.
See here.
Nothing like using the media to pass on a favorable review of your own proposal and as a springboard to jump into the tank with Obama.
From the New York Times:
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
