Latest Drugwonks' Blog
At what point will Democrats realize that the pledge to force government to negotiate directly with drug AND biotech companies will rob seniors of their choice of medicines and re-run of Hillarycare when biotech stocks lost 40 percent of their market value?
Interesting how the media is already laying the groundwork for this angle as this series of quotes suggest:
"From a rhetorical perspective, Democrats may feel like they gain a lot with this issue, but there are many substantive hurdles that the government faces in trying to negotiate prices. … If you look historically at the government's experience in trying to regulate prices, it's poor." (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "On Drug Prices, Are Democrats In A Fix?" Los Angeles Times, 11/26/06)
Marilyn Moon, Health Program Director, The American Institutes For Research: Negotiating Drug Prices Is "A Feel-Good Kind Of Answer, But It's Not One That Is Easy To Imagine How You Put Into Practice." (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
The Wall Street Journal: "It Isn't Clear That A Government-Run Drug Insurance Plan Would Push Prices Down." "Private plans often rely on pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, to obtain rebates and discounts with manufacturers and contain costs. But Medicare has traditionally been a fee-for-service program, without much experience in price negotiation." (Jane Zhang, "Why Medicare Drugs May Be Sticking Point," The Wall Street Journal, 11/24/06)
"Leslie Norwalk, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency that manages Medicare, says she doubts Medicare would do a better job than private insurers in negotiating drug prices. Indeed, the agency probably would contract with PBMs to do the work. 'They are doing that already,' she said at a recent meeting with The Wall Street Journal." (Jane Zhang, "Why Medicare Drugs May Be Sticking Point," The Wall Street Journal, 11/24/06)
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer: "At Some Point You Have To Ask: What Are We Looking For Here?" "Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. 'Then too many plans came forward,' Reischauer said. 'Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, "We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices." At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?'" (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
"The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month." (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
Polls Show More Than 80 Percent Of Medicare Drug Plan Participants Are Satisfied. "Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior's drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600." (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
Interesting how the media is already laying the groundwork for this angle as this series of quotes suggest:
"From a rhetorical perspective, Democrats may feel like they gain a lot with this issue, but there are many substantive hurdles that the government faces in trying to negotiate prices. … If you look historically at the government's experience in trying to regulate prices, it's poor." (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "On Drug Prices, Are Democrats In A Fix?" Los Angeles Times, 11/26/06)
Marilyn Moon, Health Program Director, The American Institutes For Research: Negotiating Drug Prices Is "A Feel-Good Kind Of Answer, But It's Not One That Is Easy To Imagine How You Put Into Practice." (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
The Wall Street Journal: "It Isn't Clear That A Government-Run Drug Insurance Plan Would Push Prices Down." "Private plans often rely on pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, to obtain rebates and discounts with manufacturers and contain costs. But Medicare has traditionally been a fee-for-service program, without much experience in price negotiation." (Jane Zhang, "Why Medicare Drugs May Be Sticking Point," The Wall Street Journal, 11/24/06)
"Leslie Norwalk, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency that manages Medicare, says she doubts Medicare would do a better job than private insurers in negotiating drug prices. Indeed, the agency probably would contract with PBMs to do the work. 'They are doing that already,' she said at a recent meeting with The Wall Street Journal." (Jane Zhang, "Why Medicare Drugs May Be Sticking Point," The Wall Street Journal, 11/24/06)
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer: "At Some Point You Have To Ask: What Are We Looking For Here?" "Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. 'Then too many plans came forward,' Reischauer said. 'Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, "We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices." At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?'" (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
"The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month." (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
Polls Show More Than 80 Percent Of Medicare Drug Plan Participants Are Satisfied. "Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior's drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600." (Lori Montgomery and Christopher Lee, "Success Of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats," The Washington Post, 11/26/06)
In a new report from London's School of Pharmacy, Professor David Taylor (a contributor to the new CMPI/CNE book “Coincidence or Crisisâ€) points out: "The present system encourages traders to buy modern medicines cheaply in parts of Europe where governments impose low prices, and sell them on in new packages in EU member states where government controlled prices are higher. People think this saves money. But the evidence explored in our report indicates that it is in fact undermining European economic interests and may, on occasions, have created a pharmacy culture that increases counterfeit medicine hazards."
The report calls for stronger legal penalties for medicine counterfeiting and say they also support reform in other areas, from greater freedom of regulated medicines information provision in Europe to better controls over internet pharmacy and medicines trading. Importantly, the School of Pharmacy backs a strong patent system to fund medicines research and says without assets such as the research-based pharmaceutical industry "Europe's economic future will be bleak."
If you would like a copy of "Coincidence or Crisis," please send an email to ppitts@cmpi.org.
The report calls for stronger legal penalties for medicine counterfeiting and say they also support reform in other areas, from greater freedom of regulated medicines information provision in Europe to better controls over internet pharmacy and medicines trading. Importantly, the School of Pharmacy backs a strong patent system to fund medicines research and says without assets such as the research-based pharmaceutical industry "Europe's economic future will be bleak."
If you would like a copy of "Coincidence or Crisis," please send an email to ppitts@cmpi.org.
Here's a great example of how medicine and the private sector are transitioning to prospective and personalized care...with BG Medicine (called Beyond Genomics in this article) a company that was involved in the FDA task force I chaired when I was at the Manhattan Institute, helping build the foundation with bioinformatics...
Drug and device firms invest in study of plaque to find trigger for heart attacks (11-26-06)
The International Herald Tribune
New York, 11/27/2006 - Most people have a clear image of how atherosclerosis, popularly known as hardening of the arteries, causes a heart attack: fatty deposits called plaque build up in a coronary artery until the day the blood flow that sustains the heart is blocked.
If only they were right. In reality, coronary artery blockages almost always cause chest pain known as angina and other symptoms as they form. But half of the men and two-thirds of the women who suffer heart attacks never experience warning symptoms.
And autopsies of such victims frequently show blood clots jammed into arteries that have been only modestly narrowed.
Standard atherosclerosis therapies include bypass surgery to route blood around blockages, angioplasty and stenting to clear blockages from inside the artery and drugs like statins that reduce cholesterol levels to slow the formation of plaque. But they have not been enough to prevent as many as 500,000 deaths a year in the United States alone from what doctors call coronary artery disease.
As a result, many researchers have turned their attention from atherosclerosis in general to the tendency of some patients to develop a form of plaque prone to inflammation and rupture, which can spill a stew of cells into the bloodstream that can incite rapid clotting.
Such plaques have been called "vulnerable" plaque." But little is known about how such plaques form and even less about how long they last or what makes them rupture.
"Figuring out who is going to have plaque rupture would be the Holy Grail of cardiology," said Deepak Bhatt, a leading research cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
The broadest effort yet to do that was to be announced Monday by a consortium pledging to invest $30 million over the next four years in an international plaque research program that will be overseen by Valentin Fuster, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.
The initial sponsors include Humana, a leading manager of health plans; AstraZeneca and Merck, from the drug industry; Philips Electronics, which makes diagnostic machines widely used to scan the heart, the arteries that supply it with blood and other parts of the circulatory system; and BG Medicine, a start-up in Waltham, Massachusetts, formerly known as Beyond Genomics.
The centerpiece of the research will be a study of 4,000 to 6,000 Humana patients with at least two known risk factors for heart attacks. As the outcome for the patients becomes clear over the next few years, researchers hope that the profiles that emerge from the study will show patterns pointing to the high-risk patients who actually suffered heart attacks. That in turn could help the companies create therapeutic products.
The payoff could be enormous for health care companies. Coronary stents, which limit the symptoms of atherosclerosis and the damage from heart attacks, but do not reduce the likelihood of future attacks, make up a $6 billion market for device makers and produce some of the biggest profit margins the industry has ever seen.
Drug makers have fared even better with statins, which partially reduce the risk of new attacks and top $20 billion in worldwide sales.
"How we treat the disease is up for grabs," said Andrew Plump, who monitors early-stage research on new cardiovascular medicines at Merck's research center in Rahway, New Jersey.
The initiative spotlights the growing lineup of research projects and technology investments that reflect competition between drug makers and device companies to develop the safest, most effective and cheapest products to combat atherosclerosis.
Drug and device firms invest in study of plaque to find trigger for heart attacks (11-26-06)
The International Herald Tribune
New York, 11/27/2006 - Most people have a clear image of how atherosclerosis, popularly known as hardening of the arteries, causes a heart attack: fatty deposits called plaque build up in a coronary artery until the day the blood flow that sustains the heart is blocked.
If only they were right. In reality, coronary artery blockages almost always cause chest pain known as angina and other symptoms as they form. But half of the men and two-thirds of the women who suffer heart attacks never experience warning symptoms.
And autopsies of such victims frequently show blood clots jammed into arteries that have been only modestly narrowed.
Standard atherosclerosis therapies include bypass surgery to route blood around blockages, angioplasty and stenting to clear blockages from inside the artery and drugs like statins that reduce cholesterol levels to slow the formation of plaque. But they have not been enough to prevent as many as 500,000 deaths a year in the United States alone from what doctors call coronary artery disease.
As a result, many researchers have turned their attention from atherosclerosis in general to the tendency of some patients to develop a form of plaque prone to inflammation and rupture, which can spill a stew of cells into the bloodstream that can incite rapid clotting.
Such plaques have been called "vulnerable" plaque." But little is known about how such plaques form and even less about how long they last or what makes them rupture.
"Figuring out who is going to have plaque rupture would be the Holy Grail of cardiology," said Deepak Bhatt, a leading research cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
The broadest effort yet to do that was to be announced Monday by a consortium pledging to invest $30 million over the next four years in an international plaque research program that will be overseen by Valentin Fuster, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.
The initial sponsors include Humana, a leading manager of health plans; AstraZeneca and Merck, from the drug industry; Philips Electronics, which makes diagnostic machines widely used to scan the heart, the arteries that supply it with blood and other parts of the circulatory system; and BG Medicine, a start-up in Waltham, Massachusetts, formerly known as Beyond Genomics.
The centerpiece of the research will be a study of 4,000 to 6,000 Humana patients with at least two known risk factors for heart attacks. As the outcome for the patients becomes clear over the next few years, researchers hope that the profiles that emerge from the study will show patterns pointing to the high-risk patients who actually suffered heart attacks. That in turn could help the companies create therapeutic products.
The payoff could be enormous for health care companies. Coronary stents, which limit the symptoms of atherosclerosis and the damage from heart attacks, but do not reduce the likelihood of future attacks, make up a $6 billion market for device makers and produce some of the biggest profit margins the industry has ever seen.
Drug makers have fared even better with statins, which partially reduce the risk of new attacks and top $20 billion in worldwide sales.
"How we treat the disease is up for grabs," said Andrew Plump, who monitors early-stage research on new cardiovascular medicines at Merck's research center in Rahway, New Jersey.
The initiative spotlights the growing lineup of research projects and technology investments that reflect competition between drug makers and device companies to develop the safest, most effective and cheapest products to combat atherosclerosis.
According to a WSJ.com/Harris Interactive health-care poll U.S. adults are divided on whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe drugs to treat diseases or conditions other than those for which they have been approved.
45% of those surveyed say doctors "should be allowed to decide which prescription drug treatments to use with their patients regardless of what diseases they have or have not been approved for by the FDA," compared with 46% who said this shouldn't be allowed.
Frighteningly, nearly two-thirds say they would agree to prohibit off-label prescribing unless it is part of a clinical trial, while 28% wouldn't support such limitations. Attention must be paid – this is the slippery slope that the Apostles of Evidence-based Medicine would have us follow – to disastrous consequences.
Fortunately, when put into the appropriate perspective, Americans don't want to hamper innovation. 55% believe that if doctors aren't allowed to prescribe freely that it will be much more difficult to find new and innovative ways to treat diseases vs. 35% who disagree.
More than two-thirds believe drug companies shouldn't be “allowed to encourage†off-label use vs. 12% who disagree and 20% who aren't sure. Perhaps a better way to have framed that question would have been to have asked if drug companies should be “allowed to share valid clinical information†about off-label use?
One wonders if the pollsters screened out as respondents patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc. and their family members. And, if not, how that segment answered the questions.
For that we do not need a research project – we need a robust Critical Path program.
45% of those surveyed say doctors "should be allowed to decide which prescription drug treatments to use with their patients regardless of what diseases they have or have not been approved for by the FDA," compared with 46% who said this shouldn't be allowed.
Frighteningly, nearly two-thirds say they would agree to prohibit off-label prescribing unless it is part of a clinical trial, while 28% wouldn't support such limitations. Attention must be paid – this is the slippery slope that the Apostles of Evidence-based Medicine would have us follow – to disastrous consequences.
Fortunately, when put into the appropriate perspective, Americans don't want to hamper innovation. 55% believe that if doctors aren't allowed to prescribe freely that it will be much more difficult to find new and innovative ways to treat diseases vs. 35% who disagree.
More than two-thirds believe drug companies shouldn't be “allowed to encourage†off-label use vs. 12% who disagree and 20% who aren't sure. Perhaps a better way to have framed that question would have been to have asked if drug companies should be “allowed to share valid clinical information†about off-label use?
One wonders if the pollsters screened out as respondents patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc. and their family members. And, if not, how that segment answered the questions.
For that we do not need a research project – we need a robust Critical Path program.
"The newly empowered Democrats' vow to cut healthcare costs might spell bad news for the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, but could provide new momentum for generic drug rivals, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Tuesday. "
.How could more competition be bad? Unless of course Dems want to protect generic companies from competition in the process,.,,If the GOP is smart, they will respond with measures to accelerate and encourage development of new drugs too -- as well as protect authorized generics -- since new drugs are the source of generic profits in the final analysis and authorized generics ultimately promote more price competition!
.How could more competition be bad? Unless of course Dems want to protect generic companies from competition in the process,.,,If the GOP is smart, they will respond with measures to accelerate and encourage development of new drugs too -- as well as protect authorized generics -- since new drugs are the source of generic profits in the final analysis and authorized generics ultimately promote more price competition!
I was in Montreal yesterday giving a lecture on why ideas -- and not just politics -- matter in health care. On my way to the hotel where the conference was being held I saw the headline of the Canada's newspaper of record, The Toronto Globe and Mail. In bold type, across the entire width of Page One was the headline:
Vow Broken on Cancer Wait Times
"It was a bold promise backed by billions of dollars in new government funding: Cancer patients should not have to wait longer than four weeks to obtain critical radiation treatment."
"Four weeks. That's double the maximum waiting time oncologists recommend but still seemingly better than the cancer-care limbo many patients faced when Liberal health minister Ujjal Dosanjh and his provincial counterparts made the announcement last December."
"But figures obtained by The Globe and Mail show a staggering 70% of Canadian hospitals surveyed are unable to meet that standard for prostate cancer patients."
You get the picture?
And yesterday was only the most recent installment of a weeklong series on how the Canadian health care system is failing cancer patients.
Today's headline reads:
Provincial drug disparity a roadblock to cancer research
"For the first time, Canada is unable to participate in a key clinical cancer trial because patients are not getting the best known treatment."
"Since most provinces don't fund Avastin, a crucial drug in the fight against colorectal cancer, Canadian patients could not join a trial run by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, which is studying what drug is most effective with chemotherapy — Avastin or Erbitux — or if they work best given together."
Please pass along this important and devastating series to anyone who recommends that what we need in the US is a system "just like Canada."
Here's a link to the series:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cancer
It's a worthwhile, disturbing read.
Vow Broken on Cancer Wait Times
"It was a bold promise backed by billions of dollars in new government funding: Cancer patients should not have to wait longer than four weeks to obtain critical radiation treatment."
"Four weeks. That's double the maximum waiting time oncologists recommend but still seemingly better than the cancer-care limbo many patients faced when Liberal health minister Ujjal Dosanjh and his provincial counterparts made the announcement last December."
"But figures obtained by The Globe and Mail show a staggering 70% of Canadian hospitals surveyed are unable to meet that standard for prostate cancer patients."
You get the picture?
And yesterday was only the most recent installment of a weeklong series on how the Canadian health care system is failing cancer patients.
Today's headline reads:
Provincial drug disparity a roadblock to cancer research
"For the first time, Canada is unable to participate in a key clinical cancer trial because patients are not getting the best known treatment."
"Since most provinces don't fund Avastin, a crucial drug in the fight against colorectal cancer, Canadian patients could not join a trial run by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, which is studying what drug is most effective with chemotherapy — Avastin or Erbitux — or if they work best given together."
Please pass along this important and devastating series to anyone who recommends that what we need in the US is a system "just like Canada."
Here's a link to the series:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cancer
It's a worthwhile, disturbing read.
What can you get for four bucks these days? Cheese in a spray can? Cinnamon dental floss?
How about a month's supply of life-saving prescription drugs?
Have a look at this new op-ed in today's edition of The Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.walmart22nov22,0,6905737.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
And have a very happy Thanksgiving.
How about a month's supply of life-saving prescription drugs?
Have a look at this new op-ed in today's edition of The Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.walmart22nov22,0,6905737.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
And have a very happy Thanksgiving.
New Hearing for Suit Against FDA
Associated Press
A federal court agreed yesterday to rehear a case that aims to get terminally ill patients early access to experimental drugs unlikely to be approved before they die.
The full 10-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will probably hear the case next summer, said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.
The group, with the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2003. It is seeking broader access to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety testing in as few as 20 people and have yet to be approved by the FDA.
In 2004, a district court dismissed the case. In May, a three-judge appeals panel reinstated the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 decision.
The FDA, in turn, appealed and asked for the full court to rehear the case.
Associated Press
A federal court agreed yesterday to rehear a case that aims to get terminally ill patients early access to experimental drugs unlikely to be approved before they die.
The full 10-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will probably hear the case next summer, said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.
The group, with the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2003. It is seeking broader access to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety testing in as few as 20 people and have yet to be approved by the FDA.
In 2004, a district court dismissed the case. In May, a three-judge appeals panel reinstated the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 decision.
The FDA, in turn, appealed and asked for the full court to rehear the case.
Yesterday the New York Times published a few letters pertaining to the issue of Medicare reform and specifically the issue of non-interference.
My letter, alas, was not chosen. (My mother-in-law was very upset.)
Here is what I wrote:
To the Editor:
Your editorial (Lowering Medicare Drug Prices, November 14, 2006) suggests that the Veteran’s Administration “negotiates†prices for prescription drugs. Not so, it mandates them – and that’s more than a rhetorical finesse.
Under rules set by Congress, to sell drugs to the VA, companies must offer each drug at a price that “represents the same discount off a drug’s list price that the manufacturer offers its most-favored nonfederal customer under comparable terms and conditions.†The medication must be offered “at a discount of at least 24 percent off [the] nonfederal average manufacturer price (NFAMP). An excess inflation rebate is also required, equal to the percentage by which the price increase for [the] drug has exceeded the consumer price index (CPI) in the prior period.†The manufacturer must make all of its drugs available through the Federal Service Schedule for any of its drugs to be eligible for reimbursement under the VA and Defense Department health systems, the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), the Coast Guard, and the various state Medicaid programs.
A study by Professor Frank Lichtenberg of Columbia University found that the majority of the VA formulary’s drugs are more than eight years old and more than 40 percent are 16 years old or more. Just 19 percent of all prescription drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are available to veterans; only 38 percent approved during the 1990s are.
There’s a big difference between negotiating and mandating – and it’s not a thin line. My fear is that a government negotiated Part D plan is but the first step towards a more strident program of government price controls.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Pitts
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
My letter, alas, was not chosen. (My mother-in-law was very upset.)
Here is what I wrote:
To the Editor:
Your editorial (Lowering Medicare Drug Prices, November 14, 2006) suggests that the Veteran’s Administration “negotiates†prices for prescription drugs. Not so, it mandates them – and that’s more than a rhetorical finesse.
Under rules set by Congress, to sell drugs to the VA, companies must offer each drug at a price that “represents the same discount off a drug’s list price that the manufacturer offers its most-favored nonfederal customer under comparable terms and conditions.†The medication must be offered “at a discount of at least 24 percent off [the] nonfederal average manufacturer price (NFAMP). An excess inflation rebate is also required, equal to the percentage by which the price increase for [the] drug has exceeded the consumer price index (CPI) in the prior period.†The manufacturer must make all of its drugs available through the Federal Service Schedule for any of its drugs to be eligible for reimbursement under the VA and Defense Department health systems, the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), the Coast Guard, and the various state Medicaid programs.
A study by Professor Frank Lichtenberg of Columbia University found that the majority of the VA formulary’s drugs are more than eight years old and more than 40 percent are 16 years old or more. Just 19 percent of all prescription drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are available to veterans; only 38 percent approved during the 1990s are.
There’s a big difference between negotiating and mandating – and it’s not a thin line. My fear is that a government negotiated Part D plan is but the first step towards a more strident program of government price controls.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Pitts
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
Health Affairs is running a study showing that most seniors have a coverage gap...what is left out or unstated or misconstrued is that fact that most seniors have chosen to have a coverage gap....Here is what the study notes but fails to highlight...
“United’s AARP product leverages beneficiaries’ recognition of the AARP ‘brand’,†while “Humana attracted high enrollment in its Standard PDP with an aggressive low-premium strategy.â€
In otherwords, people are choosing coverage based on values that matter to them, not what matters to elites. That was the point of competition. Also unstated is the fact that copays in the plans with most customers have declined as have the price of drugs outside the coverage period. That is also in response to demand.
How soon people forget that consumers, not policy elites, are in the drivers' seat here. Will people like it if the elites rob them of their choce o f plans, deductibles and drugs to satisfy elite concerns about "coverage"?
I don't think so...
“United’s AARP product leverages beneficiaries’ recognition of the AARP ‘brand’,†while “Humana attracted high enrollment in its Standard PDP with an aggressive low-premium strategy.â€
In otherwords, people are choosing coverage based on values that matter to them, not what matters to elites. That was the point of competition. Also unstated is the fact that copays in the plans with most customers have declined as have the price of drugs outside the coverage period. That is also in response to demand.
How soon people forget that consumers, not policy elites, are in the drivers' seat here. Will people like it if the elites rob them of their choce o f plans, deductibles and drugs to satisfy elite concerns about "coverage"?
I don't think so...
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.
