And the battle continues…
The New York Times editorial "Negotiating Lower Drug Prices" is very timely, especially considering our last entry.
It seems a new bill is scheduled to be voted on in Congress Friday requiring the "government to negotiate the prices for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries." (Under current law, the government is prohibited from exerting their power to negotiate for lower prices). One would think it is completely logical for the government to negotiate lower prices. Many would say it is our government's DUTY. After all, it is they would have to pay for the ever-increasing, high priced drugs (which ultimately means we, the taxpayers, are ultimately paying for it).
Unfortunately, those in power are more interested in appeasing the pharma industry.
There are many arguments given by the government as to why this wouldn't work. For example, they argue that "private plans have held costs down and that there is no guarantee the government will do any better. The bill, for example, prohibits the secretary from limiting which drugs are covered by Medicare, thus depriving him of a tool used by private plans and the [Dept. of Veterans Affairs] to win big discounts from companies eager to get their drugs on the list. [However,] the secretary does have the bully pulpit, which he can use to try to bring down the cost of overpriced drugs."
This argument makes little sense. Of course there is "no guarantee" that the government can obtain lower prices. That is why private plans are not prohibited from negotiating themselves---as they currently do. Therefore, if the government can't obtain lower prices but the private plans can-- great. However, if the government IS able to obtain lower prices—even better!
To us, this is a win-win situation for everyone--- except the pharma companies.
Who is the government representing -- the people or just the pharmas? As the article states: "It is time for the Medicare drug program to work harder for its beneficiaries without worrying so much about the pharmaceutical companies."
It seems a new bill is scheduled to be voted on in Congress Friday requiring the "government to negotiate the prices for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries." (Under current law, the government is prohibited from exerting their power to negotiate for lower prices). One would think it is completely logical for the government to negotiate lower prices. Many would say it is our government's DUTY. After all, it is they would have to pay for the ever-increasing, high priced drugs (which ultimately means we, the taxpayers, are ultimately paying for it).
Unfortunately, those in power are more interested in appeasing the pharma industry.
There are many arguments given by the government as to why this wouldn't work. For example, they argue that "private plans have held costs down and that there is no guarantee the government will do any better. The bill, for example, prohibits the secretary from limiting which drugs are covered by Medicare, thus depriving him of a tool used by private plans and the [Dept. of Veterans Affairs] to win big discounts from companies eager to get their drugs on the list. [However,] the secretary does have the bully pulpit, which he can use to try to bring down the cost of overpriced drugs."
This argument makes little sense. Of course there is "no guarantee" that the government can obtain lower prices. That is why private plans are not prohibited from negotiating themselves---as they currently do. Therefore, if the government can't obtain lower prices but the private plans can-- great. However, if the government IS able to obtain lower prices—even better!
To us, this is a win-win situation for everyone--- except the pharma companies.
Who is the government representing -- the people or just the pharmas? As the article states: "It is time for the Medicare drug program to work harder for its beneficiaries without worrying so much about the pharmaceutical companies."
posted by CareTALKGals(tm) at 1/12/2007 12:49:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home