Jump to content

~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~

SaysWho?
 Share

Recommended Posts

b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
Quote

Any problems with the outcome will fall squarely on Pelosi. From the convoluted legislative framework developed outside of Congress to the fixation on the CBO score above practically everything, to the designing of a policy Donald Trump could sign onto and the unwillingness to alter the strategy once Trump came out in opposition, Pelosi must answer for everything critics see in the end result: a weak, gameable first offer that doesn’t represent the kind of bold policy necessary if political considerations are secondary.

“You have this lopsided system with really high list prices,” says Brook Baker of HealthGAP. “Pelosi said we can get a deal with Trump, we won’t do anything radical. What’s the prospect of Trump going along, zero at this point. Now you have to put good ideas on the table rather than tinkering at the margins.”

Some aspects of the prescription drug bill are kinda bad

 

Better than the status quo but 

Quote

For example, Daraprim, the drug that “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli purchased the rights to and raised from $13.50 to $750 per pill, would almost certainly not have the market impact necessary to be eligible for negotiation. Therefore, one of the most-used examples of high drug prices would not be lowered in the Lower Drug Costs Now Act.

 

Drug companies would have the ability to game the negotiation system as well. If they delayed introduction of blockbuster drugs in the countries in the international index, there would be no reference point for negotiations. Newly introduced drugs that take time to reach the volume to make them eligible for negotiation would get to keep all those profits. There would be incentives to set a high introductory price, to capture all the gains until negotiations proceeded. “It doesn’t get at the heart of the problem,” Baker says.

 

Plus, the minimum 25 drugs per year, which increases to 35 by year ten, still falls well short of the pace of new drugs coming on the market, let alone how many negotiations other countries execute. This year, Germany has negotiated prices on 62 drugs, according to information from the German government.

 

The bill does not even strike the non-interference clause that is the reason Medicare cannot negotiate over prescription drug prices in the first place. The bill just creates an exception to the non-interference clause, making it literally illegal to negotiate on price for drugs outside the exception. This may seem like a minor point. But if you’re trying to rebuild the interplay between the government and drug companies, maintaining a legal ban on negotiation seems foolhardy. A more ambitious HHS would have more flexibility if the non-interference clause were stricken.

And

Quote

The leadership resisted keeping the amendment in the final bill, even after passage. The reason why is one of those around-the-bend, up-is-down consequences of a broken legislative apparatus in Washington. Pelosi’s staff has been obsessed with getting a good score on the legislation from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). They accomplished that, with just the negotiation provisions saving the government $345 billion over a ten-year period. The more money that the bill saves, the more that can be plowed into improvements in Medicare, another priority of the bill.

 

However, if the rebates were extended to group plans, drug companies would have incentives to lower costs. That means less money in rebates going to Medicare, and less for Medicare to spend on other matters. So, insanely, Wendell Primus would rather keep drug costs higher outside of Medicare, so Medicare can get more rebates and use the money. The bill is called the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, but this provision, if the Jayapal amendment is removed, would incentivize higher drug costs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Prediction: nobody will actually give a fuck about usmca

 

The reason is that it's not a catchy name. I'm not even joking. If NAFTA was changed into something like "WAFTA" or something that was easy to say, then the American public would be more invested in it.

 

To re-iterate, I am not joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...