Posted on 09/30/2005 4:10:47 PM PDT by calcowgirl
It's not even October yet, and already the barrage of advertising for two competing drug discount measures on the Nov. 8 ballot has begun.
In a widely screened television commercial, a white-haired "Marcus Welby" hands out pieces of paper -- presumably prescriptions approved for a discount -- with a kindly smile. This is supposed to be life under Proposition 78, a drug discount plan backed by the pharmaceutical industry and endorsed Friday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Cut to: Snarling bureaucrat stamping REJECT on prescription-size pieces of paper. This, according to the same ad, would be life under Proposition 79, a competing drug discount plan backed by Alliance for a Better California, a coalition that leans heavily on teachers' and other public-sector unions.
Meanwhile, backers of Prop. 79, who are strongly opposed to 78, kicked off their campaign in Sacramento this week with speeches and accusations.
"Why do the drug companies need the voters' approval to voluntarily lower their prices?" said Consumers Union Western media director Michael McCauley in an interview this week, laying out one of the key themes of the anti-78 campaign. "The only reason this is on the ballot is to confuse voters."
The initiatives both propose creating programs to offer substantial discounts on medications to those who qualify. In both, manufacturers will cut their prices, but under Prop. 78, they participate voluntarily, while under 79, companies that don't participate will be excluded from Medi-Cal, which covers the very poor. The two propositions also differ in what it takes for a patient to qualify, so estimates of who would benefit range from 5 million to 10 million people.
Only one of the initiatives can win in November. Both could, of course, lose. But if both pass -- that is, get more than 50 percent "yes" votes -- the one with the most "yes" votes becomes law.
The battle comes at a confusing time for consumers, especially older ones. California recently sued 39 drug manufacturers over the prices they charge the Medi-Cal system. And starting in mid-November, Medicare recipients -- seniors 65 and older and the disabled -- can sign up for the complex federal drug-discount plan that takes effect Jan. 1.
The 78 vs. 79 race looks to be the most expensive in the history of ballot initiatives, with most of the money on the 78 side, where the campaign chest has already passed $70 million, compared to about $16 million for Prop. 79.
"Even if we had X million dollars in the bank right now," said Prop. 79 spokesman Anthony Wright, "we wouldn't be spending it ... for an election several months away. We know we will be outspent. We know we will be outspent exponentially."
Both proposals would establish discount programs overseen by the state Department of Health Services and whichever private vendor it chooses to run the program. Neither involves massive drug purchases by the state. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates start-up and administrative costs in "low tens of millions of dollars annually" -- "chump change" in health care, according to one analyst. Both require an annual fee -- $15 for Prop. 78, $10 for Prop. 79.
There are significant differences, however.
Prop. 79 sets the coverage threshold at four times the federal poverty level, or about $77,000 in annual income for a family of four. It extends coverage to those with high medical expenses as well, and authorizes the state to get discounts for those who have some insurance at work or through a union.
The industry version, Prop. 78, puts the threshold at three times the federal poverty level, or about $58,000 for a family of four, and omits the other categories of possible users. Wright says it would cover only about half as many people.
"To the casual observer, it's hard to sort out who's on the consumer side," said Larry Levitt, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Because it sounds like everyone's on the consumer side."
The Prop. 78 forces say the Medi-Cal link in Prop. 79 won't work because it requires federal approval, and the feds "have never, ever, ever approved a program like Proposition 79," according to Jan Faiks, vice president for governmental affairs and law for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Prop. 79 forces say flatly that without the Medi-Cal link, the drug companies won't participate. "And if they start to, the discounts will go down as soon as the political pressure does," said Wright, who is executive director of Health Access, an advocacy group.
"Proposition 78 ...has a poison pill clause that the program will end if the drug companies don't participate," said Wright. "And they won't."
To which Faiks replied, in essence: Trust us.
Drug makers have had "charitable programs" since the 1950s, she said. In several states, including California, those programs have been coordinated and put online. (See rxhelpforca.org.)
In California, Faiks said, the terms of Prop. 78 were worked out between the industry and the Department of Health Services, to obtain a discount rate of at least 25 percent ("but we're hoping for 40 percent"). And the state would be able to bring fraud charges if a company were to certify a price that was not its lowest. That's "a huge hammer," said Faiks.
The Kaiser Foundation's Levitt called the face-off "a fairly classic battle between using the power of government to help people with a problem vs. encouraging the marketplace. It's an ideological battle we see all the time in health care."
So who's right?
"We don't take a position on issues," said Levitt, but: "It's fair to say that Proposition 79 has a much higher chance of yielding discounts for consumers than Proposition 78 does. There's not a lot that Proposition 78 does that goes beyond what's happening now."
Levitt noted that public opinion about the drug companies could provide a counterweight to their advertising money. Although drugs represent only about one health care dollar in 10, the pharmaceutical industry is "everybody's favorite bogeyman when it comes to health care costs," said Levitt.
"Drugs are much more of a retail transaction than other parts of the health care system," he said. "So it's a very visible target."
Lots and lots of money here.
.
I just got a phone call:
“Hi, this is Republican Party Chair, Duf Sundheim.“You will soon receive an important mailer that will allow you to apply to vote by mail in the upcoming special election. When you receive the mailer, take a moment to fill in the vote-by-mail application and return it right away.
“And please read the important insert about the prescription drug initiative that explains why Governor Schwarzenegger, and the Republican Party, support Proposition 78 and oppose Proposition 79.
“Paid for by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America California Initiative Fund - Yes on Proposition 78 and No on Proposition 79, major funding provided by Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies."
More social programs...
http://www.calrxnow.org/yes_why.html
Why You Should Vote Yes on Prop 78
Proposition 78 offers Californians struggling with high prescription drug costs real help, right now. Prop. 78 is a proven program that can take effect immediately, and will deliver critically needed prescription drug discounts to millions of seniors and low income, uninsured Californians.
Known as Cal Rx, Proposition 78 offers Californians the best prescription drug discount program in the country. It is an improved version of a successful program already operating in Ohio that is delivering discounts averaging 31%, saving consumers $15.31 on every covered prescription. Every major prescription drug manufacturer participates in the Ohio program.
(snip)
How do Californians benefit from the passage of either ?
They assume that the voters will want one or the other to be approved, and Prop 78 is preferable to 79. I don't like either, and will vote against both.
(pardon my ignorance on the topic)
Maybe the 79 supporters are correct that 78 is just a poison pill to make 79 go away. They just say it like it's a bad thing.
I'm joining McClintock in voting NO, NEIN, NON.
Have no idea. My club endorsed opposing 78.
Hopefully the voters will be confused enough and not vote for either 78 & 79.
Sure there is. I've been buy a lot of free lunches for people for far too long.
I would guess you're right. It seems strategic to support one which is slightly less vile than the other and hope both fail due to voter confusion. It's risky and has the potential to pass a bad proposition regardless.
..or a kiss
Plus, according to the 79 folks, there is a self-destruct clause in 78 should the companies choose not to participate, which is exactly what they (the 79 guys) think will occur. Maybe they're right. If 78 draws enough support away from 79 that 79 fails to pass but 78 does, and then the companies decline to play along with 78, 78 vanishes without a trace after having served its purpose (torpedoing 79 in the polls).
Sure.
The GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals and moderates have struck again. Duf Sundheim, along with the OC hatched New Majority, love these kinds of socialist programs. The bigger and more expensive they are, the more these fools push them.
Definately.
Reminds me of the Benny Hill show where he went into the socialized medicine office with a broken leg, and the nurse took his crutch and hit him over the head with it. When he hobbled into the office of a Doctor who was in private practice he was given Champagne and a beautiful blond to kiss away his hurts.
Wonder which disaster Californians will choose. It really doesn't matter, since the illegals have destroyed their state anyway. Let Dr La Raza step up and help you white citizens! (Into an early grave, that is.)
Pfooey.
I plan to vote NO on both. But, since the unions are behind 79, it might get enough support. If seems like it will pass easily, I might consider voting for 78 if 78 is close in support and has a possibility of overtaking 79. Hopefully that won't happen.
From the Field Poll released just after Labor Day,
Poll completed last week finds both initiatives leading, albeit by different margins.
Proposition 78, the pharmaceutical industry-sponsored initiative, is favored by a 49% to 31% margin among voters most likely to vote in the special election.
Prop. 79, the initiative backed by consumer advocacy and labor groups, is also leading but by a somewhat narrower 42% to 34% margin.
However, only small proportions of voters can correctly identify either Prop. 78’s or Prop. 79’s main proponents and that once provided this information, results indicate that this could have a significant impact on voter preferences.
Since so many people don't trust the drug companies, maybe they should just say they support both 78 and 79.
I just got a taped call from Dufus Sundheim telling me that it was official Republican policy to vote for Prop 78. At the end of the tape, an announcer informed me that it was paid for by prescription drug companies.
The juxtaposition of those two messages created the appearance that the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry.
It was sickening, and very stupid.
And the answer is?
major funding provided
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.