Posted on 04/15/2007 8:58:31 AM PDT by Bishop_Malachi
Thursday approved a bill that would permit the government to negotiate for Medicare prescription drug prices, throwing down a challenge to the powerful drug industry.
Moved forward by the committee on a 13-8 vote, the bill is expected to go next week to the full Senate, where debate is likely to be intense, Senate aides said.
The House of Representatives in January passed a tougher version of the bill. President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the House bill. It would require, not just permit, direct negotiation over prices by the government with drug companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
My question: "Why should government help companies or individuals get the "best prices"? My next question: "Is it even possible for the government to help a company AND individuals get the 'best price'?
I hope the Republicans will have some backbone and filibuster this “another step towards socialized medicine” bill.
The Dems won’t rest until they turn the US into a socialist country.
Bush is doing allot of ‘vow to veto’ lately.
But to date, he has only vetoed one bill in 6 years.
Paper tiger or lame duck?
Bush has to play nice with the Dems in the Senate and House, if he wants to get his amnesty for illegals passed. Otherwise, he ends his last two years accomplishing little for his legacy.
Ironically, Walmart did more to help people with prescriptions when they began their $4 generic drug pricing.
In order to reduce the cost of prescription prices for the Medicare program. It should cost less this way to the taxpayers.
"Is it even possible for the government to help a company AND individuals get the 'best price'?
Yes. If the vendors can leverage the size and purchasing power of the Medicare program to reduce the cost from the manufacturer, then both the vendor and the patients can obtain better pricing.
There was a wonderful example was with the flu vaccine shortage, because of 1995 “price capping” (price control) imposed on the drug companies cut back on production which resulted in a shortage not so long ago....always good to have Government in there screwing things up, eh?
One way to handle the drug prices is to get people off of the dangerous drugs that doctors are handing out and being pushed by the drug manufacturers. Look at all the ads on TV about drugs. Follow the money. Cholestoral drugs are a good example. They are expensive and highly dangerous if a person is on them for any length of time. There are other ways to handle the problem. Our older citizens are being given all these drugs at the expense of Medicare and companys are making millions off of our older generation.
What was the one bill he vetoed?
Is that great sucking noise I hear the sound of R&D dollars drying up?
Here in Massholechusetts the State government has taken it on themselves through regulation, “er I mean help”, to get auto insurance and thanks to them we have some of the highest auto insurance rates in the country !!!
“Yes. If the vendors can leverage the size and purchasing power of the Medicare program to reduce the cost from the manufacturer, then both the vendor and the patients can obtain better pricing.”
Meaning what? Price caps? How does that obtain “better pricing” for the vendor when they are forced to sell it below the market value?
The drug companies do not sell the drugs directly to the patients. They sell them to vendors. The vendors who have the contracts for Medicare can their use their size to negotiate better prices from the manufacturers and pass some of the savings along to the patients. This is negotiation and not price caps.
But why wouldn’t vendors already be trying to minimize the cost of purchasing drugs from manufacturers? Any competently managed vendor would try to purchase all drugs at the absolute lowest price. This simple step is what allows them to maximize profit.
You’ll have to forgive me, but I’m skeptical about “government negotiation” in this area. This is ussually code for government edicts. What happens if manufacturers say “no”? Will the manufacturer for a particular drug be replaced with one who makes it cheaper? If so, then why hasn’t the vendor already replaced them? Is the vendor charging too much? If so, then replace/drop that vendor. I was in the business world for awhile (I worked for a wholesale distributer). There is just something about this whole bill that screams “unnecessary government control”.
They are. All major health plans negotiate with manufacturers for the lowest price they can on prescriptions. If they can't get a price that is compatible with what they want for their subscribers, they eliminate that drug from the formulary or come up with a generic alternative. The bigger they are in terms of volume, the more negotiating power they have with the drug companies. Medicare contracts with providers to take care of Medicare patients. They try to apply the same principles to negotiating as any other health plan. The vendors for Medicare have the advantage of having huge numbers of subscribers and they can, therefore, negotiating better prices if they are allowed to do so.
What happens if manufacturers say “no”?
They do this already both in negotiations with private carriers and with vendors who have the Medicare contracts.
If the issue that you have is with "too much government control", understand that the Medicare contracted private vendor needs to have the same ability to negotiate with the drug companies or supply companies or whatever as any private vendor. The benefit is a reduction in prices for Medicare and, therefore, for the taxpayer.
Ok, but don’t Medicare vendors already have that freedom? This article implies that it is not executives from private vendors negotiating prices, but a bureaucrat from a federal cabinet.
As Grassley says, “At present, he said, the private companies managing the drug benefit for Medicare compete among themselves and negotiate over prices with drug manufacturers. We have lower drug prices for beneficiaries, lower program costs for the government, and prescription drug choices ... Competition is working,”
Further along the articles says, “Some Senate Democrats endorsed a more forceful approach like the House-passed bill. But they praised Baucus for seeking a political middle ground by leaving price negotiation up to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, whose department is in charge of the Medicare program.”
So, what am I missing here? It doesn’t seem like private vendors are going to be doing the negotiating at all, but instead it seems as if the government is going to demand drugs at a certain price.
I hope I’m not annoying you with this discussion, but I’m just not getting what the controversy is if (as you say) private vendors are doing the negotiating. I mean, heck, you’re right they *have* been doing that all along, but that is not what the article seems to imply.
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.