Posted on 07/08/2019 1:02:23 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Senate Finance Committee is reportedly considering a change to Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit that would undermine one of the few entitlement-program success stories.
In an effort to reduce what seniors pay at the pharmacy, the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, has proposed fining drug companies if the price of their drugs rises faster than the rate of inflation. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), hasn’t yet rejected the plan.
Wyden’s proposal is a thinly veiled effort to impose government price controls through the back door. If it takes off, it would impede the competition that makes Part D work and could even stifle future drug development.
Medicare Part D—which began in 2006 and provides prescription drug coverage to 43 million of the 60 million people covered under Medicare—is unique among entitlement programs.
The Senate Finance Committee is reportedly considering a change to Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit that would undermine one of the few entitlement-program success stories.
In an effort to reduce what seniors pay at the pharmacy, the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, has proposed fining drug companies if the price of their drugs rises faster than the rate of inflation. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), hasn’t yet rejected the plan.
Wyden’s proposal is a thinly veiled effort to impose government price controls through the back door. If it takes off, it would impede the competition that makes Part D work and could even stifle future drug development.
Medicare Part D—which began in 2006 and provides prescription drug coverage to 43 million of the 60 million people covered under Medicare—is unique among entitlement programs.
The Senate Finance Committee is reportedly considering a change to Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit that would undermine one of the few entitlement-program success stories.
In an effort to reduce what seniors pay at the pharmacy, the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, has proposed fining drug companies if the price of their drugs rises faster than the rate of inflation. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), hasn’t yet rejected the plan.
Wyden’s proposal is a thinly veiled effort to impose government price controls through the back door. If it takes off, it would impede the competition that makes Part D work and could even stifle future drug development.
Medicare Part D—which began in 2006 and provides prescription drug coverage to 43 million of the 60 million people covered under Medicare—is unique among entitlement programs.
Price controls eliminate this incentive. If the government sets artificially low prices for drugs, companies would have little hope of recouping their investments. As a result, they’ll simply stop pouring money into research and development, especially with respect to the most intractable diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.
We’ve already seen this happen in Europe. According to a study from the Milken Institute, in the 1970s, about 70 percent of new medicines came from the continent, compared to 30 percent from the U.S. But over the next few decades European nations began implementing price controls. By 2010, the U.S. was producing well more than half of the new drugs compared to Europe.
Lowering the cost of prescription drugs for America’s seniors is a noble goal. But there are ways to do this without depriving patients of future cures. Let’s hope the Senate Finance Committee chooses a different path.
On questions such as what should be done about government programs, I like to consult the Constitution. Let’s see. What does it say about Medicare Part D? Um, here it is. Nothing. This power is not delegated to the Federal Government by the people, nor the states. Therefore, the answer is easy: complete cancellation.
Inviting in the government to resolve these issues, is like inviting an elephant into a small flower garden to prune some flowers to make the garden more healthy.
By all means, gut Medicare before one person is removed from the Welfare rolls.
That makes sense doeesn’t it?
Everything the Democrats touch turns to rot.
That is no accident. Democrats want us old people to hurry up and die......................
>>>Medicare Part D—which began in 2006 and provides prescription drug coverage to 43 million of the 60 million people covered under Medicare—is unique among entitlement programs.
Yes, it was passed without any funding mechanism. It is completley financed through government debt.
Government has NO BUSINESS
meddling with a.....er…..
government program?
Medicare Part D IS government meddling.
Not the worst of GWB’s mistakes, unfortunately.
Medicare is welfare.
I dunno, the drug companies are just inviting a smackdown with the way they have been exponentially increasing prices in 2019. There is not one prescription this year that hasn’t increased , some by double digits, for this Part D user. The Dems could get some traction on this one.
...everyone, say it with me...
.
.
.
Instant Shortages!
.
Wyden = Cadaver
Oh, so you think people on welfare today worked their whole lives to pay into it.
Really?
The Dems will always gain traction singling people out and splintering them.
Yeah, we need the Dems to save us. They’ll save us like they saved Blacks and Latinos.
Really.
Let me be the first to enlighten you that Medicare part D IS government meddling.
>>>Oh, so you think people on welfare today worked their whole lives to pay into it. Really?
No one has worked to pay for Part D. Medicare withholding was not changed when it passed. It is welfare funded by debt.
At least it’s a program that is directed at people who worked their entire lives contributing to fund our government.
IT IS NOT LIKE WELFARE.
We have generations of people on Welfare who were born, grew up, and still are on Welfare. Did they contribute anything? No.
How is that like our citizen who did?
You know this.
What competition would the be? To see who can charge the American sucker more? There is no justifiable reason for Americans to pay more for the same drug than any other country? What you call competition is nothing more than ObamaCare for Meds, the Americans get to play the part of the 1 percenters.
Harumph, competition indeed!
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.