Why Won't Republicans Help Reduce Medicare Drug Costs? Tommy Thompson Used To Want To
(Excerpts from the New York Times Nov 13, 2006)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The Bush administration said on Sunday that it would strenuously oppose one of the Democrats’ top priorities for the new Congress: legislation authorizing the government to negotiate with drug companies to secure lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
In an interview, Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said he saw no prospect of compromise on the issue.
“The government negotiates big discounts for the prices of drugs for our veterans,” said Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. “But the drug companies got Congress to make it illegal to negotiate for lower prices under Medicare.”
Secretary Leavitt said he did not want the power to negotiate drug prices. “I don’t believe I can do a better job than an efficient market,” he said.
In December 2005, just before leaving office, Mr. Leavitt’s predecessor, Tommy G. Thompson, said he wished Congress had given him the authority to negotiate prices for Medicare beneficiaries, as he negotiated discounts on antibiotics during the anthrax scare of 2001.
Note to Congressman Paul Ryan:
If you really want to help our economy and reduce costs for seniors on Medicare, immediately propose and help pass legislation that allows the government to negotiate for lower drug prices, just as they negotiate for virtually everything else.
Greg
9:52 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Excerpts are nice, but the whole thing is better. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13medicare.html
It's not that long of a read.
jbw
4:11 pm on Saturday, June 30, 2012
Hmm, the drug company is holding all the cards if it is a drug still under patent, many of which are extended for decades, or one of the new bio-drugs not subject to any practical limits on its exclusive ownership. I guess the government could threaten not to cover the drug under Medicare at all, but why bother developing a drug targeted at elderly patients if you are guaranteed not to make a profit?
Kind of a no-brainer for generics, though those are already much less costly. Ultimately, we would need to recognize the important difference between well-proven drugs available in affordable generic form and the newer drugs of questionable value and outsized cost. One can be realistically provided to all under Medicare for the long term, the other cannot; and that isn't changed by attempting to haggle.
David Tatarowicz
2:20 pm on Sunday, July 1, 2012
@jbw If there was no advantage to negotiating with drug companies, than why does the VA do it, why do the various insurance companies do it, and why do health care systems around the world do it ???
I don't argue that there are some drugs that are not going to be negotiable at all, but those are not the majority of the drugs prescribed.
Canada has national health care and it is well known that the same drugs bought in Windsor, Ontario are much less costly than those bought across the river in Detroit.
The bottom line is that all Legislators are bought and paid for by the Big Pharma lobbyists --- all the other explanations are just rationalizing the sordid truth.
Greg
2:57 pm on Sunday, July 1, 2012
The ACA has this issue covered. Pelosi was on Meet Da Press and stated that due to the ACA seniors are paying less for prescriptions, although they may not know it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/48031970#48031970