Healthcare Triage: A Lyft to the Hospital: Can Ride Sharing Replace Ambulances?

Healthcare Triage: A Lyft to the Hospital: Can Ride Sharing Replace Ambulances?

Image result for Healthcare Triage: A Lyft to the Hospital: Can Ride Sharing Replace Ambulances?

An ambulance ride of just a few miles can cost thousands of dollars, and a lot of it may not be covered by insurance. With ride-hailing services like Uber or Lyft far cheaper and now available within minutes in many areas, would using one instead be a good idea?

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer in many cases is yes. That’s the topic of this week’s HCT.

 

 

 

The Health 202: Lame-duck health initiatives look unlikely in Congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/11/15/the-health-202-11152018-health202/5bec9afc1b326b3929054827/?utm_term=.5274e9154858

Image result for lame duck sessions

Republicans have a health-care checklist they would like to accomplish before losing their House majority early next year. But they’re well aware Democrats have little incentive to help them out — especially given the growing resistance top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi appears to be facing in her quest to assume the speakership.

Drug and medical device makers are lobbying hard for Congress to roll back legislation that cuts into their bottom lines. The pharmaceutical industry wants a reversal of a requirement passed in a budget deal earlier this year for companies to pay more into the so-called “doughnut hole” in Medicare’s prescription drug program. The medical device industry wants a sales tax imposed through the Affordable Care Act repealed.

There’s also talk of passing a bill with strong bipartisan support — notably from members on both the far right and the far left — that could move the needle toward lower drug prices by making it easier for drug companies to develop generic alternatives. (The Health 202 wrote about this CREATES Act in February).

Hypothetically, there could be room for Congress to advance these initiatives by lumping them into a must-pass bill to keep the government funded past Dec. 7. But lobbyists said they’re pessimistic anything substantial will happen, and aides told me a lot is up in the air.

For one thing, Democrats are already unenthusiastic about giving any ground to the health-care industry, particularly drugmakers. They’re on the cusp of taking charge of the House, a perch from which it will be much easier to advance their own priorities.

For another, Pelosi is unlikely to want to give any reason to incoming Democrats — some of whom vowed on the campaign trail to vote against her — to criticize her for surrendering to Republicans. She’s been furiously courting this new class of freshmen, as Politico detailed, hosting private dinners and receptions in preparation for a Nov. 28 vote inside the Democratic Caucus and a final Jan. 3 vote on the House floor. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, emerged yesterday as a possible challenger to Pelosi, arguing there should be a minority woman in the top echelons of House leadership.

Republicans appear cognizant of these realities. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who leads the Energy and Commerce Committee, told a private group yesterday that while he would like to get some of these priorities accomplished, it’s hard to imagine Democrats agreeing to any of them, a lobbyist at the meeting told me.

Still, lawmakers have just arrived back in Washington this week after the midterm elections, and negotiations are just at the beginning stages. Here are the things to be watching on the health policy front:

1. Reversing drugmakers’ extra “doughnut hole” contributions.

The drug industry has been fighting tooth and nail to reverse part of a February spending bill requiring them to give deeper discounts to Medicare enrollees whose spending on drugs is high enough to reach a coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The discount is currently 50 percent for brand-name drugs but is set to rise to 70 percent next year.

The aim of the provision was to reduce out-of-pocket spending for seniors — who are often on a fixed income and struggle to pay for their medications — but it also represented an unusual financial hit for the powerful pharmaceutical industry.

2. Passing the CREATES Act.

Legislators have floated passing this popular bill as a way to get Democrats on board with making the doughnut-hole fix that drugmakers want so badly. As I wrote in February, the CREATES Act tried to even the playing field for generic drug developers who often run up against blockades from branded pharmaceutical companies seeking to keep their competition at bay.

It would allow generic companies to sue branded companies for failing to provide them with samples needed for testing and has an unusually wide range of support from lawmakers, although the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of American predictably hates it.

3. Repealing the medical device tax.

This tax nearly always comes up in discussions about the ACA because the device industry has spent considerable energy trying to chip away at it. The 2.3 percent sales tax was included in the 2010 health-care law as a way to help pay for its insurance subsidies, but Congress has delayed its implementation until 2020. Because that’s still a year away, the long timeline might remove a sense of urgency that could otherwise push Congress to repeal it.

 

The Health 202: Here’s how Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on lowering drug prices

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/11/21/the-health-202-here-s-how-trump-and-bernie-sanders-agree-on-lowering-drug-prices/5bf42bd91b326b3929054956/?utm_term=.143e3b258cb2

Image result for high drug prices

Have you heard about the trendy new approach to lowering prescription drug spending? Copy other countries.

The Trump administration and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are strange bedfellows on drug prices. But they’re both eyeing similar approaches to lowering the country’s astronomically high spending on prescription medicines: pegging U.S. drug prices to lower international levels.

Sanders proposed a bill Tuesday incentivizing companies to develop cheaper generic versions of brand-name medications that the government determines to be “excessively priced” in comparison to the median price in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan.

This is similar to an idea advanced in October by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, whose agency is experimenting with pegging some Medicare payments to an index based on sales prices in those five countries plus 11 more: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.

Both proposals stem from the reality that drug prices are much higher in the United States because the government doesn’t engage in price-setting, unlike in many other countries with similar economies. That means pharmaceutical companies pocket a lot more money in this country — and rely more heavily on their U.S. profits to pay for developing new medications.

Trump and Sanders have adopted similar rhetoric when they talk about the issue, even though the Republican president and the self-described democratic socialist senator couldn’t be further apart on other topics such as taxes and immigration. The United States pays unfairly high prices for prescription drugs, they argue, even as other countries demand — and obtain – steep discounts.

It’s not the first time Trump and Sanders have shared common ground. During their 2016 campaigns, both candidates advocated allowing Medicare’s prescription drug program to directly negotiate lower prices with drugmakers and private companies. Trump has since backed away from that idea, but HHS surprised many with its bold suggestion of  creating an international price index (which I explained in this Health 202).

Granted, HHS’s experiment is quite limited in scope. It applies only to drugs administered to Medicare patients by doctors themselves and will last just five years. The experiment — called a “demonstration” in administration-speak — won’t start until sometime after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services propose a rule early next year.

Sanders’s proposal, also sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), would go much further by affecting all drugs, including those purchased by Americans with private health insurance. If HHS determined a drug price to be excessive, the secretary would be directed to strip its maker of exclusivity rights and open the door for competitors to develop a generic version.

Sanders gave a nod to Trump’s Part B proposal but emphasized that his approach would help the more than 150 million Americans who get private health coverage from their employer. The monthly cost for the popular insulin Lantus (used for diabetes) could fall from $387 to $220 and the medication Humira (used for arthritis) could fall from $2,770 to $1,576, according to some examples provided by Sanders’s office.

There’s little to no chance Sanders’s bill will advance in Congress. Many Republicans aren’t enthused even about Trump’s limited Part B demonstration, because it smacks of government price-setting.

There is something else Sanders shares with the president: strong resistance from the pharmaceutical industry. A spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said both proposals would be “devastating” if implemented.

“This legislation would have the same devastating impact on patients as the administration’s proposed International Pricing Index model,” PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo said in a statement provided to The Health 202.

“Patients in countries whose governments set prices wait years for new medicines and have far fewer treatment options,” she added. “These policies reduce investment in research and development, slow progress in creating tomorrow’s cures and will result in Americans having access to fewer new medicines.”

 

 

 

California approves CVS, Aetna merger contingent upon premium promise and $240 million investment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/california-approves-cvs-and-aetna-merger-contingent-upon-premium-promise-and-240-million?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRFeU9UTTNaVFV4TkdZMyIsInQiOiJQN0NaY1wvemcra3IwT08wMzYxOVpuSVd4WWE3TTNDRHluT1VHU3Y0SDVuUTJ0WTdZUG9QQVhQUDlNN0FEbFFIWCs1YU5nUDRZKzNUbnUrbkpNSUlCcituNlQ2Uklyem41d0lHaWdnSVd4V0xwNEhHSFRMNFZ1NVk0UlwvRUVZTkt4In0%3D

New York State still needs to clear the $69 billion deal that CVS said it expects to close by Thanksgiving.

A California regulator has cleared the way for CVS Health to acquire Aetna.

Thursday, the California Department of Managed Health Care Director Shelley Rouillard approved the acquisition on the promise that CVS and Aetna agree not to increase premiums as a result of acquisition costs. The agreement states premium rate increases overall would be kept to a minimum.

The plans also agree to invest close to $240 million in California’s healthcare delivery system, according to the press release from the Department of Managed Healthcare.

The money includes $166 million for state healthcare infrastructure and employment, such as building and improving facilities and supporting jobs in Fresno and Walnut Creek.

Another $22.8 million would go to increase the number of healthcare providers in underrepresented communities by funding scholarships and loan repayment programs.

An estimated $22.5 million would support joint ventures and accountable care organizations in the delivery of coordinated and value-based care.

WHY THIS MATTERS

California represents one of the last hurdles for the $69 billion merger that CVS has said it expects to see closed by Thanksgiving.

The New York State Department of Financial Services has yet to issue a decision after holding an October 18 hearing on the application.

THE TREND

The Department of Justice has already said that there are no barriers to the companies completing the merger, once CVS and Aetna sell Aetna’s Medicare Part D plans. Aetna is divesting the prescription drug plans to WellCare.

California held a public meeting on the merger on May 2.

ON THE RECORD

“Our primary focus in reviewing a health plan merger is to ensure compliance with the strong consumer protections and financial solvency requirements in state law,” Rouillard said. “The department thoroughly examined this merger and determined enrollees will have continued access to appropriate healthcare services and also imposed conditions that will help increase access and quality of care, remove barriers to care and improve health outcomes.”