Can a Divided Congress Fix Health Care?

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-november-2018-priorities-congress-future-aca-medicaid-expansion/

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest tracking poll finds that costs and affordability are the health care issues Americans most want Congress to address — though the public remains highly skeptical that Democrats and Republicans can actually work together to do anything on health care.

The poll also finds that the favorability of the Affordable Care Act has risen to 53 percent and that 59 percent of people living in states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA want such an expansion.

Key Findings:

  • The November KFF Health Tracking Poll, conducted the week after the 2018 midterm election, finds a majority of the public wants the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to work with Republicans on legislation to address the major problems facing the country as well as conduct oversight of the Trump administration’s actions on policies such as health care. Yet, few Americans are “very confident” (6 percent) that Republicans and Democrats in Congress will be able to work on bipartisan legislation to address the health care issues facing the country.
  • The midterm elections brought Medicaid expansion to three additional states, bringing the total number of states that have expanded their Medicaid programs to cover more low-income uninsured adults to 37 (including Washington, D.C.). Those living in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs continue to hold a favorable view of Medicaid expansion and most would like to see their state expand their Medicaid program. And as a possible indicator of how some other states may expand their Medicaid programs in the future, most of those living in a non-expansion state say that if their state government chooses not to expand, voters themselves should be able to decide if their state expands their Medicaid program.
  • The new Democratic majority in the House all but guarantees the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain the law of the land for at least the next two years. The most recent tracking poll finds a slight uptick – largely driven by Democrats – in the overall favorability of the law (53 percent) and many of the ACA’s provisions continue to be quite popular with a majority of the public. But the poll also finds the public is largely unaware about the law’s sixth open enrollment period, and four in ten 18-64 year olds who buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured say they will choose to go without coverage in 2019.

    Most Americans say it is “very important” to keep the ACA provisions barring insurers from denying coverage or charging more (62%) to people with pre-existing conditions, even after hearing that these may have increased costs for some healthy people

  • A divided Congress does not mean that the coming year will not see any changes to the country’s health care system. There is an impending lawsuit, Texas v. United States, which may end the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions as well as the Trump administration’s recent actions allowing employers to be exempt from covering the full cost of birth control for their employees if they oppose to it due to religious or moral reasons, which could lead to substantial changes to health coverage for many Americans. This month’s tracking poll examines the public’s support for these proposed changes and examines the malleability of these opinions.

The Public’s Priorities for Next Congress

With Democratic gains in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2018 midterm election, Democrats and Republicans will split control of Congress next year. These results will mean that President Trump will have a divided Congress for the first time in his presidency. About half of the public (53 percent) say oversight of the Trump administration’s actions on policies such as health care, education, and the environment should be a “top priority” for House Democrats in the coming year. This is similar to the share (55 percent) who say that working to enact new laws to address the major problems facing the country should be a “top priority” for House Democrats in the coming year and substantially larger than the share who say investigating corruption within President Trump’s administration should be a “top priority” (36 percent).

Majority of The Public Say Working To Enact New Legislation And Oversight Are Top Priorities For Democrats

Figure 1: Majority of The Public Say Working To Enact New Legislation And Oversight Are Top Priorities For Democrats

Unsurprisingly, the share of partisans who say each of these should be a “top priority” for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives varies drastically; majorities of Democrats saying conducting oversight (77 percent), working to enact legislation (67 percent), and investigating corruption (58 percent) should all be top priorities for the coming year. A majority of independents (54 percent) say working to enact legislation should be a “top priority,” while less than half of Republicans say any of these – including working to enact legislation – should be “a top priority” for House Democrats.

Figure 2: Most Democrats Say New Legislation, Oversight, and Investigating Corruption Are Top Priorities For House Democrats

Figure 2: Most Democrats Say New Legislation, Oversight, and Investigating Corruption Are Top Priorities For House Democrats

Immigration and Health Care Top Public’s Priorities

Similar to the issues driving voters in the 2018 midterm elections, the most recent KFF Health Tracking Poll finds immigration and health care as the top issues the public want to see the next Congress act on in 2019 with the issues offered largely driven by party identification. Overall, about one-fifth of voters offer immigration or border security (21 percent) when asked to say in their own words the issue Congress should work on next year. This is similar to the share of the public who offer health care (20 percent) as the top issue they want to see the next Congress work on. Fewer offer gun control/legislation (8 percent), tax reform (4 percent), or education (4 percent) as the issues they want to see Congress act on in 2019.

Four times as many Republicans (41 percent) offer immigration/border security as the issue they would most like the next Congress to act on in 2019 as Democrats (10 percent). On the other hand, health care is the top issue for Democrats. One-fourth of Democrats (27 percent) say health care is the issue they would most like to see the next Congress act on, compared to 11 percent of Republicans who say the same. Independents are divided across the top two issues, with similar shares offering immigration/border security (22 percent) and health care (21 percent) as the issues they want to see Congress work on.

Table 1: Immigration and Health Care Top Public’s Priorities for Next Congress
Thinking about next year, which issue would you most like the next Congress to act on in 2019? (open-end) Total Democrats Independents Republicans
Immigration/Border security 21% 10% 22% 41%
Health care 20 27 21 11
Gun control/legislation 8 13 4 8
Tax reform 4 2 7 8
Education 4 7 2
Note: Only top five responses shown. Question asked of half sample.
COST AND AFFORDABILITY CONTINUES TO DOMINATE HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES

When asked which health care issue they would most like to see the next Congress act on in 2019, more Americans offer issues around health care affordability and cost (19 percent) than other health care issues including the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) (10 percent) or Medicare (6 percent). Health care affordability and cost are also the most frequently mentioned health care issues by Democrats (14 percent), independents (25 percent), and Republicans (17 percent). The ACA is the second most frequently mentioned health care issue among partisans, with Democrats saying they want to see Congress “protecting or improving the ACA” while Republicans say they want to see the next Congress “repealing the ACA.” Independents are divided on this issue, with similar shares saying they want to see Congress repealing and protecting the 2010 health care law.

Figure 3: Cost And Affordability Top Public’s Health Care Priorities For Next Congress

Figure 3: Cost And Affordability Top Public’s Health Care Priorities For Next Congress

While there appears to be consensus among the public on what health care issue they want to see Congress work on next year, not quite one-third are confident that Democrats and Republicans in Congress will be able to work together on bipartisan legislation to address the health care issues facing the country. In fact, seven in ten say they are either “not very confident” (34 percent) or “not at all confident” (35 percent) that Congress will be able to work on such bipartisan legislation, while fewer are confident, either “very confident” (six percent) or “somewhat confident” (24 percent), in Congress being able to work together.

Figure 4: Less Than One-Third Are Confident Congress Can Work Together To Address Health Care Issues Facing The Country

Figure 4: Less Than One-Third Are Confident Congress Can Work Together To Address Health Care Issues Facing The Country

Democrats are slightly more confident in the ability of Democrats and Republicans in Congress to be able to work together on bipartisan health care legislation (41 percent) compared to independents (27 percent) and Republicans (19 percent); yet, a majority across party identification say they are either “not very confident” or “not at all confident” (58 percent, 72 percent, and 79 percent, respectively).

The Future of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid Expansion

The 2018 midterm elections have major implications for both the future of the 2010 health care law known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well as one of its most popular provisions – individual state’s expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income people.

The Affordable Care Act

With Democrats regaining a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time since 2010, and without continued efforts among Republicans to repeal the ACA, the latest KFF Tracking Poll finds a slight uptick in the public’s view of the law with 53 percent saying they view law favorably compared to four in ten who have an unfavorable view of the law. This slight shift is largely driven by Democrats with about eight in ten saying they have a favorable opinion of the law, including about half (48 percent) who have a “very favorable” view. Similarly, three-fourths of Republicans (76 percent) continue to view the law unfavorably with more than half (54 percent) saying they have a “very unfavorable” opinion of the law.

Figure 5: Post-Election Tracking Poll Finds Slight Uptick in ACA Favorability, Largely Driven By Democrats

Figure 5: Post-Election Tracking Poll Finds Slight Uptick in ACA Favorability, Largely Driven By Democrats

AMERICANS CONTINUE TO HOLD FAVORABLE OPINIONS OF ACA PROVISIONS

Similar to previous KFF Tracking Polls, many of the ACA’s provisions continue to be quite popular, even across party lines. A majority of the public – regardless of party identification – hold favorable views of all of the ACA’s provisions with one exception (fewer than half of Republicans say they have a favorable opinion of the Medicare payroll tax increases on earnings for upper-income Americans).

Table 2: Americans’ Opinions of ACA Provisions
Percent who say they have a FAVORABLE opinion of each of the following provisions of the law: Total Democrats Independents Republicans
Allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26 82% 90% 82% 66%
Creates health insurance exchanges where small businesses and people can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits 82 91 78 71
Provides financial help to low- and moderate-income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage 81 92 82 63
Gradually closes the Medicare prescription drug “doughnut hole” so people on Medicare will no longer be required to pay the full cost of their medications 81 85 82 80
Eliminates out-of-pocket costs for many preventive services 79 88 78 68
Gives states the option of expanding their existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured adults 77 91 77 55
Requires employers with 50 or more employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer health insurance 69 88 61 56
Prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history 65 70 66 58
Increases the Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper-income Americans 65 77 69 42
Note. Some items asked of half samples.

In previous KFF Health Tracking Polls, one of the ACA’s provisions – the individual mandate which required nearly all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine – was consistently viewed unfavorably by a majority of the public. As part of the federal tax bill passed in 2017, Congress zeroed out the dollar amount and percentage of income penalties imposed by the individual mandate. Overall, three in ten Americans (31 percent) are aware that Congress has gotten rid of the penalty for not having health insurance, while four in ten (38 percent) incorrectly say Congress has not gotten rid of this penalty and an additional three in ten (31 percent) are unsure. The results are similar among those under 65 years old who either buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured with three in ten (31 percent) aware Congress has gotten rid of the penalty for not having health insurance.

Figure 6: Most Americans Are Not Aware Congress Has Gotten Rid Of The Penalty For Not Having Health Insurance

Figure 6: Most Americans Are Not Aware Congress Has Gotten Rid Of The Penalty For Not Having Health Insurance

Medicaid Expansion

Three states (Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah) voted during the 2018 election to expand their Medicaid program to cover more low-income residents, bringing the total number of states that have expanded their Medicaid programs to 37 states including Washington, D.C. Overall, about three-fourths of the public – including 77 percent of those living in non-expansion states – have a favorable view of the ACA’s provision that gives states the option of expanding their existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured adults. In addition, a majority (59 percent) of those living in non-expansion states would like to see their state expand Medicaid to cover more low-income uninsured people while one-third (34 percent) say they want to see their state keep Medicaid as it is today. A majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they want to see their state expand Medicaid (84 percent) while most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents want to see their state keep Medicaid as it is today (65 percent).

Figure 7: Majority Of Residents In Non-Expansion States Want Their State To Expand Their Medicaid Programs

Figure 7: Majority Of Residents In Non-Expansion States Want Their State To Expand Their Medicaid Programs

Among those living in states without Medicaid expansion who want to see their state expand their Medicaid program, nearly nine in ten (51 percent of all residents living in non-expansion states) say that if their governor and state government choose not to expand Medicaid, voters themselves should be able to decide if their state expands Medicaid.

The ACA’s 2019 Open Enrollment Period

The ACA’s sixth open enrollment period for individuals who purchase health plans on their own began on November 2, 2018 and closes in most states on December 15, 2018.1 According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as of November 21, 2018, 1.9 million people have signed up for insurance through the federal marketplace, which is slightly less than in previous years.2

The most recent KFF Tracking Poll finds a majority of the group most directly affected by open enrollment (those 18-64 years old who either purchase their own insurance or are currently uninsured) are unaware of the current open enrollment deadlines. About one-fourth (24 percent) of this group is aware of the current deadline to buy insurance for 2019 while six in ten (61 percent) say they “do not know” the deadline and 16 percent either offer the wrong date, incorrectly say there is no deadline or that the deadline has passed, or refuse to answer the question.

Figure 8: About One-Fourth Of Those Who Buy Their Own Insurance Or Are Uninsured Know Current Open Enrollment Deadline

Figure 8: About One-Fourth Of Those Who Buy Their Own Insurance Or Are Uninsured Know Current Open Enrollment Deadline

Slightly less than half (45 percent) of those 18-64 who either purchase their own insurance or are currently uninsured, say they have heard or seen any ads in the past thirty days from an insurance company attempting to sell health insurance. Fewer – about three in ten (31 percent) say they have heard or seen any information about how to get health insurance under the health care law.

IT IS STILL UNCLEAR HOW TWO MAJOR CHANGES TO ACA MARKETPLACES WILL AFFECT OPEN ENROLLMENT

This year’s open enrollment period has two major changes brought about by Republicans and President Trump’s administration: the removal of the penalty for not having health insurance and the introduction of short-term health insurance plans. About half of 18-64 year olds who buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured say they plan to buy their own insurance in 2019, despite the elimination of the fine for people who don’t have health insurance, while four in ten (42 percent) say they will choose to go without coverage in 2019.

Figure 9: Unclear How Changes To Individual Mandate Penalty And New Short-Term Plans May Affect Open Enrollment

Figure 9: Unclear How Changes To Individual Mandate Penalty And New Short-Term Plans May Affect Open Enrollment

One option available to those who buy their own insurance that would not have satisfied the ACA individual mandate in previous years are short-term health insurance plans. These plans cost significantly less than ACA-compliant plans but provide fewer benefits and may not pay for care for some pre-existing medical conditions.3 About one-fifth (21 percent) of those under the age of 65 who buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured say that if they had the opportunity, they would want to purchase a short-term plan. Seven in ten say they would either continue going without coverage or keep the plan they have now.

Public Support Trump Administration’s Actions on Prescription Drug Advertisements, Divided on Actions Aimed at Women’s Health and Pre-Existing Coverage

In recent months, the Trump administration has announced several actions aimed at different aspects of the U.S. health care system. The most recent KFF Tracking Poll finds the public supports the Trump administration’s proposed actions on prescription drug advertisements, even after hearing counter-arguments. The public is more divided on the administration’s actions on women’s health and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS

Earlier this year, President Trump announced a series of ideas aimed at lowering the price of prescription drugs. One of its key elements is to require drug manufacturers to publish list prices for their prescription drugs in television advertisements. About three-fourths (77 percent) favor the federal government requiring prescription drug advertisements to include a statement about how much the drug costs. In a rare instance of bipartisanship, this policy proposal is supported by a majority of Democrats (80 percent), independents (74 percent) and Republicans (77 percent).

Figure 10: Large Shares, Regardless Of Party, Favor Requiring Prescription Drug Advertisements To Include Pricing Information

Figure 10: Large Shares, Regardless Of Party, Favor Requiring Prescription Drug Advertisements To Include Pricing Information

After President Trump announced this proposal, there was some debate about how this could be implemented with opponents saying that since people often pay different prices for the same drug based on the type of insurance they have, including a price in a drug advertisement could be confusing to consumers. About one-fifth of those who originally supported this proposal change their minds after hearing this counter-argument, leaving a slight majority of the public (53 percent) continuing to support this proposal. On the other side of the debate, nearly half of those (7 percent of total) who originally opposed this proposal change their minds after hearing that putting the price of a drug in an advertisement would put pressure on drug companies to lower their prices.

Figure 11: Majority Of The Public Continue To Favor Putting Prices In Drug Advertisements Even After Hearing Counter-Arguments

Figure 11: Majority Of The Public Continue To Favor Putting Prices In Drug Advertisements Even After Hearing Counter-Arguments

EMPLOYER EXEMPTION FROM COVERING BIRTH CONTROL

On November 15, 2018, the Trump Administration issued final regulations expanding the types of employers that may be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement to all nonprofit and closely-held for-profit employers with objections to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs or moral convictions, including private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans.4 Overall, six in ten (57 percent) of the public, including most women, oppose allowing employers to be exempt from the requirement to cover the full cost of prescription birth control in their plans if they object to it for religious or moral reasons.

Figure 12: Majorities Across Groups – Except For Republicans – Oppose Allowing Employers To Be Exempt From Covering Birth Control

Figure 12: Majorities Across Groups – Except For Republicans – Oppose Allowing Employers To Be Exempt From Covering Birth Control

Few individuals, on either side of the debate, change their minds about employers being exempt from covering the cost of prescription birth control for religious or moral reasons after hearing counter-arguments. About one-fourth (9 percent of total) change their minds and now oppose employer exemptions after hearing that this means some women would not be able to afford birth control. On the other side of the argument, one in eight (7 percent of total) now favor this exemption if they heard that some business owners feel like they are being forced to pay for a benefit that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

Figure 13: Few, On Either Side Of Debate, Change Minds About Employer Birth Control Coverage After Hearing Counter-Arguments

Figure 13: Few, On Either Side Of Debate, Change Minds About Employer Birth Control Coverage After Hearing Counter-Arguments

PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS

In June 2018, President Trump’s administration announced – as part of a lawsuit known as Texas v. United States, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general – it will no longer defend the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. These provisions prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on a person’s medical history (known as guaranteed issue), and prohibit insurance companies from charging those with pre-existing conditions more for coverage (known as community rating). The impending suit, Texas v. United States, will decide, among other things, whether both of these protections are unconstitutional and if they will be deemed invalid beginning on January 1, 2019.

The majority of the public say it is “very important” to them that the ACA’s provisions protecting those with pre-existing conditions remain law even after hearing that these protections may have led to increased insurance costs for some healthy people. Sixty-five percent of the public say it is “very important” to them that the provision that prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history remains law. An additional fifth (22 percent) say it is “somewhat important” this provision remains law. Similarly, about six in ten say it is “very important” that the provision that prohibits health insurance companies from charging sick people more remains law, while an additional one in five (22 percent) say it is “somewhat important.”

Figure 14: Majorities Say Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Very Important To Them

Figure 14: Majorities Say Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Very Important To Them

If the judge ruling on Texas v. United States decides the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional, a majority of the public – including 87 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents, and about half of Republicans – say they would want their state to establish protections for people with pre-existing health conditions, even if this means some healthy people may pay more for coverage.

Figure 15: Majorities Say They Would Support State Action If ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Ruled Unconstitutional

Figure 15: Majorities Say They Would Support State Action If ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Ruled Unconstitutional

 

 

Americans are still struggling with drug costs

https://www.axios.com/americans-struggling-drug-costs-goodrx-0b487b1b-a362-4776-8f43-8b118651d606.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for Americans are still struggling with drug costs

 

More than 2 out of 5 Americans say paying for their prescription drugs in the past year was difficult, even though most have health insurance, according to a new survey from GoodRx, a consumer site that compares drug costs.

Why it matters: Drug prices are a top public concern because many people take medications every day and see the toll on their wallets. The survey shows people aren’t really feeling any relief amid the political promises to address the issue.

By the numbers: The GoodRx survey, which mirrors other public tracking polls, found:

  • A third of people have skipped filling a prescription in the last year due to the cost. Rising coinsurance rates and deductibles often are the culprits.
  • Almost 20% of Americans said they’ve had to use money from their savings to pay for their drugs. (Separately, another 12% said they didn’t have any savings to draw from.)
  • The survey got responses from more than 1,000 people, 70% of whom take at least one medication.

 

 

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.”

 

 

 

On Health Care, Dems Go From Running to Baby Steps

https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/health-care-democrats-congress-baby-steps?utm_source=rollcallheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_content=102918&bt_ee=laxMKcbLquOQ38r3vgGpAMJX0zq6rDqxygOXbPDfSwKSHMjaEgq8JGZkmOJJy/1x&bt_ts=1542196035790&utm_source=rollcallheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_content=102918&bt_ee=tH6eZI6YXwNy2ZGbobMIrH2ZCUu8d3EvTOK0U9Cxlbepc1ICeXiBfznzGL6Gj8mS&bt_ts=1542196035723

Image result for health policy

Incremental measures will dominate action on the health law in a largely gridlocked Congress.

The midterm elections all but ended the Republican push to repeal the 2010 law known as Obamacare, but as a defining issue for Democrats in their takeover of the House, health care will likely remain near the top of lawmakers’ policy and political agenda.

Newly emboldened Democrats are expected to not only push legislation through the House, but use their majority control of key committees to press Trump administration officials on the implementation of the health law, Medicaid work requirements, and insurance that does not have to comply with Obamacare rules.

Both parties are looking to address issues that voters prioritized, such as lowering prescription drug prices, though different approaches by Republicans and Democrats could mean incremental changes stand a better chance of enactment than any major bill.

Early on, lawmakers may find themselves dealing with the fallout of a court ruling that could overturn the law’s mandate that health insurance cover pre-existing conditions, putting Congress on the spot in the face of widespread voter support for those protections.

All of these issues, which dominated this year’s elections, will play out against the backdrop of the next congressional and presidential contests.

“In a lot of ways, the purpose of legislation in this Congress for the Democrats is going to be to set the agenda for the 2020 election,” said Dan Mendelson, the founder of the consulting firm Avalere.

Drug prices

Lowering drug prices is a top priority for House Democrats and President Donald Trump. Leaders of both parties identified this issue last week as a possible area for bipartisanship.

But Democrats’ more ambitious plans, like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, aren’t expected to advance in the Republican Senate. Instead, issues like increasing transparency or speeding up approvals for new treatments could be ones where both parties can find agreement.

Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a contender to lead the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, is pushing a measure that would require HHS to negotiate prices for drugs covered by the Medicare Part D program. While most Democrats say they back price negotiations, there will likely be debate within the party about the details, particularly if they seem to be close to the government setting prices.

“When you start getting into anything that looks like price controls, you might get some bipartisan support for, but you also might get bipartisan support against,” said Ben Isgur, the leader of PwC’s Health Research Institute.

Democrats’ other focal points center on price-gouging for pharmaceuticals, which gained significant attention in recent years. The House Democrats’ “Better Deal” legislative agenda envisions a “price-gouging” enforcer, which would be a Senate-confirmed position to lead a new agency focused on stopping significant price increases for prescription drugs. Democrats also hope to require drug manufacturers to provide data to justify significant price increases.

Their plan would require drugmakers to justify price increases of certain amounts at least 30 days before they take effect.

Leaders in both parties have said since the election that drug pricing will be on the agenda, but have appeared skeptical of whether their efforts would yield a successful outcome.

“The jury’s out in my mind,” Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal said in a call with reporters last week. “If he is serious about taking on those pharmaceutical drug companies and ensuring that we can really get prescriptions filled for our seniors and negotiate prices for our pharmaceutical drugs the way we do for our VA, then we might have something we can work on.”

Mendelson predicted that even if a major bipartisan agreement to lower prices doesn’t advance in the next Congress, the Trump administration will keep taking steps that could eventually lower prices. Food and Drug Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has earned bipartisan praise for speeding new drug approvals, for instance.

The Trump administration could try to stay in command of drug pricing politics ahead of the 2020 election, he added, although Democrats will also seek to control the issue.

“There could well be significant progress over the next year or two because the administration has a lot of authority and they will use it to neutralize the issue before the 2020 election,” said Mendelson, a former Clinton administration official.

Health care law

The electrifying election-year issue of pre-existing condition protections is likely to win a House vote as Democrats seek to prove their commitment to that popular part of the law.

Both parties are bracing for a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of Texas in a lawsuit filed by 20 state officials seeking to overturn the 2010 law. O’Connor heard oral arguments in September, although the Trump administration asked to delay a ruling until after the open enrollment period ends on Dec. 15.

If O’Connor strikes down all or part of the health care law, Democrats expect a group of state attorneys general defending the law to seek an immediate injunction and appeal the decision. Legal scholars on both sides of the aisle question the arguments of those attempting to kill the law, but the case could reach the Supreme Court.

House Democrats plan to consider a bill by Rep. Jacky Rosen of Nevada who won a Senate bid last week, that would allow the House to intervene in the case and defend the health law, aides say.

Across the Capitol, 10 Senate Republicans introduced a bill this summer to guarantee coverage of pre-existing conditions, which GOP aides say could be part of a response to the lawsuit.

Democrats have criticized the Senate GOP bill because it doesn’t require insurers to cover certain services for patients with pre-existing conditions. Republicans like North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who sponsored the measure, defend it.

“If they do strike down large parts of the legislation, Sen. Tillis’ bill could be one important part of a larger health care legislative effort,” said Adam Webb, a spokesman for Tillis.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declined to reveal after the election how the chamber would respond to a ruling striking down parts of the law, but called for bipartisan fixes to the health law.

A draft bipartisan stabilization bill, which has been at an impasse for nearly a year, could re-emerge in the next Congress, but it’s not clear if lawmakers can resolve a fight over abortion restrictions that blocked an agreement or how that measure could change a year later.

“The first thing we need to do is stop Republican attacks on coverage of pre-existing conditions, stop any movement toward extending these short-term plans,” Iowa Rep.-elect Cindy Axne, who defeated Rep. David Young, said in a call with reporters last week.

Top Democrats — Frank Pallone Jr.Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, and Robert C. Scott of Virginia, who are expected to chair the Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce committees, respectively — introduced legislation this year to shore up the health law. It would increase the size of the tax credits that help people pay their premiums and expand eligibility. It would also block Trump administration rules to expand health plans that don’t meet the 2010 law’s requirements.

Aides caution the bill could see minor changes next year based on developments since it was introduced in March and say it could be tied into a stabilization debate.

Since falling short in their efforts to overhaul the law last year, Senate Republicans pivoted to rising health care costs, a focus that will likely extend into next year. Several senators showed interest in legislation to prevent surprise medical bills, but it’s not clear what other topics could lead to bipartisan agreement, which will still be needed in the Senate even with a larger Republican majority.

Oversight

Oversight of the health care law will dominate House action on the health law in a largely gridlocked Congress. House Democrats plan to bring administration officials to Capitol Hill to explain what critics call “sabotage” of the law’s insurance exchanges.

“We’ll be looking at what they’re doing administratively to undermine the operations of the Affordable Care Act and what consequences they may have caused to literally millions of people,” Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer told reporters in September.

Oversight could touch on issues such as Trump’s funding cuts to outreach and advertising for the exchanges, reductions in enrollment help and the effects of repealing the law’s mandate to get coverage.

Maryland Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, who is expected to lead the House Oversight Committee, will likely rev up an investigation into drug companies high prices that he has been conducting as ranking member and could bring executives in to testify before the panel.

In a post-election press conference, the presumed incoming House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, highlighted the Energy and Commerce Committee as another “big oversight committee” that will be active.

“We do not intend to abandon or relinquish our responsibility … for accountability, for oversight and the rest,” said Pelosi. “This doesn’t mean we go looking for a fight, but it means that if we see a need to go forward, we will.”

 

With Divided Congress, Health Care Action Hightails It to the States

https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/divided-congress-health-care-action-states

Image result for With Divided Congress, Health Care Action Hightails It to the States

Medicaid expansion was the biggest winner in last week’s elections.

Newly-elected leaders in the states will be in a stronger position than those in Washington to steer significant shifts in health care policy over the next couple of years as a divided Congress struggles with gridlock.

State Medicaid work requirements, prescription drug prices, insurance exchanges and short-term health plans are among the areas with the potential for substantial change. Some states with new Democratic leaders may also withdraw from a multistate lawsuit aimed at killing the 2010 health care law or look for ways to curb Trump administration policies.

But last week’s biggest health care winner is undeniably Medicaid expansion, with upwards of half a million low-income Americans poised to gain insurance coverage following successful expansion ballot initiatives and Democratic victories in key governors’ races.

“In state health policy, it was a big election,” said Trish Riley, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy. “It was a year when many candidates had pretty thoughtful and comprehensive proposals.”

Boost for Medicaid expansion

Voters in three deep-red states — Nebraska, Idaho and Utah — bucked their Republican lawmakers by approving ballot initiatives to extend Medicaid coverage to more than 300,000 people.

Meanwhile, Democratic gubernatorial wins in Kansas and Wisconsin boosted the chances of expansion in those states. And Maine’s new governor-elect is expected to act quickly to grow the government insurance program when she takes office in January.

The election outcomes could bring the biggest increase in enrollment since an initial burst of more than two dozen states expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law in the early years of the landmark law’s rollout.

“This election proves that politicians who fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act got it wrong,” said Jonathan Schleifer, head of The Fairness Project, an advocacy group that supported the initiatives, referring to the 2010 health care law. “Americans want to live in a country where everyone can go to the doctor without going bankrupt.”

The successful ballot initiatives require state leaders to move quickly toward expansion. In Idaho, the state must submit an expansion plan to federal officials within 90 days of the new law’s approval, while Nebraska must submit its plan by April 1, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Utah’s new law also calls for the state to expand beginning April 1.

In Kansas, where Medicaid supporter Laura Kelly prevailed, state lawmakers passed expansion legislation last year only to have it vetoed by the governor. Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s new Democratic governor Tony Evers, who eked out a win over Republican incumbent Scott Walker, has said he will “take immediate action” to expand, though he faces opposition from a Republican-controlled legislature.

Expansions in the five states would bring the number of states that adopted expansion under the health law to 38, plus the District of Columbia.

Still, Democrats fell short of taking one of the biggest Medicaid expansion prizes — Florida — after Andrew Gillum’s defeat. The outcome of Georgia’s tight governor’s race was still unclear as of Monday, with Republican Brian Kemp holding a narrow lead over Democrat Stacey Abrams. Both Abrams and Gillum made health care, and Medicaid expansion in particular, central to their campaigns.

Florida might be a 2020 target for an expansion ballot initiative, along with other states such as Missouri and Oklahoma, according to The Fairness Project.

Expansion supporters also suffered defeat last week in Montana, where voters did not approve a ballot initiative that would have extended the state’s existing Medicaid expansion, which covers nearly 100,000 people but is slated to expire next year. However, state lawmakers have until June 30 to reauthorize the program, according to Kaiser.

In Maine, Democratic gubernatorial winner Janet Mills is expected to expedite expansion implementation. GOP Gov. Paul LePage stymied implementation over the past year, despite nearly 60 percent of voters approving an expansion ballot initiative in 2017.

Medicaid’s future

The midterm results carry other ramifications for Medicaid, including whether states embrace or move away from controversial work requirements backed by the Trump administration.

Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who won Michigan’s governor race, opposed the idea and could shift away from an existing plan to institute them that’s awaiting federal approval.

“This so-called work requirement is not for one second about getting people back to work. If it was, it would have been focused on leveling barriers to employment like opening up training for skills or giving people child care options or transportation options,” Whitmer said in a September interview with Michigan Radio. “It was about taking health care away from people.”

Kansas, Wisconsin and Maine also have work requirement proposals that new Democratic governors could reverse.

But experts also say it’s possible some states, including those with Democratic governors, could end up pursuing Medicaid work requirements if that’s what it takes to get conservative legislators to accept expansion like Virginia did earlier this year.

Nebraska Republican state senator John McCollister, who supports expansion, predicted recently that the legislature would fund the voter-approved expansion initiative. But he indicated lawmakers might pursue Medicaid work requirements too.

Marie Fishpaw, director of domestic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, warned that states expanding Medicaid would face challenges. She called expansion “a poor instrument for achieving the goal that they’re trying to achieve.”

A number of new governors, including Whitmer, could pursue the so-called “Medicaid buy-in” concept.

More than a dozen state legislatures, such as in Minnesota and Iowa, explored the idea in recent years, according to State Health and Value Strategies, part of the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Nevada lawmakers passed a “Medicaid buy-in” plan last year that was vetoed by the governor.

There are a variety of ways to implement such a program, but the goal is to expand health care access by leveraging the government insurance program, such as by creating a state-sponsored public health plan option on the insurance exchanges that consumers could buy that relies on Medicaid provider networks. Illinois, New Mexico, Maine and Connecticut are among the states that could pursue buy-in programs, Riley said. States are considering the concept as a way to increase affordability and lower cost growth by getting more mileage out of the lower provider rates Medicaid pays, said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser with Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“So many [people] struggle with the affordability of health care,” Hempstead said. “That is an environment in which Medicaid buy-in opportunities could flourish.”

Health care law

This month’s election also carries implications for the future of states’ administration of the 2010 health care law.

States that flipped to Democratic governors could switch to creating their own insurance exchanges rather than relying on the federal marketplace, said Joel Ario, a health care consultant with Manatt Phelps & Phillips and the former head of the federal health insurance exchange office under the Obama administration. The costs of running an exchange have come down in recent years, so it’s potentially cheaper for a state to run its own, Ario said.

Trump administration actions, such as cuts in federal funding for insurance navigators that help consumers enroll and the expansion of health plans that don’t comply with the law, may make states such as Michigan or Wisconsin rethink use of the federal exchange, he said.

“If [the administration] continues to promote policies that really leave a bad taste in the mouth for Democratic governors, I think they’ll be asking questions,” Ario said.

States where governors and attorneys general offices went from red to blue are likely to pull out of a lawsuit by 20 state officials that aims to take down the health care law, he added.

Wisconsin’s Evers vowed that his first act in office will be to withdraw from the lawsuit.

“I know that the approximately 2.4 million Wisconsinites with a pre-existing condition share my deep concern that this litigation jeopardizes their access to quality and affordable health care,” Evers wrote in a letter he said he plans to send to the state attorney general.

Hempstead said that states with both Republican and Democratic leaders will likely continue to pursue reinsurance programs, which cover high-cost patients, to bolster their marketplaces.

Republican governors could also pursue waivers under a recent Trump administration guidance that allows states to circumvent some requirements of the health law under exemptions known as 1332 waivers. But experts say it’s too soon to know exactly what approaches states might take.

“It will be interesting to see what the 1332 guidance means and whether it opens doors for some things and not for others,” Hempstead said. States that shifted to Democratic governors could also look to ban some Trump-supported policies, such as expansions of short-term and association health plans that avoid the health care law’s rules.

States are also likely to take steps to address high prescription drug costs in the coming years, with a number of new governors wanting to improve transparency, explore drug importation from other countries and target price gouging, Riley said.

“There’s a long history of the states testing, fixing, tweaking and informing the national debate,” said Riley.

 

Dems Won on Health Care. Now What?

 

Democrats rode a health care message to their Election Day takeover of the House. Now that the election is (mostly) over, how will they follow through on that campaign focus?

The party is still figuring out its next steps on health care, and Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues will have a lot of decisions to make and details to sort out. “The new House Democratic majority knows what it opposes. They want to stop any further efforts by Republicans or the Trump administration to roll back and undermine the Affordable Care Act or overhaul Medicaid and Medicare,” writes Dylan Scott at Vox. “But Democrats are less certain about an affirmative health care agenda.”

Some big-picture agenda items are clear, though. “The top priorities for Ms. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, and her party’s new House majority include stabilizing the Affordable Care Act marketplace, controlling prescription drug prices and investigating Trump administration actions that undermine the health care law,” reports Robert Pear in The New York Times.

House Democrats also plan to vote early next year on plans to ensure patients with preexisting medical conditions are protected when shopping for insurance, Pear reports. And they’ll likely vote to join in the defense of the Affordable Care Act and its protections for those with pre-existing conditions against a legal challenge now before a Texas federal court.

Here are a few areas where House Democrats will likely look to exercise their newly won power.

Stabilizing Affordable Care Act markets: “I’m staying as speaker to protect the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” calling that her “main issue.” And Vox’s Scott says that “a bill to stabilize the Obamacare insurance markets would be the obvious first item for the new Democratic majority’s agenda,” adding that a bill put forth by Reps. Richard Neal (MA), Frank Pallone (NJ) and Bobby Scott (VA) is the likely starting point. Democrats may look to provide funding for the Obamacare “cost-sharing reduction” subsidy payments to insurers that President Donald Trump ended in October 2017. And they may look to restore money for Affordable Care Act outreach and enrollment programs after the Trump administration slashed that funding by 84 percent, to $10 million, Pear says. “Another idea is for the federal government to provide money to states to help pay the largest medical claims,” he adds. “Such assistance, which provides insurance for insurance carriers, has proved effective in reducing premiums in Alaska and Minnesota, and several other states will try it next year.”

Investigating the Trump administration ‘sabotage’: “Administration officials who have tried to undo the Affordable Care Act — first by legislation, then by regulation — will find themselves on the defensive, spending far more time answering questions and demands from Congress,” Pear writes.

Reining in prescription drug prices: Trump, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have all pointed to this as an area of potential cooperation, But Vox’s Scott calls this “another area where Democrats know they want to act but don’t know yet exactly what they can or should do.” Some options include pushing to let Medicare negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers and requiring makers of brand-name medications to provide samples to manufacturers of generics, potentially speeding the development of less expensive competitors.

“There are a lot of levers to pull to try to reduce drug prices: the patent protections that pharma companies receive for new drugs, the mandated discounts when the government buys drugs for Medicare and Medicaid, existing hurdles to getting generic drugs approved, the tax treatment of drug research and development,” Scott writes. But it’s not clear just what policy mix would really work to bring down drug prices, and the pharmaceutical industry lobby is likely to push back hard on such efforts. Democrats may also be hesitant to give President Trump a high-profile win on the issue ahead of the 2020 election.

Medicare for all: Much of the Democratic Party may be gung-ho for some sort of Medicare-for-all legislation, but don’t expect significant progress over the next two years. “House Democratic leaders probably don’t want to take up such a potentially explosive issue too soon after finally clawing back a modicum of power in Trump’s Washington,” Scott writes. And Democrats have to forge some sort of internal consensus on just what kind of plan they want to push in order to further expand health insurance coverage.

Something Happened to U.S. Drug Costs in the 1990s

International Comparison of Drug Spending

Image result for Something Happened to U.S. Drug Costs in the 1990s

Two decades ago, the costs began rising well beyond that of other nations, and in recent years have shot up again. What can explain it?

There was a time when America approximated other wealthy countries in drug spending. But in the late 1990s, U.S. spending took off. It tripled between 1997 and 2007, according to a study in Health Affairs.

Then a slowdown lasted until about 2013, before spending shot up again. What explains these trends?

By 2015, American annual spending on prescription drugs reached about $1,000 per person and 16.7 percent of overall personal health care spending. The Commonwealth Fund compared that level with that of nine other wealthy nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.

Among those, Switzerland, second to the United States, was only at $783. Sweden was lowest, at $351. (It should be noted that relative to total health spending, American spending on drugs is consistent with that of other countries, reflecting the fact that we spend a lot more on other care, too.)

Several factors could be at play in America’s spending surge. One is the total amount of prescription drugs used. But Americans do not take a lot more drugs than patients in other countries, as studies document.

In fact, when it comes to drugs primary care doctors typically prescribe — including medications for hypertension, high cholesterol, depression, gastrointestinal conditions and pain — a recent study in the journal Health Policy found that Americans use prescription drugs for 12 percent fewer days per year than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

Another potential explanation is that Americans take more expensive brand-name drugs than cheaper generics relative to their overseas counterparts. This doesn’t hold up either. We use a greater proportion of generic drugs here than most other countries — 84 percent of prescriptions are generic.

Though Americans take a lower proportion of brand-name drugs, the prices of those drugs are a lot higher than in other countries. For many drugs, U.S. prices are twice those found in Canada, for example.

Prices are a lot higher for brand-name drugs in the United States because we lack the widespread policies to limit drug prices that many other countries have.

“Other countries decline to pay for a drug when the price is too high,” said Rachel Sachs, who studies drug pricing and regulation as an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “The United States has been unwilling to do this.”

For example, except in rare cases, Britain will pay for new drugs only when their effectiveness is high relative to their prices. German regulators may decline to reimburse a new drug at rates higher than those paid for older therapies, if they find that it offers no additional benefit. Some other nations base their prices on those charged in Britain, Germany or other countries, Ms. Sachs added.

That, by and large, explains why we spend so much more on drugs in the United States than elsewhere. But what drove the change in the 1990s? One part of the explanation is that a record number of new drugs emerged in that decade.

In particular, sales of costly new hypertension and cancer drugs took off in the 1990s. The number of drugs with sales that topped $1 billion increased to 52 in 2006 from six in 1997. The combination of few price controls and rapid growth of brand-name drugs increased American per capita pharmaceutical spending.

“The scientific explosion of the 1970s and 1980s that allowed us to isolate the genetic basis of certain diseases opened a lot of therapeutic areas for new drugs,” said Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

He pointed to other factors promoting the growth of drug spending in the 1990s, including increased advertising to physicians and consumers. Regulations on drug ads on TV were relaxed, which led to more advertising. More rapid F.D.A. approvals, fueled by new fees collected from pharmaceutical manufactures that began in 1992, also helped push new drugs to market.

In addition, in the 1990s and through the mid-2000s, coverage for drugs (as well as for other health care) expanded through public programs. Expansions of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program also coincided with increased drug spending. And Medicare adopted a universal prescription drug benefit in 2006. Studies have found that when the potential market for drugs grows, more drugs enter it.

In 2007, U.S. drug spending growth was the slowest since 1974. The slowdown in the mid-2000s can be explained by fewer F.D.A. approvals of blockbuster drugs. Annual F.D.A. approvals of new drugs fell from about 35 in the late 1990s and early 2000s to about 20 per year in 2005-07.

In addition, the patents of many top-selling drugs (like Lipitor) expired, and as American prescription drug use tipped back toward generics, per capita spending leveled off.

The spike starting in 2014 mirrors that of the 1990s. The arrival of expensive specialty drugs for hepatitis C, cystic fibrosis and other conditions fueled spending growth. Many of the new drugs are based on relatively recent advances in science, like the completion of the human genome project.

“Many of the new agents are biologics,” said Peter Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. “These drugs have no meaningful competition, and therefore command very high prices.”

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issue brief estimated that 30 percent of the rise in drug spending between 2000 and 2014 could be attributed to price increases or greater use of higher-priced drugs. Coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act also contributed to increased drug spending. In addition, “there has been a lowering of approval standards,” Dr. Bach said. “So more of these new, expensive drugs are making it to market faster.”

“As in the earlier run-up in drug spending, we’re largely uncritical of the price-value trade-off for drugs in the U.S.,” said Michelle Mello, a health law scholar at Stanford. “Though we pay high prices for some drugs of high value, we also pay high prices for drugs of little value. The U.S. stands virtually alone in this.”

If the principal driver of higher American drug spending is higher pricing on new, blockbuster drugs, what does that bode for the future? “I suspect things will get worse before they get better,” Ms. Sachs said. The push for precision medicine — drugs made for smaller populations, including matching to specific genetic characteristics — may make drugs more effective, therefore harder to live without. That’s a recipe for higher prices.

Democratic politicians have tended to be the ones advocating governmental policies to limit drug prices. But recently the Trump administration announced a Medicare drug pricing plan that seems to reflect growing comfort with how drug prices are established overseas, and there’s new optimism the two sides could work together after the results of the midterms. Although the effectiveness of the plan remains unclear, it is clearly a response to public concern about drug prices and spending.

CVS also recently announced it would devise employer drug plans that don’t include drugs with prices out of line with their effectiveness — something more common in other countries but unheard-of in the United States. Even if these efforts don’t take off rapidly, they are early signs that attitudes might be changing.