Drug companies just scored a big election victory

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/drug-companies-just-scored-a-big-election-victory/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37396635&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_W9hw9hWlg0AQFUq1cLUPfn0SXReW9k_cFDC9jbI6Zl4cBvWUVMRBRYn4CTOFOJ73ZuwJiGhF17XPX8efxYaSLMidFSA&_hsmi=37396635

California voters rejected a closely watched ballot initiative aimed at capping how much most state-funded health insurance programs pay for prescription drugs, a possible bellwether of the lack of political appetite for more widespread policies to tackle high drug prices.

State agencies would have been barred from paying more than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does for prescription drugs. VA gets at least a 24 percent discount off the average manufacturer’s price of a drug and is insulated against price hikes larger than inflation.

Proposition 61 was losing with just 46 percent of the vote Wednesday morning, with more than 90 percent of precincts reporting.

The ballot measure was narrowly constructed and would have applied to an estimated 4.4 million people. Still, it had attracted national attention and $109 million in opposition funding, led by the pharmaceutical industry.

It was, in many ways, a test of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) sway and of the viability of a key piece of his agenda, which has involved repeated attacks on the pharmaceutical industry over drug pricing. He appeared at last-minute rallies in Sacramento and Los Angeles on Monday to support the measure, called Proposition 61.

After shocker election, what are the ramifications for healthcare?

After shocker election, what are the ramifications for healthcare?

Healthcare and Medicine Political Changes Symbolized by USA Flag, Stethoscope

Tuesday’s election was, thankfully, about much more than finding a new U.S. president, though the majority of the electorate shocked the pundits by electing Donald Trump to occupy the White House for the next four years. It was an ugly, contentious campaign, so let’s now turn our attention to healthcare in the name of our sanity.

Beyond efforts to legalize recreational use of marijuana and raise taxes on cigarettes and soft drinks in multiple states, several jurisdictions had ballot initiatives that could fundamentally change aspects of the healthcare delivery system.

California’s Drug Price Initiative: Will Voters ‘Send A Signal To Washington’?

California’s Drug Price Initiative: Will Voters ‘Send A Signal To Washington’?

mary_voterguide_770

This year, Mary O’Connor and her father made voting a family affair.

O’Connor’s father is a Vietnam veteran, so she was especially interested in his views on Proposition 61, a California ballot measure that would peg the state’s payments for prescription drugs to prices paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s widely believed the federal program for military personnel gets some of the deepest discounts in the country.

“We researched it a lot,” said O’Connor, a 24-year-old from Sacramento. Both decided to vote yes because drug prices are “ridiculous” and need to be reined in, she said. “We have seen that things cannot remain the way they are.”

The measure faces strong opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, which has poured at least $109 million into defeating it. In addition, some state policy experts and consumer advocates say the measure may not save taxpayers or patients any money, and could even do more harm than good. Many veterans’ groups have voiced opposition as well, saying the initiative will raise VA drug spending, but proponents have support from some veterans as well.

But these warnings haven’t swayed — or reached — voters who want lawmakers to just do something to lower drug prices.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has taken up their cause, suggesting passage of Proposition 61 is important to the nation as a whole.

Will Prop. 61 drive prescription drug prices up or down?

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20161005/will-prop-61-drive-prescription-drug-prices-up-or-down?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=35447723&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8r0lyRKasPpqKN2Ob-IW2R5dtL5-fj09MZC4sHcXXAkV1MmzdsSBOlLfwrCOLR3r1Ti_fKGeL2HyW1R1-Or2IjZHhUtA&_hsmi=35447723

Image result for prop 61

Specialty Drug Costs Soar 30% For California Pension Fund

Specialty Drug Costs Soar 30% For California Pension Fund

drug-price-hikes_770

Specialty drug costs jumped 30 percent last year to $587 million for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, one of the nation’s largest health care purchasers.

Though they amount to less than 1 percent of all prescriptions, specialty drugs accounted for more than a quarter of the state agency’s $2.1 billion in total pharmacy costs. Those overall drug costs have climbed 40 percent since 2010.

The new figures show just how much financial pressure many employers and government agencies face from rising drug costs and why it’s become such a hot topic in California politics and on the presidential campaign trail.

Hepatitis C drugs drove much of the increase for the state retirement system during 2015, as did two rheumatoid arthritis drugs. Drugs for cancer and multiple sclerosis were also among the top 10 specialty drugs for CalPERS.

CalPERS spent the most, $94.5 million, on Harvoni, a hepatitis C drug. It is sold by Gilead Sciences Inc., whose steep prices have drawn public outrage and government scrutiny. The agency spent an additional $16.6 million on Sovaldi, another Gilead drug for hepatitis C.

Apart from specialty medications, CalPERS’ highest-cost drugs were Lantus, for diabetes; Advair, an asthma inhaler; and Crestor, a cholesterol medicine. Painkiller OxyContin rounded out the top 10 at $14.3 million, according to state data.

More than 5 percent of CalPERS’ total drug spending — $118 million — went for Humira and Enbrel, two anti-inflammatory biotech drugs that don’t face competition from lower-priced generics.

POLITICO-Harvard poll: Americans blame drug companies for rising health costs

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/americans-blame-drug-companies-for-rising-health-cost-poll-228866?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=35091656&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8PbV9cRcxweGuejnRZArmy5BpOsVlplZlnpP5Tlh3Bb4D0hvTxsoCG-nghADRTV3uBXXBbgZHO8RPcxFGbLEAOLxGfVw&_hsmi=35091656

A pharmacist is pictured. | Getty

The poll found 43 percent of Americans are “very or somewhat” worried about medical costs in the coming year, and the top concern (31 percent) is their out-of-pocket costs.

Value-Based Drug Pricing: Watch Out for Side Effects

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/jul/value-based-drug-pricing

What would penicillin cost under value-based pricing, a system in which drug makers set prices based on the benefits of their products to consumers and the larger society, rather than drugs’ costs of production? Penicillin has saved millions of lives since its first use in 1942, and it still works for many patients despite growing bacterial resistance to the drug. (Fortunately, many fewer patients get infections with pneumococcus now because we have a good vaccine for it.) Surely, under value-based pricing, penicillin would sell for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a dose.

Medicine depends on many cheap generic drugs like penicillin to treat conditions as diverse as acne, gout, hypertension, heart disease, and cancer. Pricing these drugs according to their value would make them unaffordable to uninsured and underinsured patients and dramatically increase the aggregate costs of pharmaceuticals.

There is a compelling superficial logic to value-based pricing. Why shouldn’t manufacturers charge the full value of the products they produce? Why shouldn’t consumers have to pay it? That logic begins to fray, however, when you think about how other markets work in our capitalist system.

Candidates Decry High Drug Prices, But They Have Few Options For Voters

http://khn.org/news/candidates-decry-high-drug-prices-but-they-have-few-options-for-voters/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=34504530&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8jV9oGDFPhUY7AIC7h75jL1KC5hMbGnVXQiBbMw7S-o8a9cNbtaq7e7EyhVHZrYWAX2-Oix7Ha5jcF9E7NZ2gAl0hFHg&_hsmi=34504530

election_voters_drugprices_770

In this year’s presidential campaign, health care has taken a back seat. But one issue appears to be breaking through: the rising cost of prescription drugs.

The blockbuster drugs to treat hepatitis C as well as dramatic price increases on older drugs, most recently the EpiPen allergy treatment, have combined to put the issue back on the front burner.

Democrat Hillary Clinton just issued a lengthy proposal to address what her campaign calls “unjustified price hikes for long-available drugs.” That’s in addition to a broader proposal to address high drug prices the campaign put out last fall.

Republican Donald Trump, meanwhile, has said little about health care since announcing his candidacy in 2015, but he has several times called for a change in law to allowMedicare to negotiate drug prices for the population it serves.

Here are five reasons why this issue is back — and why it is so difficult to solve.

This is how the presidential election is shaping the ongoing drug price debate

This is how the presidential election is shaping the ongoing drug price debate

Change Capsule Pill Filled with Word on Balls

In this year’s presidential campaign, health care has taken a back seat. But one issue appears to be breaking through: the rising cost of prescription drugs.

The blockbuster drugs to treat hepatitis C as well as dramatic price increases on older drugs, most recently the EpiPen allergy treatment, have combined to put the issue back on the front burner.

Democrat Hillary Clinton just issued a lengthy proposal to address what her campaign calls “unjustified price hikes for long-available drugs.” That’s in addition to a broader proposal to address high drug prices the campaign put out last fall.
Republican Donald Trump, meanwhile, has said little about health care since announcing his candidacy in 2015, but he has several times called for a change in law to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for the population it serves.

Here are five reasons why this issue is back — and why it is so difficult to solve.

How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare

http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-rabies-vaccine-prices-20160906-snap-story.html?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=34073641&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_UzP0FJwNSr06pbn6txjInxbNNHUAh9wO8NHxkBnVs85MxYQFyPtYaPatHWZG7uvo1VuZtlGtNcs7YcTj5-1_zPdkfkQ&_hsmi=34073641

Image result for How a bite from a stray dog shows the sick state of U.S. healthcare

Jan Kern was bitten by a stray dog while traveling abroad and ended up with a jaw-dropping illustration of why the U.S. healthcare industry is completely sick.

That’s because she underwent a series of rabies shots in three countries at four medical facilities. What that revealed, and which will surprise no one, is that Americans pay way more for the exact same treatment than people in other nations.

Moreover, her experience highlights the lack of uniformity for drug prices, including commonly used medications. One facility might charge a few bucks for the same drug that costs thousands of dollars at a U.S. hospital.

“There’s no rhyme or reason to our medical system,” said Rick Kern, 61, who contacted me about his 62-year-old wife’s global healthcare adventure after reading my recent column on drug prices.

What’s great about his story as well is that, after I shared it with about a dozen healthcare experts, the consistent reaction was one of utter disbelief. We’re accustomed to shaking our heads at U.S. healthcare costs. Things become significantly more absurd when a couple of overseas medical facilities are stirred into the mix.

“It’s obvious that our system is unlike any other health system,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economist at Princeton University. “Other systems were set up to care for patients. Ours was set up by the providers — the hospitals and drug companies — for their own benefit.”