corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 7788

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Reichard J.
Senate Finance Committee to Examine How—And How Well—Drug Negotiations Would Work
CQ HealthBeat 2007 Jan 5
http://www.cmwf.org/healthpolicyweek/healthpolicyweek_show.htm?doc_id=440620&#doc440621


Full text:

January 5, 2007 — While House Democrats already have developed specific bill language that would empower the Department of Health and Human Services secretary to negotiate directly with drugmakers, their Senate counterparts are moving more slowly on the issue of prices paid by Medicare for prescription drugs. And they aren’t committed to taking the approach followed by their House colleagues.

House Democrats introduced their bill (HR 4) Jan. 5 and were expected to vote on the measure Jan. 12. But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced Friday that his focus next week on the issue will be on studying the issue, not voting on it.

Baucus plans to hold a Jan. 11 hearing that will include testimony from various academics and the Government Accountability Office on the issue of direct negotiating authority. He wants to conduct a careful study of how secretarial negotiating authority would work, said spokeswoman Carol Guthrie. On tap to testify are economists from Harvard and Yale and health policy scholars from Johns Hopkins University and the Heritage Foundation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has introduced S 3 on the Medicare drug pricing issue, but the measure is simply described as a bill that would “provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.” Guthrie said the measure is more of a “sense of the Senate” proposal and it doesn’t get into the mechanics of pricing negotiations. Guthrie offered no details on a Democratic timetable for more specific legislation, emphasizing Baucus’ commitment to carefully studying the issue.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., announced that they have more than 190 co-sponsors for the House version (HR 4), including Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson. “I am proud that this legislation is coming to the House floor for consideration and urge its passage,” Emerson said in a press release.

Democrats said AARP, the AFL-CIO, Consumers Union, Families USA, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare support HR 4.

The Bush administration, meanwhile, began gearing up to counter the legislation, which would provide the HHS secretary with direct negotiating authority. It issued a “Part D Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Fact Sheet” chock-full of statistics about the availability of plans, low premiums, and savings under the current system.

It said direct negotiating authority for the HHS secretary “requires limiting access to some drugs, while promoting others in exchange for price discounts. A ‘Medicare formulary’ would thus limit access to some drugs in order to offer a preferred position to others,” CMS said. “By allowing individual plans to negotiate with drug companies directly and offering beneficiaries the choice of plan that best meets their needs, the Medicare prescription drug program balances the goals of meaningful price discounts and access to a wide variety of drugs,” the CMS document said. House Democrats say their bill would obtain large savings without a government formulary or new restrictions on access to pharmaceuticals.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909