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








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.