Consumer Ignorance Sustains Spiraling Drug Costs?

[Jeff Matthews]

Judge Blocks Trump Rule Requiring Pharma Companies To Disclose Drug Prices In TV Ads. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739770699/judge-blocks-trump-rule-requiring-pharma-companies-to-say-price-of-drugs-in-tv-a

 

Not an earth-shattering controversy, but I have long-believed that the healthcare "system" is largely run in a way which keeps consumers ignorant of how it works.

[muel]

Yes, and go to the doctor and they can't tell you how much a procedure is going to cost and after the fact you can't even tell for what you are being billed if you get a bill at all or maybe just a statement that includes who knows what portion of what was done.  

I stated that poorly but it probably makes more sense than my last medical bill.

[MC39693]

Having just retired, I am very sensitive to medical costs.  I have 2 plans and my wife who's still working has 1.  With all of that, we basically break even and we aren't big users of health care.  Even here, where health care is "free" and universally available, costs are adding up. I don't know how people who have ongoing medication needs make it.  Son in law has Diabetes and if his company plan didn't cover a lot of it, boy it would be expensive (the alternatives aren't good though).  The last numbers I was aware of, said that health care was increasing by about 17% per year in Canada.  Good grief in less than 6 years, no one can afford it if their plan is not indexed (who's health care plan is indexed?).  Oh and when do you really need health care?  When your income is fixed.  Hmmm?  So, the short of this is, you need to buy additional health care insurance. Yikes. 

[Zen Traveler]

If we are going to keep with the current ACA then I think Drug Companies should abide by the same 80/20 or 85/15% percent profit margin (or how much they must spend on actual healthcare) the Insurance companies do...That said, I think the alternative on the table is going to be get the Insurance companies out and go towards Single Payer with buy-in to "Cadillac" plans those that want to pay a hefty premium. That's my take. 

[Davis]

So they will advertise a (PSRP) Pharmaceutical Suggested Retail Cost as based by the manufacture?

Talking about fine print and fast talking commercials.

Costco sells prescriptions at different prices than Walgreens or CVS in some instances.

Every retailer has different pricing strategies.

I am all for disclosure of medical cost and people will freak when they hear some of these prices, as they should.

Maybe we should wait for the (insert Holiday) sale to purchase.

Buy all your medicines on Black Friday.

Is it going to become like car ads?

[Zen Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Davis said:

Costco sells prescriptions at different prices than Walgreens or CVS in some instances.

I had a friend who was interviewed by Time about her situation with a migraine drug that worked for her but was no longer affordable....After digging down it appeared that Aetna has worked out deals through CVS pharmacy to keep their drug costs lower but this drug maker evidently wasn't playing ball...I think the problem lies in that they all are trying to make a buck under the rules and profit still drives Healthcare. 

[CECAA850]

44 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Judge Blocks Trump Rule Requiring Pharma Companies To Disclose Drug Prices In TV Ads. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739770699/judge-blocks-trump-rule-requiring-pharma-companies-to-say-price-of-drugs-in-tv-a

 

Not an earth-shattering controversy, but I have long-believed that the healthcare "system" is largely run in a way which keeps consumers ignorant of how it works.

Mehta wrote that in halting the rule, the court was not questioning its wisdom, but resting the issue on the law set by Congress in the first place.

 

"That policy very well could be an effective tool in halting the rising cost of prescription drugs. But no matter how vexing the problem of spiraling drug costs may be, HHS cannot do more than what Congress has authorized," Mehta wrote.

 

So congress won't allow it and......

 

Last month, groups including drug manufacturers Merck, Eli Lilly and Amgen sued the Trump administration over the rule, arguing that it would violate the companies' free speech rights.

 

Pharma has it's heels dug in.  Free speech???????

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, MC39693 said:

Having just retired, I am very sensitive to medical costs.  I have 2 plans and my wife who's still working has 1.  With all of that, we basically break even and we aren't big users of health care.  Even here, where health care is "free" and universally available, costs are adding up. I don't know how people who have ongoing medication needs make it.  Son in law has Diabetes and if his company plan didn't cover a lot of it, boy it would be expensive (the alternatives aren't good though).  The last numbers I was aware of, said that health care was increasing by about 17% per year in Canada.  Good grief in less than 6 years, no one can afford it if their plan is not indexed (who's health care plan is indexed?).  Oh and when do you really need health care?  When your income is fixed.  Hmmm?  So, the short of this is, you need to buy additional health care insurance. Yikes. 

However, if you are poor - at least in Harris County, Texas - you can get a Gold Card with Harris Health Systems.  This is an income-based, low cost provider of the full gamut of healthcare services and prescriptions.  The service, to my surprise (helping a friend go through chemo for ovarian cancer) is very good.  The oncologists are all from MD Anderson, and the treatment is exactly the same.  

 

An emergency room visit is $50.  A hospital stay is $150.  Each prescription is $8 (doesn't matter which drug).  Clinic visits are $10.  Dentist visits are $20.  

 

Think about that for a moment...  This is better than a Cadillac plan.  No deductibles and tiny co-pays.  No crazy insurance schemes to wade through and figure out.  Just show up for the care you need.

 

Surprisingly, there are no massive wait times and overcrowding.  They recommend showing up 30 minutes early for appointments, and every time, we have been in front of the professionals well in advance of our scheduled time.  In early.  Out early.  

 

To get in, you have to be poor.  That's the caveat.

 

[MC39693]

Thank goodness then for help like that!  Good to hear.  We have friends who moved from Alberta to Florida and he says ... health care in the US is as good or better than Canada, as long as you have money.  He does.  Here's a "get well" thought for your friend in need.

[JJkizak]

Everybody is fine as long as you don't get sick. If you do get sick you have to take 4 drugs for every 14 drugs to combat the side effects of the other 10 drugs. Me senses a gravy train of money here.

JJK

[RT FAN]

While I have no love of Big Pharma, as the developers of life saving drugs they are entitled to earn royalties from their products. Some of these drugs cost billions of dollars to develop and see through to a viable and safe drug. These trials often take years. After a certain period of time, generic drugs are allowed to enter the market cutting into their profit margin. To legislate or cap the amount of money these firms can earn from their efforts will lead to a stifling of research and less innovation in the marketplace. Socialist policies, while sounding good and with the best of intentions, invariably fail when applied in a manner in which they restrict competition and lessen the rewards for those who are investing their own capital in the development of useful and much needed products.

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, RT FAN said:

While I have no love of Big Pharma, as the developers of life saving drugs they are entitled to earn royalties from their products. Some of these drugs cost billions of dollars to develop and see through to a viable and safe drug. These trials often take years. After a certain period of time, generic drugs are allowed to enter the market cutting into their profit margin. To legislate or cap the amount of money these firms can earn from their efforts will lead to a stifling of research and less innovation in the marketplace. Socialist policies, while sounding good and with the best of intentions, invariably fail when applied in a manner in which they restrict competition and lessen the rewards for those who are investing their own capital in the development of useful and much needed products.

True, but there is a flip-side.  Big Rx continues to market to other nations that impose price constraints.  So, we know they are willing to sell to foreigners for less, provided the free market in American continues to subsidize the foreigners.

[babadono]

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

To get in, you have to be poor.  That's the caveat.

Caveat? My Azz It's and cannot be sustained.

[babadono]

2 hours ago, MC39693 said:

Having just retired, I am very sensitive to medical costs.  I have 2 plans and my wife who's still working has 1.  With all of that, we basically break even and we aren't big users of health care.  Even here, where health care is "free" and universally available, costs are adding up. I don't know how people who have ongoing medication needs make it.  Son in law has Diabetes and if his company plan didn't cover a lot of it, boy it would be expensive (the alternatives aren't good though).  The last numbers I was aware of, said that health care was increasing by about 17% per year in Canada.  Good grief in less than 6 years, no one can afford it if their plan is not indexed (who's health care plan is indexed?).  Oh and when do you really need health care?  When your income is fixed.  Hmmm?  So, the short of this is, you need to buy additional health care insurance. Yikes. 

Sounds great Canada. We're racing to catch up with your perfect, free system.

[Sam S.]

14 minutes ago, RT FAN said:

While I have no love of Big Pharma, as the developers of life saving drugs they are entitled to earn royalties from their products. Some of these drugs cost billions of dollars to develop and see through to a viable and safe drug. These trials often take years. After a certain period of time, generic drugs are allowed to enter the market cutting into their profit margin. To legislate or cap the amount of money these firms can earn from their efforts will lead to a stifling of research and less innovation in the marketplace. Socialist policies, while sounding good and with the best of intentions, invariably fail when applied in a manner in which they restrict competition and lessen the rewards for those who are investing their own capital in the development of useful and much needed products.

Question: How much of that drug research is subsidized by the government or taxpayers? I haven't looked at the data on that, but I'd venture to say quite a bit.  However, data clearly supports the conclusion that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising/marketing than they do on R&D.

[RT FAN]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

True, but there is a flip-side.  Big Rx continues to market to other nations that impose price constraints.  So, we know they are willing to sell to foreigners for less, provided the free market in American continues to subsidize the foreigners.

 I agree, having just filled a prescription for $123 for a tiny bottle, that my MD said that in Canada it is $5 for the generic version. Ouch!

[Jeff Matthews]

4 minutes ago, babadono said:

Caveat? My Azz It's and cannot be sustained.

It can as long as enough of our population doesn't want to live below 150% of the poverty threshold.  You have to be here to believe it.

[babadono]

^ you do know some of these "poor" people are lying correct?

[MC39693]

Long ago, when doing my MBA, I read a financial technical (is that an oxymoron) article about risk by the CFO of Merck.  It was very enlightening in an MBA way.  I can't take the "generic" version of 2 inhalers I have for asthma, they make my throat and other body parts convulse.  So, pharma has me bound to the "original".

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, babadono said:

^ you do know some of these "poor" people are lying correct?

And still, wait times are minimal.  This only means the system can actually handle more people, not less.