House passes bill mandating drug negotations, but guess what...

[flpoljunkie]

But the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would have only ”a negligible effect on federal spending.” Under the bill, it said, the government could not encourage Medicare beneficiaries to use particular drugs and therefore ”would lack the leverage to obtain significant discounts in negotiations with drug manufacturers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12cnd-drug.html?hp&ex=1168664400&en=01b8d14b7d68ce84&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. From what I've been told...

the legislation does not give the government the ability to drop a particular drug if the company won't come down on the price. We can negotiate all we want, but if the XYZ Pharmaceutical Corp. doesn't want to cut their price, there's nothing we can do about it. If this information is correct, this is a very flawed piece of legislation.

[billybob537]

2. There's always reimport from canada

and generics only new drugs have a corner on the market. Most have competitors.

[madfloridian]

12. That is banned under the Medicare bill as it is fully implemented.

At least that is my understanding, it is the way the bill was written in 2003.

[bullimiami]

3. its just stupid to state that it will have little effect.

every other bulk purchaser bargains the prices down significantly and of course medicare will too with its 40 million + patients.

[flpoljunkie]

6. You might want to read this artice from today's WaPo: "Drug Bill Demonstrates Lobby's Pull"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011102081.html

Drug Bill Demonstrates Lobby's Pull
Democrats Feared Industry Would Stall Bigger Changes

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 12, 2007; A01

Before taking control of the House last week, Democratic leaders briefly considered proposing a new government-run prescription drug program as a way to reduce seniors' drug costs, according to Democratic aides and lawmakers involved in the deliberations. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her allies chose a far less ambitious plan -- to require the government to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices -- that will come to a vote today. They stepped back largely out of concern that the pharmaceutical industry would stall a complex change, denying them a quick victory on a top consumer-oriented priority, aides say.

They had reason to be wary: Despite years of lopsidedly favoring GOP lawmakers with campaign cash and other benefits, the drug lobby continues to wield tremendous power in the Democratic-controlled Congress. It also still has the backing of the White House: President Bush said yesterday that he will veto the Democratic proposal if it lands on his desk.

To strengthen their position, drug firms and their trade groups have been transforming their Washington operations by hiring top Democratic lobbyists to gain access to new committee chairmen, bolstering Democratic political donations and spending millions on public relations campaigns to overcome an image, indicated in recent surveys, that the industry puts profits ahead of patients.

<>The bill leaves intact three provisions of the 2003 law that industry analysts agree played a more direct role in boosting pharmaceutical profits. These include a controversial ban on the importation of cheaper medicines from Canada, a provision that forces roughly 7 million Medicaid patients to buy drugs that are not subject to price limitations, and provisions requiring private insurance plans to remain small and numerous, which dilutes their leverage in price negotiations with drugmakers.

much more...

[madfloridian]

11. So drugs from Canada are still banned?

Ridiculous.

[flpoljunkie]

16. Apparently so.

[annabanana]

4. "cannot 'encourage' medicare beneficiaries??

Why would a beneficiary need to be "encouraged" to take necessary medication? (Something wrong there. . )

[flpoljunkie]

7. Most drug providers keep prices down by restricting availability of certain drugs.

Most have Preferred Drug Lists--these drugs obviously cost more than generics, and hold down costs--theirs and yours.

[BR_Parkway]

5. FDA has to approve a drug for sale in this country - and people are

saying that the gov't doesn't have leverage to bring prices down?

[madfloridian]

8. Robert Reich wrote about the changes to the Medicare bill, called it "Bad Medicine.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com:80/2007/01/bad-medicine.html

"Bad Medicine

House Democrats are pushing a bill to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices. So far, so good. But in what appears to be a bow to the political clout of Big Pharma, the bill does not authorize Medicare to drop from its approved list drugs on which manufacturers fail to offer good deals. This is like Wal-Mart telling its suppliers "we’re going to use our bargaining clout to get from you the lowest prices for our customers – but regardless of what price you offer we’ll still carry your product in our stores." What kind of incentive is that?

The Department of Veterans Affairs gets a 25 percent discount on drug prices for veterans because if a drug company won’t give a big discount, Veterans Affairs won’t include the drug in its plan. Medicare recipients will only get these kinds of savings if Medicare can do the same – walk away from a drug manufacturer that won’t deal.

The current Democratic bill is calculated to make everyone happy. It allows Democrats to tell seniors and the all-important AARP that they’re forcing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. And it also allows Democrats to turn around and tell Big Pharma not to worry because the negotiations won’t have any real teeth in them. Their drugs will still be approved, regardless of price.

But the bill won’t make anyone happy. It won’t deliver seniors real drug discounts. And Big Pharma will still fight it. Drug manufacturers see any move toward negotiations, even one as innocuous as this, as a slippery slope toward government price controls. And they’re intent on using their considerable clout on Capitol Hill to stop any such bill. Even if the bill makes it to the Senate, new Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus is unenthusiastic about Medicare negotiating drug prices, and has twice opposed similar measures. In the unlikely event the bill makes it to the President’s desk, he’ll almost certainly veto it. And the Democrats don’t have the votes to override the veto."

This is the price we pay for allowing our own party to become just as obliged to big pharma as the other party.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Thanks for the link. Big Pharma has been very busy doling out big bucks to Dems this year.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Robert Reich also explains how to fix the bill in your link...

The way to do this without denying seniors drugs of their choosing would be for Medicare to set up its own drug plan to compete with those of private insurers. Medicare would subsidize any plan, so seniors wanting drugs not on the approved list would still have access to them. But seniors wanting the lowest drug prices would join Medicare’s own plan. It would have the cheapest drugs because the plan’s size would give it the most bargaining power and because it would only include drugs that manufacturers offered at a deep discount.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Things look grim for universal health care with bozo Dems like these.

[orleans]

14. email

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

[flpoljunkie]

15. Thanks, orleans.