This is sort of interesting... if they do it well. If they do it poorly, we might have problems getting the new high priced prostate cancer drugs that have become available in the last few years. It is not clear how this will interact with supplemental insurance coverage.
President Trump proposed on Thursday that Medicare pay for certain prescription drugs based on the prices paid in other advanced industrial countries.
As part of a demonstration project covering half the country, Medicare would establish an “international pricing index” and use it as a benchmark in deciding how much to pay for drugs covered by Part B of Medicare.
... the drug proposal would take effect in late 2019 or early 2020 at the earliest.
Mr. Trump’s announcement came a few hours after his administration released a government study that said Medicare was paying 80 percent more than other advanced industrial countries for some of the most costly physician-administered medicines.
Written by
cesanon
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Hi cesanon, Yes, this Part B proposal will be too slow for some and is unclear. Also, how about the unjust and anathema pricing on Part D? FedEx is delivering Xtandi for Leswell this morning. Free for the three week ramp up thanks to our oncologist and pharmacy, but then $527/mo until failure or death. Patients either richer or poorer pay 0 or $20 per month. Putting the squeeze on a retired teacher, isn't it? Mrs. S
Hello Hidden, Mid-morning my editor and I spent a couple hours re-reading and correcting what I had written to his doctor. Still later, left to my own devices meaning this dysfunctional iPad and my tired, aging brain, I carelessly let my online reply fly. Let’s just say I used the noun adjectivally. Anathema, I hoped, was a powerful enough word to assign some greedy guses (no, not that Gus) in Big Pharma to perdition.
Btw, this afternoon Les did have an Eligard injection and, after a short wait to warm up the Xgeva, had his first shot of that, too. He says he feels fine although who can say now? He's sleeping. Mrs. S
P.S. We were both English teachers, but he is the one who endured thirty-two years in the same middle-school in only two classrooms, one directly above the other. On one of Les’s final bulletin board displays, which I recall sweating over kneeling on the classroom floor, we arranged a rainbow of construction paper letters with the words, “And Let Us Always Be Kind in This World.” Underneath were student compositions and a few “New Yorker” cartoons. If I digitize that bulletin board, I may use it when saying goodbye on this site, not that anyone other than I needs the admonition. You’re the best, most tolerant readers ever! Happy Friday afternoon.
That's all well and good, but Trump's party (GOP) in the Senate has publicly threatened to cut Medicare and SS (to pay for the big Republican tax cut). Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently went on TV and said in no uncertain terms that the Republican plan was to CUT Social Security, MEDICARE and Medicaid, what they call "entitlements," ignoring that WE pay Social Security taxes, and SSA is NOT part of the budget--it is a separate fund untouchable by Congress. Same with Medicare, which WE pay in Medicare taxes. So how does that square with Trump's tweet/plan?
Drug costs a major issue to our community here. For some of here it is the single most important life and death issue they face.
Drug costs are not governed by supply and demand. They are governed by arbitrary laws, regulations and systems that vary substantially from country to country.
How would you propose we discuss such important shared issue without triggering the emotions of the extremists who drop in here from the internet's?
Sadly, in order to avoid escalation and conflict, the moderators on most forums will lock down a topic quite early. This forces forums which do become political to become polarized, as one voice/side will predominate (typically the loudest ones or the ones aligned with the moderator or website owner). So, I think the Internet in general is not so well suited to thoughtful debate. But, I hope this forum can allow political issues to be discussed as they affect our near term health decisions. As you say, it is life, death - or bankruptcy. One tool missing from this forum is the "unfollow" button on a post. Sometimes, a post becomes so active or objectionable to a person, you don't want to see it in your feed any longer, and I don't see that tool here.
There are a few people who use this forum as a substitute for traditional social relationships.
There are some who use use it for debate, most of whom also use it for the above socialization purposes. This small group seems to churn about 12 months average.
It does seem that this group generates a grossly disproportionate amount of adhominum attacks.
But a hugely disproportionate portion of the users here come to learn information. Of these most just lurk and listen.
I come here to learn.
Don't you think it is unfair that an emotional minority, heavily invested non-fact based belief systems should interfere with the discussions of others?
I am pretty certain a do not follow button won't stop them. Do you really think that would help? Really?
It just occurred to me that if this works as expected, it will reduce drug costs (for on patent drugs) in the USA, but increase them in other countries, primarily Europe and Asia.
My recollection is that those are the three largest pharma markets with the USA representing 50 percent of the global market.
It would seem this will be beneficial to me as a US patent. It won't harm European patients who by and large don't bear the burden of paying medication costs. I would expect it to increase patient costs in Asia and Africa though.
My understanding (not strongly informed, being in another country) is that medicare had been banned from attempting to negotiate lower prices, by an act of Congress, presumably justified as because it would have unfair negotiating power. So the high prices it pays are a result of a decision by Congress.
Yes, that is my understanding. This new law doesn't correct that problem. It does appear to limit the amount of price gouging they can do in the US.
They can't charge us here, more than 1.8 x what they charge in Europe where they do negotiate. As the USA is about 50% of the world market, they will likely increase overseas prices primarily, but at the same time reduce our prices a bit as well.
I am not sure how this is really going to work because we don't buy directly from the pharmaceutical companies. And the Pharmacy Benefit managers are skimming a real lot of money in between.
Most of my medications are cheaper to buy direct from the pharmacy and not through the insurance company because the Pharmacy Benefit manager's kickback fees have increased the copays so much, the copays are more than the real cost.
So this is designed to primarily protect the financial statements of US pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully a little benefit, a few crumbs, will reach patients.
"So this is designed to primarily protect the financial statements of US pharmaceutical companies."
Is it all about the money? If so, then having Medicare negotiate prices would seem the logical thing to do.
When you become a part of the cancer club, you wish Medicare would begin negotiating. I agree that protecting pharmaceutical companies' profits in the US continue to be motivating factors for the status quo.
Money is always important. Lobbyists don't come cheap. Patients don't fund much lobbying, so our interests are not heard.
Actually, my observation is that most prostate cancer patients (old white men) tend to support and contribute to the very parties and candidates most bent on denying them good healthcare.
If there's one thing you can count on is the trump administration to screw it up in favor of big pharma just as the middle class tax cut ended up with 85% to 90% going to the top 1%.
It's all about the power of Big Pharma. It is counter-intuitive NOT to permit a taxpayer-supported program like Medicare from negotiating lower prices. It's also about the power of politics and the money associated with it: the Pharma lobby is very powerful and full of money.
I was so much better under Obama- my premiums on my insurance only went up 900%! Government. No matter which side you pick, you are picking wrong, and, yet the same.
Not true, insurance prices have been steadily increasing for decades. Government can have a positive affect as long as they do the will of the people and not corporations.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Looking for experience with Tadalafil after RP
Rising PSA - Scan or Biopsy
Northern California HIFU
What testosterone test should I get in my final blood test prior to HT starting?
UCLA is expanding access to the Ga-68-PSMA-11 PET scan
