Pharma + Government Representatives = Always Higher Prices. Always

I said it before and I'll say it again: the VA is an outstanding organization that provides top-notch medical services with efficiency and cost-control unmatched in any other major sector of US health care:

Prescription drug prices under the new Medicare drug benefit are considerably higher than the prices negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a study by Families USA, the St. Petersburg Times reports. The study found that the median price difference for a one-year supply of the 20 drugs most commonly prescribed to seniors is 48.2%. The VA plan negotiates prescription drug prices for its five million members, while the 2003 Medicare law prohibits the government from directly negotiating with drug makers to determine prices for the program's 43 million beneficiaries.

I said it before and I'll say it again: the Medicare Part D Drug benefit is a giant sucking sound for taxpayers, whose in-bed-with-pharma(who can resist those cheerleaders, anyway?) representatives negotiated the worst deal for U.S. health care in years.

The survey also found:

A one-year supply of the osteoporosis treatment Fosamax is $493.32 under the VA plan, compared with the lowest available Medicare prescription drug plan price of $709.68;

Acid reflux medication Protonix is $253.32 under the VA plan, compared with the lowest available Medicare prescription drug plan price of $1,080;

Cholesterol-reducing medication Lipitor is $497.16 under the VA plan, compared with the lowest available Medicare prescription drug plan price of $717.84 (Nohlgren [1], St. Petersburg Times, 12/22);

According to the study, "It is very likely that beneficiaries -- and taxpayers who subsidize the Medicare drug benefit -- are paying significantly more than they would" if Medicare negotiated prices.

Why, oh why, oh why, oh why did we let this legislation pass?! Seniors deserve to know what kind of deal they got (and I'll give you hint -- it doesn't follow Wal-mart's dictum).

Comments

[ThomasD]

Color me confused. In one post you make dire warnings about the proposed Medicare cuts, purported to be approximately 4%, and then in another post propose cutting payment for prescription drugs by over 40%.

I fail to see how one is horrible healthcare policy while the other is sound market practice. Are you suggesting that healthcare professionals will no longer provide services in an era of reduced reimbursement? While drug manufacturers will continue to develop and sell product?

How much of the wonder of modern medicine has been built on the very products that have been developed and marketed in the last 30 years? Where would the medical profession be without this steady stream of wonders? Would the levels of accomplishment anywhere approach the current levels of reimbursement? How else to justify the expense? How else to argue that patients will suffer when providers are faced with a 5% reduction in revenue?

[Jane]

http://traduzionecanzonegirlfriend76.caffeblog.com/ traduzione canzone girlfriend
http://gaymuscolosi53.caffeblog.com/ gay muscolosi
http://trombate42.caffeblog.com/ trombate
http://immaginiwinxclub381.caffeblog.com/ immagini winx club 3
http://teminokian7303.caffeblog.com/ temi nokia n73
http://sculacciate29.caffeblog.com/ sculacciate
http://videodonnegrasse37.caffeblog.com/ video donne grasse
http://melitagf7nuda08.caffeblog.com/ melita gf7 nuda
http://mod730editabile04.caffeblog.com/ mod 730 editabile
http://raccontidisculacciate74.caffeblog.com/ racconti di sculacciate