
Among the first to be invited to the table to talk to President Obama about health care reform were the drug makers. Much to the chagrin of Democrats on the Hill, the White House made a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry, shaving $8 billion off the nation’s drug costs, but limiting the flexibility of lawmakers to wring savings from the drug companies. (Time)
If President Obama thought by inviting the drug makers into the negotiations they could be kept in check, he was wrong. Ever since the secret deal, pharmaceutical companies have been increasing their prices at a record pace.
In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. (NY Times)
AARP’s Public Policy Institute finds that average manufacturer price increases for brand name and specialty prescription drugs widely used by Medicare beneficiaries continued to far outstrip the price increases for other consumer goods and services in the 12 months ending with the third quarter of 2009.
Drug makers contend they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Of course they do. They want to increase their bottom line – and line their pockets – as much as possible before health care reform takes effect. In addition, the increase in drug costs is more than matched by the increased cost of intense lobbying.
Pfizer alone has spent more than $17 million in lobbying during the first nine months of this year, nearly twice it’s lobbying budget during the same period of 2008. Pfizer spokeswoman Kristen Neese told USA Todaythe spending reflects the commitment to “making our voice heard.”
Their voice is being heard all right. Enough that Democrats in Congress asked for two separate investigations of drug industry pricing Wednesday.
Believing the raising prices in pharmaceutical products is in expectation of new reforms, the House Democrats sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office asking them to conduct an expedited review of he price increases. “Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive,” the letter said. (NY Times)
It’s like increasing the price on a product before you put it on sale.
“I want to know if there’s a back-door move under way by the drug makers to recover some of the concessions they’ve promised for health care reform,” said Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.
It’s a pretty good bet there is.
Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group told Time, “We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal. Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”
Really? And who is ever going to go into a deal with pharmaceutical companies again?
I don’t know what can be done now that the “horse is out of the barn,” so to speak, but I’m thinking the pharmaceutical companies have just lost their seat at the table.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics,” published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 60 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. Her column is part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children and is the proud grandmother of three.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.personalpolitcs.gather.com, The Obama Watch at theobamawatch.gather.comor her home page here, www.ccabot.gather.com.




Comments: 45
That fiction needs to be addressed as much and as soon as we possibly can! I've been preaching that for some time. Nowhere in the constitution does it confer human rights on corporations. If it did, they could vote instead of just buying votes.
I fully expect that in the case now before the court dealing with political advertising that the court will expand the rights of corporations to carry on their political advertising without restraint. This will expand the corporate control over the entire political system.
I'm starting over from chapter 1 of "Invisible hand" Larry. The solution that I had been formulating, like yours, would require the removal of greed. I have not yet come up with a way to accomplish that. I'll look out for that in yours.
Humans are natulally altruistic, so I was expecting you to propose how to take advantage of it.
My system does use free markets (three major ones, only one of which is obvious) but since one can satisfy one's greed for money only by doing things which have good consequences for others, the greed becomes a useful tool.
Looked at another way, my system rewards people for behaving in an altruistic manner. So it doesn't matter whether you do good things for love of humanity or for selfish motives, the result is the same.
You will note that a free market with our current form of money can't stay free since greed leads people to do things that harm others to get money. You can get money by harming others with our current money. With the system I propose that is close to impossible.
Isn't that what religion is supposed to do, Dennis? I certainly wouldn't label Jesus or Buddha as greedy. Funny, but I think if you took a poll right now of members of Congress, almost all would say that they are either followers of Jesus Christ or religious in some other way. Damn hypocrites, that's what they are.
The funniest thing is to see some of these guys like that Congressional Fraternity house group, that have sought to twist the meaning of their religion to include the striving for power and money as good things. They are simply off-the-chart hypocrites. Oh, and I think they also believe that cheating on your wife is okay, too (i.e., Sandord).
To say that most humans have certain altruistic characteristics is one thing. But to say humans are altruistic by nature leads me to believe you've never really seen the behavior of those who are not taught altruism as children.
Doing what is right and consideration for others was drummed into me as a child and I expect it of others. Sometimes to my disappointment. We as civilized beings have an obligation to society to promote and teach these factors of human behavior else it will be lost.
We want to live pain free or just plain live and will pay any amount to STOP the PAIN!!!
Extortion is big biz!!!!
You are right on! No one suffers pain, mental of physical, willingly. As long as relief can be obtained, we are going to do so. Though I can tell you that good medical care and taking the prescribed medications does not guarantee anything close to pain free.
I understand but when you must have insulin to live you cannot ignore that need. I pay, in the doughnut hose, $1,024 for a three month supply of insulin. Probably be more next time because of the increases. I don't care how much they price gouge, those who must have it will pay it if it is possible.
It is not a matter of feeling good, but rather a prevention of the effects of uncontrolled blood sugar. Cut off limbs, blindness and one's internal organs in a state of rebellion will be expensive to treat as well as miserable.
God Bless America! Land of the Suckers!
Thank goodness for generics and $4 prescriptions.
If the reform was really about helping individuals, rather than accommodating companies, then the drug makers and insurance folks wouldn't even be at the table.
The one thing that I know for sure will come out of this hullabaloo is a law requiring EVERYONE to BUY an insurance policy. For all the ranting about "free" markets and no government interference, what the capitalists really want is government to force consumerism on the entire citizenry. Bleh!!
Excellent article! The lobbying power of the drug and insurance industries are scandalous in my opinion. It is time to de-franchise corporations as an entity and let them be what they are. And inanimate things don't have any constitutional rights about free speech, that is for us people. But how can a congressman hear us when he is deafened by the barrage from these two entities and the enormous amount they spend for lobbying?
In implementing any legislation that might negatively impact the bottom line of these corporations this is the steel wall which must be penetrated and rarely is. I feel that election reform is the key to getting the legislators back to representing us, and that is going to be fought tooth and nail by both those industries.
In the first case, an insurers monopole is being created and each member will try to get the most from his own clients while being unable to discuss with the drug companies. this is due to the fact that each member depends on the decision of the other members BEFORE even talking prices with the drug companies; which in the worse case will find a way to silent the opponent.
Or you set up a "public option" which in fact should not be "public" but should act as a "reinsurance company".
In the latter case, the "reinsurance" may be too powerful for the drug makers to discuss with IF it remains independent and clean from any corruption.
In such case the reinsurance could support the insurance companies up to some point but not over such point. It can also fix the support based on a certain point taking into consideration the inflation rate.
Such reinsurance should not, IMO, be directed "against" the insurers, I mean providing personal insurances, but should act, indirectly, as a parapet to keep the insurers safe and watching health care expenses. The insurer would then be in a position to fix premiums according to what is being insured and what it is acceptable or not for such or such a type of premium.
If the insurer is becoming too expensive competition among insurers will take place.
The problem lies in the extreme cases: How long will the reinsurance support cases alike Schiavo? What is an acceptable abortion? Are we talking health or comfort? What type of hearing aid needs a deaf?
In other words, how much is acceptable for the insurer and how much the federal reinsurance could afford.
Good comments. If competition among insurance companies would do it, it would have happened by now. Essentially the insurers charge what they want and utilize some rather dubious techniques to sell it. But the are not about to cut their profits significantly. Competition makes me think of another appropriate word beginning with the letter C, Collusion. They don't even have to talk to each other to accomplish it. They have the legal resources to prevent any challenge from their policy holders.
And, they don't have the leverage to get the best on drug prices as a single payer system might. I'm well aware of that problem as I go through the "doughnut hole" every year and just get started on the catastrophic. This means I pay $4500 out of pocket, not counting premiums, to get to the point where I am. I really hated to see this abomination of a program passed and implemented, but the Republican congress crammed it down our throats.
Obama is trying to keep the insurance companies with a place at the table here and I hope that they might see the handwriting on the wall this time.
I do agree with the questions that must be answered and am sensitive to the hearing aid one as I just paid $4,200 for a pair a couple of months ago. I've never had an insurance that would cover that.
These reports sound like a warm up for rationed care, but I guess no one can hold back the pharmaceutical companies.
I am blessed that I am healthy enough to not depend on prescription drugs at the time of my life. What are people going to do?
Just sayin, is all.
In Canada the rules for TV advertising of drugs prohibit mentioning both the name of the drug and the condition it is meant to treat in the same ad. You can name one or the other but not both. As a result, the ads we do get often have someone telling you how much better they feel since taking drug X, but you have no idea how they were feeling before taking it or why. Only Viagra, which is universally know for the condition it treats, can produce ads which assume you know what the drug does.
American ads are crazy, as you rules enforce giving the details of advers side effects along with the promotion of the good effects of the drug. Thus a sleep aid will tell you in glowing terms how peacefully it will allow you to sleep, and then launch into a rapid fire litany of dire consequences that might occur, typically including agitation, depression deep enough to cause suicide, allergic reactions causing you to choke to death in your sleep, genital warts, bad acne, sexual dysfunction and halitosis. Man, I have to have been insomniac and awake for years on end before I'd risk it.
American doctors must face a constant barrage of requests for drugs by patients who have no idea whether or not taking them is a good idea. Silly.