Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Perspectives: It's Time To Let Go Of International Reference Pricing
Stat: H.R. 3’s International Reference Pricing Misses The Mark
The White House and Congress have declared that reining in Medicare prescription drug costs to help older adults and people with disabilities is a top priority. But one drug pricing strategy on the table would have an outsized negative impact on people with Alzheimer’s disease and decimate research trying to find effective treatments for it. This strategy, known as international reference pricing, ties the price that Medicare pays for some drugs to those paid by other countries. The idea was first introduced as a model for Medicare Part B drugs by then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar in 2018. The next year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s drug pricing plan, known as the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3), significantly expanded the scope to allow federal government use of foreign price controls in direct negotiations with pharmaceutical companies for the cost of 250 prescription medicines in Medicare Part B and Part D. It also extended the negotiated price to insurers and the commercial market at large. (Susan Peschin and Duane Schulthess, 4/28)
The Washington Examiner: Democratic Drug Pricing Bill Is A House Of Cards
House Democrats just introduced H.R. 3, a bill that would allow the government to cap drug prices based on what they cost in six other developed nations. President Joe Biden is sympathetic to the idea. In his speech to Congress this week, he called for giving the federal government the power to negotiate drug prices under Medicare Part D directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Both approaches are tantamount to imposing price controls on prescription drugs. In so doing, they would hamper medical research. That's bad news for countless patients suffering from diseases without effective treatments. (Sally Pipes, 5/2)
Also —
Delmarva Now: Soaring Drug Costs Need Federal Plan, And Andy Harris Should Support It
As a state delegate, my constituents are always sharing the details of their economic struggles with me. Too often, these struggles stem from their health issues. Time and again, they tell me about how hard it is for them to pay for the medications they need to maintain their health. In some cases, they are rationing their own drugs, taking half a dose to stretch out the supply, knowing they cannot afford to renew the prescription. Nobody should have to be put in that position. Drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them. (Maryland State Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes, 4/30)
Reno Gazette Journal: Nevada Public Option Best Way To Tackle Rising Health Care Costs
As a physician, I see firsthand the complex and often devastating way health care — and lack of it — can affect people’s lives. The best way to help people who don’t have health care get the treatment and therapy they need in a timely fashion is to expand access through a public option. This path is the best way forward for Nevada: A public option provides affordable choices for individuals and small businesses, while compelling private health corporations to compete for business through lower premiums, fewer out-of-pocket costs and more services. What concerns me, on a nearly daily basis, are patients who delay care for too long until an otherwise manageable chronic condition gets worse. (Nita Schwartz, 4/30)
MarketWatch: Here’s Why Local Hospitals, Not Insurance Companies, Are To Blame For Exploding Healthcare Costs
As the threat from COVID-19 recedes, Americans can once again worry about rising medical costs. While they tend to blame drug companies, insurers or even the government, the lion’s share of the responsibility belongs with our healthcare providers, whose decisions account for 85% of health spending. The providers most to blame are local hospital systems that dominate nearly every metro area, from Partners HealthCare in Boston to SutterHealth in the San Francisco Bay Area. These megaproviders don’t deliver better quality than smaller systems and independent providers; they just get paid more, sometimes twice as much for the same medical procedure. (David Dranove and Lawton Robert Burns, 5/4)
