Saturday, November 24, 2018

YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE -- Part II

A couple of days ago, the New York Times came out with a story which begins:

The burden of high drug costs weighs most heavily on the sickest Americans.

Drug makers have raised prices on treatments for life-threatening or chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis, diabetes and cancer. In turn, insurers have shifted more of those costs onto consumers. Saddled with high deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs that expose them to a drug's rising list price, many people are paying thousands of dollars a month merely to survive.

For more than a year, President Trump and Democrats in Congress have promised to take action on high drug prices, but despite a flurry of proposals, little has changed.

These are the stories of Americans living daily with the reality of high cost drugs. And there are millions of others just like them.

The article continues with the stories of seven individuals struggling to stay alive.  This is superb reporting. Not once do the reporters resort to statistics -- percentages, patient counts,  and the like.  Statistics tend to distance the reader from the reality, and make the the narrative easier to take.   And that narrative could be ours, for these people are middle-class, having too great an income to qualify for what aid may be available to the poor, yet not having nearly enough to pay for life-saving medications. If any of you reading this is unlucky enough to have such a life-threatening, chronic disease, chances are that none of this is news to you -- you're going through it every day. On the other hand, if you have escaped that fate so far,  I humbly encourage you to click on the link and read what comes up:


These are stories about people with no good choices but, to keep breathing, they choose whatever is available. Should they ration dosage? Should they skip a medication entirely and focus on a another, which, in their estimation, might be more likely to keep them alive until they have the money to pay for the drug they've been skipping? "I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place," says one, "and I'm sure a lot of other people are as well."

And the thing is, little or none of this has to do with the costs of development, or of production.  One of subjects needed a drug -- albendazole, an old medication, on the market for years -- the price of which was raised from $6 a pill to $120.  The purchaser said she is furious that she was forced to pay $750 for an old drug. "'They price it because they can,' Mrs Williams said,  'Wall Street decided they could make money off of prescription drugs, which is just scary and depressing.'"  The seller of the drug refused to give the reason for the price hike.  He didn't have to; the reason is obvious. 

Some of these pharmaceutical companies have what they call Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs).  But these are engineered to limit the losses to the company. For example, according to our article, "Novo Nordisk requires low-income Medicare beneficiaries to spend $1000 on drugs in each calendar year before they can qualify for free drugs through its  program. In a cruel irony, many patients don't have that $1000 to spend. 

What I want to know is why these companies offer such programs in the first place. It can't be for humanitarian reasons; their arbitrary jacking up of prices could scarcely qualify them for the encomium "humanitarian." I'm guessing they do it for the same reason that pigs wear lipstick. It's what their PR people term optics. They want to look as good as they can under the circumstances. They want to give cover for the legislators whom they bought with campaign money. And they hope to fool you into thinking they're not  that bad. 

DON'T BE FOOLED! Stand up and tell your legislators -- repeatedly and very loudly -- that you can tell the difference between a politician and a pig, and if they won't move for, and vote for a health system which is NOT profit driven, but driven by good, healthy outcomes for EVERYBODY, then you'll find a legislator who will.


DIO

If you'd like to leave a comment, just click on the link showing the number of comments, and the "comment box" should drop down. Don't be afraid to teach me something! I'm learning all the time.





3 comments:

  1. The Keene Sentinel By Cynthia Koons and Ben Brody Bloomberg News
    Pharma makes lobbying push to roll back seniors' drug discounts
    (excerpt: quotes)
    "Pharma giants have been quick to tout their efforts to help the Trump administration rein in runaway drug prices, but behind the scenes the industry has been lobbying furiously to roll back recently mandated medicine discounts for U.S. seniors.
    Drug companies are focusing lobbying efforts to use a possible lame-duck session of Congress to peel back a legislative loss they suffered earlier this year...Critics say the effort by the industry has the potential to increase costs for some of the most vulnerable and medically fragile Americans...“Republicans are just desperate to get their multibillion-dollar giveaway to Big Pharma done before a Democratic majority takes over the House,” https://www.sentinelsource.com/news/wapo/pharma-makes-lobbying-push-to-roll-back-seniors-drug-discounts/article_309f27aa-2b24-5348-a7c1-7cc47cb05d9f.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits
    By Richard Anderson Business reporter, BBC News
    "Drug companies justify the high prices they charge by arguing that their research and development (R&D) costs are huge. On average, only three in 10 drugs launched are profitable, with one of those going on to be a blockbuster with $1bn-plus revenues a year. Many more do not even make it to market.
    But as the table below shows [see link], drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. And besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs."https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

    ReplyDelete
  3. Top 25 pharma companies by global sales
    "The ranking of the top pharmaceutical companies has been compiled from GlobalData's pharmaceutical revenue figures, which are based on sales of prescription medicines, including generics drugs. The rankings include historical data from 2011 to 2016 and forecast data for 2017 to 2023."
    [Composite profits have increased since Trump was elected in 2016) ...despite his lies to the public]...http://www.pmlive.com/top_pharma_list/global_revenues

    ReplyDelete

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, NANCY? Will the April 30 Hearing on Medicare For All Be Little More Than a Farce? That may well be the case...