|
|
Post by mannmade on May 25, 2019 19:51:36 GMT -5
Could not copy article on my phone but headline tells the story. Wonder how may affect availability of Afrezza.
Colorado has capped the price of co-pays for insulin, making it the first state to enact a law that combats the soaring costs for the medication that have doubled in the last seven years.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 25, 2019 20:00:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 25, 2019 20:01:58 GMT -5
As nearly 7.5 million Americans contend with covering the skyrocketing costs of insulin to manage the disease, diabetics in Colorado will soon have some relief.
A new law, signed by Gov. Jared Polis earlier this week, caps co-payments of the lifesaving medication at $100 a month for insured patients, regardless of the supply they require. Insurance companies will have to absorb the balance.
The law also directs the state's attorney general to launch an investigation into how prescription insulin prices are set throughout the state and make recommendations to the legislature.
Colorado is the first state to enact such sweeping legislation aiming to shield patients from dramatic insulin price increases.
"One in four type 1 diabetics have reported insulin underuse due to the high cost of insulin ... [t]herefore, it is important to enact policies to reduce the costs for Coloradans with diabetes to obtain life-saving and life-sustaining insulin," the law states.
The price of the drug in the U.S. has increased exponentially in recent years. Between 2002 and 2013, it tripled, according to 2016 study published in the medical journal JAMA. It found the price of a milliliter of insulin rose from $4.34 in 2002 to $12.92 in 2013. And a March report from the House of Representatives, found "prices continued to climb, nearly doubling between 2012 and 2016."
Article continues after sponsor message
Pharmaceutical Company CEOs Face Grilling In Senate Over High Drug Prices
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
Pharmaceutical Company CEOs Face Grilling In Senate Over High Drug Prices
Dramatic price hikes have left some people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes who use insulin to control their blood sugar levels in the unfortunate position of making dangerous compromises. They either forego the medication or they ration their prescribed dose to stretch it until they can afford the next prescription.
In some instances, those compromises can lead to tragedy. As NPR reported, an uninsured Minnesota man who couldn't afford to pay for $1,300 worth of diabetes supplies, died of diabetic ketoacidosis, according to his mother. The man, who was 26, had been rationing his insulin.
The move in Colorado comes on the heels of recent commitments by manufacturers to limit the drug's cost to consumers, which in turn comes on the heels of mounting pressure (and some skewering) from elected officials.
Following a U.S. Senate Finance Committee hearing in February and a subcommittee hearing in the House in April, pharmaceutical company leaders have reluctantly admitted they have a role to play in reducing drug prices.
Express Scripts Takes Steps To Cut Insulin's Price To Patients
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
Express Scripts Takes Steps To Cut Insulin's Price To Patients
How Much Difference Will Eli Lilly's Half-Price Insulin Make?
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
How Much Difference Will Eli Lilly's Half-Price Insulin Make?
Last month Express Scripts, one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers in the country, announced it is launching a "patient assurance program" that will place a $25 per month cap on insulin for patients "no matter what."
In March, insulin manufacturer Eli Lilly said it will soon offer a generic version of Humalog, called Insulin Lispro, at half the cost. That would drop the price of a single vial to $137.35.
"These efforts are not enough," Inmaculada Hernandez of the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy tells NPR, of the latest legislation in Colorado.
Hernandez was lead author of a January report in Health Affairs attributing the rising cost of prescription drugs to accumulated yearly price hikes.
While the Colorado out-of-pocket caps will likely provide financial relief for diabetes patients, she noted "the costs will kick back to all of the insured population" whose premiums are likely to go up as a result.
"Nothing is free," Hernandez said.
"It also doesn't fix the real issue," she added, pointing to her own research which found "that prices have increased because there's not enough competition in the market, demand will always be high and manufacturers leverage that to their advantage."
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on May 25, 2019 20:04:21 GMT -5
Thanks Sports!
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on May 25, 2019 21:18:36 GMT -5
Unfortunately, less competition may be the result of the Colorado law as Plan Benefit Managers simply limit choices to those insulin marketed by BP's that are willing (and able) to adjust their rebates to the PBM.
|
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on May 25, 2019 22:04:04 GMT -5
Historically, price fixing by government fiat has always led to severe distortions and deprivation of the liberty to contract. Dangerous trend, this.
|
|
|
|
Post by letitride on May 26, 2019 1:10:57 GMT -5
It is way past time to make afrezza the cheapest insulin on the market. That would be something a Rep could sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on May 27, 2019 8:27:41 GMT -5
Historically, price fixing by government fiat has always led to severe distortions and deprivation of the liberty to contract. Dangerous trend, this. Gasoline? |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on May 27, 2019 12:05:42 GMT -5
Historically, price fixing by government fiat has always led to severe distortions and deprivation of the liberty to contract. Dangerous trend, this. Price fixing as a solution to generalized inflation certainly has a lot of evidence it doesn't work. Looking at broader issues of government regulation I think would yield much more nuanced story, especially when one considers markets that by their very nature are heavily regulated or prone to natural monopolies, like healthcare or utilities. Utility rate payers in CA were ripped off horribly decades ago by electricity suppliers creating artificial shortages and then gouging. Granted it was partly caused by regulation that was poorly written with loop holes, but it's not as if giving free reign to the utility industry would empower consumer to break free of the power lines coming into their house. Utilities are naturally monopolistic because of the infrastructure required. Cities don't want to allow multiple companies to run redundant networks. Healthcare is naturally heavily regulated. Drugs must be approved through lengthy processes. The supply of doctors is constrained by a largely self run process of the profession itself. Do we do away with those regulations and return to days of "medicine men" selling "snake oil"? Probably not, but do we accept a commercial system which is rigged and broken and gouging people for treatments that they literally can't live without? I cannot at all imagine a process whereby this limiting of co-pays will lead to "deprivation". Yes, it will shift some financial burden from diabetic patients to others, but that is the whole purpose of insurance. Having affordable healthcare for those that need it is a "distortion" of a truly free market. In a truly free market an insurer doesn't insure a house that is already on fire. Someone with a chronic disease like T1 diabetes would never be insured at all if not for requirements that they be accepted into insurance pools despite the inevitable raising of premiums for others. |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on May 28, 2019 10:28:59 GMT -5
You employ the word "natural" as if say any perturbation of this so-called natural order is inimical to mankind. Isn't government control a monopoly or tantamount to it? Why do you think, if you do, that central planning by so-called experts will work far better than any invisible hand? Your presupposition is that's private actors are not to be trusted and that they must be run roughshod over for some reason, which you don't specify. California badly mismanaged privatization and they are now a one-party state that is failing miserably. Look instead to Texas, where I enjoy a great deal of choice in my electricity provider and my bill is 1/4 of what it was in Connecticut, with similar loads, where there was no real choice whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on May 28, 2019 14:18:48 GMT -5
You employ the word "natural" as if say any perturbation of this so-called natural order is inimical to mankind. Isn't government control a monopoly or tantamount to it? Why do you think, if you do, that central planning by so-called experts will work far better than any invisible hand? Your presupposition is that's private actors are not to be trusted and that they must be run roughshod over for some reason, which you don't specify. California badly mismanaged privatization and they are now a one-party state that is failing miserably. Look instead to Texas, where I enjoy a great deal of choice in my electricity provider and my bill is 1/4 of what it was in Connecticut, with similar loads, where there was no real choice whatsoever. You may believe that without FDA regulation or regulation of who practices medicine, everyone would behave ethically and in the best interest of others... or that everyone is smart enough to navigate a health system with no regulation and everyone acting purely in their self interest... and if so I doubt I could convince you otherwise. I could point to history or to certain developing countries, but it's hard to use facts to argue against faith. LA DWP (owned and run by the city) is cheaper than the electricity from nearby Edison (privately run for profit). Individual examples can be found of well and badly run utilities of both ownership models. Just as one can point to Norway's prior state ownership of oil production as very successful but Venezuela's as ruinous. Your provider is likely largely coal electricity (I am guessing here based on stats for TX), which is an example of free enterprise taking advantage of the commons (our environment) to their benefit and the detriment of everyone else... a classic example of where libertarian ideals often clash with reality. I was very libertarian leaning when younger, and to a large extent still am. But with the benefit of age it is much tempered by the reality of life experience. Libertarian ideals should be a go to for examining possibilities. In theory freedoms should not be curtailed unless their is demonstrable case for doing so, but in general modern societies' high levels of prosperity have come about from fairly robust systems of regulating and controlling capitalism, neither killing it nor letting it run rampant. As for healthcare, one can look at it from a distance and see that it is broken. Most people think free enterprise is about profit, but the core of free enterprise is actually the destruction of profit. When you see a industry like healthcare where profits are soaring well beyond the rate of inflation, something is inherently broken, and there are at least two directions that can be taken... one of which, worth examining as a thought experiment, would be radically deregulating healthcare, such as removing any requirements for having prescriptions to get drugs and allowing people to order drugs from overseas. However, in its current form I would support regulations to control costs for situations like this dealing with drugs that are a matter of life and death for people. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 28, 2019 20:25:20 GMT -5
You employ the word "natural" as if say any perturbation of this so-called natural order is inimical to mankind. Isn't government control a monopoly or tantamount to it? Why do you think, if you do, that central planning by so-called experts will work far better than any invisible hand? Your presupposition is that's private actors are not to be trusted and that they must be run roughshod over for some reason, which you don't specify. California badly mismanaged privatization and they are now a one-party state that is failing miserably. Look instead to Texas, where I enjoy a great deal of choice in my electricity provider and my bill is 1/4 of what it was in Connecticut, with similar loads, where there was no real choice whatsoever. FWIW: A number of Texas energy producers benefit from so-called 'clean coal' subsidies (i.e. government handouts). And Connecticut has some of the highest electricity charges, in part, due to deregulation. www.myrecordjournal.com/News/State/Experts-explain-Connecticut-s-high-electric-rates.html |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on May 28, 2019 22:18:03 GMT -5
Not the case at all! Incredible...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Jul 5, 2019 10:36:01 GMT -5
With all due respect, using Texas as an exemplar for a discussion related to responsible public interest is misplaced (to put it mildly). And characterizing California as a "failed state" is boilerplate from Fox News. One's definition of "success" depends upon values, both personal and collective. Read on, being mindful that there is a huge distinction between costs and values. Costs are in our pocketbook and reconciled monthly (or for corporations, quarterly); whereas values are in our conscience and reconciled over generations.
It boils down to the reality that profit margins motivate (drive?) corporate decisions to a greater degree than ethical considerations. With regulations, companies have entire divisions devoted to compliance with the letter but often not the spirit of the regulation or law. They push the profit margin to the absolute limit of what is technically legal, knowingly using materials or ingredients that are inferior (and potentially harmful over time) but "adequate".
Thus, regulation (when it can be achieved over corporate lobbying opposition) works barely adequately to protect the pubic interest. In the absence of regulation entirely, it is unlikely that either competition or corporate "responsibility" would work well to protect the public interest in the majority of cases. Again, what works barely adequately is simple liability law; but this too has its flaws, because potential liability only has influence if the calculation is that the potential cost of getting caught would be greater than the cost of serving the public interest in the first place.
Then it comes down to the pursuit of violations, or enforcement. Everywhere you look, the "enforcers" are outnumbered by the "good ole boys" trying to beat the system. [Disclosure: I lived in Texas for over 20 years, and walked the halls of Austin, winking and scratching backs while my stomach wrenched). Moreover, local public prosecutors, choosing among a deluge of opportunities, tend to choose the most politically expedient cases to prosecute, and often, the local population is more focused on having its public prosecutors pursue individuals who are dealing drugs than companies who are poisoning populations through the illegal discharge of harmful effluents. Why? Because the law-breaking company employs friends and family members. No further considerations needed!
One does not have to look far across the great "American experiment" to recognize that for the majority of the pubic, personal self-interest most often finds a way to justify a position, even those having huge moral implications. In the larger population, sadly, personal denial or restraint in the service of the group is an exception. Perhaps this is what makes the phrase "rugged individualism" so crudely appropriate. And in those celebrated cases where laws have been enacted in the greater interest of American values, writ large, only appearances change; malfeasance and self interest then hide underground finding ways to avoid compliance while appearing to support the public interest.
At few times in the country's history has this been more evident than now. For example, there is much flag waving about a stock market that is at record highs and thus benefitting the top 1%, which is accumulating over one third of the benefit; while the infrastructure, from bridges to roadways to airports—— is in sad repair. The $$$ driven sick care system bankrupts 40% of cancer patients within 2 years (and these are people with insurance). These are population relevant issues related to quality of life for everyone routinely pushed to the subconscious by vast numbers as long as their personal pocketbook is full of cash; and they can "have their cake and eat it too."
|
|
