Deal or No Deal?
Did the Whitehouse make a deal with big pharma? According to the latest reports from Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times yes, a deal was struck between the administration and Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA).
The deal, supposedly struck in July, details provided for PhRMAto: ¹
1. Agree to increase of Medicaid rebate from 15.1 – 23.1% ($34 billion)
2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details — express disagreement on data exclusivity which both sides say does not affect the score of the legislation.) ($9 billion)
3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)
This totals $68 billion4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or on what this tax/fee will be based.
Total: $80 billion (Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.)
In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:
1. Oppose importation
2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D
3. Oppose repeal of non-interference
4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B
But Was It a Good Deal?
As Howie Mandel would ask, did the Whitehouse make a GOOD deal? Not according to Greg Palast who says $80 billion is only 2% of the $3.6 trillion the government projects to spend on drugs over the next ten years.²
Whether or not the deal still exists is uncertain and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that the House is not bound by any agreement to which it was not a party. But, what’s going on? Why any deal at all? Well, instead of having the considerable finances available to the pharmaceutical industry aimed against health care reform, the drug industry has authorized an expenditure of $150 million in ads favoring health care reform.³ $150 million in supportive advertising is nothing to be sneezed at considering all of the opposition from the right wing – ads from religious groups and lobbyists have been aired and the opposition is bolstered by support from right wing talk radio hosts and t.v. commentators. According to a study by HCD Research those anti-health care ads are more effective than pro-health care ads.
I believe that both sides of this issue have sold it’s soul to the devil and our best interest along with it. Just once in my lifetime I would like for the government to do what is right for the country….to be guided by empirical evidence, morality and a driving force to improve the lives of the American citizens. We’ve been down this road before of health care reform being denied the country by special interests and politicians who do not have the courage of conviction.
Before I throw this health care reform baby out with the bathwater I will wait to see what the final bill looks like but as of right now it’s not looking good. The final bill is likely to be so watered down that the only people who benefit will be the pharmaceutical industry, insurance corporations and politicians patting themselves on the back for having accomplished at least some semblance of reform. What truly needs to be reformed is lobbyists, special interest groups and the fringe on both sides driving an issue that for many Americans is a matter of life and death.





August 14th, 2009 at 7:46 am
What is FOB?
Sage Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“FOBs” refers to follow-on biological drugs. Democrats have pushed to make it easier to allow generic drug makers to produce cheaper versions of such drugs, an effort Big Pharma has resisted.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:33 am
HI WIZ.
TKs SAGE for staying open minded. This is the exact kind of thing I have been worried about. MONEY MONEY MONEY !!!!!! As I’ve stated in the past,,, I’m totally for a health care reform that provides health care for all. But if its watered down health care while the fat cats are still sucking the cream cash right off the top, then no THANKS!
Also, it looks like all ‘end of life’ provisions have been dropped, so that should give a lot of folks a little solace.
Sage Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
the end of life provisions was blown all out of proportion – all it did was allow doctors to charge for times spent discussing living wills with the patients. That’s the kind of thing I have no patience with. the bill should be argued on it’s real merits not made up crap.
AliSilver Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Sage, I read a lot of quote from DEM congress folks who said the wording of it and implications should make seniors leary at best !
AliSilver Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
and whether it is or is not, it was controversial ENOUGH that it being gone now will help the process move forward.
Sage Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It was controversial because of people who want to kill health care reform lying about it. It’s really time Americans grow up and do some research for themselves and quit listening to hysteria producing sound bytes. We really shouldn’t have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Sage Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Blue Dog Democrats I imagine. They are against the health care reform, period.
There’s nothing nefarious about doctor’s being paid to discuss living wills with patients. Would that those same congressman had been equally worried about the wording of the Patriot Act.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Hi Ali!
I don’t get the hoopla about the “end of life” provision. It’s common sense to have directives. Grassley is right that it should be done well before old age.
When kids turn 18, parents are blocked from their medical information and any input in their care unless the young adult has medical directives to allow that. Because of that, my kids all did a medical, personal and financial POA as well as directive so they are covered if they can’t speak for them selves. I can’t tell you how valuable this has been for my 24 yr old, Who has experienced life threatening illness’s the last couple of years. WIth out these documents, I couldn’t even pick up her meds for her!
Government has to intervene when there are no directives,( IE Terry Schavio) and there is a dispute between family members on what the persons wishes are. Add in the medical codes that really don’t allow them to not treat a hopeless situation.
skyagunsta Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am
The difference is, in your case, you planned out of your own free will (and possibly at a time when no one was being threatened by an end of life situation)…and blessedly, it worked out well in the case of your 24 yr. old, who at a very young age, has faced life threatening situations, and blessedly the documents allowed you to pick up medications for her. PTL (Praise The Lord).
But for the government to tell us that this is something that we have to do … the way I see it is, if it is not beind done out of the free will of the person, it is, in my mind, like leading a cow to a slaughter house and telling it … now look and take a good look becauuse no matter what, you are going to end up here, so which slaughtering house would you like better? That is how I felt twice when I faced surgery and was asked by hospital staff if I had a living will and if I didn’t would I like to have one. Medically that would have been the time to do it. Psychologically and emotionally it was not. I still have not done it but I am warming up to the idea slowly, and only because I don’t want anyone else to have to deal with my end of life when that comes around.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I guess you have to ask yourself what your decision would be about your care in any given scenerio. When is enough enough. How valuable is your quality of life to you. Conversly, you can designate that you be kept alive under all circumstances, even if you are brain dead and reliant on machines into perpetuaty.
My reasons for being so clear is in part, to relieve my kids and caretakers of the indecision when faced with an extremely emotional situation, before it gets emotional.You are making the decision, not them ultimately. That situation is agonizing enough as it is for your loved ones. It gives first you, then them and finally the medical people input. The govenment gets involved when there is no clear cut path. Personally, I do not want a judge deciding for me no do I want my kids to go through this.
They saw first hand with their father, the indecision, delays of treatment and in-fighting that no directive or POA causes.
I admit, when I thought it all out, I cried. It’s not an easy thing to think about when you are younger and healthy. But many do not think of this. Even older folks just don’t want to think about the inevitable. It’s not that they feel immortal, they just put it off.
skyagunsta Reply:
August 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
You are right. It is just that I am a coward when thinking about death. Although, I want my death to be as natural a death as death can be, so I am warming up to the idea of a living will. On the last surgery that I had in 2007 I refused them permission to give me a blood transfusion should I have needed one. Luckily, I did not need one. I have to find the rest of my courage to do a living will because you are very right. It is best to have one.