The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Magox]

Pharmas could refuse to sell their products to certain markets. But who does that hurt, especially when they can recover their costs by simply putting it in the price that the US consumers pay. But that's ridiculous. Like disease, the issues are more complex than simply thinking generics are the be all wrt drug pricing. Most pharmas are global entities. Maybe the FDA should tell the likes of Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, and Glaxo Smith Kline that they can't sell their drugs here for a penny more than they get for them in Canada, or Europe.

 

So in this instance you are endorsing price fixing.

[GG]

 

So in this instance you are endorsing price fixing.

 

Yup, retaliatory price fixing. It's what I discussed above, the nuclear option. Reality is that other countries get a free ride off USA's pricing mechanisms. No easy way out

[B-Man]

Or so she says.....

 

 

Clinton Dumbfounded by Rising Cost of Obamacare
by Jenna Lifhits

 

Original Article

[Magox]

 

Yup, retaliatory price fixing. It's what I discussed above, the nuclear option. Reality is that other countries get a free ride off USA's pricing mechanisms. No easy way out

 

You are right, it would lead to more trade wars and the reduction in R & D

[keepthefaith]

Pharmas could refuse to sell their products to certain markets. But who does that hurt, especially when they can recover their costs by simply putting it in the price that the US consumers pay. But that's ridiculous. Like disease, the issues are more complex than simply thinking generics are the be all wrt drug pricing. Most pharmas are global entities. Maybe the FDA should tell the likes of Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, and Glaxo Smith Kline that they can't sell their drugs here for a penny more than they get for them in Canada, or Europe.

Large buyers of products in other industries sometimes negotiate terms that specify that the buyer gets a certain price or the best price offered to any other buyer, whichever is less.

[GG]

Large buyers of products in other industries sometimes negotiate terms that specify that the buyer gets a certain price or the best price offered to any other buyer, whichever is less.

 

That's the standard "most favored nations" clause. US hasn't used it so far in pharma pricing because of the huge consequences on health providers.

[Magox]

 

That's the standard "most favored nations" clause. US hasn't used it so far in pharma pricing because of the huge consequences on health providers.

 

Not to mention that Big Pharma would fight this tooth and nail. Big Pharma is very happy with the status quo.

 

Also, the central tenet of most other countries methods of cost containment is price fixing. The notion that they are going to compromise those containment measures on what is probably already their largest expenditure while they are already running huge deficits is in my view, is a pipe dream.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Magox

[B-Man]

Not an Obamacare article......strictly speaking, more about religious liberty, but there are some important points in there

 

 

The ACLU’s deadly anti-Catholic vendetta

By Grazie Pozo Christie

The ACLU is angry that Catholic hospitals won’t perform abortions. The so-called “civil liberties” organization (if only!) appears to again be revving up to sue Americans who dedicated their lives to saving others while serving their faith.

And the ACLU wants the public to be incensed, too. But its latest ploy will almost certainly backfire by unintentionally demonstrating how important Catholic hospitals are to American health care.

For example, in trying to raise public hackles over the fact that Catholic institutions don’t perform abortions, the ACLU reminded everyone, in a report issued late last week, of something truly impressive:

One out of every six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

To that, I’d like to add some other meaningful facts: There were nearly 20 million emergency-room visits, more than 100 million outpatient visits and more than 5 million admissions last year to these institutions.

They employ almost 800,000 workers. They save more lives, release patients sooner and have better overall patient-satisfaction ratings than non-religious facilities. They demonstrate significantly better results than for-profit and government hospitals on patient safety, length of stay and patient satisfaction.

Oh, and their dedication to the common good leads them to offer services that are distinctly unprofitable.

{snip}

Although the ACLU claims to support the right of religious persons to practice their faith without government interference, it’s rabidly against Catholic health providers doing the same, demanding that all hospitals and health-care professionals put their consciences, morals and ethics aside. They must be made to perform abortions or give up government support and nonprofit benefits.

 

Besides the hypocrisy of claiming to stand for civil liberties while disdaining the conscience rights of health providers, the ACLU doesn’t seem to understand that the government supports the efforts of religious institutions in charity and hospitals because they are cost-effective and successful.

 

The ACLU acts as though there are hundreds of strictly secular, ACLU-thought-compliant institutions waiting to step in and give the sick the top-notch compassionate care they are getting at all these Catholic hospitals.

That’s simply not true. If Catholic hospitals and charities are forced out of helping the sick and poor by actors like the ACLU, it will be the sick and poor who lose.

 

 

More at the link:

[Doc]

Doctors act as a gatekeeper to drugs, with mixed success in that role.

 

They're still the best ones to man the gate. And the mixed success is largely because they're dealing with humans.

[B-Man]

 

Judge rules for House GOP in ObamaCare suit

The Hill ^

A federal judge on Thursday ruled for House Republicans in their lawsuit against the Obama administration over ObamaCare.

In a major ruling, Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the administration does not have the power to spend money on "cost sharing reduction" payments to insurers without an appropriation from Congress.

Collyer stayed her ruling so that the administration can appeal the decision.

[DC Tom]

Judge rules for House GOP in ObamaCare suit

The Hill ^

A federal judge on Thursday ruled for House Republicans in their lawsuit against the Obama administration over ObamaCare.

In a major ruling, Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the administration does not have the power to spend money on "cost sharing reduction" payments to insurers without an appropriation from Congress.

Collyer stayed her ruling so that the administration can appeal the decision.

 

 

Why appeal? Why not just hold a press conference and change the ACA again?

[reddogblitz]

They're still the best ones to man the gate. And the mixed success is largely because they're dealing with humans.

 

And they get paid to prescribe certain medications.

[Doc]

And they get paid to prescribe certain medications.

 

Not anymore.

[DC Tom]

And they get paid to prescribe certain medications.

 

I suspect that's a drop in the bucket compared to the deals the drug companies strike with managed care organizations.

[Doc]

I suspect that's a drop in the bucket compared to the deals the drug companies strike with managed care organizations.

 

Or what they spend on advertising directly to people who then ask for, nay demand, those medications.

[reddogblitz]

Not anymore.

 

Prove it.

[FireChan]

Prove it.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

[reddogblitz]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Ok, here's an article from a few months ago saying they do (or did). Do you or Doc have any documented evidence that they have stopped? What makes you think they have?

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-who-take-company-cash-tend-to-prescribe-more-brand-name-drugs

[Nanker]

Ok, here's an article from a few months ago saying they do (or did). Do you or Doc have any documented evidence that they have stopped? What makes you think they have?

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-who-take-company-cash-tend-to-prescribe-more-brand-name-drugs

"Doctors who got money from drug and device makers—even just a meal– prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn’t, our analysis showed."

Doesn't that suggest something to you? So Doctors can be bought for a burger.

 

The only way Doctors get paid by Pharmas is to do clinical trials or other research. MDs get compensated for enrolling and TREATING patients with disease. Often times the patient receives some compensation too, e.g., travel expense in ADDITION to receiving FREE TREATMENT and medical monitoring for the length of the trial - and often for years following the close of the trial.

 

So, let's pretend that you are a Dr. and have been bought and paid for in the above scenario by the evil drug companies. You've conducted a trial and enlisted 20 patients and TREATED them with the DRUG for FREE that the evil drug company supplied you. And, that you've been given $250 per patient you enrolled. You've been bought for $5,000 according to this article. You've monitored these 20 patients for a period of two years and have seen the progression of their disease arrested and perhaps reversed. What would you do for other patients who come to your practice that present with the same disease? Ah, ah, ah Dr. Reddogblitz, don't you dare say you'd write them a script for the medicine that you have a history of successfully treating other patients with. No, you MUST stick to your ethical guns and write them a script for some other medicine just to prove you weren't bought for a burger.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Nanker

[GG]

 

Why appeal? Why not just hold a press conference and change the ACA again?

 

He needs time to run to Staples to buy a pen.