Comments on: Why Big Pharma wants health insurance reform http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/ Hanoi, Lomé, Amsterdam, NYC -- and beyond Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:24:43 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mmcardle http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-35 mmcardle Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:05:24 +0000 #comment-35 Not only is that not a possible rule, but the opposite is the case. To put it somewhat crudely, Medicare rules require that it get a better price than anyone else. Insurers base their reimbursement negotiations on the Medicare price. That's why it's getting harder to find a PCP who takes Medicare. Not only is that not a possible rule, but the opposite is the case. To put it somewhat crudely, Medicare rules require that it get a better price than anyone else. Insurers base their reimbursement negotiations on the Medicare price. That’s why it’s getting harder to find a PCP who takes Medicare.

]]> By: eduardomontez http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-26 eduardomontez Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:00:24 +0000 #comment-26 McArdle claims that phara companies won't invest in research and development if they can't make huge profits in the US. But she is careful to not give us a number for this spending. From what I recall, pharma companies spend about $30 billion a year on research and development. That out of a total health bill in the US of 2 trillion. Surely the government could figure out a way to disperse that much money to develop new drugs, and it would own the patents on them. McArdle claims that phara companies won’t invest in research and development if they can’t make huge profits in the US. But she is careful to not give us a number for this spending.

From what I recall, pharma companies spend about $30 billion a year on research and development. That out of a total health bill in the US of 2 trillion. Surely the government could figure out a way to disperse that much money to develop new drugs, and it would own the patents on them.

]]> By: tedsaid http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-25 tedsaid Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:31:42 +0000 #comment-25 Sorry ... worded that wrong. I shouldn't have said "charge the same across procedures." That would be asinine. I meant, for each procedure, the care givers would have to charge the same, regardless of the patient's insurance status or affiliation. Sorry … worded that wrong. I shouldn’t have said “charge the same across procedures.” That would be asinine. I meant, for each procedure, the care givers would have to charge the same, regardless of the patient’s insurance status or affiliation.

]]> By: tedsaid http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-24 tedsaid Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:28:52 +0000 #comment-24 Hi, Matt. I've been reading your ongoing discussion with Megan, and I agree with you. Megan is a smart and talented writer, but she tends to paint everything with the free market/libertarian brush. I agree with her that that is the rule - free markets are usually best. Where I disagree is when, as in health care, there needs to be an exception to the rule. I've been thinking about the practice of hospitals vastly overcharging those without medical insurance, and having different rates for different insurance companies. I've read a lot of anecdotal evidence of these practices, as well as the issues with trying to find out the cost of a procedure *before* it's done. (If true, this is one of those gapping holes that free market practices doesn't address.) I've been trying to figure out what the unintended consequences would be for 1) making it a rule that care givers charge all their patients the same across treatments, and 2) forcing them to disclose costs - when appropriate, or when asked - before the procedure is agreed to. My sense is that (1) could be quite effective, and that (2) has some potential, but could be a paperwork nightmare to regulate. But they are both pretty big changes, and there may be things that haven't occurred to me. Care to comment? I be interested to read arguments either for or against. Cheers. Ted Hi, Matt.

I’ve been reading your ongoing discussion with Megan, and I agree with you. Megan is a smart and talented writer, but she tends to paint everything with the free market/libertarian brush. I agree with her that that is the rule – free markets are usually best. Where I disagree is when, as in health care, there needs to be an exception to the rule.

I’ve been thinking about the practice of hospitals vastly overcharging those without medical insurance, and having different rates for different insurance companies. I’ve read a lot of anecdotal evidence of these practices, as well as the issues with trying to find out the cost of a procedure *before* it’s done. (If true, this is one of those gapping holes that free market practices doesn’t address.)

I’ve been trying to figure out what the unintended consequences would be for 1) making it a rule that care givers charge all their patients the same across treatments, and 2) forcing them to disclose costs – when appropriate, or when asked – before the procedure is agreed to.

My sense is that (1) could be quite effective, and that (2) has some potential, but could be a paperwork nightmare to regulate. But they are both pretty big changes, and there may be things that haven’t occurred to me.

Care to comment? I be interested to read arguments either for or against.

Cheers.

Ted

]]> By: mkburr http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23 mkburr Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:10:00 +0000 #comment-23 looks like check mate to me. will be interesting to see if Megan can find her way out of this one. looks like check mate to me. will be interesting to see if Megan can find her way out of this one.

]]> By: christine http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-22 christine Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:17:08 +0000 #comment-22 Three cheers! One of the most frustrating things for me in the debate about healthcare, aside for the crazy stuff out there, is that the opponents won't seem to specify exactly what they are opposed to; they just keep saying they are opposed. Thanks for working to pin this down. I try to do the same for those in my circle who are opposed, but they just keep ignoring me... Three cheers! One of the most frustrating things for me in the debate about healthcare, aside for the crazy stuff out there, is that the opponents won’t seem to specify exactly what they are opposed to; they just keep saying they are opposed. Thanks for working to pin this down. I try to do the same for those in my circle who are opposed, but they just keep ignoring me…

]]> By: Joe Ermigiotti http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/14/why-big-pharma-wants-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Joe Ermigiotti Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:48:01 +0000 #comment-21 You said it yourself: The pharmaceutical companies are lobbying for this bill because they want more people to buy their drugs. They want “predictability”—i.e., guaranteed profits. This is how regulation always works. The major players in an industry push for legislation that allows them to corner the market. These guys do know their business. No doubt Megan’s right. Increased demand for drugs will inevitably lead to higher prices, which will lead to demands for price controls. Government intervention always leads to more government intervention. But this is a side argument as far as I’m concerned. The main problem is a lack of individual control, in both the current system and in whatever's being kicked around congress right now. We should be moving toward less government involvement in the healthcare market, not more. You said it yourself: The pharmaceutical companies are lobbying for this bill because they want more people to buy their drugs. They want “predictability”—i.e., guaranteed profits. This is how regulation always works. The major players in an industry push for legislation that allows them to corner the market. These guys do know their business.

No doubt Megan’s right. Increased demand for drugs will inevitably lead to higher prices, which will lead to demands for price controls. Government intervention always leads to more government intervention.

But this is a side argument as far as I’m concerned. The main problem is a lack of individual control, in both the current system and in whatever’s being kicked around congress right now. We should be moving toward less government involvement in the healthcare market, not more.

]]>