|
E-mail this page to a friend!
Senior Citizen Politics
Opinion Pieces Examine Medicare Prescription Drug
Negotiation Bill
Everyone sees the problem but has a different idea on
fixing it
 January
16, 2007 - Several newspapers recently published editorials and opinion
pieces that discussed the bill passed last week by the House that would
require the
HHS secretary to negotiate
directly with pharmaceutical companies on prices for medications under
the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Summaries of some appear below.
Editorials
●
Christian Science Monitor: "Congress is moving to let the
government use its mass purchasing power to buy drugs for Medicare
recipients and negotiate for lower prices," but "a better way to reduce
costs in this expensive health care plan would be a 'means test' for
users," a Monitor editorial states. "Traditionally, liberals have
worried that forcing the wealthy to pay more for the same Medicare
benefit would erode support for the program," and conservatives "have
argued that means testing is nothing more than a hidden new 'success
tax,'" according to the editorial.
However, the editorial states, "with Medicare costs
about to skyrocket, it's time to abandon old prejudices and take a fresh
look at means testing" (Christian Science Monitor, 1/16).
●
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It is important to remember" that
"hurdles have to be cleared" before the bill passed in the House becomes
law, a Post-Gazette editorial states. "Mr. Bush says he will veto
the bill, arguing that it would constrain market forces," the editorial
states, adding, "A more likely basis of his opposition may be the large
contributions made to Republican candidates by the drug companies" (Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, 1/13).
●
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The bill "stops short of what's
really needed" because the "best way to rein in spending is to create a
drug plan under the traditional Medicare model," according to a
Post-Dispatch editorial. "The Democrats briefly flirted with that
idea last month," but, "in an acknowledgement of the pharmaceutical
industry's formidable lobbying clout on both sides of the congressional
aisle, they abandoned that plan for a more general strategy that could
win quick approval," the editorial states, adding, "Cowards" (St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/15).
●
Washington Post: The bill is "misguided," a Post
editorial states. "One of the key challenges in health policy is to
understand which drugs, tests and therapies are most cost-effective,"
and "solutions are most likely to be found by competing private
entities," the editorial states. The editorial concludes, "The better
approach is to let each insurer offer its own version of the right
balance, see whether it attracts customers -- and then adapt
flexibility" (Washington Post, 1/13).
Opinion Piece
● Sally Pipes,
The Hill: The bill could reduce innovation by pharmaceutical
companies and limit the medications available to Medicare beneficiaries,
Pipes, president and CEO of the
Pacific Research Institute, writes in a Hill opinion piece.
"With its enormous purchasing demands -- and backed by the overwhelming
financial and regulatory power of the federal government -- Medicare
would simply dictate prices, distorting drug markets on an unprecedented
level," Pipes writes, adding, "As a result, drug manufacturers would be
forced to sell drugs at below-market prices."
Pipes writes, "Government intervention has already
choked off drug innovation virtually everywhere else," adding, "If we
mandate price controls here, more life-saving breakthroughs will be
lost" (Pipes, The Hill, 1/16).
Click to More Senior News on the
Front Page
Copyright: SeniorJournal.com |
