|
E-mail this page to a friend!
Senior Citizen Politics
Editorials, Opinion Writers Wade into Medicare Drug
Negotiation Debate
January 12, 2007 A round-up of editorials and
opinion pieces from around the nation were gathered today by
KaiserNetwork.org. The vote is scheduled for today in the House of
Representatives.
 Editorials, Opinion Pieces Address Medicare
Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Bill
Newspapers recently published editorials and
opinion pieces commenting on a
bill (HR
4) scheduled for vote Friday that would require the
HHS
secretary to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies on prices
for medications under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Summaries
appear below:
| |
Related Stories |
|
| |
Consumers Union Urges Passage of Price Negotiation
for Medicare Drugs
Studies show real savings possible for seniors
citizens, taxpayers
January 12, 2007 - Consumers Union is urging
Congress this week to give Medicare the power to negotiate lower
prescription drug prices, as yet another study finds that prices paid by
seniors in the Medicare drug program are more than twice that paid by
the Department of Veterans Affairs, which negotiates prices.
Read more...
New York Times Urges Congress Pass HR 4: Bargain
Medicare Drug Prices
Suggests HHS Secretary negotiate just on prices
most out of line
January 12, 2007 - The New York Times today
editorially supported HR 4, the Democrat-crafted legislation to have
Health & Human Services negotiate with drug companies for better prices
for senior citizens in the Medicare drug program.
Read more...
House Votes Today on Negotiating Medicare Drug
Prices in Shadow of Bush Veto
Not much coverage in national news on important
vote for senior citizens
January 12, 2007 Its an important day for more
than 30 million American senior citizens who depend on the Medicare
prescription drug program to help lower their skyrocketing drug costs.
The House is expected to pass legislation that will mandate the
government negotiate prices for these drugs with the drug-makers, rather
than leaving this in the hands of the private insurance plans.
Read more...
Read more
on
Politics for Senior Citizens |
|
Editorials
●
Aberdeen American
News: "It just makes sense that the federal government should
be able to use bargaining power to benefit the American public through
Medicare" because the negotiation system already in place at the
Department of
Veterans Affairs has yielded results that have been "both
positive and effective," an Aberdeen American News editorial states.
"After all, no one is asking the government to pick up the entire tab,
just that the government uses the collective power of the Medicare
patient base to help negotiate better, more affordable prices on
prescription drugs. It's not too much to ask," the editorial concludes
(Aberdeen American News, 1/11).
●
New York Times:
The bill scheduled for a vote on Friday "is sufficiently flexible to
allow older Americans to benefit from the best efforts of both the
government and the private drug plans" and "should pose no threat to the
free market," a New York Times editorial states. The bill would not
require the secretary to negotiate the prices of all 4,400 drugs used by
beneficiaries, and a "smart secretary could simply determine which
prices paid by the plans seemed most out of line with the prices paid by
other purchasers and then negotiate only on those drugs," the New York
Times writes (New York Times, 1/12).
●
Rochester Democrat
& Chronicle: Establishing "Medicare as the prime force in
prescription drug purchases won't by itself save a health entitlement
that needs broad-based reform," but "[c]hanging the buying structure
would help" make medication affordable for all seniors, a Rochester
Democrat & Chronicle editorial states. The Democrat & Chronicle notes
that the VA "has negotiated these purchases for years and has been able
to offer a complete formulary at lower prices" (Rochester Democrat &
Chronicle, 1/12).
●
Washington Times:
"Despite flabby language in the legislation that claims the bill would
not require Medicare to restrict access to medicines in order to bargain
down prices, those voting for the bill will be voting against the
freedom of seniors to choose the drugs they want from private plans that
compete for business based on cost, quality and service," according to a
Washington Times editorial (Washington Times, 1/12).
Opinion Pieces
● Jay Hancock,
Baltimore Sun:
"Getting discounts by negotiating with drug companies will get
[Democrats] only partway" to their goal of "filling the 'doughnut hole'
coverage gap in Bush's irresponsible Medicare drug plan," Baltimore Sun
columnist Hancock writes in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Hancock says the only way to fill the doughnut hole would be to increase
copayments, which "would be unpopular with voters" (Hancock, Baltimore
Sun, 1/10).
● Peter Pitts,
Long Island Newsday:
The problem with the proposal for the government to use its "large
market share -- some 42 million beneficiaries -- as a big chip to
negotiate dramatically lower prices" on prescription drugs is that the
"bargaining chip isn't nearly as big as they think," Pitts, director of
the
Center for Medicine
in the Public Interest, writes in a Long Island Newsday
opinion piece. According to Pitts, pharmaceutical companies, which often
have sole rights to a particular drug, "will have the upper hand [in
negotiations] because there are no competitors the government can
approach for an alternative." He writes that, consequently, "the
government's negotiator will have a relatively weak position" (Pitts,
Long Island Newsday, 1/12).
● Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.),
Washington Times:
The Democrats' proposal to negotiate drug prices "will either be largely
ineffective, or it will cause undesirable results: it will restrict
seniors' choices, devastate local pharmacies, raise prescription drug
costs for veterans and stifle innovation," McCrery, ranking member of
the House Ways and Means Committee, writes in a Washington Times opinion
piece.
● Robert Goldberg,
Washington Times:
What "Democrats really mean by direct negotiations with drug companies"
is to "peddl[e] influence to create earmarks," Goldberg, a vice
president for strategic initiatives for the
Center for Medicine
in the Public Interest, writes in a Washington Times opinion
piece. He adds, "It doesn't take a village to figure out that government
prices will become a floor upon which companies will walk -- away from
negotiating or selling to government altogether" (Goldberg, Washington
Times, 1/12).
Click to More Senior News on the
Front Page
Copyright: SeniorJournal.com |
