Category Archives: pharmaceutical industry

Lower Prescription Drug Prices Lure Americans To Mexico To Buy Meds : Shots – Health News : NPR

Good morning all.

Thanks go out to Josef Woodman who tweeted the following today from NPR about prescription drugs and going across the Mexican border to buy them at lower cost.

This is in addition to the article I recently posted, Run for the Border (Not a Taco Bell Commercial).

So wall, or no wall, Americans are going to look for cheaper prescription drugs, either in Mexico or Canada, or elsewhere, until we allow the government to negotiate prices for medications under an improved and expanded Medicare for All.

But thanks to a former Louisiana congressman who left Congress to become the President and CEO of PhRMA, a pharmaceutical company lobbying group, Congress passed a bill that prevents Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices and bans the importation of identical, cheaper, drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

But it does not have to be this way. We can lower drug prices, but by allowing the government to negotiate them, and not giving the pharmaceutical industry huge giveaways.

Here is NPR’s article:

Faced with high U.S. prices for prescription drugs, some Americans cross the border to buy insulin pens and other meds. At least 1 insurer reimburses flights to the border to make such purchases easy.

Source: Lower Prescription Drug Prices Lure Americans To Mexico To Buy Meds : Shots – Health News : NPR

Advertisements

Hospital lobby ramps up ‘Medicare for all’ opposition | Healthcare Dive

Sound the alarm bells, the health care industry is trying to prevent Americans from having the same kind of health care other Western industrialized countries give their citizens — universal health care; in this case, an improved and expanded Medicare-for-All.

Instead, they want to perpetuate the current system which by all accounts, is failing to provide quality health care at affordable costs, with better outcomes.

And the tactic they are using is fear-mongering of the worse kind, saying that if we move towards a Medicare-for-All system, the people who like their employer-based health care, or the hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc., will lose what they have, hospitals will close, and companies go bankrupt; in other words, they will lose huge profits the current broken system generates for them.

As the following article from Healthcare Dive reports, the hospital lobby is opposing this movement towards a more equitable system of health care in this country all for the purpose of protecting their bottom lines.

Don’t let them scare you. Universal health care is a right, not a privilege. We are the only Western industrial nation without such a system. People before profits. Health care for all, not for the few.

Here is the article:

As more Democratic presidential hopefuls embrace the idea, health systems and providers have picked up lobbying efforts arguing it would shutter hospitals.

Source: Hospital lobby ramps up ‘Medicare for all’ opposition | Healthcare Dive

Run For the Border (Not a Taco Bell Commercial)

Yesterday, one of my contacts in the medical travel space commented on an article that was posted on LinkedIn that explained why the author was sent south of the border to purchase prescription drugs (you thought I was going to just say drugs, right?) for his company.

He found out that the same drugs, made by the same manufacturer, but packaged in Spanish were much cheaper than ones packaged in English and sold north of the border.

I decided to ask for his permission to re-post his article, and with his kind permission, I am doing so here in its entirety, as posted to LinkedIn. Here is the link in case you want to read the original.

Why Pharma Sent Me South of the Border…

Published on February 3, 2019

You may have heard of people heading to other places for medical care, but is it really the right thing to do?

We know that the cost of healthcare is ridiculous. And, of course, no one is to blame…right? (Tongue in cheek)

I can’t blame the doctors – they’re great folks just trying to charge enough to cover the bills after all the red tape is required from insurance, Medicare, federal regs, etc. I can’t blame the hospitals – most of them are running in the red from having to support a widespread indigent population with recurring visits for drug overdoses and covering that overhead with Medicare reimbursement rates of 20%. I can’t blame the insurance companies – they’re the good folks just trying to break even as “non-profits”, right? (Just ask them) I can’t blame us the patients…after all, we’re just trying to get the care we need (note sarcasm as a handful overuse and abuse the system). I can’t blame pharma because they’re just trying to make drugs that save the world (snark, snark). I can’t blame government – they’re just trying to do the most for society (OK…ran out of snarks).

With no one to blame, no one is responsible to fix this.

What does this mean for me as an employer? It’s simple…

HEALTH CARE REFORM STARTS WITH ME…

No outside party can do it – I have to find ways to partner with my employees to find the right solutions to help manage costs. Let’s talk about just one of them.

SOUTH OF THE BORDER DRUG RUNS

It sounds ominous, but it’s one of the best thing we’ve found. Here’s the opportunity – I can get the same medication from the same manufacturer at substantially lower costs because I get it from a pharmacy that just happens to be located five minutes over the Mexican border. It comes in the same packaging, but it’s just written in Spanish. We verify the sourcing, we verify the manufacturing, we verify everything… And everything is above board. By working with the hospital where the pharmacy is located, we coordinate care with the physician in the United States to ensure that the patient has the right prescription, is seen by a physician in Mexico, and receives the quality product when they arrive. Legally, they can transport up to a 90 day supply over the border per day. To make it worth our while, we have them fly down to San Diego, have a courier pick them up and take them over the border for the first 90 day supply, transport them back and have them stay overnight in San Diego. The next day, the transport picks them up, takes them down for the second 90 day supply, bring them back and they fly home. That way they can get a 180 day supply per trip.

So what’s the catch?

I can’t think of one yet. Last year, our company ran a beta test with two individuals with a specialty drug each. We pay for their travel down, pay for the courier to transport them over the border to the hospital where they are met with the physicians at the hospital, we pay for the pharmacy representative, the medication, the overnight accommodations in San Diego, and a stipend to cover food and ancillary costs. What’s in it for the employee? We also cover their co-pay so they do not have to cover any costs for the medication – the medication becomes free to them, saving them hundreds of dollars if not thousands of dollars a year. Additionally, they get to keep any money that they save from the per diem money that we provide to them for their daily costs.

What’s in it for us is the employer?

Last year, after paying for the medication, all of the transportation costs including the employee costs of travel, the concierge fees for our broker who assists us with this arrangement, and all additional fees, the savings on these two individuals for one medication a piece was well over $70,000.

Do I have your attention?

Everything is legal. Everything is above board. Everything is safe. And the customer service is beyond everything that we can imagine.

This is not unique to us. The State of Utah just adopted this as their primary option for specialty medications for their employees. As I understand it, they are using a different service than I do. However, the results are similar.

We will be rolling this out to all of our employees this year. As you can imagine, there is great anticipation about how much we can save as we consider solutions and opportunities with program such as this. When it comes to healthcare, it is a game – and the people who understand the rules will win. The ones who do not understand the rules of the game will continue to pay more and lose.

Until we get a handle on controlling costs with things such as pharmaceuticals, we must continue to look for new ways to control these costs. If you would like additional information on the solution, feel free to message me.

In the meantime, feel free to get a hold of my pharma tourism broker – I promise I don’t get anything from this. I just share good news is I get it. @rockstarcurrywillix

Here’s to your success!

Dr. Wade Larson

@DrWadeLarson

wade@wadelarson.com

http://www.wadelarson.com

Midterm Mashup

Well, the 2018 Midterm elections are over, and the analysis is beginning as to what this all means.

For those who wanted to send a message to the Russian puppet in Washington, the election meant that the House of Representatives will be controlled for the next two years starting in January by the Democrats.

For the Republicans, it means a greater control of the Senate, with at least one race, the one in my current state of Florida undecided and headed for a recount, as per state law.

However, there were many defeats for the party of Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ. JFK, Truman and FDR. Andrew Gillum lost to a nobody for governor of Florida who is connected to the Orangutan by an umbilical cord. Beto O’Rourke made a valiant, if futile effort against the worse person to hold a Senate seat, Lyin’ Ted Cruz. And a few Democratic senators lost seats in Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota.

But as far as health care is concerned, the change in the leadership of the House of Representatives means that the ACA is safe for another two years. and Medicare and Medicaid will not be cut, as the Senate Majority Leader has indicated he wanted to do.

Medicaid, in particular, came out of the Midterms a little better than expected before the election, as the following posts from Healthcare Dive, Joe Paduda, and Health Affairs reported this morning.

First up, Healthcare Dive, who reported that Red states say ‘yes’ to Medicaid . Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska said yes to expansion; Montana said no.

Joe Paduda echoed that in his post, “And the big winner of the 2018 Midterms is…Medicaid“. However, Joe stated that results in Montana were not final; yet, they had decided to expand Medicaid two years ago, but the vote was temporary, and yesterday’s vote was to make it permanent.

And lastly, Health Affairs reported in “What the 2018 Midterm Elections Means for Health Care” that besides blocking repeal of the ACA, Democrats may tackle drug prices, preexisting conditions protections, Opioids, Medicare for All, Surprise bills (unexpected charges from a hospital visit). regulatory oversight, extenders such as MACRA, Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, and Medicaid expansion, especially since gubernatorial wins in Maine, Kansas, and Wisconsin will make expansion more likely in those states.

GSK is paying docs again — and patients are the worse off

A shout out to Maria Todd for bringing this to my attention.

This would not be happening if we did what every other Western nation does, and give our citizens universal health care that does not line the pockets of multinational corporations, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and Wall Street investors.

Health care should not be subject to the pursuit of profit.

One of the world’s largest drug makers, GSK promised it would no longer pay doctors to promote its medicines. Now it says doing so put it at a disadvantage.

Source: GSK is paying docs again — and patients are the worse off

Healthcare Lobbying Group Double-Crossing Democratic Voters

For nearly a year now, I have been advocating single payer health care ever since I was diagnosed with end-stage renal disease. BTW, I am doing fine, even if I have been rejected twice for access to transplant centers due to personal reasons I won’t go into here.

Today, I found an article on The Intercept.com that reported that several candidates for Congress and other offices in Hawaii and other states have secretly secured opposition to “Medicare for All” single payer healthcare, even though they have told their voters that they support it.

According to the article, the candidates in Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District, former state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, Hawaii Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, and Honolulu City Council Member Ernest Martin are taking heat from opponents for talking to an industry-friendly group, the Healthcare Leadership Council (HLC).

The Healthcare Leadership Council seeks to advance the goals of the largest players in the private health care industry. These candidates are talking to the HLC even as public opinion is moving towards positions opposed by giant health care companies.

Kaniela Ing, a state lawmaker running for the seat on a democratic socialist platform stated that, “Democrats running in a primary election will say they support ‘Medicare for All,” but what do they say to lobbyists behind the scenes?”

In fact, the article reports, one leading candidate has campaigned on a pledge to crack down on over-priced pharmaceuticals and promote single payer, but told the consultant sent from the HLC that he would maintain drug industry friendly pricing policies and views Medicare for All with skepticism.

HLC spends over $5 million a year on industry advocacy and brings together chief executives of major health corporations, and represents an array of health industries — from insurers, hospitals, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, pharmacies, health product distributers, and information technology companies.

HLC’s outreach in Hawaii began in January. The group told candidates, in an email obtained by The Intercept, that it was in the process of forming a coalition to “jointly develop policies, plans, and programs to achieve their vision of a 21st century system that makes affordable, high-quality care accessible to all Americans.”

This language obscures their national campaign to monitor and blunt the energy behind progressive policy reform. In an email to The Intercept, Michael Freeman, executive vice president of HLC said that they survey “congressional candidates every election cycle regarding their views on a wide range of healthcare issues.”

Former state Sen. Kim’s dossier profile said she is very pro-market, opposes any attempt at single payer, does not support price controls on pharmaceuticals and agrees that Medicare and Medicaid need to be managed by the private market.

It would seem that besides the opposition from the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry, single payer, Medicare for All, is under assault below the radar of most voters, if not most Democratic voters during the primaries.

Despite alleged strong support for bills such as the one Bernie Sanders introduced, lobbyists for the medical-industrial complex are fighting hard to defeat health care reform for all Americans, and no matter what the public attitude is, they will prevent at all costs, the transition to single payer.

HLC also keeps tabs on candidates who could be a threat to their agenda, such as Ing, stating that she vocally supports a single payer, public health care system.

Lobbyists have told executives in the health care industry to be vigilant about the threat of single payer.

“It would be a mistake for us to overlook the growing number of lawmakers who are supportive of measures to expand significantly government’s role in healthcare,” according to a report HLC published at the end of last year. The report went on to say that while these ideas do not have the political support to pass at the moment, the “momentum on the Democratic side of the aisle is undeniable,” They have dispatched teams of lobbyists to keep tabs on rising candidates.

So, even if you vote for a Democrat in November, chances are, that they will double-cross you when it comes to supporting Medicare for All. Which is wrong-headed on their part, especially the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.

If more people are covered, and the government pays for their health care, hospitals will get more patients covered under the plan and thus more revenue, even if they charge lower prices than for private insurance, and drug companies will sell more drugs to these patients, even if the prices are brought under control.

What difference does it make if a patient gets their health are from a government plan like Medicare or Medicaid, as many already do, or if they get it through private insurance? The hospitals and drug companies still make money, just a smaller amount. The number of newly insured will offset any assumed loss of profit, thereby increasing profit, and just not from a select group of people who can afford health care on their own.

Advocates for single payer need to be vigilant also. Don’t buy a pig in a poke. Confront these and other candidates for office to see if they really believe in single payer, or are pigs with lipstick.

 

 

 

Vermont becomes first state to permit drug imports from Canada – POLITICO

In a rebuff to the current neo-liberal regime and its recent plan to tackle drug prices, the State of Vermont became the first in the nation to allow cross-border purchasing of drugs from Canada. Makes sense because the border is not that far away.

Years ago, my late mother worked for a company here in Florida that facilitated drugs to come to patients from Canada, the UK and Israel.

But thanks to successful lobbying by a former Democratic Congressman from Louisiana who after leaving Congress became a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, the government forbade the importation of Canadian drugs.

The measure is one of the most aggressive attempts by a state to tackle rising drug prices that critics say are crippling state finances.

Source: Vermont becomes first state to permit drug imports from Canada – POLITICO