Over the past few decades, companies have been taking older drugs which previously have been relatively cheap and vastly increasing the cost of them. This has been creating huge problems for patients without the financial capacity to pay for such lifesaving drugs. With the recent outrage over the 5000 percent increase in price of Daraprim, the prescription aids medication, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both vocalized their plans to solve the recent prescription drug problems. Clinton this past Tuesday made a proposal to the public to put a 250 per month cap on out of pocket prescription drug expenses. Clinton stated that her patient spending cap would be parent of a larger plan that would eventually force drug makers to spend more on research and and development, end tax breaks for pharmaceutical advertising, and to import drugs from other countries. Sanders reiterated his earlier statements on the matter stating that he wanted to allow citizens to purchase drugs from Canada and to have Medicare negotiate with drug companies over prices. He also stated that he has backed these proposals since 1999, long before Clinton ever announced any of her proposals. Many citizens have started to vastly criticize Clinton for her proposal as they have said that it would make it harder for patients to get the drugs they need, actually cause prices of drugs to go up, and have the focus be on research instead of helping the public. More people have supported Sanders idea's for drug reform than Clinton's.
1. Should either plan be put into action?
2. Why has the republican party remained very quiet over the increasing controversy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/hillary-rodham-clinton-proposes-cap-on-patients-drug-costs-as-sanders-pushes-his-plan.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html
8 comments:
I do not think either plan on prescription drugs should be put into action. Clinton's plan is to force pharmaceutical companies to reinvest their profits into research and allow for more generic and imported drugs. Although an increased amount of research will help doctors recognize and have more knowledge of the reproduction of older drugs, the importation of drugs from outside countries will not help. Moreover, Clinton is adding another variable to this serious problem. When outside countries become involved, the situation becomes far more disorganized as their are exterior influences. Another country can do whatever they want to the drugs within its country; the power is not entirely in the hands of the United States when importation is in the picture. It will be harder for patients to receive the drugs they need. I do not think Sander's plan should be put into action either. He is allowing citizens to purchase drugs from Canada. I highly disagree with this. Citizens should not be allowed to purchase drugs from anywhere besides the United States. One person can make a large purchase of drugs from somebody in Canada and then sell them throughout the US at an even higher price, therefore not doing anything to help solve the problem of increasing prescription drug costs. Furthermore, the Republican party has remained silent during this controversy. They believe it is up to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to negotiate prices. Republicans do not believe it is their position to get directly involved in this issue. They want to take a step back.
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/02/the-white-house-signals-a-fight-on-high-drug-prices/
I'd like to answer your question about the Republican Party's relative silence on solving the issue. For decades, Republicans have been the champions of big business, ever since laissez-faire capitalism's glory days in the 1908s. On almost every economic issue since then, the GOP has sided with business development rather than grandiose redistribution schemes (as is typical of a Sanders-esque ideology). However, many Americans perceive the 2008 recession to be the result of unchecked capitalism running amok, and blame executive "fat cats" for betraying the common American. Mitt Romeny's wealthy financial background, in combination with this lingering distrust, led many theorists to believe this was the root of his loss in 2012. As such, many members of this election's Republican peanut gallery have been hesitant to adopt this stance. If they side with the drug companies, they risk losing the trust of many Americans. If they come up with a plan that would limit the companies, as Sanders and Clinton did, they risk alienating the very vocal far-right wing of the GOP. For these reasons I predict that Republicans will remain silent on this issue.
I do not believe either plan should be put into action because I feel that both plans are too extreme and will have a major impact on the economy. It will not just effect the people who need the drug, it will also effect the hospitals that need to administer the drug to their patients. According to Dr. Judith Aberg, the chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, "the price increase could force hospitals to use alternative therapies that may not have the same efficacy." I agree with her statement because this drug has been used to treat this disease somewhat effectively for a long time now and raising the price this dramatically could cause for a lot more fatalities from this disease. Not only are the prices of new drugs increasing, but the drugs that have been used to effectively treat a wide variety of ailments for many years now are having their prices go through the roof. According to the New York Times, "The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association sent a joint letter to Turing earlier this month calling the price increase for Daraprim “unjustifiable for the medically vulnerable patient population” and “unsustainable for the health care system.” I feel that a statement as strong as this one coming from where it is coming from really proves the impact this decision has had on society. This enormous spike in price for this AIDS medication is not the first nor the last and I believe it will lead to other important commonly used drugs to rise in price in years to come. I feel the Republican Party does not want to enter into the debate on this issue because whatever they say will be viewed as wrong one way or another.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html
With the forthcoming of the Presidential Election, many issues, past and present, come back into the scope of the American people. In this case, the cost of prescription drugs. While the United States pays 40% more for prescription drugs than any other highly developed country, a number that is on the rise - but progressively slowing down, prescription drugs only account for about 1/10 of medical costs paid be Americans. In a way, due to the fervent attention of mass media in the 21st century, it seems that the issue of prescription drugs has been blown out of proportion. While it is not just to prevent any individual from the pursuance of health or affordable longevity, most of the monumental drug prices we see today come from that of specialty drugs, drugs that provide for the treatment of rare conditions and can be priced at almost any point due to limited alternatives. Daraprim, which is mentioned in the former, provides a key example. One idea put forth by many liberals, and one that is supported by both Clinton and Sanders, is the concept of putting medicare at the forefront of prescription payouts. Medicare, which already pays for 29% of prescription drug costs and which was recently bolstered by the Affordable Care Act, presents all-inclusive health coverage that is seen in many developed nations in Canada Europe and around the world. Yet to put such a burden on bureaucracy would be rather ineffective, as it is not under the complete jurisdiction of the government to price drugs. Additionally, to avoid instability within the private sector; a compromise between the private and public sectors is absolutely necessary if the nation wishes to have a pro-active medical apparatus. Ultimately, if executed correctly, such a system would not only benefit the consumers, but the suppliers as well.
1.) There is no one way about it.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-24/let-medicare-tackle-high-drug-costs
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/politics/bernie-sanders-obamacare-hillary-clinton-medicare/
Though I believe that importation of drugs from other countries is not beneficial to the economy or the citizens, I do believe that Medicare should be able to alleviate the price of drugs for low-income patients, especially, through negotiation. I do not agree with Clinton’s and Sander’s support of importing drugs from Canada or other countries. Use of these unregulated drugs could place citizens at risk due to differing drug standards and not passing Food and Drug Administration regulations. In addition, Clinton’s plan to force companies into more research may cause companies to actually increase their prices instead of lower them. In fact, American pharmaceutical companies use that reason to justify a raise in their prices. A New York Times article “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” states that “doctors questioned Turing’s claim that there was a need for better drugs, saying the side effects, while potentially serious, could be managed.” While Turing continues to try and raise the prices of drugs by claiming that improvements have been made, it is clear that this is a business strategy and not just a way to “stay in business”, as Mr. Shkreli, the founder and chief executive of Turing, states. I therefore support Sander and Clinton’s ideas that Medicare should negotiate lower prices with drug companies. Though the rising costs of prescriptions drugs have been acknowledged by both parties, the Republican Party has been reluctant to respond to the acts since they disagree with the Affordable Care Act and oppose interference with the drug industry. “Every regulation costs money in terms of goods and services, and who gets hit disproportionately with those costs? People who are already struggling to pay,” Mr. Carson says, voicing one of the concerns of the Republican Party.
Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/hillary-rodham-clinton-proposes-cap-on-patients-drug-costs-as-sanders-pushes-his-plan.html?ref=politics
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html
Post a Comment