�鶹Ů��

Everyone complains about the high cost of prescription drugs, but not many people try to do anything about it. An admirable exception is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recently proposed a pilot program to change the way Medicare reimburses doctors for medications they administer directly to patients, as opposed to those distributed through pharmacies or hospitals. At present, the doctor gets the average price of a drug plus 6 percent, a clear incentive to use higher priced drugs instead of lower priced equivalents. (5/1)

Biogen’s twice-a-day pill for multiple sclerosis was a smash hit out of the gate in 2013, with one of the most successful drug launches in US history, even at a price of nearly $55,000 a year. But by late last year, sales growth had slowed. So the biotech company went big with its first TV ad blitz for the teal pill, sold as Tecfidera. It has bought nearly $39 million worth of TV airtime over the past seven months, vaulting Tecfidera into the top 20 most advertised drugs on US television for that period, according to the media research firm iSpot.tv. (Rebecca Robbins, 4/28)

Who says bipartisanship is dead? The Republican and Democratic winners of South Carolina's primary both favor letting the government dictate Medicare drug prices. Too bad it's such a dangerous idea. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton want Washington to negotiate prices with drug makers under Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit for seniors. Both say their objective is to make prescription drugs more affordable. But should their proposals become law, they will bring the same problems price controls always create: shortages and economic distortions. (Ellen Weaver, 5/3)

A battle is heating up over an effort to impose price controls on prescription drugs in California. While proponents of a ballot measure, known as the “California Drug Price Relief Act,” argue that their proposal will reduce health care costs, they ignore the many negative consequences it will have on patients’ health and economic freedom. The initiative, which will be considered by voters in the November election, would mandate that state agencies pay no more for drugs than the lowest prices paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the same products. The pharmaceutical industry, naturally, is not happy about this threat to its business model and profitability, and has reportedly amassed a $100 million war chest to fight the measure. The industry contends that the VA receives discounted prices by limiting the amount of prescriptions it covers, and that applying these preferential prices to a larger population would be unsustainable for pharmaceutical companies. (5/1)

Ohio voters won't just pick a president this fall. They could also determine the future of medicine in this state. Ohioans likely will consider a problematic ballot initiative that proposes tying the prices that state agencies pay for prescription drugs to the prices paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Proponents of the proposal say emulating the VA will save the state billions and improve healthcare for ordinary Ohio residents. (William Upton, 5/4)