�鶹Ů��

The political blaze over drug costs that kicked up a year ago over the Hepatitis C cure Sovaldi has moved on to therapies for more diseases—and beyond white heat too. Now Hillary Clinton and others upset with the price of medical progress are proposing government remedies, including price controls. (9/22)

When critics complain about the high cost of a prescription drug, drug makers tend to have two main defenses. One is that developing drugs is an expensive, risky endeavor, and so companies need high prices to cover the cost of medical research. ... Hillary Rodham Clinton ... has taken aim squarely at that first defense: If companies really need high prices to spend it on science, then they should be required to spend a set amount of their revenue on research and development costs. ... But when I ran [Clinton's proposal] by some health economists and other health policy experts, several strongly disliked the idea because it misunderstands the diversity of companies in the pharmaceutical industry. They say it would create perverse incentives that could raise instead of lower the costs of developing new drugs. (Margot Sanger-Katz, 9/22)

With drug prices up 12 percent last year, and some drug companies applying astronomical markups on life-saving drugs, the former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have proposed plans to help lower drug prices. They would include allowing the government to negotiate for Medicare drug costs, eliminating corporate restrictions on generics, requiring a minimum investment for research and capping the out-of-pocket cost of many drugs for serious health conditions. (9/23)

There’s a mounting crusade to impose price controls on prescription pharmaceuticals. Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have called for deep price discounts for drugs sold through Medicare, importation of drugs from countries like Canada that have price controls, and limiting drug companies’ marketing exclusivity rights. “Cancer treatment shouldn’t bankrupt patients” is the gist of their emotional argument. That politicians with no medical training or business experience would have a myopic understanding of drug pricing is unsurprising. But such misconceptions also afflict leading cancer specialists. (Thomas P. Stossel, 9/22)

Until now, the fight over health-care reform has mostly been a battle over two numbers: how many Americans have insurance, and how much they pay in premiums. It may be time to think more seriously about a third number: out-of-pocket costs. On Tuesday, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its annual survey of employer-sponsored health plans. ... If premiums have jumped, deductibles have been strapped to the side of a rocket. ... while premiums for single coverage have grown roughly in line with overall health-care costs over the past decade, deductibles have increased almost three times as much. (Christopher Flavelle, 9/22)

Employer health insurance premiums rose 4% this year, according to the 17th annual employer health benefits survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, published Tuesday. That caps a (remarkable) 10-year run of moderate increases, averaging 5%. But the slowdown in health-care cost growth has been all but invisible to average consumers because their out-of-pocket costs have been rising at a time when their wages have been relatively flat. (Drew Altman, 9/22)

The California legislature this month approved a bill that would give terminally ill adults the option to request medication to end their lives. It was a landmark moment in an effort dating to 1995 to pass legislation that allows for death with dignity. Whether the measure takes effect is up to Gov. Jerry Brown (D). He has given no clue as to what action he will take. We hope he signs the measure into law. (9/22)

Most health care professionals have had little to no training in the care of older adults. Currently, 97 percent of all medical students in the United States do not take a single course in geriatrics. Recent studies show that good geriatric care can make an enormous difference. Older adults whose health is monitored by a geriatrician enjoy more years of independent living, greater social and physical functioning and lower presence of disease. In addition, these patients show increased satisfaction, spend less time in the hospital, exhibit markedly decreased rates of depression and spend less time in nursing homes. (Marcy Cottrell Houle, 9/22)

In the matter of legislatively mandated cuts to Medicaid for therapy services and the uproar this has sparked among the parents of children with special needs and their care providers, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says it is simply following orders. No, it isn’t. ... Yes, Rider 50, contained in that budget, compels the agency to reform Medicaid reimbursements for “acute care therapy services,” but it also says that it should do this “while considering stakeholder input and access to care.” Access to care. That’s the key. (9/22)

Shameful. There is no other way to describe the Medicaid rate cuts proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, or HHSC. But to be clear, HHSC is merely acting at the direction of certain lawmakers and state leaders who imposed this draconian budget cut without any real policy justification. In June, lawmakers left Austin with one of the richest balance sheets I have seen in my 15 years of service. The state budget left $2 billion unspent for the state’s priorities like education, health care and veterans. Another $8.5 billion sits in our savings account. With all that available revenue, why did Republican leaders in the Senate insist on cutting $350 million in state and federal funds, targeting children who don’t have a voice and are among the most medically fragile Texans? (State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, 9/22)