�鶹Ů��

So, who's trying to shut down the government, Democrats or Republicans? The answer, naturally, depends on whom you ask. ... Put another way, it was Republicans who decided to tie the continued operation of government to the question of whether Planned Parenthood should receive Medicaid dollars. They took the hostage, they're responsible for the consequences. Feel free to debate the merits of Planned Parenthood all you like, but this fight isn't new. The recent videos didn't seem to persuade any of the organization's supporters in Congress to flip to the other side. So the outcome Thursday wasn't just predictable, it was a certainty. (Jon Healey, 9/24)

With the big news out of Congress today the warm welcome received by Pope Francis, one might forget that our nation’s august legislature is headed for yet another government shutdown, this time over Republican demands that the government cut off all funding for Planned Parenthood, most of which comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for women’s health care. This comes at a particularly inopportune time for Republicans. Just when it was starting to look like their chaotic presidential primary might be heading to a more sane place, the shutdown controversy threatens to drag it backwards, boosting the candidates the party fears most. (Paul Waldman, 9/24)

Jumping into the prescription drug debate could help elevate those candidates' plans, because prescription drug prices is one of the few health-care issues where Americans agree that the status quo needs to change. In fact, 76 percent of Americans said dealing with prescription drug prices should be Washington's No. 1 health-care priority, according to an April poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation. ... GOP front-runner Donald Trump is regularly praised by liberal leaders, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), for his call to raise taxes on the wealthy. Want to out-Trump Trump? Why not start talking about an issue that matters deeply to so many Americans? (Amber Phillips, 9/24)

One of the nation’s highest-profile LGBT advocacy organizations has joined the calls for Congress to investigate Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that recently sparked a national backlash when it proposed hiking the price of a critical anti-infection drug. On Wednesday, The Huffington Post has learned, the Human Rights Campaign sent letters to the chairmen of three key House committees with jurisdiction over health care and the drug industry. In the letters, the organization calls upon the committees to investigate Turing’s recent announcement that it would raise the price of drug called Daraprim, a treatment for toxoplasmosis, from $13.50 to $750 a tablet. (Jonathan Cohn, 9/24)

After Pope Francis's visit to the U.S., possibly the biggest news item this week has been the depraved price increase that Turing Pharmaceuticals posted for its drug, Daraprim. Although the 5,455 percent that Turing hiked Daraprim's price is astounding, the absolute daily price is less than that of many other drugs and the practice of gouging prices on specialty drugs is consistent with practices across the industry. (Daniel R. Hoffman, 9/24)

Yes, the U.S. pays 40 percent more for drugs than other countries do, and last year those costs rose 12.6 percent. But the increase is expected to slow, and drugs still account for just 10 cents of every dollar Americans spend on health care. What has rightly made drug costs a political issue, however, are the astronomical prices of a few specialty medicines. ... The best strategy to push down such prices -- the one endorsed by [Hillary] Clinton and one of her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders -- is to give Medicare, which pays for 29 percent of all U.S. prescription drug purchases, the ability to negotiate prices with drugmakers. That Medicare doesn't already do this is Congress's fault. (9/24)

The planned mergers of several of America's largest health insurers Aetna combining with Humana, and Anthem with Cigna is almost certain to be good for the insurers, reducing overhead and improving their bargaining position as they attempt to negotiate better rates with providers. But what's in it for you and me? The answer may surprise you: In all likelihood, the mergers will lead to better medical care at lower costs. (Jon Kaplan, 9/24)

Pope Francis’s visit has brought renewed attention to some of our nation’s toughest economic challenges: inequality, poverty and income (im)mobility. These are pressing issues that leaders of both political parties say they want to tackle, but they disagree on useful, or even acceptable, policy tools. I have a humble suggestion for an antipoverty policy that, if framed correctly, could appeal to both left and right (though probably not Francis). That policy: better access to contraception. (Catherine Rampell, 9/24)

After the legislature blocked his Obamacare Medicaid expansion plans in 2014 and 2015, Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) began working with legislative leaders to negotiate some kind of “compromise” to expand the program to more than 100,000 able-bodied adults. Although the deal is being negotiated in secret, some details have been leaked to the public. According to the few specifics made public, the biggest component of the negotiated framework is to levy a new “assessment” on medical providers in Utah to help pay for the state’s share of expansion. But the so-called assessment is simply a new Obamacare tax on the sick that will not only raise health care costs for all Utahns, but add significantly to the national debt. (Nic Horton, Jonathan Ingram and Josh Archambault, 9/24)

The report made a strong case that the benefits of the right health investments far exceed the costs. Indeed, I believe the moral and economic case for investments in health care--both prevention and treatment--is as or more compelling than in any other area in the developing world. The dramatic declines in child mortality and increases in life expectancy demonstrate that policy can make an immense difference. (Lawrence Summers, 9/24)

Pope Francis hasn't changed any church policies on economics, social justice, war, abortion or gay marriage. As if to underscore that point, on Wednesday he visited the Little Sisters of the Poor, which took the U.S. government to court to fight a requirement that religious organizations cover birth control in the health insurance they provide to employees. Yet in his emphasis on the plight of the poor, immigrants and the environment, this pope has changed the Catholic Church's tone and rebalanced its priorities. That bothers conservative activists in the U.S., where the Catholic hierarchy for three decades has largely been identified with Republicans and the culture wars because of its stress on abortion and gay marriage. (Albert R. Hunt, 9/24)

The “doc fix” — a permanent replacement for the unworkable sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) enacted in 1997 for calculating Medicare's physician fees — had been a long time coming .... At the heart of the legislation is the new Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which replaces the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier to move physician payment under Medicare further into the territory of value-based purchasing. ... When it is implemented, the MIPS will become the largest physician pay-for-performance scheme in the world and the first to create a single value-based purchasing framework covering the full spectrum of physician specialties. This new meritocracy will need to be flexible enough to account for the heterogeneous practice styles of the professionals who care for Medicare beneficiaries and the settings in which they work. (Meredith B. Rosenthal, 9/24)

These changes mark a new era, in which Medicare offers powerful incentives for physicians to participate in ACOs and other innovative payment and delivery models. ... This revamping reflects a broader movement in U.S. health care toward paying for medical services on the basis of value rather than volume — a movement built on the prevailing view in the health policy community that cost-containment efforts can succeed only if we move away from fee-for-service payment. But there are several important problems with this belief and the reforms it inspires. (Jonathan Oberlander and Miriam J. Laugesen, 9/24)