Wading into the waters of prescription drug pricing. Interesting article, but I’ve got some counterpoints. Health consumers are not the same as, say, durable goods consumers. You want a kitchen remodel, but you won’t unexpectedly wake up in a home store having purchased a Viking range. God forbid you pass out at the home store and wake up having blown a kitchen’s worth of cash on a high dollar antibiotic to treat your MDRO infection. Apply capitalist principles sparingly.
As a patient who had the unfortunate occasion to met her max-out-of-pocket ($6000) after a cancer diagnosis, I want to keep policies that limit an individual’s financial liability should something devastating happen to their health. Even with that protection I was a hair’s breadth from becoming a medical bankruptcy statistic.
We also need the policy that mandates insurers cover drugs that fall into six therapeutic classes: “anti-retrovirals; immunosuppressants when used for organ rejection; anti-depressants; anti-psychotics; anti-convulsant agents; and anti-neoplastics.” BTW, this began as Bush II era Medicare Part D policy.
As far as physicians making a percentage of the cost of drugs administered in their offices, I agree with the author; Conflict of interest much?
I disagree with the author’s concluding statement that insurers must have the ability to restrict access to drugs in order to negotiate lower prices. Patients dying for lack of lifesaving drugs is a thing we should happily put in the past. Regulating the pricing and equitable access mechanisms of the pharma industry (similar to insurance companies and health care providers) would be a more righteous path.
I know, easy for me to say.
Also, the check the author’s note: Dr. Howard has received grant support from Pfizer, Inc. Gotta love those disclosures.