Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
There has been talk of allowing the purchase from non-US sources. Also, in many states which already offer help to seniors in the form of medication plans, this will allow them to offer their benefit to MANY more people. NJ is one such example. We already have a plan and this new plan will work in conjunction with it allowing them to shift the money we spend on those who will be covered by this to those that we can not cover. It's estimated that this will free up something on the order of a quarter billion dollars for NJ seniors.
On one hand you say that it's arguable that seniors will benefit and on the other you categorically state that it will be of huge benefit to the drug companies. It's too early to say either. The fact remains that retiree drug benefits are being discontinued at an increasing rate. Something needed to be done. This is a step in the right direction and may serve to save money in the long run by getting seniors on drugs that will prevent surgeries and hospital stays that Medicare would have been forced to cover had they not gone on drugs (like blood presssure meds and the like).
As far as cost controls, there are no cost controls for meds for the rest of the population, so it's unlikely that it would have passed the legislature with them in it.
|
The traditional argument has been that the market would have provided an effective cost control--although, in this case, it isn't being allowed to work.
I say it will categorically be a boon to corps because they can charge as much as they like and suck the government's teet. Our seniors aren't allowed to buy the same drug across the border even if it's cheaper, the government is specifically restricted from bargaining for a group rate (which the rest of the population
can currently do with a large enough plan), and any "talk" occurring has been one side trying to get it in to the bill but it's been rejected out of hand along party lines.
It's not too late to say that there is no mechanism to control spiraling drug costs. There isn't one. A company can choose to charge as much as it likes, can enforce its patent over the drug, has the law in its favor to restrict the power of market choices to drive down prices, and now effectively gets to stick the taxpayer with the bill. The only reason I can see a mechanism to prevent that situation wouldn't have passed is due to the bought and paid for (by the pharm. corps., not with citizen's votes) "representatives."