Category Archives for Pharmaceuticals

Drug Company CEOs Receive Plea  for Lower Drug Costs

Published in Pawtucket Times on March 15, 2004

Seniors can only hope the pen is mightier than the sword as senior advocates send correspondence to CEOs of major drug companies, urging them to take more responsibility in putting the brakes on skyrocketing pharmaceutical drug costs.

Last Monday, AARP CEO William D. Novelli drafted a letter challenging 16 CEOs of major drug companies to lower the nation’s spiraling drug costs.

AARP’s CEO charged in this correspondence -which has been obtained by All About Seniors – that even with last year’s newly enacted Medicare prescription drug law, high drug prices are still a very serious issue for the nation’s seniors.

“Too many people cannot afford the drugs they need,” Novellis said, resulting in a “very substantial non-compliance with physicians’ recommendations.

Also contributing to higher drug prices, said AARP’s top official, is that seniors do not use geriatrics despite their “comparable effectiveness and lower cost.”

Novelli called on each drug company CEO to limit their company’s price increases to no greater than the level of inflation for current drug products. Additionally, he requested they stop price increases of new drugs, asking them to use their influence to stop drug mark-ups throughout the drug distribution chain.

Novelli urged the drug company CEOs to support drug-importation legislation, subject to proper FDA oversight to ensure safety of the imported medications. (Currently there is legislation being considered by Rhode Island lawmakers to allow drug importation from Canada).

Furthermore, Novelli asked CEOs for their drug companies’ strong endorsement of federal and state funding “to support clinically based, comparative effectiveness research that will permit objective, scientific comparisons of specific drugs in the same therapeutic class.”

Novell even urged the CEOs not to oppose any federal legislation introduced that would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with appropriate negotiating authority in the event the competitive private purchasing system does not produce the anticipated cost savings for the Medicare program.

The Republican-crafted Medicare law does not allow the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices – a move that’s been opposed by the Democrats.

To put the brakes on rising out-of-pocket costs for seniors, Novelli also asked the CEOs to support a disclosure of pricing information by pharmaceutical benefits managers to their payer clients. This would assure that those enrolled in the Medicare program will receive full advantage of negotiated discounts and rebates.

Better displays of drug information regarding the risks, side effects and proven effectiveness of their consumer advertising is needed, Novelli told the CEOs. He also called for generics to be quickly moved into the marketplace when the patent has expired for brand name drugs.

In his correspondence, Novelli called on the CEOs to follow the ethics guidelines of the American Medical Association when it comes to giving gifts to physicians and sponsorships of educational meetings.

Last month, Lt. Gov. Charles J. Fogarty, chairman of the state’s Long-Term Care Coordinating Council, in Feb. 19 correspondence, called on Alan F. Holmer, president and CEO of PhRMA, to join the lead of drug manufacturer Merck in providing medication at no cost to low-income Medicare beneficiaries who participate in the new federal Medicare prescription drug discount card program.

Low-income seniors would be eligible for the Merck benefit once they use up their $ 600 federal allotment on their cards. Fogarty said in his written statement.

The Medicare drug discount cards are an interim measure put in place by the federal government until 2006, when newly passed Medicare changes will take affect, said Fogarty. The lieutenant governor, along with many of the state’s senior advocacy groups and the state’s Congressional delegation, have given their thumbs-down to the Republican-backed enacted Medicare revisions and have urged Congress to scrap the law and “to back to the drawing table.”

By accepting his invitation to help lower the cost of pharmaceutical rugs, Fogarty believes, “This will give the industry the opportunity to partner with the government and make a significant difference for those in need.”

The seniors’ battle to slash the out-of-pocket costs of pharmaceuticals must take place both on Capitol Hill, inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway, and at the Rhode Island Statehouse in Providence.  Novelli and Fogarty are now taking the fight to the boardrooms of major drug manufacturers across the nation.

Seniors may well hope that the pen is indeed mightier than the corporate sword.

Advocacy Groups Support Bills Making Pharmaceutical Drugs More Affordable

Published in the Pawtucket Times on April 21, 2003

The Gray Panthers have been around the Ocean State since 1975.

Richard Bidwell, state coordinator of the Rhode Island Gray Panthers, which represents 400 members state-wide, said his group has fought on behalf of seniors and disable persons on many aging and consumer-related issues.

He recalled one legislative victory that enabled seniors and disabled persons to use a special RIPTA bus pass and ride free during off-peak hours. Later the Gray Panthers would successfully expand this use to all times.

As state coordinator, Bidwell has been involved in lobbying the Rhode Island General Assembly on behalf of the state’s growing senior population for more than 14 years. Last year, the Gray Panthers coordinated their efforts with senior advocacy groups to organize the Senior Agenda Consortium.

This year, the Consortium turns its attention to four legislative proposals that will assist seniors in paying for costly pharmaceuticals.

“We’re trying to get them out of committee with favorable votes,” Bidwell told All About Seniors.

The group has locked horns wit Blue Chip in an attempt to lower prescription drug prices for older beneficiaries who have signed up for that health plan.

S 566, introduced by Sen. James Sheehan (D-North Kingston) would require health plans, such as Blue Chip, to pass on their drug discounts to their members. Blule Chip’s highest premium (costing $148 a month) allows senior beneficiaries to purchase up to $ 1,000 worth of brand-name drugs a year, being charged only a $ 25 co-pay for reach prescription.

This premium also allows a person to purchase up to $ 5,000 in generic drugs, with an $ 8 co-pay charged for each prescription.

Bidwell said that with each purchase of a prescription, Blue Chip subtracts the retail price rather than the actual contracted lower price allowed by the insurance company for the purchase.

As a result,” People are being charged too much,” Bidwell said. “The $ 1,000 coverage is disappearing too quickly with the purchase of each prescription drug.

“Our legislation allows Blue Chip to subtract only the contracted actual price of the prescription rather than the much higher retail price.”

“At press time, the Gray Panthers are attempting to find a House sponsor for this legislation.

A related bill, H 5237, sponsored by Rep. Peter Ginaitt (D-Warwick) and S 374, sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Roberts (D-Cranston), would allow a person eligible to participate in the Rhode Island Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Elderly Program (RIPAE), who also has prescription drug coverage through a health plan, to use RIPAE to pay for an individual prescription drug once they reach a maximum level of coverage for that drug.  Currently access to RIPAE until he or she uses all of the brand and generic allowance by Blue Chip.

Meanwhile, Bidwell noted that the Gray Panthers are also pushing H 5239, sponsored by Sen. Mary Ellen Goodwin (D-Providence), for expanding RIPAE to allow persons ages 55 to  61 on Social Security Disability Insurance to receive RIPAE co-payments at the same level as Ocean State seniors.

Finally, another legislative proposal, H 5478, sponsored by Rep. Fausto Anguilla (D-Bristol-Warren) and S 299, sponsored by Sen. Rhode Perry (D-Providence), would allow Rhode Island residents to buy prescription drug from Canadian pharmacies, where they are routinely cheaper.

Susan Sweet, an elder rights advocate consultant to non-profit groups and a member of the Senior Agenda Consortium, has called for the passage of these bills, which are key to creating a “responsive and less costly” long-term care system.

“Pharmaceutical drugs may be expensive, but they are certainly less expensive than hospitalization, nursing home care, and other medical services required as a result o a senior not having or taking the prescribed medication,” said Sweet.

“It is primarily the advances in pharmaceutical therapy that have enabled seniors to live longer and healthier lives. By permitting more access for seniors and persons with disabilities to afford their prescriptions, state policy makers can save people’s lives and ultimately save taxpayer money by preventing more costly interventions,” added Sweet.

At the AARP gubernatorial debate, seniors called for state government intervention in putting the brakes of rising pharmaceutical costs.

The calls for action continue to grow. During this legislative session, the Gray Panthers, AARP, the RI Commission on Aging, along with the Forum on Aging and the Senior Agenda Consortium, have made this legislative issue a high priority.

It is time for Gov. Don Carcieri and the leadership of the General Assembly to tackle this senior issue head-on and allocate the necessary state funds to help make prescription drugs more affordable for Rhode Island seniors and persons with disabilities.

Because of the growing costs of medication, a large number of seniors cannot afford to fill their prescriptions, many do not event take their prescriptions as directed by their physicians.”  Noncompliance in taking medications or not taking them at all can result in unnecessary hospitalization, premature admission to nursing facilities, and untimely death.

Even with the state’s looming budget deficit, enabling seniors to afford the purchase of needed pharmaceutical drugs will hopefully be placed on the General Assembly’s short list of bills that must be enacted this legislative session.

Call Senate President Bill Irons at 401-222-2447 and House Speaker Bill Murphy at 401- 222-2466 to tell them of your concerns about this issue and how   the high cost of prescription drugs hits you in your pocketbook.

Urge these key lawmakers to pass legislation that makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to all seniors and persons with disabilities

Congress to Debate Pharmaceutical Drug Benefit

Published in Pawtucket Times on June, 24, 2002

A looming November election is prodding Congress to get serious and tackle one of the hottest issues of interest to seniors – skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs that hit them hard in their pocketbooks.

At press time, two House Committees have now marked up the 255-page GOP prescription drug proposal. The final GOP bill is expected to be brought to the House floor for a vote later this week.

Congress is now poised to consider three prescription drug benefit proposals – two would expand Medicare and one would follow a private marketplace approach toward creating a meaningful prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Under the 10-year GOP proposal, which has a $ 350 billion price tag, drug coverage would be directly purchased by Medicare beneficiaries from insurance companies. Seniors would pay a $250 annual deductible along with a $ 34 monthly premium.

For low-income beneficiaries, Medicare would pick up the tab, paying for both premiums and deductibles. The GOP drug benefit would cover 80 percent of senior’s annual prescription drug costs up to $ 1,000; 50 percent up to $ 2,000 and none of the costs between $ 2,000 and $ 3,700, after which a catastrophic benefit would kick in.

In sharp contrast to the GOP plan, the Democratic House proposal costing about $ 800 billion includes a $ 25 per month premium with an annual deductible of $100.

Under a new Part D in Medicare, beneficiaries would pay 20 percent of the drug costs -up to $ 2,000, after which Medicare would pay 100 percent. Under a Senate Democratic proposal, costing up to $ 500 billion, seniors would pay a $ 25 premium but have no deductible. The Senate version would also set a limit of $ 4,000 in out-of-pocket expenses and require co-payments of $ 10 for generic drugs and $ 40 for preferred brand-name medications.

A vote on the Senate prescription drug package is expected to take place next month.

Democrats and Republicans are now cranking up their public relations machinery to take potshots at each other’s bills and tout their own proposals as “the real drug benefit.”

The bipartisan bickering surrounding the prescription drug-coverage issue is complex at best, especially for the senior voter ho must attempt to understand the minute details of the Democratic and Republican proposals.

Even wading through the pounds of press releases and background papers, generated by both parties’ spin machines and special interest groups, can become a challenge task at best.

Literature created by the House Republican Speaker’s Prescription Drug Action Team calls the Democratic prescription drug proposal an “election-year gimmick.”

The GOP plan stays within an already-agreed upon federal budget of $ 350 billion over 10 years to strengthen Medicare with prescription drug coverage, a flyer says, noting that the Democratic plans “simply spend billions more.”

Furthermore, the Republican generated literature announces that Health and Human Service Secretary Tommy Thompson has thrown the administration’s support firmly behind the GOP House proposal.

The HHS agency report finds competition among private insurers that offer the pharmaceutical benefit, concluding this approach would provide real financial relief for seniors.

According to HHS, analysis of the GOP proposal, seniors would save as much as 70 percent on their overall out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions. In addition, seniors would save 60 to 85 percent per prescription.

Meanwhile the Democrats have taken aim at the GOP proposal charging that it only serves the interest of the pharmaceutical industry.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) gives his thumbs-up to the House Democrats plan, considering it to be the best legislative fix for protecting seniors against spiraling  costs. The Rhode Island congressman told All About Seniors the GOP proposal would pay, at most, 25 percent of the costs of medications. Moreover, Kennedy added seniors would face an enormous  gap in drug coverage, too. Seniors would be responsible for paying the tab if their medication costs fall between $ 2,000 and $ 3,700.

Washington, DC-based aging advocacy groups are also throwing their two cents into this complex congressional debate on prescription drug coverage.

In March 2002, the AARP, the nation’s largest advocacy group, released survey findings that indicate aging baby boomers and seniors see a public-sector response as the way to bringing meaningful pharmaceutical coverage to seniors.

According to the survey, eight in 10 Americans age 45 and over favor making prescription drug part of the Medicare system. Sixty-seven percent strongly favor this benefit.

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a national group that advocates for high quality, affordable health care, charged the “House Republican prescription drug plan is far designed to provide political protection for House incumbents than drug cost relief for America’s seniors.”

“The proposal provides precious little assistance and keeps prescription drugs unaffordable for millions of seniors,” Pollack said.

The closer you examine the provisions in the GOP prescription drug proposal, you will see major flaws, Pollack stated. “The proposal provides a very meager benefit and forces seniors to pay the lion’s share of drug costs,” he says, adding this will result in many seniors not being able to affordable medications they need.

Meanwhile, Pollack stated that using private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage is the wrong approach. He said there is no guarantee insurance companies will offer drug coverage in specific communities, and the GOP proposal allows insurance companies to define the coverage they offer in different locations.

“Seniors will have no certainty about the premiums they need to pay, the cost-sharing they will bear, the drugs that are covered and under what conditions they can obtain those drugs,” notes Pollack.

When both chambers pass their prescription drug proposals, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he believes the Senate and House can reach a compromise at the conference committee table.

However, he warned a compromise cannot come at the expense of a senior’s bank account.

I hope Congress listens to and hears a key message from AARP’s 2002 survey – that is eight in 10 of those participating consider providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit to be an extremely important priority for the President and Congress.

With pharmaceutical drug costs continuing to increase, millions of senior voters can no longer afford to wait for a solution blocked by political bickering.

At best, with a little more than four months until the November elections, Democratic and Republican lawmakers might just choose to put politics aside and strike a compromise that can achieve  widespread bipartisan support in both chambers for passage of a meaningful pharmaceutical benefit law.

It’s that time.