Tag Archives: Big Pharma

Bernie Sanders Defends Medicare-for-All, Attacks Insurance Companies, Big Pharma for Dysfunctional, High-Cost Healthcare

Bernie Sanders, seen at a Brooklyn rally, is defending his signature plan, Medicare-for-All, and blaming the greed of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as the reason for dysfunctional, high cost health care system that causes 30,000 premature deaths a year and bankrupts 530,000 Americans a year. © Karen Rubin/news-photos-features.com

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, running to be the Democratic nominee for president, on July 17 delivered a major address on Medicare for All, coinciding with the 54th anniversary of Medicare being signed into law. In his remarks, Sanders outlined his plan to make health care a human right for all Americans. Here is highlighted transcript of remarks as they were prepared for delivery: – Karen Rubin, News & Photo Features

Thank you all very much for being here to discuss one of the major crises facing our country.  Let me also thank the dozens of organizations throughout America who support Medicare for All and the tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who support my legislation.  Let me thank the 14 Senate co-sponsors that we have on this legislation and the 118 Members of the House who support similar legislation.  And mostly, let me thank the American people who by the millions understand, as I do, that health care is a human right, not a privilege.

Together, we will end the international embarrassment of the United States being the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all of its citizens.  

It is not acceptable to me, nor to the American people, that some 87 million people today are either uninsured or underinsured.

It is not acceptable to me that we end up spending almost twice as much as any other major country on health care, while our life expectancy continues to decline and our healthcare outcomes lag behind many other countries.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of talking to doctors who tell me about the patients who died because they were uninsured or underinsured, and walked into the doctor’s office when it was too late.  And we are talking about over 30,000 Americans who die every year because they are uninsured or under-insured.  What a tragedy. 

I am sick and tired of seeing working class families and small businesses pay far more for healthcare than they can afford, and 530,000 Americans declare bankruptcy each year because they cannot pay off the outrageous cost of a medical emergency or a hospital stay.  Families should not be driven into financial ruin because someone in the family became seriously ill.  How insane is that?

I am sick and tired of hearing from Americans who lost loved ones because they could not afford the unbelievably high cost of prescription drugs, or hearing from constituents who are forced to cut their pills in half due to the cost. 

In fact, later this month, I will be travelling from Detroit, Michigan to Windsor, Ontario with a busload of Americans who have diabetes in order to purchase insulin in Canada at one-tenth of the price that they pay in America.

I am sick and tired of talking with people who are struggling with mental illness but cannot afford the mental health counseling they desperately need. 

I am tired of talking to people who have teeth that are rotting in their mouths, but cannot afford the high cost of dental care

Let me be very honest and tell you that, in my view, the current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with healthcare.  It has everything to do with greed and the desire of the healthcare industry to maintain a system which fails the average American, but which makes the industry tens and tens of billions of dollars every year in profit. 

It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows the big drug and health insurance companies to make over $100 billion in profits last year, while the top CEOs in that industry made $2.6 billion in total compensation – all the while 1 out of 5 Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe.

It’s about whether we maintain a system in which the CEO of the Aetna insurance company, Mr. Mark Bertolini, received a golden parachute worth nearly $500 million after his company merged with CVS Health, while elderly people lack the resources to purchase a hearing aid.

It’s about whether we maintain a system that allows the former CEO from Gilead (John Martin) to become a billionaire by charging $1,000 a pill for a hepatitis c drug called Sovaldi that costs a dollar to manufacture.

Let us make no mistake about it.  The struggle that we are now undertaking, to guarantee health care to all Americans as a right and to substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs, will be opposed by some of the most powerful forces in America – entities that have unlimited amounts of money.  We’re talking about the insurance companies, the drug companies, private hospitals, medical equipment suppliers, Wall Street and other powerful entities.  

Let me make a prediction. In order to defeat the Medicare for All movement, powerful special interests will be spending millions on 30 second television ads, full page magazine ads, and corporate-sponsored “studies” to frighten the American people about Medicare for All – which is exactly what happened before the passage of Medicare in the 1960s. They failed then and they’re going to fail now.

And let me give you an example of the kind of money and power we are talking about. 

Over the last 20 years, the insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies have spent more than $330 million in campaign contributions and over $4 billion in lobbying to get Congress to do its bidding. 

The pharmaceutical industry alone has hired some 1,200 lobbyists – including the former leadership of both political parties.

I find it quite interesting that Billy Tauzin, the Republican Congressman who wrote the bill to prevent Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices and then went on to become the President and CEO of Pharma, received over $11.6 million in compensation in 2010.

That’s how business is done in Washington.  Well, I have a different vision of what a rational healthcare system is all about.  Instead of massive profits for the drug companies, the insurance companies and Wall Street, we must provide a healthcare system that provides quality healthcare to all in a cost effective way.

And that is exactly what Medicare for All does.

Under this legislation, every family in America would receive comprehensive coverage, and middle-class families would save thousands of dollars a year by eliminating their private insurance costs as we move to a publicly funded program.

The transition to the Medicare for All program would take place over four years. In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered. In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35. By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.

Medicare for All will reduce – let me repeat, reduce — overall health care spending while lowering the number of uninsured and underinsured people in this country to zero.   

We accomplish this because Medicare for All creates a system of health care insurance that isn’t designed to generate profits for insurance and drug companies — it will be a system focused on delivering actual health care. It will save lives, save money, and end the frustration of endless paperwork, denials, and desperate fights with an insurance company to cover medically-necessary medications and procedures.

Medicare for All will fully eliminate health insurance premiums, deductibles and co-payments. Make no mistake about it: These are nothing less than taxes on the middle class. 

And when we do that, the average middle class family will save an estimated $3,000 each and every year.

Further, unlike the current dysfunctional system, Medicare for All allows people the freedom to choose any doctor, clinic, and hospital without worrying about whether their provider is in-network or not.  People will be able to make the health care choices that are best for themselves and their families without some insurance bureaucrat telling them which providers they can see or not see. Medicare for All is at the end of the day empowering patients and health care providers. 

In addition, a Medicare for All system will allow us to address the serious problem of medically underserved areas. 

Just to demonstrate how absurd our health care system is, I was in Philadelphia two days ago rallying with the people of that city to try to stop the closure of Hahnemann University Hospital, an important, safety net hospital in that community.  Why do the owners want to close this hospital? Because they can make more money redeveloping that property into condominiums and hotels.

Let me address some of the half-truths, misinformation, and, in some cases, outright lies that people may be hearing about Medicare for All.  

Medicare for All critics tell us that Americans just love their private health insurance companies. We heard this most recently from UnitedHealth CEO David Wichmann, who by the way, made $83 million in 2017 and who said Medicare for All would “destabilize the nation’s health system.” 

But let’s remember: the current system is already disrupting and destabilizing millions of people’s lives. In the current system, 50 million Americans every year lose their existing health insurance when their employer changes insurer, when they change jobs, or when they cannot afford their current plan. For many of them, they will no longer be able to see the doctor they have relied on for years.  For others, important treatments for long-term conditions or disabilities will be changed or stopped altogether.  

Here is the simple truth. The American people do not like their private health insurance companies. In fact private health insurance companies are quite unpopular.  What the American people do like are their doctors, nurses and other health care providers. 

While our opponents claim that Medicare for All is too expensive, the reality is that it is much more cost effective than our current system.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that, if we do not change the system, this country will be spending $50 trillion over the next ten years –19.4 percent of our nation’s GDP.  This is unsustainable and will be incredibly harmful to the people of our country, to the business community, and to the entire economy.

And the reason why we spend so much is obvious.  It is not just the huge profits in the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, but it is the incredible and wasteful bureaucratic maze developed by thousands of different healthcare plans.  Today, hospitals and doctors must deal with patients who have different deductibles, different co-payments, different networks of coverage, and different coverage for pharmaceuticals, or no insurance at all.  All of this is not only driving doctors and nurses and hospital administrators to distraction, but it is wasting up to $500 billion a year on unnecessary administrative costs.

Unlike our current system, there is broad consensus – from conservative to progressive economists – that Medicare for All would result in substantial savings to the American people.  Two of the most recent studies on this issue have estimated that Medicare for All would save the American people between $2 trillion and $5 trillion over a 10-year period.

Let us be clear, the fight against Medicare for All today is not a new development.  Powerful special interests have always opposed healthcare programs that work for the people and not for corporate interests.

Let us not forget that when President Harry Truman first proposed a program guaranteeing health care to seniors that idea was billed as radical, “un-American,” and an attack on basic freedom. And because of that assault, the idea stalled in Congress for years — until voters made their voices heard.

In 1960, America elected John F. Kennedy after he campaigned in support of Truman’s idea. That election prompted serious work on universal health care bill, and Kennedy at the time noted that “what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago.”

Finally, following the 1964 Democratic election landslide, the new Congress was able to pass what is now known as Medicare despite intense opposition from the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies.

More than a half-century after that achievement, the time is now to go forward.  The time is now to expand Medicare to every man, woman and child in this country. 

Let us be very clear.  When it comes to health care, the insurance and drug industries have been able to control the political process.  

If we are going to break the stranglehold of corporate interests over the health care needs of the American people, we have got to confront a Washington culture that is corrupt, that puts profits before people.

That is why I am calling on every Democratic candidate in this election to join me in rejecting money from the insurance and drug industries. That means not accepting donations over $200 from health insurance or pharmaceutical company PACs, lobbyists or executives. Candidates who are not willing to take that pledge should explain to the American people why those corporate interests believe their campaigns are a good investment.

Of course, President Trump should do the same but I am not going to even waste my breath suggesting that he will.  His efforts to throw 32 million people off their health insurance to have it replaced with junk insurance shows exactly what side he is on.

Finally, let me say, eliminating health insurance and drug company money from the Democratic primary won’t solve all the problems, but it is an important step forward. Now is the time to tell the health care industry that your profits are not more important than the lives of the American people.

See also: Biden Plan for Universal Healthcare: Protect, Build on Obamacare

Reining in Big Pharma – or Why Capitalism Doesn’t Work With Life-Saving Drugs

How much is your child’s life worth? Big Pharma is betting it is priceless © 2016 Karen Rubin/news-photos-features.com
How much is your child’s life worth? Big Pharma is betting it is priceless © 2016 Karen Rubin/news-photos-features.com

By Karen Rubin, News & Photo Features

How much is it worth to you to save your child’s life? $1 million? $10 million? How much is it worth it to you to have the medication that will prolong your mother’s life from Multiple Myeloma, $10,000 a month? (That’s what the medication cost.)

The issue was most recently dramatized by Mylan, the drug company that has a monopolistic control over the EpiPen syringe, and over the course of but a few years, increased the price for an item that can mean the difference between a child surviving a severe allergic response from $57 to $600 (did I mention it has a year-long shelf life?)

The cost of the actual medication, epinephrine, that can stop potentially fatal anaphylactic shock that’s in the EpiPen dispenser? $1.

It’s not just families who are held up, in much the same way as a gun-wielding robber (“Your money or your life”), but school districts, volunteer fire departments and municipalities who can face a severe budgetary crunch.

And it’s not as if Mylan hasn’t already squeezed the profit out of its drug technology – as rapidly as the price has risen, so have the salaries and bonuses paid to its executives.

The steep increase in prices started when drug company Mylan acquired the rights to the EpiPen nearly a decade ago (the company did not even invest in its development). As they hiked the prices, the salaries of their top executives skyrocketed:  From 2007 to 2015, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch’s total compensation went from $2.5 million to 3,456 to $18,9 million, a mind-blowing 671% increase.

“I am a for-profit business. I am not hiding from that,” Bresch declared. Indeed, Mylan also dodges paying taxes in America, by using the insidious “inversion” loophole.

In other words, Mylan charges more because it can. Its sole aim is to maximize return for management and investors.

About 40 million Americans have severe allergies to spider bites, bee stings and foods like nuts, eggs and shellfish. Last year, more than 3.6 million U.S. prescriptions for two-packs of EpiPens were filled, earning Mylan nearly $1.7 billion.

What was Mylan’s CEO’s response to the outcry?  Mylan said it would expand eligibility for patient assistance, with a $300 savings card.

Mylan is only the latest example. A year ago, the rage was focused on Martin Shkreli, the founder and former chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who raised the cost of a life-saving drug (which had been available for years from a company he acquired) from an affordable $13.70 a tablet to $750 per tablet.

Another company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International similarly raised prices of many of its drugs exponentially, including two heart medications, Nitropress and Isuprel used to treat cardiac arrest, and another to treat Wilson’s disease, a rare genetic disorder.

The cynical way they dodge this despicable behavior is to suggest that the consumers don’t actually pay the sticker price – health insurance or Medicare Part D does, or in some cases (as the advertisements like to scream), they offer some relief to the poorest patients. But the upshot is that the rest of us (“society,” if you will) still do pay because of higher premiums. Also, because insurance premiums are so costly, people are opting for cheaper policies that have higher deductibles, so a family might be out-of-pocket to begin with until insurance kicks in.

What is more, the ones who are hurt the most are those who can least afford it: “One of the cruelties of drug pricing is that the burden falls most heavily on those least able to pay it. Uninsured patients often must pay the list price of a drug, and an increasingly large share of insured customers are being asked to pay a percentage of the list price,” writes Katie Thomas in the New York Times. She quotes Pembroke Consulting’s Adam J. Fein, “We soak the poor.”

Not to mention the “donut hole” that many seniors find themselves in. Seniors are finding their costs rising by double digits, 10% in 2015 and 12% in 2014.

There are laws against price-gouging– for food, water, gasoline. There are regulations that keep utility prices – for water, water treatment, electricity – in check, where price hikes have to be justified. Why are there no checks on drug companies, beyond public shaming (which does not seem to work).

The argument is that it costs millions, even a billion dollars and years to research, develop, test and bring a drug to market and many drugs never win approval so never make it to market at all. Well, it also costs millions, even billions, to create a utility system. What is more, taxpayers already pay for a lot of that research, funding programs through universities. (My idea is that taxpayers should be shareholders in the company and get reimbursed through a percentage of the profits on the drug.)

President Obama can use his executive authority to help break Big Pharma’s monopoly power. The FDA controls whether companies can offer alternatives to products like EpiPens, and the National Institutes of Health can prevent new ones from being granted.

Medicare should be allowed to negotiate drug prices (presently inexplicably prohibited under George W. Bush era legislation written by Big Pharma). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed 6 pilot projects to test possible reforms to how prescription drugs are reimbursed and how the “value” of a drug is measured under Medicare Part B.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland have introduced bills that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices and reduce barriers to the importation of lower-cost drugs from Canada and other countries.

Another measure being floated in Congress would require a drug company to show justification for any annual price hike greater than 10% (consider that the inflation rate has been running 2%).

But in the absence of Congressional action, California is proposing The California Drug Price Relief Act, which would prohibit the state from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by Veterans Affairs, which already negotiates lower prices for pharmaceuticals.

“It is no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry already has dedicated $50 million to defeat this ballot initiative,” Sanders said. “Their greed has no end.”

Prices for prescription medicine in the United States soared last year more than 10 percent – the third consecutive year of double digit price increases. One out of five adults between the ages of 18 and 64 – more than 35 million Americans (that’s one out of five)– cannot afford the medications that their doctors prescribe.

Price gouging on life-saving drugs is only one glaring example of why it is an absurdity to operate the health care system as a purely capitalistic, free-market commodity – and yet, this is exactly what is presented by candidates Donald Trump, who vows to repeal Obamacare and the Libertarian Gary Johnson, who thinks that what is wrong with health care system is that there isn’t enough free market forces at work, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein, an actual doctor, has said that the science on childhood vaccinations isn’t definitive.

Hillary Clinton actually has a detailed policy prescription:

Building upon the comprehensive plan she offered earlier in the campaign last year, Clinton is calling for action to protect consumers from unjustified prescription drug price increases by companies that are marketing long-standing, life-saving treatments and face little or no competition. (See: Hillary Clinton Announces Aggressive New Plan to Address Unjustified Price Hikes in Life-Saving Drugs)

 

Clinton would convene representatives of Federal agencies charged with ensuring health and safety and fair competition, and create a dedicated group charged with protecting consumers from outlier price increases. They will determine an unjustified, outlier price increase based on specific criteria including: 1) the trajectory of the price increase; 2) the cost of production; and 3) the relative value to patients, among other factors that give rise to threatening public health.

Should an excessive, outlier price increase be determined for a long-standing treatment, Clinton’s plan would make new enforcement tools available including:

  • Making alternatives available and increasing competition: Directly intervening to make treatments available, and supporting alternative manufacturers that enter the market and increase competition, to bring down prices and spur innovation in new treatments.
  • Emergency importation of safe treatments: Broadening access to safe, high-quality alternatives through emergency importation from developed countries with strong safety standards.
  • Penalties for unjustified price increase to hold drug companies accountable and fund expanded access: Holding drug makers accountable for unjustified price increases with new penalties, such as fines – and using the funds or savings to expand access and competition.

As it is the system is designed to impede research and development into new drug treatments for ailments and diseases that would not have a big enough pay-back (for example, rarer diseases).

The Obama Administration has supported an initiative which focuses on precision medicine – that is, matching appropriate treatments to genetic make up (it’s why certain asthma treatments are less effective for African-Americans and Hispanics than Caucasians), and how certain cancer treatments (such as envisioned in Biden’s Cancer Moonshot) can be much more targeted.

The Health Care Industrial Complex, however, is not designed to prevent or cure, but prolong the stream of profits.

________________________________

© 2016 News & Photo Features Syndicate, a division of Workstyles, Inc. All rights reserved. For editorial feature and photo information, go to www.news-photos-features.com, email [email protected]. Blogging at www.dailykos.com/blogs/NewsPhotosFeatures.  ‘Like’ us on facebook.com/NewsPhotoFeatures, Tweet @KarenBRubin

Hillary Clinton Announces Aggressive New Plan to Address Unjustified Price Hikes in Life-Saving Drugs

Hillary Clinton announced a new plan to protect Americans from unjustified price hikes of long-available prescription drugs with limited competition, like EpiPens and pyrimethamine, the drug for a disease related to AIDS that Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of by more than 5,000% © 2016 Karen Rubin/news-photos-features.com
Hillary Clinton announced a new plan to protect Americans from unjustified price hikes of long-available prescription drugs with limited competition, like EpiPens and pyrimethamine, the drug for a disease related to AIDS that Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of by more than 5,000% © 2016 Karen Rubin/news-photos-features.com

Hillary Clinton has announced a new plan to protect Americans from unjustified price hikes of long-available prescription drugs with limited competition, like EpiPens and pyrimethamine, the drug for a disease related to AIDS that Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of by more than 5,000%.  After speaking out against excessive prices for prescription drugs throughout the campaign and, last week, calling for Mylan to lower its EpiPen price, Clinton believes that Mylan’s recent actions have not gone far enough to remedy their outrageous price increase. So today, Clinton is proposing a new set of strong tools – including a consumer protection group – that will let the government take effective action in such cases where public health is put at risk by an unjustified, outlier price increase for a treatment long available on the market with limited competition.

“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for long-standing, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or R&D,” Clinton said. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them. All Americans deserve full access to the medications they need — without being burdened by excessive, unjustified costs. Our pharmaceutical and biotech industries are an incredible source of American innovation and revolutionary treatments for debilitating diseases. But I’m ready to hold drug companies accountable when they try to put profits ahead of patients, instead of back into research and innovation.”

Today, building off the comprehensive plan she offered earlier in the campaign last year, Clinton is calling for action to protect consumers from unjustified prescription drug price increases by companies that are marketing long-standing, life-saving treatments and face little or no competition. She’ll start by convening representatives of Federal agencies charged with ensuring health and safety, as well as fair competition, to create a dedicated group charged with protecting consumers from outlier price increases. They will determine an unjustified, outlier price increase based on specific criteria including: 1) the trajectory of the price increase; 2) the cost of production; and 3) the relative value to patients,among other factors that give rise to threatening public health.

Should an excessive, outlier price increase be determined for a long-standing treatment, Clinton’s plan would make new enforcement tools available including:

  • Making alternatives available and increasing competition: Directly intervening to make treatments available, and supporting alternative manufacturers that enter the market and increase competition, to bring down prices and spur innovation in new treatments.
  • Emergency importation of safe treatments: Broadening access to safe, high-quality alternatives through emergency importation from developed countries with strong safety standards.
  • Penalties for unjustified price increase to hold drug companies accountable and fund expanded access: Holding drug makers accountable for unjustified price increases with new penalties, such as fines – and using the funds or savings to expand access and competition.

Her plan will establish dedicated consumer oversight at our public health and competition agencies.  They will determine an unjustified, outlier price increase based on specific criteria including: 1) the trajectory of the price increase; 2) the cost of production; and 3) the relative value to patients, among other factors that give rise to threatening public health.

In combination with her broader plan – which addresses the costs facing consumers from both long-standing and patented drugs – these new tools to address price spikes for treatments available for many years will lower the burden of prescription drug costs for all Americans.

This plan would impact the many examples we’ve seen over the past year of drug companies raising prices excessively for drugs that have been available for years – from Turing raising the price of pyrimethamine for AIDS patients by over 5,500 percent, to Mylan raising the price of the EpiPen by more than 400 percent. This is not an isolated problem: Between 2008 and 2015, drug makers increased the prices of almost 400 generic drugs by over 1,000 percent. Many of these companies are an example of a troubling trend—manufacturers that do not even develop the drug themselves, but acquire it and raise the price.

The immediate protections she is offering today build on her broader plan to lower prescription drug costs for all Americans that she released last year.

The full fact sheet is available here.