In The News
International News
Medicare Review
Medical Gluttony
Medical Myths
Overheard in the Lounge
Voices of Medicine
Book Reviews
Hippocrates and His Kin
Related Organizations
Archives

AAPSJPANDS
World Congress     National Association of Health Underwriters
Semmelweis Society

HealthCare Communication Network          HealthPlan USA
Del Meyer, MD Website

  

Community For Better Health Care

Medical Myths
Current Issue:                                         (previous issue)     (past issue)

We Need Government to Control the Price of Pharmaceuticals

Wal-Mart Widens Drug Discounts, By ANN ZIMMERMAN, WSJ, May 6, 2008

In another expansion of its cut-rate prescription-drug program, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it will sell 90-day supplies of more than 300 generic drugs for only $10, taking aim at the burgeoning mail-order pharmacy business by undercutting their prices on some drugs and speeding delivery.

In addition, the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer said it is adding a second pricing tier to the heavily discounted program for more-expensive medications geared toward women's health. It is adding $9 generic prescriptions for up to a 30-day supply on a handful of drugs for treating osteoporosis, breast cancer, menopause and hormone deficiency.

For instance, alendronate, the generic version of osteoporosis medication Fosamax, will be added to the list. Pharmacies in Wal-Mart Supercenter, Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market stores will offer 30-day prescriptions of alendronate for $9 and a 90-day supply for $24, compared with the previous price of $54 and $102, respectively, the company said. Tamoxifen, a breast-cancer treatment, will sell for $9 for a 30-day supply.

Wal-Mart for the first time is now selling over 1,000 over-the-counter medications at $4, including its private-label Equate brand versions of drugs such as Zantac and Claritin, as well as its Spring Valley private label prenatal vitamins. The price is about 50% lower than at many other national-chain drugstores and supermarkets, Wal-Mart said, citing internal research. The selection represents about a third of Wal-Mart's over-the-counter drug offerings.

[chart]Since launching its $4 generic prescription drug program in September 2006, Wal-Mart has seen pharmacy sales grow as a percentage of its overall sales. In the fiscal year to Jan. 31, health and wellness sales, including prescription and over-the-counter drugs, accounted for 9% of its U.S. sales of $239.5 billion, up from 8% two years before. Analysts estimate that drugs account for about half of those sales. The majority of the 350 generic drugs that Wal-Mart sells for $4 will be available at $10 for a 90-day supply.

Wal-Mart expects some competitors to again match these programs. Late Monday, Target Corp. said it plans to match all facets of Wal-Mart's discount prescription and over-the-counter drug plan.

Go to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121002048022568563.html.

Looks like free enterprise is far more effective in lowering drug costs than any government program, which usually increases prices. Isn't the answer to pharmaceutical costs obvious? Or is Medicare Part D eliminating innovation and reform again?     

subscribe


Previous Issue:                                         (current issue)     (past issue)

Scary Forecasts are Medicare's Little Secrets

Scary Forecasts by John Goodman, PhD, The Expert Who Explodes Medical Myths.

Today I'm going to let you in on a little secret about forecasting health care costs:  All the forecasters cheat.  Cheat?  Yes, cheat.  

There is nothing underhanded about it.  For people who read footnotes and appendices, the information is all there.  But for ordinary mortals, the projections you see are not what you think they are. 

But let's back up.  Why do you even care about forecasts of future health care spending?  The rational reasons are:  (1) to figure out what path we are currently on, (2) to decide whether the path is acceptable, and (3) if it is not acceptable, to figure out how to get off of it.  

Turns out, however, that the estimators at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Social Security/Medicare Trustees have already done tasks (1) and (2) and decided that the future is so terribly awful, they cannot possibly wait for you or anyone else to do task number (3).  

So what we get out of these agencies is not a real projection of the past into the future but one that has been tempered by ...the hope? ...the wish? ...the refusal to accept reality? ...or the fanciful belief that somehow, somewhere, in some totally unexplained way we will ...we must ...we have to ...get off the path we are on.  

For example, the Medicare Trustees, after acknowledging that health spending has been growing at a rate that is 2 to 3 percentage points above GDP growth, assume that the growth rate will decline to the GDP growth rate over the next 75 years.  The CBO, after acknowledging that health care spending per capita has been growing at a rate that is 2.1 percentage points faster than GDP per capita for the past 30 years, assumes much slower rates of growth for Medicare and Medicaid beginning in 2018 and thereafter.  

Will those changes occur?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It still begs the question:  What path are we really on?  Note:  even after tempering, all the projections are bad.  However, a new CBO www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/11-13-LT-Health.pdf contains an untempered projection that implies that:  

  • Within the next 50 years, by the time today's teenagers reach the retirement age, health care spending will crowd out every other program of the federal government.

  • Well before that occurs, Medicaid spending at the state level will crowd out every other function of state government.  

To avoid this unpleasant outcome and keep all other programs in place, we will have to double the size of government!  A previous www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8295/07-09-Financing_Spending.pdf  estimates the needed tax rates at 66% for middle-income families and 92% for high-income families - assuming no increase in taxpayer resistance.  

That is the path we are on.  We will not get off of it with pen and ink. We will get off of it only with real reform. . .

John   

------------------------------------------------------------------------  

John Goodman, President, National Center for Policy Analysis
12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75251 www.ncpa.org 

http://subscribe.ncpa.org/members.aspx?Task=FF&SI=4634&E=DelMeyer%40DelMeyer.net&S=1&N=2407&Format=TEXT  

Subscribe to this digest:  www.ncpa.org/sub/#cdhc    

------------------------------------------------------------------------    

NCPA is a service mark of the National Center for Policy Analysis. We are an independent public policy institute and are not affiliated with any other organization, trade association or corporation.      

Copyright 2003-2008 National Center for Policy Analysis - All rights reserved.


Past Issue:                                         (current issue)     (previous issue)

Health Care Spending In Africa Improves Health

Health Alert: Saving Africans from Limousine Liberals and People Who, Although Not as Rich as Barbra Streisand, Think Just Like She Does; Part II.

My definition of a Hollywood liberal is someone who believes you can solve all the world's problems without knowing anything about economics.  (After all, who needs graphs and mathematical symbols, when all you really need is love?)  Unfortunately, there are way too many people in health policy who think exactly the same way.  They not only resist the economic way of thinking, they are actually resentful if anyone injects it into the discussion.  

Consider health care spending in Africa and suppose we had only $1,500 to spend.  How should we spend it?  Health economist estimate $1,500 would: 

  • Treat 1 HIV positive person for one year.

  • Prevent 75 people from contracting polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.  

  • Treat 150 people with tuberculosis for one year.  

  • Prevent 500 people from contracting tuberculosis each year.

  • Treat 1,500 people with intestinal worms for one year.  

  • Treat 1,500 people with malaria for one year.  

How can we choose among these alternatives? A common technique employed by health researchers is to measure the payoff from health care spending in terms of "years of life saved," which is the number of extra years of life the health intervention produces.   

Sometimes the measurement is expressed as "quality adjusted life years" or "disability adjusted life years" (DALY) in recognition of the fact that the goal is not simply to keep people alive, but to keep them alive and functioning as healthy human beings.   

If we want to maximize health and well-being in Africa, we certainly would not start out focusing on AIDS treatment.  Consider the anti-retroviral (ARV) drug treatment for AIDS - currently so popular among rock stars and politicians.  According to the World Health Organization (WHO):  

  • The cost of ARV drug treatment for AIDS is $1,500 per DALY. 

  • Yet if this same amount of money were reallocated to immunizations we could save 214 years of life instead of one year for an AIDS patient.

Two and one-half times as many Africans die from other preventable diseases as die from AIDS, including measles, respiratory infections, malaria, tuberculoses, diarrhea and others.  Yet AIDS treatment competes against these other health care needs.  And in drawing health resources away from areas where they are more productive, AIDS treatment programs can cost more lives than they save. 

If you're disappointed on the health front, this is only the tip of the iceberg.  In last week's Alert, www.john-goodman-blog.com/africaaids/, I noted that over the past five decades, the developed countries of the world have given less-developed countries $2.3 trillion in foreign aid.  

What difference has all this spending made?  International Monetary Fund chief economist Raghuram G. Rajan and Arvind Subramian have done comprehensive testing of a broad array of theories and found that there are no significant effects (either positive or negative) of foreign aid on economic growth.  Specifically:     

  • It apparently does not matter what aid is used for (health, social sector, technical assistance, etc.). 

  • It apparently does not matter who gives the aid (multilateral donors, bilateral donors, good donors, bad donors, etc.). 

  • It apparently does not matter to which countries the aid is given (those with good policies and institutions, those with bad ones, etc.). 

  • It apparently does not matter when the hoped for impact is supposed to take place (short term, long term, etc.).

So given this incredibly sad and depressing record of massive failure on the part of government bureaucrats, what's the next step for Hollywood? 

Give the bureaucrats complete control over the US health care system, of course.  How could you possibly doubt?

To view the comments for this blog entry: 
www.john-goodman-blog.com/saving-africans-from-limousine-liberals-and-people-who-although-not-as-rich-as-barbra-streisand-think-just-like-she-does-part-ii/#comments

Cheers,   

John Goodman, President

National Center for Policy Analysis  

12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75251  

www.ncpa.org

top


For other issues, please visit our archives.

We invite you to sign up for this biweekly newsletter.





Terms Privacy
All rights reserved ©2007 Medical Tuesday.Net