|
|
| |
|
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.
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.
|
|
|