FYI: Hillary Clinton sure isn’t looking to pick up the biotech vote. Earlier today, the Democratic front-runner sent stocks in the biotech sector sharply lower when she made comments that she will outline plans to combat what she calls “outrageous” pricing for specialty drugs. While her tweet was directed specifically at this story, on Sunday Mrs. Clinton’s told Face the Nation that she would outline a plan to “control the cost of skyrocketing prescription drugs.” Her tweet Monday morning quickly sent the Nasdaq Biotech index from a minor intraday gain to a loss of nearly 5%!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/thank-you-mrs-clinton/
Comments
From Politico a month ago:
… there is growing evidence that even GOP voters are more concerned about curbing drug prices than dislodging [ACA]. In April, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation was surprised by a poll showing more Republicans view drug prices as the No. 1 healthcare priority than repealing Obamacare. So the foundation looked further, asking Americans what steps they would back to reduce drug costs.
The results, released [Aug 20], were equally striking: Nearly three-quarters of Americans think drug prices are unreasonably high — and most blame that on drug companies’ drive for profits. That’s true among Republicans, Democrats and independents — a rare point of accord in politics.
… Kaiser’s April poll found repealing the law and its individual mandate came in as Republicans’ second and third top healthcare priorities, chosen by 60 percent and 52 percent, respectively. That trailed the 66 percent who want the president and Congress to address high drug costs for chronically ill patients.
Nonetheless, Republicans are also part of the huge bipartisan majorities that back strong government measures to make drugs affordable, including requiring drug makers to release information on how they set prices (86 percent), allowing Medicare to negotiate for drugs (83 percent), capping what companies can charge for drugs to treat cancer and other life-threatening diseases (76 percent) and importing drugs from Canada (72 percent).
Will a politician surprise the nation and successfully make difficult decisions and actually bring down healthcare costs, potentially at the risk of losing support from precious, precious pharma special interest groups? I'm guessing - and betting - no.
Corporations will continue to get favored treatment and the people will hear whatever Clinton and others think they want to hear.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=950192265023019&set=p.950192265023019&type=1
Being a cynic by nature, I'll agree with Scott's conclusion.
"Health-care sector, once a critic of then-first lady's plans for reforms, now lavishing contributions on senator.
July 12 2006: 10:41 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.
According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/12/news/newsmakers/healthcare_clinton/
How would that work, do you think? My sense is pretty limited political powers and capabilities. (Other than welcome jawboning.)
I can even justify the $85K treatment course for the new Hep C drugs, given the fact that you are then cured of the disease.
But I can't justify the cost of a tab of a 62 year old medication going overnight from $13.50 to $750 based on a hedge fund manager's takeover of the company.
The goose that laid the golden egg now has a spotlight on it due to this latest goofball.
The daraprim $1-to-$750 story may be a little bit more interesting and complex than the headlines. Or not:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/20/huge-overnight-increase-drug-price-raises-protests/DH94tAOlMzZVDIZj55Y6NP/story.html
The stay-in-business argument:
Daraprim, known generically as pyrimethamine, is used mainly to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasite infection that can cause serious or even life-threatening problems for babies born to women who become infected during pregnancy, and also for those with compromised immune systems, like AIDS patients and certain cancer patients.
Martin Shkreli, founder and chief executive of Turing, said the drug is so rarely used that the impact on the health system would be minuscule and that Turing would use the money it earns to develop better treatments for toxoplasmosis, with fewer side effects.
“This isn’t the greedy drug company trying to gouge patients. It is us trying to stay in business,” Shkreli said. He said many patients use the drug for far less than a year and that the price was now more in line with those of other rare disease drugs.
“It really doesn’t make sense to get any criticism for this,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/21/ceo-of-company-that-raised-the-price-of-old-pill-hundreds-of-dollars-overnight-calls-journalist-a-moron-for-asking-why/
Medicare (my understanding) reimburses specialists much more highly than general practitioners. So, I'd guess a neurosurgeon or highly skilled ophthalmologist can still earn a nice living. But, I don't think your corner MD is doing that well. (And I haven't met any rich nurses lately.)
I think where you see the high expenses is in the tests. Somebody has to pay for all that expensive equipment (R&D). And I'd imagine it's antiquated very quickly by more state of the art equipment.
Technology is advancing rapidly in medicine as elsewhere. If you need eye surgery, are you going to save a few dollars going to the fella with 5 year old equipment or do you want the surgery performed using the latest computer & laser technology? (Might make the difference as to whether you'll need to wear corrective lenses or not after the surgery.)
Drugs? The generic stuff is becoming dirt cheap. One Michigan chain is giving away free atorvastatin (generic Lipitor). They do this just to get people to walk through their doors.
You noted:
"(And I haven't met any rich nurses lately.)"
From recall, the current line worker at GM in Michigan earns $22 or $25/hour ($45,800 annual gross). They have a healthcare plan and I believe had about $5,600 last year in a profit sharing scheme.
Lower peninsula, mid-state towards metro Detroit finds a nominal pay scale for an RN nurse at:
---pay at about $32/hour after 5 years of service
---health plan that includes dental/eye
RN's with union representation, in some cases are considered full time employees with only 16 hours of work/week; which allows them to qualify for full benefits...health, etc.
A full and normal work week of 40 hours arrives at $72,800 gross/year. There are RN's, of course; who have a "fair" amount of overtime, which bumps the annual gross.
You're not looking hard enough for the rich nurse.
Take care,
Catch
After state & federal taxes, social security, contributions to a pension plan & professional or union dues, what's left to live on. Maybe $40,000?
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Registered_Nurse_(RN)/Hourly_Rate
(Need to enter "RN" in search field at top of page)
And now, for y'alls viewing pleasure, a video to watch the man in action (gloves, boots, face mask, and shovel highly recommended):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-21/why-turing-increased-price-of-daraprim-over-500-