Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
stay healthy
What I’d like to find out are the candidates’ plans to lower the prices of medicines in the United States. In the Philippines, there was a bill which had passed through the bicameral conference committee but which was not ratified in either chamber before the adjournment of the 13th Congress in June. So much effort wasted; advocates have to virtually start anew.
In brief, this is how the proposed mechanism works. Everyone knows that the drug companies exercise monopoly power over the production, marketing, and pricing of their products for the life of their exclusive patent (17 years, after which generic producers can compete in all phases). The patent is supposed to reward the pharmaceutical company for the innovation and enable it to recoup costs for reasearch and development although many researches have shown that many companies spend much more on marketing (or hyping their products) than on useful innovation. Also, it is standard practice for them that when the patents expire, they introduce marginal or useless modifications and apply for a new patent, thus thwarting generic production and competition.
The drug companies do not charge uniform prices across their segmented markets worldwide and thus calculate different monopoly prices to maximize profits in each of these segmented markets; each price depending on the demand curve and thus income levels in the particular markets. Thus there is room for curbing monopoly power if governments allow so-called parallel importations. The same drugs in the Philippines could be priced at much less than half they do in India, although the price difference may not all be attributable solely to differentiated monopoly pricing. In the supply side, the degrees of adherence to ‘intellectual property’ rights and real production cost differences also play a role. These two sets of factors may also explain why drugs are cheaper in Canada than in the U.S.
One other way to lower the cost of medication is to to educate people that generic drugs are as effective as their branded counterparts (notwithstanding the claims of the pharmaceutical companies). But this assumes that governments have effective mechanisms for quality assurance checks.
Memo1: For economists. prices above variable or marginal costs always entail unnecessary suffering.
Memo2:On a personal note, my brother recently sent me capsules of Wellbutrin (also marketed as Zyban) to help me quit smoking. It was meant to to be an anti-depressant but was accidentally discovered to suppress the craving for nicotine. Prices in the US are four times those prevailing in Thailand. I had to apologize to my brother for not using them because after reading the fine print warning of frightening side-effects, I concluded I couldn’t afford the risks. How many of us read the fine (literally) print? Lesson: in addition to the arguments elucidated above, we should all take responsibility for our health.
Memo3: The economics columnist of Slate.com, Steven Landsburg, has proposed that government should just purchase the property rights (patents) of the drug companies so that the products can be produced and marketed competitively. Good argument but it can be practicable only if a reasonable price can be agreed on; otherwise this might be an intractable pricing problem.
In brief, this is how the proposed mechanism works. Everyone knows that the drug companies exercise monopoly power over the production, marketing, and pricing of their products for the life of their exclusive patent (17 years, after which generic producers can compete in all phases). The patent is supposed to reward the pharmaceutical company for the innovation and enable it to recoup costs for reasearch and development although many researches have shown that many companies spend much more on marketing (or hyping their products) than on useful innovation. Also, it is standard practice for them that when the patents expire, they introduce marginal or useless modifications and apply for a new patent, thus thwarting generic production and competition.
The drug companies do not charge uniform prices across their segmented markets worldwide and thus calculate different monopoly prices to maximize profits in each of these segmented markets; each price depending on the demand curve and thus income levels in the particular markets. Thus there is room for curbing monopoly power if governments allow so-called parallel importations. The same drugs in the Philippines could be priced at much less than half they do in India, although the price difference may not all be attributable solely to differentiated monopoly pricing. In the supply side, the degrees of adherence to ‘intellectual property’ rights and real production cost differences also play a role. These two sets of factors may also explain why drugs are cheaper in Canada than in the U.S.
One other way to lower the cost of medication is to to educate people that generic drugs are as effective as their branded counterparts (notwithstanding the claims of the pharmaceutical companies). But this assumes that governments have effective mechanisms for quality assurance checks.
Memo1: For economists. prices above variable or marginal costs always entail unnecessary suffering.
Memo2:On a personal note, my brother recently sent me capsules of Wellbutrin (also marketed as Zyban) to help me quit smoking. It was meant to to be an anti-depressant but was accidentally discovered to suppress the craving for nicotine. Prices in the US are four times those prevailing in Thailand. I had to apologize to my brother for not using them because after reading the fine print warning of frightening side-effects, I concluded I couldn’t afford the risks. How many of us read the fine (literally) print? Lesson: in addition to the arguments elucidated above, we should all take responsibility for our health.
Memo3: The economics columnist of Slate.com, Steven Landsburg, has proposed that government should just purchase the property rights (patents) of the drug companies so that the products can be produced and marketed competitively. Good argument but it can be practicable only if a reasonable price can be agreed on; otherwise this might be an intractable pricing problem.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Interesting op-ed I just came across today...
David Lazarus in SF Gate has an op-ed on Bush's position on schip expansion being considered by congress...
He opens it with a story that is within the context of the debate, so its okay to make note of it for its irony (though I'd hesitate to make it a major talking point, for those of us who support Universal health care. Maybe it should be the story that leads into major talking points...)
He opens it with a story that is within the context of the debate, so its okay to make note of it for its irony (though I'd hesitate to make it a major talking point, for those of us who support Universal health care. Maybe it should be the story that leads into major talking points...)
Democratic lawmakers in Washington say they're drafting a health care reform bill that would expand coverage for low-income kids. President Bush says he'll veto any such legislation, warning that it would lead the nation "down the path to government-run health care for every American."then he appropriately rediricts to the important substance
Like that would be a bad thing.
What's particularly galling about Bush's position is that it's coming from a man who just underwent a colonoscopy performed at the taxpayer-funded, state-of-the-art medical facility at Camp David by an elite team of doctors from the taxpayer-funded National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
If anyone understands the benefits of government-run health care, it's the president.
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.To conclude, he jumps back into the Bush-as-recipiant of government funded health care... but I can't complain too much. Part of his job as a writer is to create a piece of work that can be entertaining as well as informative.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was higher.
Looking at the numbers another way, the Kaiser Family Foundation determined earlier this year that health care spending accounts for 15.2 percent of the U.S. economy.
By contrast, health care spending represents 9.9 percent of Canada's gross domestic product, 10.4 percent of France's, 9.2 percent of Australia's and just 7.8 percent of Britain's.
And again, the citizens of these countries on average live longer than we do.
The Games Insurance companies play...
As someone who works in the healthcare field it can be very frustrating dealing with patients and their insurance companies. Here are a few things that I have noticed that are being done or not done (and some rhetorical questions)...
1. Why does it matter to the insurance company where an exam test is performed? I currently work in a outpatient clinic; there is a insurance company that will pay the exam cost when a MRI is done in the building that I work in. They will not pay if the same exam is done at the hospital location. Keep in mind that the customer is NOT being admitted into the hospital, the same equipment is being used, the same doctors are performing the studies, the cost are identical and the buildings are even attached. This insurance company just wants their customer seen in the outpatient center even if it means that they will have to wait longer to get an appointment.
2. Why do insurance companies refuse to pay for routine testing needed to make a diagnosis? I learned a long time ago that you cannot use the phrase "rule out" when submitting a bill to a insurance company. For example, if you use the diagnosis "herniated disc" the insurance company will probably pay for the exam- but add the words "rule out" to herniated disc and they will not. I have never been able to figure this out-- if anyone was certain that there was a herniation they could proceed straight to treatment. Sometimes you have to "rule out" things.
3. Why make people be admitted into the hospital for studies that can be done on a outpatient basis? This is a situation that happens all to frequently... Someone gets sick and needs a lot of expensive test-- the person's insurance company scoffs and refuses to pay. But doctors and hospital administrators are smart and have figured a way to beat the insurance company at their own game...just admit the person into the hospital and the insurance company will pay for whatever the patient needs. So, in addition to paying for the test and procedures that could have been done as an outpatient the insurance company gets to pay for a hospital admission also. I cannot image a more effective way of wasting time and money.
There are huge bureaucracies and seemingly endless red tape that must be navigated for a process that could be fairly simple. When someone is sick or injured they deserve care and compassion; from my point of view most are not receiving much from the insurance company whose business it is to provide for their patients when needed.
1. Why does it matter to the insurance company where an exam test is performed? I currently work in a outpatient clinic; there is a insurance company that will pay the exam cost when a MRI is done in the building that I work in. They will not pay if the same exam is done at the hospital location. Keep in mind that the customer is NOT being admitted into the hospital, the same equipment is being used, the same doctors are performing the studies, the cost are identical and the buildings are even attached. This insurance company just wants their customer seen in the outpatient center even if it means that they will have to wait longer to get an appointment.
2. Why do insurance companies refuse to pay for routine testing needed to make a diagnosis? I learned a long time ago that you cannot use the phrase "rule out" when submitting a bill to a insurance company. For example, if you use the diagnosis "herniated disc" the insurance company will probably pay for the exam- but add the words "rule out" to herniated disc and they will not. I have never been able to figure this out-- if anyone was certain that there was a herniation they could proceed straight to treatment. Sometimes you have to "rule out" things.
3. Why make people be admitted into the hospital for studies that can be done on a outpatient basis? This is a situation that happens all to frequently... Someone gets sick and needs a lot of expensive test-- the person's insurance company scoffs and refuses to pay. But doctors and hospital administrators are smart and have figured a way to beat the insurance company at their own game...just admit the person into the hospital and the insurance company will pay for whatever the patient needs. So, in addition to paying for the test and procedures that could have been done as an outpatient the insurance company gets to pay for a hospital admission also. I cannot image a more effective way of wasting time and money.
There are huge bureaucracies and seemingly endless red tape that must be navigated for a process that could be fairly simple. When someone is sick or injured they deserve care and compassion; from my point of view most are not receiving much from the insurance company whose business it is to provide for their patients when needed.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Here's a question...
So I just typed in health care policies of presidential candidates and a link to a site from American Academy of Family Physicians with 2008 positions of candidates. I just looked at it quickly and this caught my eye on the Rudy Giuliani description...
Um...
go check for yourself.
I'll even leave the link again and you can come back after you've looked.
Okay. Did you find it? Did you find any mention of health care? His issues page doesn't even mention health care. So why did the site claim it mentioned details? How long do we as citizens put up with other people making claims for candidates that is just not true. The media does a whitewash by not challenging candidates who lack any attempt to discuss issues that are on the average persons mind, budget, and stress level.
Rudy GiulianiSo I think to myself, oh I'd like to see his proposal to give Americans more control over and access to health care... and what these portable free-market solutions are? What does he mean by free market. Does he think public subsidies for medical research free market? Does he think subsidizing the education of people going through med-school free market? For these and many other questions I eagerly clicked on his website since it says his site has more details.
Priorities: Giuliani has said that a single payer system is not an effective way to improve the nation’s health care system. He proposes to give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. For more details, see Giuliani's Official Campaign Site.
Um...
go check for yourself.
I'll even leave the link again and you can come back after you've looked.
Okay. Did you find it? Did you find any mention of health care? His issues page doesn't even mention health care. So why did the site claim it mentioned details? How long do we as citizens put up with other people making claims for candidates that is just not true. The media does a whitewash by not challenging candidates who lack any attempt to discuss issues that are on the average persons mind, budget, and stress level.
Welcome...
Welcome to the first ever 3rd District Common Agenda discussion week. We are a newly formed group of citizens in, around, or interested in the politics of GA’s 3rd U.S. Congressional District. Visit our home page if you’d like to learn more about the group. The topic of this discussion week will be the health care policies of current presidential candidates. The idea behind the Common Agenda platform is that we all have a basic need to see certain issues addressed. We all need a healthy functioning economy, successful schools, and a health care system where everyone can get the care they need. How we get to that point is in question, what policy steps will help rather than hurt. That’s the debate. The issues and ideas are the issue at hand, not liberal this and conservative that. Most citizens don’t care who comes up with it, they care if the policy works and helps them thrive. So onto the ground rules.
1. Talk about health care policies of the presidential candidates. If one of the candidates is quotes speaking on something and you want to digress further into that issue that is great. So say Kucinich is talking about his Universal Medicare plan, I could quote him and his take and get more into the details that the quote couldn’t possible do. Don’t let your health care discussion digress into Iraq, or abortion, or the War on Terror. Now, for example, if you want to talk about health care and you discuss the health care of current Iraqi vets, that is perfectly fine. Follow up posts on past posts are fine without using a candidate, you might want to site the post so that new visitors can keep up.
2. Stick to facts and figures and where they came from. You can go directly to the studies. Or since the topic is presidential candidate policies. You can quote that candidate as a source of a study. Now say John Edwards states a “fact” and you have studies that contradict it by all means post it.
3. Keep it above the belt. No attacks on people. And no attacks on political philosophies. No “Republicans hate poor people” or “Democrats are Communists.” That doesn’t help the discussion and tends to get people defensive. Let me clarify, facts about voting records is fine. So if say some bill failed to pass but was voted by party lines you could say: In the committee meeting all 9 Democrats voted for the measure while all 8 Republicans voted against it. But try to quote people directly on their vote and why they voted that way. Dig deeper than just the facts. We want to start with the empirical facts that no one denies and then piece them together so see what they mean. Who profits, who gains, who loses. Each vote, each policy idea that succeeds or fails has huge impact on every day people.
4. Do not violate copyright. If its protected (such as Times Select) you can cite important highlights. And actually for the most part we want to stay true to the blog form. We don’t need the whole article or op-ed posted. Just post a link. Maybe quote your key highlights and then your own thoughts. Everyone is able to go read the full link.
5. Everyone and anyone is welcome to post. The agenda of this group is to help educate people on different Universal Health Care policy ideas but all sides, views, and opinions are welcome to participate.
6. Keep track and on the last day or two post a final report on your experience from the week: what did you learn, did you change your mind on anything, was the week helpful or merely spinning wheels.
7. Tell your friends and family about it. Advertise! Let people know about this weeks blog. We want this to be as successful as possible and build a grassroots movement of every day citizens who take the time to jump in with the policy wonks and try to articulate their own ideas. We all have an agenda, in a democratic system we should all have a place to articulate our concerns, ideas, and feelings on the issues that impact our lives.
1. Talk about health care policies of the presidential candidates. If one of the candidates is quotes speaking on something and you want to digress further into that issue that is great. So say Kucinich is talking about his Universal Medicare plan, I could quote him and his take and get more into the details that the quote couldn’t possible do. Don’t let your health care discussion digress into Iraq, or abortion, or the War on Terror. Now, for example, if you want to talk about health care and you discuss the health care of current Iraqi vets, that is perfectly fine. Follow up posts on past posts are fine without using a candidate, you might want to site the post so that new visitors can keep up.
2. Stick to facts and figures and where they came from. You can go directly to the studies. Or since the topic is presidential candidate policies. You can quote that candidate as a source of a study. Now say John Edwards states a “fact” and you have studies that contradict it by all means post it.
3. Keep it above the belt. No attacks on people. And no attacks on political philosophies. No “Republicans hate poor people” or “Democrats are Communists.” That doesn’t help the discussion and tends to get people defensive. Let me clarify, facts about voting records is fine. So if say some bill failed to pass but was voted by party lines you could say: In the committee meeting all 9 Democrats voted for the measure while all 8 Republicans voted against it. But try to quote people directly on their vote and why they voted that way. Dig deeper than just the facts. We want to start with the empirical facts that no one denies and then piece them together so see what they mean. Who profits, who gains, who loses. Each vote, each policy idea that succeeds or fails has huge impact on every day people.
4. Do not violate copyright. If its protected (such as Times Select) you can cite important highlights. And actually for the most part we want to stay true to the blog form. We don’t need the whole article or op-ed posted. Just post a link. Maybe quote your key highlights and then your own thoughts. Everyone is able to go read the full link.
5. Everyone and anyone is welcome to post. The agenda of this group is to help educate people on different Universal Health Care policy ideas but all sides, views, and opinions are welcome to participate.
6. Keep track and on the last day or two post a final report on your experience from the week: what did you learn, did you change your mind on anything, was the week helpful or merely spinning wheels.
7. Tell your friends and family about it. Advertise! Let people know about this weeks blog. We want this to be as successful as possible and build a grassroots movement of every day citizens who take the time to jump in with the policy wonks and try to articulate their own ideas. We all have an agenda, in a democratic system we should all have a place to articulate our concerns, ideas, and feelings on the issues that impact our lives.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Sign up...
Start reading those policy papers, interviews, and op-eds. Get your thoughts in order, sign up, and come participate starting July 23rd. Make your thoughts and opinions an important part of the health care debate in this country. You don't have to be in GA's 3rd District to participate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)