- Vote Date:
- January 12, 2007
- Motion:
- H.R. 4: Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 (On Passage)
- Location:
- House
- Result:
- Pass
- 255 Yes Votes
- 170 No Votes
- 10 Not Voting
- Showing contributions
- Jan 2003-Dec 2008
excluding presidential campaign funds
Interests who did want this bill to become law (such as Consumer groups and Elderly issues/Social Security) gave an average of:
- $98,704 to each legislator voting Yes
- $11,287 to each legislator voting No
Interests who did not want this bill to become law (such as Biotech products & research and Chambers of commerce) gave an average of:
- $27,986 to each legislator voting Yes
- $50,391 to each legislator voting No
Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
Comments 
Lower Drug Prices for Medicare Participants by Milan Sundaresan, Jul 31, 2008 (7:41pm)
H.R. 4 allows the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare members. Clearly the bill garnered support from various workers’ unions but was opposed by larger pharmaceutical companies.
View 1 reply to this comment
to this comment
Revisiting Medicare Part D by doctablade, Mar 21, 2009 (2:02pm)
the time is now to revisit Medicare part D.
As a physician with a large geriatric practice,in my primary care private office I give congress a D for Medicare PArt D.
At first “savings” were appreciated…but by whom?
Some patients benefited in that drugs that were previously unaffordable now were a co-pay away. pharmaceutical companies of course were able to see their branded meds continue to have a substantial niche in the market. Pharmaceutical managed care companies reaped benefits in becoming mega-pharmacies to millions.
However to the taxpayers. Pharmaceutical costs skyrocketed overall, well beyond inflation, or even health inflation for that matter. Even the costs of well established mdications went up despite the larger sales, despite the reasoning of market place forces.
many patients found themselves in a doughnut hole when the prescription benefit ran out usually in October November. My patients would ask for samples, and if I had none tough choices would follow. Unwisely ,Some stopped their meds altogether. Others decided to take half doses or every other day dosing to stretch out their supples. Some paid out of pocket. Others changed thei med to a generic. A few asked for scripts to be mailed to Canada. My mom who lives near mexico got hers south of the border.
Congress now has an opportunity to fix Medicare part D.Here are some proposals that will make the system more efficient, less wasteful:
1) negotiate the best price possible on brand names for all Medicare part D patients.
2)tier the system. Lowest copay for generics, highest for drugs that need to be brand name only, or that are of a sort where
less expensice choices exist.A three tier system works well empowering the patient to play a role on how to distribute resources
3)restrict the medication formulary. Some drugs sre reaonable over the counter. Others from manufacturers who refuse to negotiate with medicare Part D representatives should be prohibited.
4)Eliminate the donut hole, if generics are used, except when no other option exists.
5) Allow the Canada option
6)Windfall tax those who personally makle over $250 K directly from this new Medicare Part D system
7 monitor pharmaceutical manufactures and Insurance companies and distribution centers to prevent fraud and misuse.
8)lastly cover smoking cessation drugs! how bottom line foolish it is to not do everything we can to get people to live healthier lifestyles.
Thank you for allowing me a moment to speak up
doctablade@hotmail.com
View 3 replies to this comment
to this comment
Re: Revisiting Medicare Part D by Anonymous, Mar 21, 2009 (3:31pm)
You are absolutely correct. As a retired physician I had no idea how bad the plan was until I tried to help my 90 year father negotiate the system. Physicians who are not geriatricians need to better understand costs to our patients
Re: Revisiting Medicare Part D by Anonymous, Mar 21, 2009 (3:42pm)
I think that we need to keep the Canadian option at bay. If the prices are negotiated by Medicare then we shouldn’t need to use Canada. If the industry can sell it in Canada for that, they can sell it here for that. We can keep the business here at home.
Re: Revisiting Medicare Part D by klingle, Mar 21, 2009 (4:27pm)
Smoking cessation is a worthy objective. I have never smoked; I am alergic to smoke. Still the suggestion runs counter to the proposals being forwarded by several states to help balance their budgets by raising tobacco tax. Since the demand for tobacco tax is inelastic (that is demand stays the same for these addicted people irrespective of price). But I agree with your proposal.
As to the Canada proposal – it is not in the interest of the Canadian government or people to encourage reimportation of drugs from Canada. If one understands the concepts of managerial accounting (contribution margin/operating leverage) you can understand why the American drug companies will sell products for any price above their variable (out-of-pocket) cost although such pricing gets little or nothing contributed toward the R&D costs for developing a new drug. However, if reimported drugs causes a drop in stateside demand thereby causing significant reduction in higher stateside margins, the companies would just stop selling to the Canadians at the lower prices. Do you think that this is the reason the Canadian government is against reimportation?
klingle
Latest Comments
See More | New Comment