If you think that these companies aren't trying to find a cure for cancer, think again. If a drug company comes up with a cure, they would make so much money that it wouldn't be funny.

 

Many doctors are starting to refuse to take Medicare and Medicaid due to the low payments they recieve for services rendered and the amount of red tape they have to go through to get paid. I am talking several months before they get paid by either one. Given what their malpractice insurance costs every year due to the cost of our society becoming so mired in lawsuits, it is costing regular physicians hundreds of thousands per year.

 

As far as marketing, the drug industry does spend a ton of money on marketing their products to doctors, that is true. But they also spend billions in medical research and jump through similar hoops with the government that providers have to jump through, ... maybe even more.

If I follow your logic, we should allow the healthcare and drug companies to keep their revenues where they are if they want to get paid with tax dollars because if we upset them other companies may suffer?

 

Poor logic.

 

Fix the root cause of the problem. You're not advocating that. You're acting like we should not challenge these companies to be more efficient .

 

If your company can't stay in business so be it. Isn't that what the "free markets" concept says that you and others spout?

 

You don't follow well.

 

You can't "fix" the health care system by putting providers out of business, that is unless you and others like you want to increase unemployment and encourage rationing of services because of shortage of providers. Forget drug companies, they have nothing to do with this discussion. I am talking about ONLY direct providers of health care services.

 

This is anything BUT a free market. As soon as the government steps in and says what companies can be paid then any semblance to a free marker is gone. Yes, I am a proponent of the free market system. This isn't it.

I don't begrudge any company for making a buck. However, if they want to use taxpayer money to make said buck they need to participate a bit more. Marketing expense (tv ads plus the direct sales force) IMO is the area that has the most fat. I believe we are often prescribed drugs that have the most push behind them instead of a comparable drug that costs less.

 

For the apologists, if the drug companies can get by without collecting tax dollars I'm all for them charging anything and everything they can. If the want to dip into the public trough, though, they have to be a better parter.

 

 

And often times insurance companies reject those claims and require the doctor to either change the medication to something with a generic, or go through a lengthy paperwork process to get the drug that is off formulary covered.

 

You heard it here, the "evil" insurance companies are actually helping to save money.

If your company can't stay in business so be it. Isn't that what the "free markets" concept says that you and others spout?

"Free market" rewards firms that respond best to consumer demand, not government bureaucracy.

There are many problems regarding how you go about handling drug costs. There is the initial investment to recoup AND all the dead ends that the researchers go down until they find the right formulation. Once that is done then they start the trials which can take many years. They also have to get FDA approval and so on.

 

Once that has happened they may not have much time left on their patent. Patents last 12-15 years from when it is granted and even then there is no guarantee that the drug will even stay on the market. Bextra and Vioxx both got yanked a few years back and I am know there have been many others. Also the drug may not even be on the market the full time of the granted patent as the trials can take years to complete before the FDA will allow it to be sold. Once a drug goes generic, unless the company that made the brand name drug gets the exclusive rights to the generic for a period of time then they will very rarely sell the name brand anymore. Most states have laws in place that mandate the dispensing of generic drugs unless the patient or MD specifically want it to be dispensed as written. Additionally in the manufacturing process the percent yield is very important when it comes to the chemical reactions that are used to form the active ingredients for the drugs. Since percent yields are, by the nature of basic chemistry, usually not terribly high they have to use much more in the way of raw materials to make the stuff too.

 

Something else you need to take into account where drug costs are concerned as well is the fact that the drug companies don't just sell their drugs here. They sell them all over the world and many countries have socialized medicine. This may not sound too bad but the problem you run into is the fact that the government tells a company that they will pay only a certain amount and no more for their drug, if that is below cost then the company will run at a significant loss over time. This is one of the reasons why drug costs are as high as they are in the states and why the spend so much on advertising to increase brand name recognition. They have to recoup the losses that they incur when selling to countries that have such systems in place.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not going to call them innocent victims in the matter here. They are out to make money, and who can blame them? If I could make a billion a month off of cholesterol drug you better believe I would do it. They do charge a lot for their drugs and sometimes I can understand being quite perturbed with it when the insurance company doesn't give you the happy little $10 dollar co-pay when you pick it up at the pharmacy, but there is more to it than simple greed. There is simple greed there too, don't get me wrong but it is only one variable in the long equation that is drug costs.

 

Just one future pharmacist's take on the matter.

"Free market" rewards firms that respond best to consumer demand, not government bureaucracy.

 

If your business depends on federal tax dollars you had better be prepared to adapt. If you can't adapt and you don't have enough revenue from other sources, you lose.

 

Is that not "free market?"

If you think that these companies aren't trying to find a cure for cancer, think again. If a drug company comes up with a cure, they would make so much money that it wouldn't be funny.

 

Many doctors are starting to refuse to take Medicare and Medicaid due to the low payments they recieve for services rendered and the amount of red tape they have to go through to get paid. I am talking several months before they get paid by either one. Given what their malpractice insurance costs every year due to the cost of our society becoming so mired in lawsuits, it is costing regular physicians hundreds of thousands per year.

 

As far as marketing, the drug industry does spend a ton of money on marketing their products to doctors, that is true. But they also spend billions in medical research and jump through similar hoops with the government that providers have to jump through, ... maybe even more.

 

If a business doesn't want Medicare for whatever reason, that's cool. I'm all for businesses to be able to decide whether they want to come to the govt trough.

 

As far as medical malpractice insurance costs, that's on you and me. Lawyers do what we want them to do.

Some of you are getting off point regarding my comments re: drug costs.

 

I'm specifically talking about drug costs being paid by the taxpayers. If you are a drug company and you don't need federal tax dollars to pay for your drugs, God bless you. That's awesome. Charge what you want and let the market decide if your drug is worth it. Many are.

 

However, if you want to have the taxpayers pay for your drugs you have to be competitive. So many people complain about wasted tax dollars and now you're all up in arms because the President wants drug companies to be competitive in order to receive tax dollars.

 

That simply doesn't make sense.

You don't follow well.

 

You can't "fix" the health care system by putting providers out of business, that is unless you and others like you want to increase unemployment and encourage rationing of services because of shortage of providers. Forget drug companies, they have nothing to do with this discussion. I am talking about ONLY direct providers of health care services.

 

This is anything BUT a free market. As soon as the government steps in and says what companies can be paid then any semblance to a free marker is gone. Yes, I am a proponent of the free market system. This isn't it.

 

Simple question for clarification: Are you saying that drug companies and/or health care providers should be able to charge whatever they want IF they want the govt (Medicare) to pay for their drugs/services?

I told you that drug companies are not part of my original post so I won't address them.

 

No, but I do think that they should be able to cover costs and make a reasonable profit with what they are reimbursed. They can't currently. And before you talk about running more efficiently I work for a small operation that employs 5 people. The only way we get more efficient is to cut staffing.

 

Now you answer my question. Should the government at a whim be able to cut reimbursment while demanding restrictions in patient load that a provider can carry regardless of weather level of care is not positively impacted because of the limitations?

If a business doesn't want Medicare for whatever reason, that's cool. I'm all for businesses to be able to decide whether they want to come to the govt trough.

 

As far as medical malpractice insurance costs, that's on you and me. Lawyers do what we want them to do.

 

Treating patients who's insurer is the government is not going to the government trough. Provider's are not asking for a handout. They simply want to be payed an acceptable amount for their services. And yes they should be able to make a profit for their services. The govt is asking them to provide a service and lose money while providing it.

I told you that drug companies are not part of my original post so I won't address them.

 

No, but I do think that they should be able to cover costs and make a reasonable profit with what they are reimbursed. They can't currently. And before you talk about running more efficiently I work for a small operation that employs 5 people. The only way we get more efficient is to cut staffing.

 

Now you answer my question. Should the government at a whim be able to cut reimbursment while demanding restrictions in patient load that a provider can carry regardless of weather level of care is not positively impacted because of the limitations?

 

The problem with your argument is that it defies business logic.

 

My company can't call a supplier and tell it that we need them to cut costs so that we can keep revenue at a certain level. We could but they would be under no obligation (nor should they). Its my company's job to cut expenses and to run efficiently. If yours can't do that, your company need to do something about it.

 

The govt can demand changes. Someone will find a way to provide the service at the current level of reimbursement. If not, the people get to elect new representatives and demand change.

 

I

Treating patients who's insurer is the government is not going to the government trough. Provider's are not asking for a handout. They simply want to be payed an acceptable amount for their services. And yes they should be able to make a profit for their services. The govt is asking them to provide a service and lose money while providing it.

 

They have two options.

 

Reduce their expenses and become more efficient or get out of the business of treating Medicare patients.

 

They , like all companies, should be able to make a profit. However, they have to adjust to revenue decreases - just like the rest of the businesses do on a daily basis.

They have two options.

 

Reduce their expenses and become more efficient or get out of the business of treating Medicare patients.

 

They , like all companies, should be able to make a profit. However, they have to adjust to revenue decreases - just like the rest of the businesses do on a daily basis.

 

Your arguement doesn't work. You can't talk capitalism in one sentence and government price controls in another. It's liberal double talk. If the government can just set a price for service irregardless of the cost to supply the service, then there are no market forces and hence it is far from capitalistic or free market no matter how you want to twist it.

 

Whether you believe it or not there is a minimum cost of doing business.

 

Maybe they should just refuse to provide services to all medicare and medicaid patients. Then they can reduce their staffing, because they won't need to serve as many people. Be more efficient and turn a profit.

If your business depends on federal tax dollars you had better be prepared to adapt. If you can't adapt and you don't have enough revenue from other sources, you lose.

 

Is that not "free market?"

It is. I can't say that I'm familiar with the issue, but I hope it's not like TARP where the banks would rather give the money back, due to the regulations that come with it.