No time to get into this now, so I’m going to have to lean on the language of the press release. I’ll just say this is a good issue, and it puts the GOP into a “put up or shut up” type of corner. Of course, in the end, this Republican Party will do whatever it feels like, reason and consistency be damned, but Welch has been doing a terrific job using his position to keep calling out GOP nonsense loudly and relentlessly – and always in the context of presenting proactive alternatives.
Obviously, progressive policy doesn’t even get a hearing in this Tea Party dominated House, but it’s critical that Democratic leaders make enough noise to impact the public debate to whatever extent they can, and Welch has been doing a great job with that.
From the press release:
In a letter to the 12 members of the Super Committee, Welch and his House colleagues are urging that any deficit reduction plan require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Such a move would significantly lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors and save up to $156 billion over ten years.
In June, Welch introduced the Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2011. The legislation would help the Super Committee meet its target of $1.5 trillion in budget savings.
“The Super Committee is facing many difficult decisions,” Welch said. “One easy decision would be to put the federal government’s purchasing power to work to save billions of dollars a year. Paying retail rates for wholesale purchases is a good deal for the pharmaceutical industry but a bad deal for the taxpayer. At a time of fiscal belt tightening, we simply cannot afford to continue this misguided policy.”
Welch’s letter is signed by 77 House members (here’s a link to a pdf).
It would also seem that there are savings from the insurance industry. I just received one half inch of paper from BlueCrossBlueShield of Vermont. The idea that the majority of the participants in the Medicare Part D program are going to read and digest the contents of the annual changes is preposterous. Few have the time of the ability to compare their existing drug insurance plan with a new yearly plan of drug insurance.
The waste of paper and postage is an exorbitant cost. At best, this is gambling on the part of the participants and insurers to obtain the best deal for themselves. When it arrives with a letter that says the plan is pre-approved by agencies unknown to the recipients, it is a de facto take it or gamble proposal to people ignorant of the details.
The health insurers are most likely using differing computer programs to determine what will profit them the most. It might be better if the insurers were required to use the same software.
In any event, changing insurers annually is more than the average citizen is likely to do. You can be certain the insurers are aware of this and hedge their bets that the insured will not change their insurers annually. In this sense, the law is a scam.
The government should have a plan of government negotiated prices for the drugs with which the insurers must comply or the insurers should be eliminated from the process all together. Let the insurers compete for the market on their internal efficiencies.
One of the largest inefficiencies in the United States is that this has become a nation of overhead. Mostly, in and out of the government, people are simply shuffling paper for fees and salaries. Few people are producing anything.
Witchcat