New HHS Rule To Force Drug Companies To List Prices In TV Ads (cnbc.com) 76
schwit1 writes: The new rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will force companies to disclose the prices of prescription drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid that cost $35 or more for a month's supply. Addressing high prescription drug prices has been one issue that the Trump administration and Democrats have agreed on over the past two years, with Congress calling big pharma executives and pharmacy heads to testify. "Requiring the inclusion of drugs' list prices in TV ads is the single most significant step any administration has taken toward a simple commitment: American patients deserve to know the prices of the healthcare they receive," Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement.
A *rule*? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't the price already disclosed when you buy?
I think if you're going to shame the pharma companies, make them disclose the price they sell it in OTHER markets? Like here you go America, here's how much were shafting you because we can.
Prices should be disclosed early (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't the price already disclosed when you buy?
It's not that simple, especially when insurance is involved. What you pay and what I pay are not likely to be the same number - which is a problem too. Furthermore to get a lot of these drugs someone has to go to the trouble of seeing a doctor, getting a prescription, traveling to the pharmacy and only then do they find out the price. That's a lot of effort and expense to learn that a drug maker is asking for half your monthly income for a few pills. It makes a lot of sense to put the prices as early in the process as possible. Two likely benefits. 1) A lot of unnecessary trips to the doctor are saved when people look at the prices and say "oh hell no" and 2) drug companies will have to make public how much they are screwing you so patients can make informed decisions regarding treatment options. It won't solve everything but it's an improvement over the opaque system we have now.
A huge part of the problem is that pricing in the US market is simultaneously mostly unregulated AND not transparent. Most people have no idea what their medical care actually costs and many of them are shielded from it because third party insurance companies pick up much of the cost. Since we don't have the government (or anyone else) negotiating seriously on our behalf it's hardly surprising that a lot of shady shit is going down and we overpay ridiculously. I find it both depressing and amusing that the people who hate the thought of government being involved with health care can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that it actually costs them more to not have the government involved. The US has the least government involvement and pays the most. That's not a coincidence.
I think if you're going to shame the pharma companies, make them disclose the price they sell it in OTHER markets? Like here you go America, here's how much were shafting you because we can.
I could get behind that idea.
Re: (Score:3)
.
Now, if our lovely government hadn't made a law saying m
Spreading risk and cost (Score:5, Insightful)
I discovered that for the (BP) meds I was prescribed by my local doctors, I'd pay more as co-pay under ACA than I'd pay straight up cash with no insurance.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Assuming what you say is true that's unfortunate but it has NOTHING to do with designing a payment system that minimizes costs overall for the most people. I had a health care plan for several years under the ACA and it actually saved me money over the plan my company could have gotten me. Some others in our company had to pay more than they did before.
In fact, the savings on health care generally to NOT have insurance, but pay the fine and negotiate were such that I went that way, and have save a few tens of K$ in the past few years.
Spoken like a relatively healthy person. Might be true for you. Problem is that what is optimal for you isn't optimal for the population as a whole. Yes you might end up paying more. I certainly have at times. The ENTIRE point of insurance is that we spread the risk and the cost. Some people end up paying more and some end up paying less. That's how it is supposed to work. The people that can afford it help support the people that can't. We ALL will need a lot of health care at some point in our lives (usually when we are elderly) and that means you get to pay more in than you use when you are younger and/or healthier. You'll get your turn to use more than you pay sooner or later. Heck all it would take is one serious accident or illness and your argument would be immediately rendered false. A few weeks in a hospital can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck negotiating all those prices while recovering from a heart attack or cancer or a car accident.
And honestly, asking everyone to spend their lives negotiating with large healthcare companies is foolish. Maybe you can do it effectively but lots (maybe most) of people cannot. They aren't smart enough and the health care companies have HUGE advantages in negotiating.
Now, if our lovely government hadn't made a law saying medicate was not allowed to negotiate prices, things might be a little better.
No argument here. We SHOULD have the government negotiating healthcare pricing on our behalf and yet we don't because of some foolish ideology and heavy lobbying by rich medical and drug companies. Every other party that could be involved in negotiating prices has a profit motive that doesn't favor the individual patient. The ONLY party that can be an objectively neutral advocate is the government.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the savings on health care generally to NOT have insurance, but pay the fine and negotiate were such that I went that way, and have save a few tens of K$ in the past few years.
Spoken like a relatively healthy person. Might be true for you. Problem is that what is optimal for you isn't optimal for the population as a whole. Yes you might end up paying more. I certainly have at times. The ENTIRE point of insurance is that we spread the risk and the cost. Some people end up paying more and some end up paying less. That's how it is supposed to work. The people that can afford it help support the people that can't.
Spoken like a relatively sickly person. That is NOT what insurance is for or how it is "supposed" to work. That is how you might WANT it to work, but insurance is me paying a small price for someone else to accept the liability of an unlikely expense that I would not be able to afford. You are wanting insurance to be socialism. You should learn that words have actual meanings, and you don't get to change them just to suit you.
That being said, I don't owe you a damn thing just because you did the world t
Re: (Score:2)
List prices and pharmacy cash prices are not exactly a secret. They're published on the web and searchable by anyone who actually has any interest in being a "smart shopper". All this does is "put it in your face". Although considering all of the disclaimers already in drug ads, I am not sure how conspicuous this will be.
What your insurance company paid is also disclosed to you and you can share that information with anyone you want.
Your pharmacy might also give you a nice year end summary.
Re: (Score:2)
We pay more so the rest of the world can leach off of us.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
The top ten advertised drug brands according to Nielsen [fiercepharma.com]
Cialis:313.35.
Elqiuis:556.15
Humira:5,683.94
Xeljanz: 4,839.86
Abilify: $755.01
Lyrica: $573
Viagra $427.47
Latuda $1,489.55
Celebrex: $204.24
Chantix: $514.56
Of course, the generic equivalent of celebrex costs $6, the generic equivalent of viagra is $10, the generic equivalent of abilfy is $8; and the generic equivalent of Cialis is $32. But the generics aren't advertised, are they?
Re: (Score:2)
In any event, Viagra is crap. It's a 1st-gen product. The second gen products (Cialis, etc) have far fewer side effects. Viagra lasts 4 hours or so. Cialis is called the weekend pill*. *The ability to perform super-humanly lasts 24-48 hours. The erection comes and goes as normal with typical stimuli.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a secret that the Constitution is generally ignored by all branches of government. I am talking about the "law creation part".
I don't think this is a free speech issue, these businesses are just being "prevented" from price rigging by being forced to announce the price and being held to truth in advertising laws, they still get to set whatever price they like. This is much like people being required to provide their names to get a drivers license.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get "free speech" (compelled to state information) like this without legislation? I'm surprised.
A regulatory agency can make rules, that they were already empowered to do so, by legislation.
Or in this case, my guess would be it's more like "if you want Medicare or Medicaid to ever pay for these drugs, you have to do this."
(Nobody has any problem with this type of thing when it's used to tell Republicans to shut up or whatever. Now all of sudden we need specific legislation?)
Re: (Score:2)
"Free speech" has nothing to do with labeling laws and rules. The nutrition information box on your food packages is mandated by FDA rules. This is not a violation of free speech.
Free speech is about being free to express opinions. It does not give people license to lie, nor does it prevent the government from compelling people to reveal facts, particularly when it comes to advertising.
Now they need to warn you (Score:4, Funny)
Bankruptcy
Which price? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing they're going to game the system and all these wunderdrugs are gonna be advertised for about $10/month.
Re:Which price? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean $10/month*
*with qualifying insurance plan
Re: (Score:1)
That new Affordable Care Act price.
With a message at the end of the ad thanking every gov for new price.
A new NHS slogan for the USA after every ad?
Re: (Score:3)
>"The Blue Cross price? The Humana Price? The Medicare price? The Canada price? The uninsured price? "
What it should be is the same price across the board. It really burns me that insurance companies "negotiate" their prices down by 2/3rds and yet those buying out of pocket have to pay full list price. So it adds insult to injury (pun intended).
The example I use is dental, since it is simple. I have few dental problems, so I just need a cleaning once a year and have no dental insurance. I have watche
You can negotiate too. They love cash. Call around (Score:2)
When I've told them I'll pay cash and I want a better price, I've received as much as half off their initial ask price.
My doctor referred me to place for an MRI. When I called to ask the price, it took them ten minutes to even find out what they plan to charge me. $3,000
I Googled "MRI Dallas", called the very first place that came up in Google. $1,200. If I schedule when they aren't busy, $1,000. If I file the insurance claim instead of having them do it, $750.
So that's a savings of 66% even if I had them
No you cannot always negotiate (Score:2)
When I've told them I'll pay cash and I want a better price, I've received as much as half off their initial ask price.
Yeah it doesn't really work like that. Maybe you did do that in some rare corner case but most of the time if you offer cash and don't involve insurance they'll actually charge you more. The "list" prices from most hospitals would make a mafia loan shark blush. And good luck doing that for something that is an emergency. You really think you are going to negotiate pricing while having a heart attack?
My doctor referred me to place for an MRI. When I called to ask the price, it took them ten minutes to even find out what they plan to charge me. $3,000
That's because they often don't know and have no way to know in advance. They have no idea up front what
Can't be done, he says to the guy doing it (Score:2)
> Yeah it doesn't really work like that.
Tell you what, before you tell me that I can't do what I routinely do, why don't you try it.
As the old adage says:
People saying: âoeIt canâ(TM)t be done,â are always being interrupted by somebody doing it.
I routinely ask for a cash discount, and more often than not, get it.
You mentioned emergency care. I've done three things about that. First, knowing the difference between urgent care and emergency. Emergency, in medical care terminology, is imme
Political push on emergency bills (Score:2)
Btw I'm glad to see there is also a push for laws regarding prices of emergency care, and regarding surprisingly high bills.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/0... [cnbc.com]
Re:Which price? (Score:5, Interesting)
What it should be is the same price across the board. It really burns me that insurance companies "negotiate" their prices down by 2/3rds and yet those buying out of pocket have to pay full list price. So it adds insult to injury (pun intended).
It's is even more fucked up than that. I'm currently waiting for my new medial insurance to kick in. I take Esomeprazole Magnesium tablet every day as prescribed by a doctor. The over the counter name is Nexium and retails for about $15. The generic sitting right next to it is about $10. I can get a whole months for right around $20 over the counter.
The bottle that my pharmacist cost out of pocket, $275. Mind you there is no difference between the over the counter and prescription, other than dosage. I would have to take 2 of the over the counter.
Well I wasn't going to pay $275 for something I can get for $20. But the madness didn't end there. I pulled out a "GoodRX" discount card. This is not insurance but a card that gets you a discount on medication. That took my prescription down to $17 and some change. A card that isn't insurance caused over $200 to vanish from my drug cost as if by magic.
If any industry needs to be regulated its the prescription drug industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing they're going to game the system and all these wunderdrugs are gonna be advertised for about $10/month.
If I were them, I'd price it based on the mg or some other appropriately small unit.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule requires display of the list price, BEFORE insurance discounts or coverage.
But... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's the rub. A moral society wouldn't make you choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a moral society would.
I don't care HOW many drugs you take, you're going to die one day. If you're asking other people to expend resources to keep your miserable ass kicking, you should be willing to give back. This idea that you are somehow deserving of having others dedicate their time, effort and resources to your well-being is the height of immorality.
You're going to die. Get over it, and live what you have to the fullest. Stop wasting it being a whiny little bitch, because others might have mo
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody overdosed on Ayn Rand when they were going through puberty.
I'm not religious, but I think you just proved that whole "the love of money is the root of all evil" stuff. The idea that it is immoral to help someone who just got hit by a bus without first checking their wallet is, put kindly, not one a good person would have.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of this rule is to shame drug companies into lowering prices. If this works, it would in fact actually curtail the ridiculous prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong, I agree they "can't" feel shame. But they are also conscious of how they are perceived by potential customers, and they will have to know that the visible sticker price will turn off some who might otherwise go running to their doctor for "some of that great stuff" they saw on TV. So it would be artificial shame, to be sure, but it still might have a similar effect as "real" shame.
Shaming (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a fantastic idea. It is basically requiring the big pharma companies to shame themselves publicly.
Prescription drug commercials have *always* been a pet peeve of mine, for a bunch of reasons. The biggest is that they typically cover such an extremely specific disease or illness that far less than 1% of the population is affected, and thus even a potential "customer" in the first place. So it's a complete waste of time for the other 99%+ of people hearing that commercial (not that other commercials aren't a waste of time, but at least they are something I can actually go out and buy if I choose).
The second thing that bugs me is patients can't even then go out and buy the med themselves. The entire point of the commercial is to try and just get a patient to ask their doctor about the medication. Obviously if there was some silver-bullet medication for a patient's medical condition then most physicians in that specialty would know (because the pharma companies send drug reps to all pertinent practices regularly, doing everything they are legally allowed to do like buying the office lunch, etc, and giving free samples - so the doctors are already aware of these meds).
Next, I really despise med commercials that don't even talk about the disease or illness AT ALL, or what the medication even does. They just show people doing things and being happy and talk about side affects. Literally, the entire point of the commercial is just to have shown the name of the drug.
Finally, after everything I said above (encapsulating the overall ineffectiveness of these ads) they cost the pharma companies a fortune. Many are prime time spots that cost top dollar. Who pays for these commercials? The sick people that actually do buy these meds, or their insurance companies, or the government - either way it makes the drugs even more expensive.
So... I think it's awesome they have to own up to their high prices in their fancy, expensive commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of advertising medications makes little sense unless there's literally several different drugs that provide the identical therapeutic benefit. But usually there's all kinds of differences, from side effects, mode of action to actual therapeutic benefit and it's not like everyone has the "same" version of the disease.
And so many of these drugs seem like they're meant to treat one very narrow and often serious condition where the option is "take a drug to treat it or suffer from not treating
It's not just about shaming (Score:2)
It's not just about shaming. It's about stimulating competition on price. If company A has drug X that costs $100 and promises to fix condition XX, and company B has drug Y which hosts $10000 to fix the same condition, making them disclose pricing will steer the consumers towards company A even if the after-insurance price is the same. I hope they also require doctors to disclose the cost of all procedures costing more than $100. It's ridiculous that I can be charged thousands of dollars for treatments I di
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, after he tells me what he knows, I'm going to fire up my favorite search engine and research the drugs myself. That might lead to more questions for my doctor. That might lead me to watch out for side-effects that he didn't mention. That might lead me to say "Oh, HELL no!!"
The internet is full of crap, but if I'm going to take a strange chemical, I want to know everything I can about it. The doctor has to be an expert in all sickness. I just have to be an expert in what is ailing me.
Just Be Rid of Drug Adverts (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the little blue pill is recreational. Couldn't care less what you did with that.
But, the testosterone replacements are much more. Yeah, there is a kick to the libido. But more important, it has eliminated my joint pain and allowed me to be much more active. Belly fat is melting away, and I'm working out again. I feel safe predicting that this $1K/year treatment is going to save multiples of that in other treatments. It will probably kill me earlier than I'd go otherwise; but, it's the life in
Re: (Score:2)
Which was the intention of the ones making the new rule.
Now, how will the name brand manufacturer respond? Did I hear you say, "Lower their price to compete"?
Well, would you look at that!?
Only if covered by Medicare (Score:2)
FTA:
[The new rule] will require direct-to-consumer television advertisements for prescription pharmaceuticals covered by Medicare or Medicaid to include the list price – the Wholesale Acquisition Cost – if that price is equal to or greater than $35 for a month’s supply or the usual course of therapy. (Emphasis mine.)
This only applies if the drug is covered by Medicare. Many drugs are non-formulary, especially new ones. Such drugs are not covered by Medicare.
You will still be paying through the nose for anything not covered by Medicare. Especially if you're not insured by a giant.
Cut to the chase.. (Score:2)
List Prices In TV Ads (Score:2)
Ah... but how will those prices "appear" in the ad?
I predict they'll meet the letter of the ruling by placing those prices in the paragraph of unreadable text that they slap onto the end of each ad in a typeface that's so small that it's essentially invisible.
I'd be more hopeful of this actually doing something positive about the insane rise in drug prices had the ruling said that the prices had to prominently appear in the ads and defined the size of the text, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule does specify the duration, size, and appearance of the font displaying the price.
The rule text: https://www.federalregister.go... [federalregister.gov]