What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Non-Stop Calls Against Prop 61 (Prescription Drug Regulation) (1 Viewer)

cstu

Footballguy
We've been getting recorded calls seemingly non-stop telling us to vote against Prop 61 - all paid for by drug companies (they are require to state this at the end of the call).

A few examples

- Woman claiming to be calling on behalf of the NAACP says it will raise drug prices.

- Gay man claims people with HIV will not be able to get their medicine.

- Doctor claims it will raise costs.

What can be so threatening to drug companies that they are spending over $100M to fight it you ask?

This initiative was designed to restrict the amount that any state agency could pay for drugs, tying it to the price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs—an organization that falls under certain state laws regarding drug price negotiations. Specifically, it would forbid state agencies to enter into any purchasing agreement with drug manufacturers unless the net cost of the drug is the same or less than that paid by the VA. The measure would apply in any case in which the state ultimately provides funding for the purchase of drugs, even if the drugs are not purchased directly by a government agency. The measure only applies to the purchasing of drugs by state agencies and does not apply to purchases made by individuals. Medicaid managed care programs would be exempt from drug price regulations required by Proposition 61.[2]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm voting for it to send a message, but you realize the cost reductions are not going to apply to most CA citizens, and there is a real possibility it could backfire, right?

 
I'm voting for it to send a message, but you realize the cost reductions are not going to apply to most CA citizens, and there is a real possibility it could backfire, right?
It's more of a start of something, I get that.  This gets the ball rolling towards other states following suit and eventually Medicare.

The GAO study looked at data for 10 high-cost drugs administered by physicians from the four states with the highest Medicaid spending: California, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. Medicare drug spending was compared to spending by Medicaid, the Department of Veterans Affairs and two large private payers.

It found that Medicare generally paid the same or more for the drugs than other federal payers and the VA never paid more than 68% of the Medicare rates for the drugs. The private payers often paid more than Medicare.
Link

 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure if this passes, drug prices are going to go up for everyone not covered by Federal/State programs. But, the pharmaceutical companies are spending a ton of money to stop it, so that tells me there's something there that concerns them. I'm with CSTU ultimately - if the message gets out, it will get amplified even though we might get some unpleasant price hikes in the near term. Eventually if the light keeps shining on the insane profits these companies make, we'll have to get some kind of compromise worked out.

 
They already tried it with Medicaid, and the result was a disaster. Don't know why this or Medicare would be different.
A disaster?

Medicaid

While the details differ by state, Medicaid’s drug pricing strategies are mostly based on discounts that drug manufacturers are required to give on retail drugs. In effect, these rebates lower the prices paid by Medicaid to whichever is lower: 23.1 percent less than the average price paid for the drug by other buyers, or the lowest price at which the drug is sold to other buyers. Medicaid gets an additional rebate if a drug’s price rises faster than inflation. In addition to these mandatory rebates, state Medicaid programs can negotiate further discounts.​
Drug Price Control: How Some Government Programs Do It

 
This was the argument in a nutshell:

-I pay $10 a ticket to go to the movies

-My dad goes to the movies on Tuesdays at 4pm and pays $6 for the matinee with the Senior Citizen Discount

-I feel that's wrong. So, there should be a law that everyone can see the same movie at the same price. Anyone should be able to pay the Senior price!

The dumb people like CSTU who wanted this to pass figured, afterwards, that the movie theater would keep the $6 senior price and everyone would pay that. The intelligent people reasoned that if it passes, the movie theater will just raise the senior price to $10.

Thank god there are a lot of people in California smarter than @cstu
I don't think your analogy is the greatest. I don't think it would have been the VA prices that went up. It would have been prices for everyone not covered by State/Federal programs.

Doesn't matter. It didn't pass. We still need to do something about regulating drug prices though. I hope a better plan shows up soon.

 
This was the argument in a nutshell:

-I pay $10 a ticket to go to the movies

-My dad goes to the movies on Tuesdays at 4pm and pays $6 for the matinee with the Senior Citizen Discount

-I feel that's wrong. So, there should be a law that everyone can see the same movie at the same price. Anyone should be able to pay the Senior price!

The dumb people like CSTU who wanted this to pass figured, afterwards, that the movie theater would keep the $6 senior price and everyone would pay that. The intelligent people reasoned that if it passes, the movie theater will just raise the senior price to $10.

Thank god there are a lot of people in California smarter than @cstu


That's right, flush him out.  I'm sure this will do it! 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top