Editorial Staff

Putting a Price on Life: The Coming Fight Over Government Rationing of Medical Care

/0 Comments/in /by Editorial Staff
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

This article appeared on The Mackinac Center for Public Policy on June 12, 2019.

In Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, government-run health care systems use “quality-adjusted life years” to help determine what medical procedures and drugs are available for patients. In theory, this prevents people from getting unnecessary treatment and helps prioritize patient care.

But in practice, it boils down to rationing, carried out by government bureaucrats. Pushed out of the equation are two key participants in medical care: doctors and patients. In Britain, for instance, this type of rationing has led to cancer patients having severely limited access to new treatments that are widely available in other countries. And the quality of life measure may be coming to the United States.

Dr. William Smith wrote a report critical of the QALY standard, questioning the extent that governments gets involved in judgments on the value of human life. At this event, he will discuss quality-life measurements, compare the difference between the government and private insurance when determining treatment and talk about the push for rationing by federal and state governments.

 

Get Updates On Our Life Sciences Work!

Recent Research:

Opinion: Legislature should act on bill to limit out-of-pocket drug costs

S. 609, a bill that would limit out-of-pocket costs for patients paying for prescription drugs, is a clear step in the right direction. Massachusetts should join 16 other states that have passed similar bills to protect patients.

Opinion: Drug patents aren’t a ‘necessary evil.’ They save lives.

Drug patents are one of the most important public policy innovations in all of human history, and a boon to patients awaiting cures. Inventions only come when inventors are rewarded, not punished. Patents are not a “necessary evil.”

A Federal Drug Discount Program for the Wealthy

The combination of legal disputes, a growing data repository and investigative reports have necessarily put the 340B Drug Pricing Program under the microscope. Combined with the fact that the policy lacks transparency, 340B has spiraled out of control to the point that no policymaker can ignore the need to look closer.

Harvard research points to ending drug cost help

A common grievance about Harvard is that the university is out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. This perception is confirmed by recent research from Harvard Business School that contends patients should be denied assistance that helps them afford their prescription drugs. The Harvard study argues that in order to control drug prices, the government should deny patients’ access to copay assistance programs offered by drug manufacturers. It flies in the face of federal and state efforts to protect the value of such assistance programs for patients and ignores basic facts about how and when patients use copay assistance to access their medications.

A Modest Proposal to Raise Federal Revenue

As a way to tackle drug prices, President Joe Biden recently announced that he supports the so-called “inflation rebate,” which would require drug companies to give the federal government any revenue from Medicare drug prices above the general rate of inflation. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have also publicly endorsed the inflation rebate.

ICER Proves Its Lack of Business Acumen, Again

0 Comments
/
A recent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) “Report on Unsupported Price Increases,” concluded that: “Among the top drugs with price increases in 2019…ICER determined that seven of 10 lacked adequate new evidence to demonstrate a substantial clinical benefit that was not yet previously known.”  The impression left by the report is that drug companies arbitrarily raise prices without good reason.  As with so many ICER products, the study is misleading and demonstrates a profound lack of business acumen.