Tag Archives: United States

Enough Is Enough


By

New CAP Report Outlines How To Stop Prescription Drug Prices From Skyrocketing

Almost half of all Americans, and 90 percent of all seniors, take a prescribed drug every month. Meanwhile, U.S. spending on prescription drugs increased 13 percent last year to a record $374 billion. Prescription drugs save lives and can sometimes prevent costlier, more invasive treatments. But a drug can only be lifesaving if patients can afford it, and skyrocketing prescription drug prices are putting a strain on families, businesses, and state and federal budgets.

But a new report from the Center for American Progress outlines several reforms that could control the rapidly rising prices, bring transparency to the pharmaceutical industry, and encourage innovation. Within the report’s proposed package are six major policy recommendations that focus on consumer education and paying for value. Here’s a brief look at those six ideas:

  • Commission an independent organization to evaluate new drugs. The FDA only tests whether a drug is safe and works better than a placebo, not whether it’s better than other drugs. Yet pharmaceutical companies often claim new drugs are “innovative” and charge ever-higher prices even if the drug is no more effective than existing treatments. Much like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 5-star safety rating system, the report recommends establishing an independent organization to provide consumer-friendly ratings of drugs to tell patients whether a drug provides minor, significant, or no added benefits when compared to medications already on the market.
  • Provide more transparency on research and development costs. The amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on research and development pales in comparison to average marketing budgets, and drug companies have the highest profits in the entire health sector. Requiring companies to disclose how much they spend on research and development and forcing those who do not meet the required budget threshold to pay into a fund to support the National Institute of Health, which conducts much of the research that leads to new drugs, would help incentivize companies to invest more in the development of better medications.
  • Protect consumers by capping cost-sharing. CAP’s report recommends setting monthly limits on out-of-pocket spending on prescription medication and capping cost sharing–the share of costs that individuals pay themselves—for drugs at $3,250 annually. The proposals would also give insurers greater flexibility in designing their official lists of medications.
  • Incentivize drug companies to set fair prices. Over the next 10 years, more than $1.1 trillion in taxpayer dollars will go to pharmaceutical companies for name-brand drugs – in addition to federal tax credits and funding for research and development. The amount of taxpayer dollars going to new drugs is straining state and federal budgets. Under CAP’s recommendation, an independent organization would set voluntary price ranges based on a drug’s added benefit to patients. Drug companies would be forced to publicly justify setting a price outside the designated range, and if the drug’s patent came from federally funded research, competitors will be allowed to create generic versions of the medication.
  • Change Medicare’s payment policy for physician-administered drugs. Under Medicare’s current system, physicians get an added administrative fee of 6 percent of a drug’s price, which incentivizes them to over-prescribe costly treatments. Changing that system to a flat fee that would cover overhead costs would change their incentive structure and cut costs. CAP recommends that Medicare test several alternatives, including a flat fee, and then expand the most successful to the full Medicare program.
  • Adapt Medicaid drug rebates based on the comparative effectiveness of drugs. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires manufacturers to pay a minimum rebate to states and the federal government as a condition for Medicaid covering their drugs. Instead of setting a default rebate amount, rebates should vary based on a drug’s comparative effectiveness.

BOTTOM LINE: The current rate of prescription drug spending growth is unsustainable. But by enacting these reforms and shifting the focus to consumer education and the value of medication, lawmakers can control the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and ease the strain on families, businesses, state and federal budgets.

Follow Along: The President’s Trip to Alaska


President Obama is traveling to Alaska today to shine a spotlight on what Alaskans in particular have come to know: Climate change is one of the biggest threats we face, it is being driven by human activity, and it is disrupting Americans’ lives right now.

During his visit, the President will share his experience with people around the country first-hand.

Learn more about why the President is going to Alaska, and sign up here to get the latest photos and videos from his trip.

See more about the President's visit.

the other Washington … Seattle


PDF of today's Seattle Times front page

Another Reason To Say “Thanks Obama!”


By

New Census Data Provides Further Evidence That The ACA Works

Much to the (probable) chagrin of ACA opponents everywhere, more evidence that the law is working came out of census data released this morning. The number of uninsured Americans fell by 8.8 million last year alone, according to the census report. This new data adds to the recently released National Health Interview Survey that found as of early 2015, the national uninsured rate has fallen to a historic low of 9.2 percent bringing the total number of people who have gained insurance under the ACA to 15.8 million.

For a more detailed look at the census insurance data, check out this Center for American Progress column. For now, here are a few key facts from today’s report:

  • Every single state saw a drop in their uninsured population. From 2013 to 2014, every state and DC saw their uninsured rates fall significantly.
  • States that expanded Medicaid saw a much bigger drop in uninsured rates. States that expanded Medicaid before 2015 saw their uninsured rates drop by an average of 25 percent, while states that did not expand Medicaid saw an average drop of only 13.4 percent.
  • Florida and Texas—the two states with the largest uninsured populations—highlight the significant effect Medicaid expansion has on the uninsured rate. Florida’s uninsured population fell by 17 percent last year, but if the state had expanded Medicaid, it could have dropped by an additional 8 percent. Texas would see even bigger gains from Medicaid expansion. The state saw a 13 percent drop in its uninsured rate last year, but if it had expanded Medicaid it could have seen an additional 11.4 percent drop.

The results are clear: the Affordable Care Act is working in every state, but if the 20 states that have so far refused to expand Medicaid took this important step, the impact of the law would be even greater. This new evidence showing the ACA is working comes just in time for the second GOP presidential debate where each of the 11 candidates participating in the main event has promised to repeal the ACA. Be sure to tune into tonight’s debate and follow along with @CAPAction on twitter.

BOTTOM LINE: This most recent census data adds to the ever-growing stockpile of evidence proving that the Affordable Care Act has succeeded in bringing quality, affordable health insurance to millions of Americans. It also serves as further evidence of how out-of-touch the GOP presidential candidates–who still insist on repealing the ACA–remain.

 

Right of Reagan … The Progress Report


By

Today’s Republicans Are More Extreme Than Their Conservative Idol

In two days, the GOP candidates for president will head to the Reagan Library for their second debate. Most will likely espouse their love of Reagan and try to highlight similarities between the Gipper’s policies and their own. However, as a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows, today’s candidates are in fact far more extreme than their Republican idol. To be sure, Reagan was no progressive. He has a record that includes initiating failed trickle-down economic programs that only help the wealthy, creating the false narrative of the welfare queen that still exists today, and gutting President Carter’s clean energy and energy efficiency efforts.

But, unlike today’s GOP candidates, he also was not a pure ideologue who was unwilling to negotiate and work across the aisle. His former chief of staff, James Baker, explained it well: “If Reagan told me once, he told me fifteen thousand times—I’d rather get 80 percent of what I want than go over the cliff with my flags flying.” In practice, this philosophy meant that President Reagan adopted moderate, bipartisan stances on several important policy positions – positions that the current presidential contenders would find abhorrent. Over the course of his presidency:

  • Reagan provided a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. In 1986, Reagan supported and signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which provided a pathway to citizenship for 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. Current GOP candidates oppose a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, though creating such a pathway would boost the U.S. economy by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
  • Reagan stood up to the National Rifle Association, or NRA, to establish background checks. He strongly supported the establishment of national background checks for gun purchases, as well as a ban on assault weapons. Current GOP candidates wouldn’t dare stand up to the NRA as most act to preserve their ‘A’ rating from the organization. Sens. Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and Graham have blocked legislation to expand background checks.
  • Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol, a multilateral international treaty to reduce pollution. In the face of scientific research showing that chemical gasses were depleting the protective ozone layer, Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that phased out nearly 100 of these dangerous gases, many of which are also greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Current GOP candidates either deny that climate change is real or ignore the science behind it and have strenuously opposed the Obama administration’s effort to regulate pollution.
  • Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union to reduce nuclear proliferation. As president, Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, eliminating an entire category of nuclear missiles. Current GOP candidates have adopted an unyielding stance on national security, especially as it relates to President Obama’s recent deal with Iran. Mike Huckabee threatened to topple Iran using military force, and many of the other candidates also have stated that they would not uphold the current Iran nuclear deal.
  • Reagan grew the federal government through deficit spending. Despite his public image as the champion of small government, Reagan tripled the national debt, increased the federal workforce by about 324,000 workers, doubled the U.S. Department of Education’s budget, and created a new federal agency, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Current GOP candidates have embraced uncompromising positions on the federal budget, opposing any deficit spending, even in the face of pressing national need. Sen. Cruz demonstrated astounding fiscal irresponsibility, costing the economy $20 billion by orchestrating the government shutdown in 2013.
  • Reagan closed tax loopholes favoring the wealthy and raised taxes to reduce the federal deficit. In fact, he raised taxes 7 out of his 8 years in office and has said that tax loopholes “sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy.”

To be clear, Reagan was no progressive hero, but at times he was able to mix pragmatism with conservatism, something the current GOP candidates refuse to do. As the Washington Post puts it, despite their proclaimed love of Reagan, current GOP candidates “actually represent a break from core aspects of his approach to the presidency.”

BOTTOM LINE: Regardless of what the GOP candidates say in Wednesday’s debate, the reality is their positions are far to the right of Reagan’s actions on a number of critical issues. Despite the folklore, it is hard to imagine any of these candidates claiming fidelity to Reagan and his principles in a way that the 40th president could embrace.