As we have said---those same national health corporations fattened by fleecing our Medicare and Medicaid Trusts dry-----are now the one we are told will write the new deregulated, profit-driven, global health system policies. Below we see what will indeed be the case because of HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE----Americans will be forced to pay whatever these consolidated global health systems say.
THAT IS WHAT HEALTH POLICY GOALS FROM CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA HAVE BEEN.
“It’s the idea that I have no alternative, I have no choice, I have to pay whatever is asked of me,” Bailey said. “And it’s just continually, continually going up.”
We are seeing in our national media the early signs of where this is going as Medicaid is now telling us costs for treating diabetes----a major disease vector for many Americans ----is becoming too expensive to cover. Remember the goal is MEDICAID FOR ALL---moving 90% of Americans to this preventative care only so treating diabetes-----cancer treatments------heart surgeries----GOING, GOING, GONE.
The for-profit patent machines built by Obama and tied to our now global corporate hospitals and university campuses ---THE BIOTECH PARKS-----are driven only by creating new products to patent and sell so all of what has been tested and proven health care will be set aside with NEW INNOVATIONS. We are seeing NEW ways to treat cancer-----NEW ways to treat heart disease----NEW ways to treat diabetes ----all new brand name patents that are coming with soaring price tags. Meanwhile all the products that worked fine for several decades are not being made anymore because they have lost their patent and are no longer profitable.
THIS IS WHAT WILL MAKE ORDINARY HEALTH CARE TOO EXPENSIVE-----DRIVEN ONLY BY MAXIMIZING GLOBAL HEALTH INDUSTRY PROFITS.
This is what will have the American life span drop immediately----an inability to access ordinary health products right at the time these DISEASE VECTORS hit our population. The MEDICARE TRUST IS DEPLETED BEFORE THE BABY BOOMERS EVEN AGE INTO IT----REALLY??????? Both Democrats and Republican voters support and demand our Social Security and Medicare Trusts-----yet we have a Trump and a Hillary ready to move forward as if they never existed.
Why treating diabetes keeps getting more expensive
By Carolyn Y. Johnson October 31
Why hoarding insulin has become a way of life for this Type 1 diabetes patient
Play Video2:30
Laura Marston is one of the 1.25 million Americans who suffer from Type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disorder in which a person’s pancreas can’t make insulin. She hoards vials of the life-saving medicine in her refrigerator to protect herself from the drug's rising prices. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)At first, the researchers who discovered insulin agonized about whether to patent the drug at all. It was 1921, and the team of biochemists and physicians based in Toronto was troubled by the idea of profiting from a medicine that had such widespread human value, one that could transform diabetes from a death sentence into a manageable disease.
Ultimately, they decided to file for a patent — and promptly sold it to the University of Toronto for $3, or $1 for each person listed. It was the best way, they believed, to ensure that no company would have a monopoly and patients would have affordable access to a safe, effective drug.
“Above all, these were discoverers who were trying to do a great humanitarian thing,” said historian Michael Bliss, “and they hoped their discovery was a kind of gift to humanity.”
OH, REALLY?????
But the drug also has become a gift to the pharmaceutical industry. A version of insulin that carried a list price of $17 a vial in 1997 is priced at $138 today. Another that launched two decades ago with a sticker price of $21 a vial has been increased to $255.
[This 90-year-old fight over insulin royalties reveals just how much has changed in medicine]
Seventy-five years after the original insulin patent expired — a point at which drug prices usually decline — three companies have made incremental improvements to insulin that generate new patents and profits, creating a family of modern insulins worth billions of dollars.
The history of insulin captures one of the mystifying complexities of the pharmaceutical market — how long-standing drugs become more expensive with time and competition fails to hold down prices. Companies point to improvements in their drugs, but medical experts say some of those changes are simply a strategy to keep prices high with new patent protections. They question how much the molecular tweaks to insulin really improve patients’ health.
Some of the improvements have been substantial, replacing insulin derived from animals with a genetically engineered human version with fewer side effects. But the latest generation of “ultra-long acting” insulins, in particular, has generated a debate about whether the newest versions are really worth the cost.
“I don’t think it takes a cynic such as myself to see most of these drugs are being developed to preserve patent protection,” said David Nathan, a Harvard Medical School professor. “The truth is they are marginally different, and the clinical benefits of them over the older drugs have been zero.”
The nation faces a diabetes epidemic: About 6 million American adults depend on the drug. As is true with many medicines, most patients don’t pay the full list price. The rising cost of insulin is often masked by health insurance.
But people with gaps in insurance, skimpy health coverage, or who break or lose a vial have learned the hard way how much the price has risen.
[Big pharma is gearing up to defend drug prices after the presidential election]
Among them is Laura Marston, 34, of the District, who has been on insulin for more than half of her life. When she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes as a teenager, meaning her body can’t make insulin, she took Humulin, a drug invented the year she was born. With insurance, her insulin cost $10 for a month’s supply.
Shortly after, Marston’s doctor switched her to a brand-new insulin called Humalog, which took effect faster. The drug was just as affordable with insurance.
Then, in 2012, Marston abruptly lost her job and health insurance. She found herself suddenly on the hook for the full price of Humalog, which was listed at $140 a vial — and she needed three vials each month. She managed to obtain a very pricey insurance plan, but the insulin still cost her about $200 a month.
An older insulin could have been cheaper, but she didn’t know it was an option. She had years of experience and comfort managing her disease on her current regimen. But she’s been closely tracking the price of new and old insulins ever since.
“Nor will I, ever again, go on a new insulin. I’ve learned my lesson,” Marston said.
Drug companies commonly say that their rising prices reflect, in part, the costs of future innovation — the research and development to create new and better drugs. That makes Marston feel trapped: Companies say they charge high prices for old drugs so they can launch newer and better ones — and charge more for them, too.
“If the justifications pharma is giving are true, then it never ends for us,” Marston said.
Laura Marston holds up a vial of Humalog, the insulin she takes for Type 1 diabetes. When she was diagnosed at age 14, the list price for the drug was $21 per vial. Now it's more than $250 a vial.
(Jorge Ribas, The Washington Post)Evolution of insulinIrl Hirsch remembers when insulin cost 75 cents a vial. The 58-year-old doctor has used insulin for more than half a century and knows firsthand that pricing and access weren’t an issue for much of that time.
Drugstore ads from the 1960s published in The Washington Post advertised insulin for as little as 84 cents a vial — less than a bottle of Breck shampoo, three bags of Halloween candy bars or a can of Suave hair spray. The most expensive version listed in the ad was less than $2 a vial.
For years, the price was affordable as far as he knows, Hirsch says — as it should be.
“This is not a concierge medication,” he said.
[This drug is defying a rare form of leukemia — and it keeps getting pricier]
“It’s the idea that I have no alternative, I have no choice, I have to pay whatever is asked of me,” Bailey said. “And it’s just continually, continually going up.”
___________________________________________
HEP C IN INDIA----$900 AND HEP C IN THE US---$84,000. But these US institutions did all that research! THOSE US INSTITUTIONS DID ALL THAT RESEARCH USING FEDERAL TAXPAYER FUNDING and then sold that patent to global PHARMA corporations. Before our US universities were corporatized all that research was considered PUBLIC INTEREST and those discoveries were not patented----they were released at affordable cost to the US public and the world. It is only from CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA as far-right wing 1% Wall Street that all this public interest public health and research structure was torn down and now all Federal funding and our universities are tied to corporate R and D -----free college student labor-----corporate welfare queen subsidy ----all successful research transferred to global corporations as profits JUST SO THEY CAN CHARGE WE THE PEOPLE SOARING PRICES.
These issues are LIFE AND DEATH----this is not a game----and Americans are not asking for charity WE PAID FOR IT!
Here we see one of those national going global health industry corporations fleecing our Medicare Trust and believe that what this CEO was charged with in court was the tip of an iceberg----he no doubt brought $1 billion each year of fraud to this corporation. People working need the jobs but they can understand why we need to stop these criminal practices--
So, this global corporate CEO is now a governor and he wants to promote more and more lab tests because his global corporation now only gets PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE payments from Medicaid-----lab tests galore-----if they find something you will need to be that global 1% and their 2% to seek treatment. Medicaid will arrange for your HOSPICE.
Florida Democratic Party
Says Rick Scott "oversaw the largest Medicare fraud in the nation’s history."
— Florida Democratic Party on Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 in a press release
Rick Scott 'oversaw the largest Medicare fraud' in U.S. history, Florida Democratic Party says
By Amy Sherman on Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 4:38 p.m.
First, Gov. Rick Scott scared the bejesus out of seniors with an online ad claiming that Medicare rate cuts would lead them to lose access to their doctors, hospitals and preventive care.
Then, the Florida Democratic Party fired back at Scott, issuing a press release that called Scott "the ultimate Medicare thief."
The Democrats were referring to Scott’s prior tenure as CEO of Columbia/HCA about a decade ago, when the hospital company was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals made it clear-----they will be paying for all the preventative care needed to keep people working---but FORGET the trip to the hospital for treatments because this is a global health system profit-maximization game we are playing now!
Just as Federal higher education reform moved all Federal funding that used to send WE THE PEOPLE to strong 4 year universities now sending WE THE PEOPLE to career vocational tracking certificates they are now calling DEGREES......so to they are doing this for health care so all of what was Medicare and Medicaid providing ordinary HIPPOCRATIC OATH health care is seeing all those Federal funds go to wellness and prevention----as in lab tests, vaccines, micro-chip birth control----all preventing ----
So, a lab test shows you have onset diabetes----now will you be able to afford the NEW INNOVATIVE TREATMENT FOR DIABETES---because soon Medicaid will not be paying for it. Where is Medicare---it is being made MEDICAID FOR ALL.
Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act
If you have a new health insurance plan or insurance policy beginning on or after September 23, 2010, the following preventive services must be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or meet your deductible. This applies only when these services are delivered by a network provider.
(Effective August 1, 2012)
26 Covered Preventive Services for Children
Trans Pacific Trade Pact is big on protecting GLOBAL PHARMA AND GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEM TOURISM----so this article below is speaking to where these health issues will go after the 2016 election----with TPP being installed by a Trump and Hillary ----we will see all regulations, all public health structures ---that used to fight to bring health care costs DOWN-----be dismantled and eliminated and that includes MEDICARE.
The Bill Gates Foundation was simply building a global health empire----global PHARMA and Gates is behind these most regressive of health profiteering policies. Gates is global PHARMA and global health systems as his MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY is team global online telemedicine. The 1% and their 2% will access the ordinary health care all Americans have accessed---while the 99% of global citizens are tied to online telemedicine.
Here is where those national media POLITI-FACTS are designed to hide the REAL issues in all campaigns. We see Hillary saying all the progressive posing social issue stances----here she is going to fight those mean global PHARMA corporations----after the Clintons staged the implosion of Medicare----the REAL way to fight rising health costs and PHARMA.
THE CLINTONS ARE GLOBAL BILL GATES----THE CLINTON FOUNDATION---THE CLINTON INITIATIVE IS ONE WORLDING IT WITH THE BILL GATES GLOBAL PHARMA FOR THESE FEW DECADES.
'Both Clinton and Donald Trump, for instance, are urging changes in the law that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries'.
Trans Pacific Trade Pact does not allow what Hillary and Trump are both claiming as platform issues----and both Hillary and Trump are raging TPP fast-trackers.
THESE NATIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS KNOW THIS AND ALL THEY PRINT ARE WHAT THESE WALL STREET PLAYERS SAY.
Big pharma is gearing up to defend drug prices
By Carolyn Y. Johnson October 25
The ballot initiative drawing the most campaign spending in the November election in California would prohibit state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, in an effort to curb rising costs for taxpayers. (Alicia Chang/AP)The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs has been noticeably absent from discussion in the presidential debates — even as bipartisan anger about price gouging has united Congress. But the trade group for the pharmaceutical industry, PhRMA, is gearing up to defend drug prices after the election, seeking an additional $100 million in annual dues from its members, according to a report from Politico.
Politico reported Tuesday that the new dues will boost the lobbying group's budget by 50 percent, giving it more than $300 million to draw on. PhRMA spokeswoman Holly Campbell would not confirm or comment on the report in response to a Washington Post request.
PhRMA President Stephen Ubl said in a statement that the organization was strengthened by new member companies and more resources, including new employees, approved by its board.
[Average premiums for popular ACA plans rising 25 percent]
“We will leverage both to amplify our message to policymakers and consumers about the incredible value better treatments and cures bring to patients, the health-care system and the economy,” Ubl said. “The combination of new voices and resources will also bolster our efforts to engage with all stakeholders and advocate for proactive policies that promote continued medical progress.”
Although drug prices haven't been a topic in the late stages of the presidential campaign, they were in the primaries, and the lobbying group clearly anticipates the issue could rear its head again after the election. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has called out drug companies for excessive price hikes and has introduced a plan to stop price gouging on old drugs, introducing the threat of fines or the importing of drugs from other countries.
And a glimpse behind the scenes at the Clinton campaign may give big pharma reason to worry. In emails released by WikiLeaks and first reported by Endpoints News, Ann O'Leary, a Clinton policy adviser, forwarded a USA Today story about Clinton's September 2015 tweet that sent biotech stocks tumbling.
“FYI — We have started the war with Pharma!!" O'Leary wrote to Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald.
“Great!” Grunwald replied.
Republican nominee Donald Trump has expressed support for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, but The Post's Fact Checker has found that Trump's estimate of how much money could be saved by doing so — $300 billion a year — is not credible. Trump's plan also includes unspecified regulatory reform that would “remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products,” according to his campaign health policy.
Pharmaceutical companies have already been spending heavily on a ballot question in California that would bar state agencies from paying more for a drug than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The measure's opposition has received a total contribution of nearly $109 million, and the largest contributors have been big drug companies.
_________________________________________
We have known since 2010 what TPP will do to health care globally so no national media---no national 'labor and justice' organization---no candidate for office would not be shouting this unless they were a global Wall Street player. Trump and Hillary are the face of TPP----they will fast-track as Obama and yet media is allowing them both to PRETEND they will use Medicare to stop rising costs.
In a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERANCE with global health systems the best the 99% will do with health care is PHARMA. So if PHARMA is priced out of range----no access to hospital procedures----BYE BYE US LONGEVITY!
No one has worked harder for global Wall Street than team CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----we know to where these policies lead.
Below we see where TPP is written specifically to protect what will be the largest global market these coming decades-----
GLOBAL HEALTH AND GLOBAL EDUCATION CORPORATIONS.
We are already seeing the dismantling of our Veteran's Administration and all that strong GI BIll NEW DEAL benefit from last century. Our VETS are being moved into that MEDICAID FOR ALL CATEGORY and this article shows how vets will see health care access decline especially PHARMA.
The TPP: Big Pharma’s Backdoor Effort to Halt Reductions in
U.S. Medicine Prices
Americans pay far more for healthcare than people
in any other developed country, even though U.S. life
expectancy falls below the average for developed countries.
A major contributor to our bloated healthcare costs is
the high prices for medicines in the United States.
According to the Government Accountability Office,
U.S. drug prices increased more than 70 percent faster
than prices for other healthcare goods and services over 2006-2010.
As a result, millions of Americans cannot afford the medicines they need to live healthy lives. Soaring drug prices also drive up the amount that taxpayers must pay to fund public health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and programs covering the U.S. military and veterans. Indeed, rising healthcare costs are the number one contributor to the U.S. government’s projected long-term budget deficits. To try to combat the twin problems of unaffordable healthcare and unsustainable deficits, U.S. federal and state governments already use several tools to tamp down the cost of drugs–for Medicare, Medicaid and for military healthcare under
TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Many more such cost containment policies have been proposed. Yet, the TPP threatens to chill such proposals and even roll back existing policies to rein in exorbitant medicine prices. Leaked draft TPP texts–an intellectual property chapter, investment chapter and healthcare annex–contain expansive rules that would constrain the ability of the U.S. government to reduce medicine prices. Getting these terms into the TPP was a key objective of large U.S. pharmaceutical corporations that stand to reap monopoly profits from expansive patent terms and restrictions on government cost containment efforts. This incentive may explain why pharmaceutical corporations
have lobbied Congress for the TPP more than any other industry. The TPP’s threats to the affordability of U.S. healthcare have spurred major groups that have not traditionally taken part in trade policy debates to warn against
the TPP’s provisions. For example, AARP–representing more than 37 million Americans over the age of 50–joined unions and consumer groups in a November 2013 letter to President Obama to express “deep concern” that texts proposed for the TPP would “limit the ability of states and the federal government to moderate escalating prescription drug, biologic drug
and medical device costs in public programs.”
The groups concluded that the TPP could “undermine access to affordable health care for millions in the United States and around the world.”
Monopoly Protections: Expansive Rights for Big Pharma, Expensive Medicines for Consumers
Leaked draft intellectual property texts for the TPP reveal
broad patent and related monopoly protections for pharmaceutical corporations, which elevate the costs of medicines and medical procedures. Inserting these sweeping corporate privileges into the pact would undermine U.S. efforts to make healthcare more affordable:
Scrapping the Obama administration proposal to save more than $4 billion on biologic medicines:
Biologics–
the latest generation of drugs to combat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases–are exceptionally expensive,
costing approximately 22 times more than conventional medicines.
Under U.S. law, pharmaceutical corporations
enjoy monopoly protections for biologic drugs, even in the absence of a patent, for a 12-year period of “exclusivity.”
During these 12 years, the Food and Drug Administration
is prohibited from approving more affordable versions of the drugs, inflating the cost of these life-saving medicines as
pharmaceutical firms accrue monopoly profits. To lower the exorbitant prices and the resulting burden on programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the Obama administration’s 2015
budget would reduce the exclusivity period for biologics from 12 to seven years. The administration estimates this would
save taxpayers more than $4.2 billion over the next decade
just for federal programs. However, at the request of Big Pharma, U.S. trade negotiators are demandingthe 12-year exclusivity requirement for biologics in the TPP.
This would lock into place pharmaceutical firms’ lengthy monopolies here at home. That is, Obama administration negotiators would effectively scrap the administration’s own proposal to save billions in unnecessary healthcare costs
and lock in rules that would forbid future presidents or Congresses from doing so.
Unmitigated Prices:
Limiting the Government’s Ability to Control Rising Drug Costs
Rolling back medicine cost savings for U.S. veterans:
The U.S. government uses automatic price reductions to secure lower drug costs for U.S. veterans who benefit from health programs administered by VA.
U.S. law allows VA to access drug prices at 24 percent below average market prices, and requires drug companies to
offer these reduced prices for VA-administered programs
as a condition for their medicines being included in other government health programs. However, this cost-saving mechanism could run afoul of the proposed TPP annex, which
requires government drug reimbursements to be based on “competitive, market-derived prices,” or on a system
that “appropriately recognizes[] the value” of the drugs.
The government-mandated price-setting system for VA programs would be subject to challenge as not being
“competitive” and “market-derived.”
VA-secured prices that fall significantly below the prices of patented drugs also could be challenged under the TPP as not
“appropriately recognizing” drugs’ value. These TPP provisions, if enacted, could expose the U.S. government to challenges before international tribunals for not rolling back policies
that cut healthcare costs for veterans and taxpayers.
Threatening policies that make medicines more affordable
for the poor:
U.S. federal and state governments currently use several
methods to tamp down the prices of drugs provided to low
-income families through Medicaid. For example, the U.S. federal government requires drug corporations, as a condition for having their drugs covered by Medicaid, to sign discount agreements that oblige the firms to provide the state and federal governments with rebates to lower the cost of the drugs. These rebates have resulted in a 45 percent reduction in Medicaid spending for brand-name drugs.
State governments can further cut costs by, for example, negotiating lower prices with drug companies in return for placing their medicines on a Preferred Drug List(PDL)–
a list of medicines that the state’s Medicaid program will cover without requiring prior authorization from a doctor.
States have calculated substantial cost savings from usage of PDLs: New York saved an estimated
$381 million in one recent year, while Texas saved an estimated $115 million and Utah saved an estimated $434 million.
Such Medicaid cost containment measures could be challenged under the TPP. Leveraging the government’s buying power to set prices could be attacked as not being “market-derived”
or as “appropriately recognizing” the value of patented drugs.
Some argue that the TPP provisions would primarily target federal policies, while Medicaid is administered by state governments. But even if limited to federal policies,
the pact’s proposed terms directly contradict Medicaid’s
federal cost control efforts, such as requiring drug firms to sign discount agreements. And state-level tools like PDLs could
still be challenged under the TPP as part of a program created
and controlled by the federal government.
Challenging Obamacare cost reductions for seniors:
Before implementation of the landmark Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010, seniors faced a gap in Medicare
drug coverage. After passing a given threshold of drug costs, Medicare beneficiaries went from having to pay 25 percent of a drug’s cost to having to pay 100 percent out of pocket, until reaching a second threshold at which Medicare again covered
most costs. Closing this “doughnut hole” was a key objective of the Affordable Care Act, which required drug manufacturers to offer a 50 percent drug price discount to Medicare beneficiaries within the coverage gap if
they wanted their drugs to continue being covered under Medicare. As a result of this discount and a gradual
increase in Medicare coverage, Medicare beneficiaries within the coverage gap were only responsible for 47.5 percent of brand-name drug costs in 2013 and will be responsible for only 25 percent by 2020. But under the TPP, the requirement for drug companies to halve the price of their drugs within the coverage gap could be challenged for neither reflecting “competitive market-derived” prices nor “appropriately recognizing[] the value” of patented drugs. The Obama administration’s TPP healthcare annex thus threatens the cost savings that the administration’s own signature health law has provided to seniors.
Chilling future reforms that could further reduce healthcare costs for retirees:
Governments in countries ranging from New Zealand to Japan
have kept healthcare costs in check by leveraging the government’s large purchasing power for taxpayer-funded public health programs to negotiate lower drug prices with
pharmaceutical corporations. In contrast, for Medicare, which
covers more than 50 million Americans, the U.S. government is barred by law from directly negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical corporations.
Many policymakers, healthcare professionals and even President Obama have called for changes to this law so that
the government could ask drug companies to provide lower prices in exchange for getting subsidized access to millions of Medicare recipients. Other reform proposals, including legislation now pending, would have the federal government
set maximum prices for drugs covered by Medicare (as it does for health programs provided to veterans) or require that drug companies provide drug rebates (similar to the rebates required under Medicaid). Indeed, the White House itself has proposed requiring drug companies to pay Medicaid-like rebates to providers for treating low-income Medicare beneficiaries. The administration estimates this would deliver $117 billion in savings over 10 years.
However, the TPP presents an obstacle to these proposals to
control soaring Medicare costs. All of the above-mentioned policies involve direct government intervention in price setting, conflicting with the TPP requirement for market-derived prices, and inviting challenges for failing to “appropriately recognize”
the value of patented drugs.
Undermining drug discounts for underserved communities:
Under a program known as 340B, the U.S. federal government enables nongovernmental health centers– including migrant health centers, homeless health centers, children’s hospitals
and family planning centers– to offer their diverse constituencies more 4 affordable drugs. The federal government requires pharmaceutical firms to offer discounted drug prices to 340B-covered health centers via rebates, as a condition for having their drugs covered by Medicaid. As a
federally-run program that mandates below-market prices, the program could be challenged as a violation of the proposed TPP rules requiring drug prices to be market-derived or to reflect the value of patented drugs.
In addition, the leaked TPP annex would require the U.S. government to allow pharmaceutical corporations to
appeal drug pricing decisions such as the rebate amounts set under the 340B program, though they have very limited appeal rights for such decisions under U.S. domestic law.
The TPP would thus give pharmaceutical corporations a new
means of challenging 340B policies that reduce drug prices for underserved populations.
Investor Privileges:
Empowering Big Pharma to Directly Attack U.S. Health Policies
More Information on How the TPP Threatens Access to Affordable Medicines
Factsheet: TPP: Harmful Provisions for Access to Medicines
Memo:
Proposed TPP Rules Could Undermine Drug Cost Containment Provisions of Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans’ Health, Hurting Seniors, Military Families and the Poor
Memo:
U.S. Pharmaceutical Corporation Uses NAFTA Foreign Investor Privileges Regime to Attack Canada’s Patent Policy
Factsheet:
The TPP Threatens Access to Affordable Cancer
___________________________________________
BALTIMORE AND JOHNS HOPKINS ARE GROUND ZERO FOR BIOTECH FACILITIES CHURNING OUT NEW INNOVATIVE PHARMA AND PROCEDURES THEY QUICKLY PATENT AND SELL.....AND BALTIMORE WILL PUSH ONLY THOSE BRAND NAMES.
For those not knowing MedChi-----they are that arm of our American Medical Association that drives policies making health care more and more profiteering and profit-making. We have those small percentage of doctors wanting to get very rich while eliminating all avenues of regulation and cost-control. Baltimore is ground zero for having done this-----it has no public health department that actually works for public interest----it has the worst public health exposures and the worst public health outcomes-----there is no oversight and accountability of health care in Maryland and Baltimore with thousands of medical harm lawsuits each year. In other words----we would not come to Baltimore or Maryland for health policy that protects WE THE PEOPLE-----the health care policies here are always MAXIMIZING GLOBAL CORPORATE PROFITS, EXTREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POWER---- and we have a global Johns Hopkins health care because of a MEDICARE DEPLETED BECAUSE OF HEALTH INDUSTRY FRAUD.
We have talked often about why we have certain high levels of disease vectors in the US today. We spoke to diabetes-----and obesity----knowing there are as many CORPORATE CAUSES as personal behavior causes. Baltimore has filled its public health with all kinds of mental health PHARMA for example known to be used TOO OFTEN. At the same time we know mental health PHARMA is being tied to both OBESITY AND DIABETES----as are other PHARMA in mainstream use. We know as well for decades our US food has been allowed to have chemicals that ALSO have been found to cause OBESITY AND DIABETES. So, yes we have citizens who drink too much soda---eat too much sweets but the epidemic of obesity and diabetes came from
LACK OF PUBLIC HEALTH OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON CORPORATIONS AND HEALTH INDUSTRY.
'MedChi said the research is the first look at the cost of caring for diabetics on Medicaid in Maryland, and advocates say it could provide fuel for policy and legislative changes at the state and local levels'.
"The burden on our patients, their families and state taxpayers will continue to intensify, putting strain on Medicaid funding, enrollment, and perhaps even the quality of care provided," said MedChi's president, Dr. Stephen J. Rockower'.
The major cause of diabetes in Baltimore is DELIBERATE ECONOMIC STAGNATION having a goal of keeping Baltimore citizens impoverished, unstable, and with food deserts leaving them eating bad food. THIS IS THE CAUSE OF DIABETES CRISIS ACROSS THE US.
In Maryland, diabetics cost Medicaid twice as much, study finds
David J. Phillip / AP
Andrea K. McDaniels and Meredith CohnContact ReportersThe Baltimore Sun
Study found diabetics are costly for Medicaid program.People with diabetes cost the state's Medicaid program twice as much as those without the chronic condition, a study commissioned by the society that represents Maryland's doctors has found
Medicaid spent an average of $24,387 on each patient with diabetes in 2014, compared with $10,880 for someone without the disease, according to the study commissioned by MedChi and conducted by the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and released Thursday. There were similar findings among enrollees in 2013, according to the study of adults ages 35 to 64.
Such spending adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. HealthChoice, which manages care for the bulk of the state's Medicaid patients, spent more than $471 million treating people with diabetes in 2014 for hospitalizations, doctor visits and prescriptions, and more than $312 million in 2013.
Diabetes occurs in people who do not produce enough insulin or do not process it correctly, causing an increase in blood sugar. It affects 29 million Americans and more than 610,000 Marylanders, or about 10 percent of the state population.
The cost of caring for diabetes patients builds up over time because the disease often causes costly complications, such as kidney failure and gangrene leading to amputations. HealthChoice enrollees with diabetes were more than twice as likely to be admitted to a hospital as those without the disease.
Maryland Medicaid patients to participate in diabetes prevention programs MedChi said the research is the first look at the cost of caring for diabetics on Medicaid in Maryland, and advocates say it could provide fuel for policy and legislative changes at the state and local levels.
"These numbers really show the burden in Maryland," said Dr. Richard Bruno, a MedChi trustee and a board member of the advocacy group Sugar Free Kids Maryland. "We have some suggestions to make a dent."
Since obesity is a big risk factor in the most common form of diabetes, Bruno said, public education about diet and exercise is crucial. The report suggests remedies for policymakers and lawmakers that include adding diabetes screenings, developing walkable communities, and making fresh fruits and vegetables more accessible in poor neighborhoods.
Caption New Zika study raises concerns for men
Caption Telemedicine brings peace of mind to patient
The report also recommends some more controversial measures, such as taxes on surgary drinks, requiring warning labels about those drinks in retail outlets, and "healthy vending" laws that require most foods and drinks sold on government property to be lower-calorie.
A bill requiring that 75 percent of the options in vending machines on state property meet a set of dietary guidelines failed in the General Assembly this year, though sponsors said they plan to reintroduce the measure. Howard County and Baltimore City already have such laws.
An effort also stalled in Baltimore City to require businesses that sell or advertise sugar-sweetened sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, juices, coffees and teas to post signs warning consumers that they contribute to tooth decay, obesity and diabetes.
City Councilman Nick Mosby said he was moved to introduce the bill by the number of obese children in Baltimore who could face a lifetime of battling related diseases. He said he was disappointed that the measure has not gotten a vote.
"In Baltimore, we're going to be the leader in policy reforms and progress on things like this, or, unfortunately, we'll continue to see the impacts," he said. "We've already allowed the impacts on the city for far too long."
While Mosby said the warning labels did not restrict choice among consumers and only provided information, representatives of the beverage industry argue that consumers are already getting enough information to make purchasing decisions.
Ellen Valentino, a lobbyist for the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Beverage Association, opposed Mosby's bill and said the industry is already offering more choices with fewer calories and providing calorie counts on the products.
"We know government in every grocery cart is not a real solution," she said. "Real solutions are providing consumers choice, smaller portion sizes, lower calorie options and information on packaging."
Policymakers say they continue to work on other preventive programs to reduce obesity and the rate of diabetes — and the costs.
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which administers the Medicaid program for the federal government, said in a statement that the agency is participating in a national diabetes prevention program.
The state health department announced this summer that it had chosen four managed-care organizations under HealthChoice — Amerigroup, Jai Medical Systems, MedStar Family Choice and Priority Partners — to help implement diabetes prevention programs for Medicaid patients as part of a two-year pilot study by the federal government.
Maryland is one of two states that were awarded funding as part of the National Diabetes Prevention Program, which is focused on keeping low-income residents from developing diabetes
"The department welcomes the study and shares the concern about the impact of diabetes," the statement said. "For this reason, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, this summer, selected the managed care organizations that will participate in a demonstration project to show ways to offer the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicaid recipients."
But without more intervention, others fear that diabetes patients will continue to drive up spending. The MedChi study already found that more than a quarter of Medicaid's 2014 spending of $1.77 billion on patients ages 35 to 64 was for diabetics, though they made up only 14 percent of enrollees.
"The burden on our patients, their families and state taxpayers will continue to intensify, putting strain on Medicaid funding, enrollment, and perhaps even the quality of care provided," said MedChi's president, Dr. Stephen J. Rockow
_________________________________________
Generic drugs generally cost one-tenth to one-half the price of their brand-name counterparts.
When we see the spike in medical lawsuits against PHARMA and medical procedures since CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---we are seeing that Clinton era dismantling of oversight and accountability---of deregulation of a once strong public health sector oversight. Today US citizens are often fearful of PHARMA ---we see this with vaccines----because these products are being patent-milled out to market with insufficient research. What we saw as well at this time was this continual rebranding of ordinary medical products working fine. This is what we call PROFITEERING----when MEDICARE AND MEDICAID was hit with all those rising health costs----it was this patent-machine installed under Clinton.
CONGRESS IN 2000 WANTED TO ALLOW BRINGING IN IMPORTED PHARMA AND CLINTONS SAID NO
'when Congress in 2000 passed such bipartisan legislation, Bill Clinton’s administration used its executive authority to prevent an importation program from being implemented. At the time, Clinton’s administration said drugs imported from countries like Canada would be unsafe, later prompting bill proponents to demand to see evidence of mass Canadian casualties from fraudulent drugs'.
Using EXECUTIVE ORDER to keep from bringing imported PHARMA to lower health care cost!
If we look at Steve Jobs and Apple Technology we see the same global corporate maximizing process. Apple creates a good product then almost every year rebrands it by simply making a change that requires consumers buy new technology hardware......there's that new IPHONE! This is what Clinton did to our public health---and he made sure that the high cost name brands were mainstreamed while generics were kept at bay.
This is what Trans Pacific Trade Pact does on a global scale----it makes all nations pay those hyper-inflated profiteering prices for brand name products while it makes it harder and harder to create affordable generics.
CLINTON STARTED THAT STATUS OF US AS MOST EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE WITH CITIZENS HAVING THE WORST PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES----
'Since 1995, several new classes of diabetes medications have come on the market'.
'In a move that could cost consumers billions of dollars, the Food and Drug Administration ruled today that a new Federal law gives pharmaceutical companies an extension of up to three years on their drug patents. The ruling was hailed by big drug makers'.
Keep in mind this is 1995 and from CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----these brand name extensions have broadened---TPP makes this worse.
Ruling Gives Drug Makers Up to 3 Extra Years on Patents
By PHILIP J. HILTS
Published: May 26, 1995
WASHINGTON, May 25— In a move that could cost consumers billions of dollars, the Food and Drug Administration ruled today that a new Federal law gives pharmaceutical companies an extension of up to three years on their drug patents.
The ruling was hailed by big drug makers. But consumer groups immediately protested the change, and companies that make cheaper "generic" alternatives to brand-name drugs after their patents run out called on Congress to amend the law. Senator David Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas, vowed to introduce a bill to restore the traditional 17-year time limit for drugs currently under patent or in the application process.
The agency ruled on a law signed by President Clinton in December that put into effect last year's world trade agreement. The law requires the United States to switch from its system of granting 17-year patents from the time of their approval to match the practice in other nations of giving 20-year patents from the time they are applied for.
The F.D.A. made the decision reluctantly, and suggested in its ruling that Congress might not have intended this outcome and should act to clarify the law.
Depending on the time period needed to gain patent approval, the law will give drug companies up to three years of extra protection for their products. Glaxo Wellcome P.L.C., for example, received quick approval in 1978 in for its patent on the ulcer medicine Zantac, the world's largest-selling drug. With its patent due to expire in December, the company would gain an extra 19 months of protection.
Any patents applied for after June 8 will be subject to the new 20-year patent life even if Congress acts to restore the original time frame for drugs currently under patent or those with applications on file with the patent office.
Consumer advocates were quick to denounce the windfall to the pharmaceutical industry, which Steven Shondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota estimated could reach $6 billion.
"This is one of those hidden things that happens in Washington that is outrageous and will hurt people all across the country," said Dixie D. Horning, executive director of the Gray Panthers, a lobbying group for the elderly.
Ms. Horning added it was not just older people who would be affected. "Remember that more than a billion dollars of this will come from taxpayers who pay for Medicare and Medicaid," she said.
But big drug makers were clearly delighted. "This is very good news, not just for Glaxo but for upholding the patent rights of innovative companies," said Nancy Pekarek, a spokeswoman for Glaxo Wellcome. She added that the new world trade agreement "provided for a 20-year patent life, and what this decision does is uphold that patent protection."
Ms. Pekarek warned that any move to rewrite the current law could jeopardize the world trade accord, which was approved last year after years of wrangling. "It really would open the door," she said, for the pact "to be undermined in other countries for any patent holder."
Even so, Senator Pryor, the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, said he would seek to clarify the new law. He called the profits that might result from the extra patent life "obscene" and said he would soon introduce a bill to prevent what he said was a "classic case of unjust enrichment."
"It will create enormous and unintended profits for the brand-name companies," he added.
Even so, the chances for passage of such legislation are uncertain. Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, sided with Senator Pryor, describing today's ruling as "very bad policy, even though the F.D.A. felt it could go no other way legally."
"I would support legislation to correct this and prevent the windfall" to the large drug companies, he added. He said that passing such an amendment "would be difficult but not impossible."
On the other hand, Senator William Cohen, the Republican chairman of the Senate committee on aging, said he wanted to study Senator Pryor's proposed measure before deciding what position he would take.
Makers of generic drugs also expressed their disappointment with the F.D.A. ruling. Robert J. Gunter, president of Novopharm USA Inc., said his company had invested $40 million in a new plant to make drugs in bulk, including Zantac. Mr. Gunter said Novopharm would have to scale back its plans unless Congress acted to restored the 17-year life span for patents.
"It's a $6 billion windfall and it will come directly from the pocketbooks of the American public," Mr. Gunter said.
Generic drugs generally cost one-tenth to one-half the price of their brand-name counterparts. Most of the added income for the big drug companies would come from purchases by individual patients, but about $1.5 billion would be paid for by tax dollars through Medicare and Medicaid purchases of the more expensive drugs, according to Mr. Shondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota.
Robert F. Green, a lawyer representing Novopharm, said 109 drugs would be affected. Mr. Shondelmeyer said the drugs would include Mevacor, a cholesterol-lowering agent made by Merck & Company that would gain 19 months of patent life and potentially $448 million in revenues; Diflucan, an antifungal drug that would gain 20 months and possibly $410 million for Pfizer Inc., and Prilosec, an ulcer drug made by Merck that would gain 17 months and as much as $586 million.
THAT IS WHAT HEALTH POLICY GOALS FROM CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA HAVE BEEN.
“It’s the idea that I have no alternative, I have no choice, I have to pay whatever is asked of me,” Bailey said. “And it’s just continually, continually going up.”
We are seeing in our national media the early signs of where this is going as Medicaid is now telling us costs for treating diabetes----a major disease vector for many Americans ----is becoming too expensive to cover. Remember the goal is MEDICAID FOR ALL---moving 90% of Americans to this preventative care only so treating diabetes-----cancer treatments------heart surgeries----GOING, GOING, GONE.
The for-profit patent machines built by Obama and tied to our now global corporate hospitals and university campuses ---THE BIOTECH PARKS-----are driven only by creating new products to patent and sell so all of what has been tested and proven health care will be set aside with NEW INNOVATIONS. We are seeing NEW ways to treat cancer-----NEW ways to treat heart disease----NEW ways to treat diabetes ----all new brand name patents that are coming with soaring price tags. Meanwhile all the products that worked fine for several decades are not being made anymore because they have lost their patent and are no longer profitable.
THIS IS WHAT WILL MAKE ORDINARY HEALTH CARE TOO EXPENSIVE-----DRIVEN ONLY BY MAXIMIZING GLOBAL HEALTH INDUSTRY PROFITS.
This is what will have the American life span drop immediately----an inability to access ordinary health products right at the time these DISEASE VECTORS hit our population. The MEDICARE TRUST IS DEPLETED BEFORE THE BABY BOOMERS EVEN AGE INTO IT----REALLY??????? Both Democrats and Republican voters support and demand our Social Security and Medicare Trusts-----yet we have a Trump and a Hillary ready to move forward as if they never existed.
Why treating diabetes keeps getting more expensive
By Carolyn Y. Johnson October 31
Why hoarding insulin has become a way of life for this Type 1 diabetes patient
Play Video2:30
Laura Marston is one of the 1.25 million Americans who suffer from Type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disorder in which a person’s pancreas can’t make insulin. She hoards vials of the life-saving medicine in her refrigerator to protect herself from the drug's rising prices. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)At first, the researchers who discovered insulin agonized about whether to patent the drug at all. It was 1921, and the team of biochemists and physicians based in Toronto was troubled by the idea of profiting from a medicine that had such widespread human value, one that could transform diabetes from a death sentence into a manageable disease.
Ultimately, they decided to file for a patent — and promptly sold it to the University of Toronto for $3, or $1 for each person listed. It was the best way, they believed, to ensure that no company would have a monopoly and patients would have affordable access to a safe, effective drug.
“Above all, these were discoverers who were trying to do a great humanitarian thing,” said historian Michael Bliss, “and they hoped their discovery was a kind of gift to humanity.”
OH, REALLY?????
But the drug also has become a gift to the pharmaceutical industry. A version of insulin that carried a list price of $17 a vial in 1997 is priced at $138 today. Another that launched two decades ago with a sticker price of $21 a vial has been increased to $255.
[This 90-year-old fight over insulin royalties reveals just how much has changed in medicine]
Seventy-five years after the original insulin patent expired — a point at which drug prices usually decline — three companies have made incremental improvements to insulin that generate new patents and profits, creating a family of modern insulins worth billions of dollars.
The history of insulin captures one of the mystifying complexities of the pharmaceutical market — how long-standing drugs become more expensive with time and competition fails to hold down prices. Companies point to improvements in their drugs, but medical experts say some of those changes are simply a strategy to keep prices high with new patent protections. They question how much the molecular tweaks to insulin really improve patients’ health.
Some of the improvements have been substantial, replacing insulin derived from animals with a genetically engineered human version with fewer side effects. But the latest generation of “ultra-long acting” insulins, in particular, has generated a debate about whether the newest versions are really worth the cost.
“I don’t think it takes a cynic such as myself to see most of these drugs are being developed to preserve patent protection,” said David Nathan, a Harvard Medical School professor. “The truth is they are marginally different, and the clinical benefits of them over the older drugs have been zero.”
The nation faces a diabetes epidemic: About 6 million American adults depend on the drug. As is true with many medicines, most patients don’t pay the full list price. The rising cost of insulin is often masked by health insurance.
But people with gaps in insurance, skimpy health coverage, or who break or lose a vial have learned the hard way how much the price has risen.
[Big pharma is gearing up to defend drug prices after the presidential election]
Among them is Laura Marston, 34, of the District, who has been on insulin for more than half of her life. When she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes as a teenager, meaning her body can’t make insulin, she took Humulin, a drug invented the year she was born. With insurance, her insulin cost $10 for a month’s supply.
Shortly after, Marston’s doctor switched her to a brand-new insulin called Humalog, which took effect faster. The drug was just as affordable with insurance.
Then, in 2012, Marston abruptly lost her job and health insurance. She found herself suddenly on the hook for the full price of Humalog, which was listed at $140 a vial — and she needed three vials each month. She managed to obtain a very pricey insurance plan, but the insulin still cost her about $200 a month.
An older insulin could have been cheaper, but she didn’t know it was an option. She had years of experience and comfort managing her disease on her current regimen. But she’s been closely tracking the price of new and old insulins ever since.
“Nor will I, ever again, go on a new insulin. I’ve learned my lesson,” Marston said.
Drug companies commonly say that their rising prices reflect, in part, the costs of future innovation — the research and development to create new and better drugs. That makes Marston feel trapped: Companies say they charge high prices for old drugs so they can launch newer and better ones — and charge more for them, too.
“If the justifications pharma is giving are true, then it never ends for us,” Marston said.
Laura Marston holds up a vial of Humalog, the insulin she takes for Type 1 diabetes. When she was diagnosed at age 14, the list price for the drug was $21 per vial. Now it's more than $250 a vial.
(Jorge Ribas, The Washington Post)Evolution of insulinIrl Hirsch remembers when insulin cost 75 cents a vial. The 58-year-old doctor has used insulin for more than half a century and knows firsthand that pricing and access weren’t an issue for much of that time.
Drugstore ads from the 1960s published in The Washington Post advertised insulin for as little as 84 cents a vial — less than a bottle of Breck shampoo, three bags of Halloween candy bars or a can of Suave hair spray. The most expensive version listed in the ad was less than $2 a vial.
For years, the price was affordable as far as he knows, Hirsch says — as it should be.
“This is not a concierge medication,” he said.
[This drug is defying a rare form of leukemia — and it keeps getting pricier]
“It’s the idea that I have no alternative, I have no choice, I have to pay whatever is asked of me,” Bailey said. “And it’s just continually, continually going up.”
___________________________________________
HEP C IN INDIA----$900 AND HEP C IN THE US---$84,000. But these US institutions did all that research! THOSE US INSTITUTIONS DID ALL THAT RESEARCH USING FEDERAL TAXPAYER FUNDING and then sold that patent to global PHARMA corporations. Before our US universities were corporatized all that research was considered PUBLIC INTEREST and those discoveries were not patented----they were released at affordable cost to the US public and the world. It is only from CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA as far-right wing 1% Wall Street that all this public interest public health and research structure was torn down and now all Federal funding and our universities are tied to corporate R and D -----free college student labor-----corporate welfare queen subsidy ----all successful research transferred to global corporations as profits JUST SO THEY CAN CHARGE WE THE PEOPLE SOARING PRICES.
These issues are LIFE AND DEATH----this is not a game----and Americans are not asking for charity WE PAID FOR IT!
Here we see one of those national going global health industry corporations fleecing our Medicare Trust and believe that what this CEO was charged with in court was the tip of an iceberg----he no doubt brought $1 billion each year of fraud to this corporation. People working need the jobs but they can understand why we need to stop these criminal practices--
So, this global corporate CEO is now a governor and he wants to promote more and more lab tests because his global corporation now only gets PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE payments from Medicaid-----lab tests galore-----if they find something you will need to be that global 1% and their 2% to seek treatment. Medicaid will arrange for your HOSPICE.
Florida Democratic Party
Says Rick Scott "oversaw the largest Medicare fraud in the nation’s history."
— Florida Democratic Party on Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 in a press release
Rick Scott 'oversaw the largest Medicare fraud' in U.S. history, Florida Democratic Party says
By Amy Sherman on Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 4:38 p.m.
First, Gov. Rick Scott scared the bejesus out of seniors with an online ad claiming that Medicare rate cuts would lead them to lose access to their doctors, hospitals and preventive care.
Then, the Florida Democratic Party fired back at Scott, issuing a press release that called Scott "the ultimate Medicare thief."
The Democrats were referring to Scott’s prior tenure as CEO of Columbia/HCA about a decade ago, when the hospital company was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals made it clear-----they will be paying for all the preventative care needed to keep people working---but FORGET the trip to the hospital for treatments because this is a global health system profit-maximization game we are playing now!
Just as Federal higher education reform moved all Federal funding that used to send WE THE PEOPLE to strong 4 year universities now sending WE THE PEOPLE to career vocational tracking certificates they are now calling DEGREES......so to they are doing this for health care so all of what was Medicare and Medicaid providing ordinary HIPPOCRATIC OATH health care is seeing all those Federal funds go to wellness and prevention----as in lab tests, vaccines, micro-chip birth control----all preventing ----
So, a lab test shows you have onset diabetes----now will you be able to afford the NEW INNOVATIVE TREATMENT FOR DIABETES---because soon Medicaid will not be paying for it. Where is Medicare---it is being made MEDICAID FOR ALL.
Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act
If you have a new health insurance plan or insurance policy beginning on or after September 23, 2010, the following preventive services must be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or meet your deductible. This applies only when these services are delivered by a network provider.
- Covered Preventive Services for Adults
- Covered Preventive Services for Women, Including Pregnant Women
- Covered Preventive Services for Children
- Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
- Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
- Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages
- Blood Pressure screening for all adults
- Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
- Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
- Depression screening for adults
- Type 2 Diabetes screening for adults with high blood pressure
- Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
- HIV screening for all adults at higher risk
- Immunization vaccines for adults--doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
- Hepatitis A
- Hepatitis B
- Herpes Zoster
- Human Papillomavirus
- Influenza (Flu Shot)
- Measles, Mumps, Rubella
- Meningococcal
- Pneumococcal
- Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
- Varicella
Learn more about immunizations and see the latest vaccine schedules.
- Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
- Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
- Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
- Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk
- Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
- Bacteriuria urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
- BRCA counseling about genetic testing for women at higher risk
- Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
- Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
- Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, as well as access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women*
- Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
- Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
- Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, not including abortifacient drugs*
- Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women*
- Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
- Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes*
- Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
- Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
- Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) screening and counseling for sexually active women*
- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test: high risk HPV DNA testing every three years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older*
- Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
- Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
- Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
- Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) counseling for sexually active women*
- Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
- Well-woman visits to obtain recommended preventive services*
(Effective August 1, 2012)
26 Covered Preventive Services for Children
- Alcohol and Drug Use assessments for adolescents
- Autism screening for children at 18 and 24 months
- Behavioral assessments for children of all ages
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. - Blood Pressure screening for children
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. - Cervical Dysplasia screening for sexually active females
- Congenital Hypothyroidism screening for newborns
- Depression screening for adolescents
- Developmental screening for children under age 3, and surveillance throughout childhood
- Dyslipidemia screening for children at higher risk of lipid disorders
Ages: 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. - Fluoride Chemoprevention supplements for children without fluoride in their water source
- Gonorrhea preventive medication for the eyes of all newborns
- Hearing screening for all newborns
- Height, Weight and Body Mass Index measurements for children
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. - Hematocrit or Hemoglobin screening for children
- Hemoglobinopathies or sickle cell screening for newborns
- HIV screening for adolescents at higher risk
- Immunization vaccines for children from birth to age 18 —doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
- Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis
- Haemophilus influenzae type b
- Hepatitis A
- Hepatitis B
- Human Papillomavirus
- Inactivated Poliovirus
- Influenza (Flu Shot)
- Measles, Mumps, Rubella
- Meningococcal
- Pneumococcal
- Rotavirus
- Varicella
Learn more about immunizations and see the latest vaccine schedules.
- Iron supplements for children ages 6 to 12 months at risk for anemia
- Lead screening for children at risk of exposure
- Medical History for all children throughout development
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. - Obesity screening and counseling
- Oral Health risk assessment for young children
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years. - Phenylketonuria (PKU) screening for this genetic disorder in newborns
- Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling and screening for adolescents at higher risk
- Tuberculin testing for children at higher risk of tuberculosis
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. - Vision screening for all children
Trans Pacific Trade Pact is big on protecting GLOBAL PHARMA AND GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEM TOURISM----so this article below is speaking to where these health issues will go after the 2016 election----with TPP being installed by a Trump and Hillary ----we will see all regulations, all public health structures ---that used to fight to bring health care costs DOWN-----be dismantled and eliminated and that includes MEDICARE.
The Bill Gates Foundation was simply building a global health empire----global PHARMA and Gates is behind these most regressive of health profiteering policies. Gates is global PHARMA and global health systems as his MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY is team global online telemedicine. The 1% and their 2% will access the ordinary health care all Americans have accessed---while the 99% of global citizens are tied to online telemedicine.
Here is where those national media POLITI-FACTS are designed to hide the REAL issues in all campaigns. We see Hillary saying all the progressive posing social issue stances----here she is going to fight those mean global PHARMA corporations----after the Clintons staged the implosion of Medicare----the REAL way to fight rising health costs and PHARMA.
THE CLINTONS ARE GLOBAL BILL GATES----THE CLINTON FOUNDATION---THE CLINTON INITIATIVE IS ONE WORLDING IT WITH THE BILL GATES GLOBAL PHARMA FOR THESE FEW DECADES.
'Both Clinton and Donald Trump, for instance, are urging changes in the law that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries'.
Trans Pacific Trade Pact does not allow what Hillary and Trump are both claiming as platform issues----and both Hillary and Trump are raging TPP fast-trackers.
THESE NATIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS KNOW THIS AND ALL THEY PRINT ARE WHAT THESE WALL STREET PLAYERS SAY.
Big pharma is gearing up to defend drug prices
By Carolyn Y. Johnson October 25
The ballot initiative drawing the most campaign spending in the November election in California would prohibit state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, in an effort to curb rising costs for taxpayers. (Alicia Chang/AP)The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs has been noticeably absent from discussion in the presidential debates — even as bipartisan anger about price gouging has united Congress. But the trade group for the pharmaceutical industry, PhRMA, is gearing up to defend drug prices after the election, seeking an additional $100 million in annual dues from its members, according to a report from Politico.
Politico reported Tuesday that the new dues will boost the lobbying group's budget by 50 percent, giving it more than $300 million to draw on. PhRMA spokeswoman Holly Campbell would not confirm or comment on the report in response to a Washington Post request.
PhRMA President Stephen Ubl said in a statement that the organization was strengthened by new member companies and more resources, including new employees, approved by its board.
[Average premiums for popular ACA plans rising 25 percent]
“We will leverage both to amplify our message to policymakers and consumers about the incredible value better treatments and cures bring to patients, the health-care system and the economy,” Ubl said. “The combination of new voices and resources will also bolster our efforts to engage with all stakeholders and advocate for proactive policies that promote continued medical progress.”
Although drug prices haven't been a topic in the late stages of the presidential campaign, they were in the primaries, and the lobbying group clearly anticipates the issue could rear its head again after the election. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has called out drug companies for excessive price hikes and has introduced a plan to stop price gouging on old drugs, introducing the threat of fines or the importing of drugs from other countries.
And a glimpse behind the scenes at the Clinton campaign may give big pharma reason to worry. In emails released by WikiLeaks and first reported by Endpoints News, Ann O'Leary, a Clinton policy adviser, forwarded a USA Today story about Clinton's September 2015 tweet that sent biotech stocks tumbling.
“FYI — We have started the war with Pharma!!" O'Leary wrote to Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald.
“Great!” Grunwald replied.
Republican nominee Donald Trump has expressed support for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, but The Post's Fact Checker has found that Trump's estimate of how much money could be saved by doing so — $300 billion a year — is not credible. Trump's plan also includes unspecified regulatory reform that would “remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products,” according to his campaign health policy.
Pharmaceutical companies have already been spending heavily on a ballot question in California that would bar state agencies from paying more for a drug than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The measure's opposition has received a total contribution of nearly $109 million, and the largest contributors have been big drug companies.
_________________________________________
We have known since 2010 what TPP will do to health care globally so no national media---no national 'labor and justice' organization---no candidate for office would not be shouting this unless they were a global Wall Street player. Trump and Hillary are the face of TPP----they will fast-track as Obama and yet media is allowing them both to PRETEND they will use Medicare to stop rising costs.
In a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERANCE with global health systems the best the 99% will do with health care is PHARMA. So if PHARMA is priced out of range----no access to hospital procedures----BYE BYE US LONGEVITY!
No one has worked harder for global Wall Street than team CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----we know to where these policies lead.
Below we see where TPP is written specifically to protect what will be the largest global market these coming decades-----
GLOBAL HEALTH AND GLOBAL EDUCATION CORPORATIONS.
We are already seeing the dismantling of our Veteran's Administration and all that strong GI BIll NEW DEAL benefit from last century. Our VETS are being moved into that MEDICAID FOR ALL CATEGORY and this article shows how vets will see health care access decline especially PHARMA.
The TPP: Big Pharma’s Backdoor Effort to Halt Reductions in
U.S. Medicine Prices
Americans pay far more for healthcare than people
in any other developed country, even though U.S. life
expectancy falls below the average for developed countries.
A major contributor to our bloated healthcare costs is
the high prices for medicines in the United States.
According to the Government Accountability Office,
U.S. drug prices increased more than 70 percent faster
than prices for other healthcare goods and services over 2006-2010.
As a result, millions of Americans cannot afford the medicines they need to live healthy lives. Soaring drug prices also drive up the amount that taxpayers must pay to fund public health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and programs covering the U.S. military and veterans. Indeed, rising healthcare costs are the number one contributor to the U.S. government’s projected long-term budget deficits. To try to combat the twin problems of unaffordable healthcare and unsustainable deficits, U.S. federal and state governments already use several tools to tamp down the cost of drugs–for Medicare, Medicaid and for military healthcare under
TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Many more such cost containment policies have been proposed. Yet, the TPP threatens to chill such proposals and even roll back existing policies to rein in exorbitant medicine prices. Leaked draft TPP texts–an intellectual property chapter, investment chapter and healthcare annex–contain expansive rules that would constrain the ability of the U.S. government to reduce medicine prices. Getting these terms into the TPP was a key objective of large U.S. pharmaceutical corporations that stand to reap monopoly profits from expansive patent terms and restrictions on government cost containment efforts. This incentive may explain why pharmaceutical corporations
have lobbied Congress for the TPP more than any other industry. The TPP’s threats to the affordability of U.S. healthcare have spurred major groups that have not traditionally taken part in trade policy debates to warn against
the TPP’s provisions. For example, AARP–representing more than 37 million Americans over the age of 50–joined unions and consumer groups in a November 2013 letter to President Obama to express “deep concern” that texts proposed for the TPP would “limit the ability of states and the federal government to moderate escalating prescription drug, biologic drug
and medical device costs in public programs.”
The groups concluded that the TPP could “undermine access to affordable health care for millions in the United States and around the world.”
Monopoly Protections: Expansive Rights for Big Pharma, Expensive Medicines for Consumers
Leaked draft intellectual property texts for the TPP reveal
broad patent and related monopoly protections for pharmaceutical corporations, which elevate the costs of medicines and medical procedures. Inserting these sweeping corporate privileges into the pact would undermine U.S. efforts to make healthcare more affordable:
Scrapping the Obama administration proposal to save more than $4 billion on biologic medicines:
Biologics–
the latest generation of drugs to combat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases–are exceptionally expensive,
costing approximately 22 times more than conventional medicines.
Under U.S. law, pharmaceutical corporations
enjoy monopoly protections for biologic drugs, even in the absence of a patent, for a 12-year period of “exclusivity.”
During these 12 years, the Food and Drug Administration
is prohibited from approving more affordable versions of the drugs, inflating the cost of these life-saving medicines as
pharmaceutical firms accrue monopoly profits. To lower the exorbitant prices and the resulting burden on programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the Obama administration’s 2015
budget would reduce the exclusivity period for biologics from 12 to seven years. The administration estimates this would
save taxpayers more than $4.2 billion over the next decade
just for federal programs. However, at the request of Big Pharma, U.S. trade negotiators are demandingthe 12-year exclusivity requirement for biologics in the TPP.
This would lock into place pharmaceutical firms’ lengthy monopolies here at home. That is, Obama administration negotiators would effectively scrap the administration’s own proposal to save billions in unnecessary healthcare costs
and lock in rules that would forbid future presidents or Congresses from doing so.
Unmitigated Prices:
Limiting the Government’s Ability to Control Rising Drug Costs
Rolling back medicine cost savings for U.S. veterans:
The U.S. government uses automatic price reductions to secure lower drug costs for U.S. veterans who benefit from health programs administered by VA.
U.S. law allows VA to access drug prices at 24 percent below average market prices, and requires drug companies to
offer these reduced prices for VA-administered programs
as a condition for their medicines being included in other government health programs. However, this cost-saving mechanism could run afoul of the proposed TPP annex, which
requires government drug reimbursements to be based on “competitive, market-derived prices,” or on a system
that “appropriately recognizes[] the value” of the drugs.
The government-mandated price-setting system for VA programs would be subject to challenge as not being
“competitive” and “market-derived.”
VA-secured prices that fall significantly below the prices of patented drugs also could be challenged under the TPP as not
“appropriately recognizing” drugs’ value. These TPP provisions, if enacted, could expose the U.S. government to challenges before international tribunals for not rolling back policies
that cut healthcare costs for veterans and taxpayers.
Threatening policies that make medicines more affordable
for the poor:
U.S. federal and state governments currently use several
methods to tamp down the prices of drugs provided to low
-income families through Medicaid. For example, the U.S. federal government requires drug corporations, as a condition for having their drugs covered by Medicaid, to sign discount agreements that oblige the firms to provide the state and federal governments with rebates to lower the cost of the drugs. These rebates have resulted in a 45 percent reduction in Medicaid spending for brand-name drugs.
State governments can further cut costs by, for example, negotiating lower prices with drug companies in return for placing their medicines on a Preferred Drug List(PDL)–
a list of medicines that the state’s Medicaid program will cover without requiring prior authorization from a doctor.
States have calculated substantial cost savings from usage of PDLs: New York saved an estimated
$381 million in one recent year, while Texas saved an estimated $115 million and Utah saved an estimated $434 million.
Such Medicaid cost containment measures could be challenged under the TPP. Leveraging the government’s buying power to set prices could be attacked as not being “market-derived”
or as “appropriately recognizing” the value of patented drugs.
Some argue that the TPP provisions would primarily target federal policies, while Medicaid is administered by state governments. But even if limited to federal policies,
the pact’s proposed terms directly contradict Medicaid’s
federal cost control efforts, such as requiring drug firms to sign discount agreements. And state-level tools like PDLs could
still be challenged under the TPP as part of a program created
and controlled by the federal government.
Challenging Obamacare cost reductions for seniors:
Before implementation of the landmark Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010, seniors faced a gap in Medicare
drug coverage. After passing a given threshold of drug costs, Medicare beneficiaries went from having to pay 25 percent of a drug’s cost to having to pay 100 percent out of pocket, until reaching a second threshold at which Medicare again covered
most costs. Closing this “doughnut hole” was a key objective of the Affordable Care Act, which required drug manufacturers to offer a 50 percent drug price discount to Medicare beneficiaries within the coverage gap if
they wanted their drugs to continue being covered under Medicare. As a result of this discount and a gradual
increase in Medicare coverage, Medicare beneficiaries within the coverage gap were only responsible for 47.5 percent of brand-name drug costs in 2013 and will be responsible for only 25 percent by 2020. But under the TPP, the requirement for drug companies to halve the price of their drugs within the coverage gap could be challenged for neither reflecting “competitive market-derived” prices nor “appropriately recognizing[] the value” of patented drugs. The Obama administration’s TPP healthcare annex thus threatens the cost savings that the administration’s own signature health law has provided to seniors.
Chilling future reforms that could further reduce healthcare costs for retirees:
Governments in countries ranging from New Zealand to Japan
have kept healthcare costs in check by leveraging the government’s large purchasing power for taxpayer-funded public health programs to negotiate lower drug prices with
pharmaceutical corporations. In contrast, for Medicare, which
covers more than 50 million Americans, the U.S. government is barred by law from directly negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical corporations.
Many policymakers, healthcare professionals and even President Obama have called for changes to this law so that
the government could ask drug companies to provide lower prices in exchange for getting subsidized access to millions of Medicare recipients. Other reform proposals, including legislation now pending, would have the federal government
set maximum prices for drugs covered by Medicare (as it does for health programs provided to veterans) or require that drug companies provide drug rebates (similar to the rebates required under Medicaid). Indeed, the White House itself has proposed requiring drug companies to pay Medicaid-like rebates to providers for treating low-income Medicare beneficiaries. The administration estimates this would deliver $117 billion in savings over 10 years.
However, the TPP presents an obstacle to these proposals to
control soaring Medicare costs. All of the above-mentioned policies involve direct government intervention in price setting, conflicting with the TPP requirement for market-derived prices, and inviting challenges for failing to “appropriately recognize”
the value of patented drugs.
Undermining drug discounts for underserved communities:
Under a program known as 340B, the U.S. federal government enables nongovernmental health centers– including migrant health centers, homeless health centers, children’s hospitals
and family planning centers– to offer their diverse constituencies more 4 affordable drugs. The federal government requires pharmaceutical firms to offer discounted drug prices to 340B-covered health centers via rebates, as a condition for having their drugs covered by Medicaid. As a
federally-run program that mandates below-market prices, the program could be challenged as a violation of the proposed TPP rules requiring drug prices to be market-derived or to reflect the value of patented drugs.
In addition, the leaked TPP annex would require the U.S. government to allow pharmaceutical corporations to
appeal drug pricing decisions such as the rebate amounts set under the 340B program, though they have very limited appeal rights for such decisions under U.S. domestic law.
The TPP would thus give pharmaceutical corporations a new
means of challenging 340B policies that reduce drug prices for underserved populations.
Investor Privileges:
Empowering Big Pharma to Directly Attack U.S. Health Policies
More Information on How the TPP Threatens Access to Affordable Medicines
Factsheet: TPP: Harmful Provisions for Access to Medicines
Memo:
Proposed TPP Rules Could Undermine Drug Cost Containment Provisions of Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans’ Health, Hurting Seniors, Military Families and the Poor
Memo:
U.S. Pharmaceutical Corporation Uses NAFTA Foreign Investor Privileges Regime to Attack Canada’s Patent Policy
Factsheet:
The TPP Threatens Access to Affordable Cancer
___________________________________________
BALTIMORE AND JOHNS HOPKINS ARE GROUND ZERO FOR BIOTECH FACILITIES CHURNING OUT NEW INNOVATIVE PHARMA AND PROCEDURES THEY QUICKLY PATENT AND SELL.....AND BALTIMORE WILL PUSH ONLY THOSE BRAND NAMES.
For those not knowing MedChi-----they are that arm of our American Medical Association that drives policies making health care more and more profiteering and profit-making. We have those small percentage of doctors wanting to get very rich while eliminating all avenues of regulation and cost-control. Baltimore is ground zero for having done this-----it has no public health department that actually works for public interest----it has the worst public health exposures and the worst public health outcomes-----there is no oversight and accountability of health care in Maryland and Baltimore with thousands of medical harm lawsuits each year. In other words----we would not come to Baltimore or Maryland for health policy that protects WE THE PEOPLE-----the health care policies here are always MAXIMIZING GLOBAL CORPORATE PROFITS, EXTREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POWER---- and we have a global Johns Hopkins health care because of a MEDICARE DEPLETED BECAUSE OF HEALTH INDUSTRY FRAUD.
We have talked often about why we have certain high levels of disease vectors in the US today. We spoke to diabetes-----and obesity----knowing there are as many CORPORATE CAUSES as personal behavior causes. Baltimore has filled its public health with all kinds of mental health PHARMA for example known to be used TOO OFTEN. At the same time we know mental health PHARMA is being tied to both OBESITY AND DIABETES----as are other PHARMA in mainstream use. We know as well for decades our US food has been allowed to have chemicals that ALSO have been found to cause OBESITY AND DIABETES. So, yes we have citizens who drink too much soda---eat too much sweets but the epidemic of obesity and diabetes came from
LACK OF PUBLIC HEALTH OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON CORPORATIONS AND HEALTH INDUSTRY.
'MedChi said the research is the first look at the cost of caring for diabetics on Medicaid in Maryland, and advocates say it could provide fuel for policy and legislative changes at the state and local levels'.
"The burden on our patients, their families and state taxpayers will continue to intensify, putting strain on Medicaid funding, enrollment, and perhaps even the quality of care provided," said MedChi's president, Dr. Stephen J. Rockower'.
The major cause of diabetes in Baltimore is DELIBERATE ECONOMIC STAGNATION having a goal of keeping Baltimore citizens impoverished, unstable, and with food deserts leaving them eating bad food. THIS IS THE CAUSE OF DIABETES CRISIS ACROSS THE US.
In Maryland, diabetics cost Medicaid twice as much, study finds
David J. Phillip / AP
Andrea K. McDaniels and Meredith CohnContact ReportersThe Baltimore Sun
Study found diabetics are costly for Medicaid program.People with diabetes cost the state's Medicaid program twice as much as those without the chronic condition, a study commissioned by the society that represents Maryland's doctors has found
Medicaid spent an average of $24,387 on each patient with diabetes in 2014, compared with $10,880 for someone without the disease, according to the study commissioned by MedChi and conducted by the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and released Thursday. There were similar findings among enrollees in 2013, according to the study of adults ages 35 to 64.
Such spending adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. HealthChoice, which manages care for the bulk of the state's Medicaid patients, spent more than $471 million treating people with diabetes in 2014 for hospitalizations, doctor visits and prescriptions, and more than $312 million in 2013.
Diabetes occurs in people who do not produce enough insulin or do not process it correctly, causing an increase in blood sugar. It affects 29 million Americans and more than 610,000 Marylanders, or about 10 percent of the state population.
The cost of caring for diabetes patients builds up over time because the disease often causes costly complications, such as kidney failure and gangrene leading to amputations. HealthChoice enrollees with diabetes were more than twice as likely to be admitted to a hospital as those without the disease.
Maryland Medicaid patients to participate in diabetes prevention programs MedChi said the research is the first look at the cost of caring for diabetics on Medicaid in Maryland, and advocates say it could provide fuel for policy and legislative changes at the state and local levels.
"These numbers really show the burden in Maryland," said Dr. Richard Bruno, a MedChi trustee and a board member of the advocacy group Sugar Free Kids Maryland. "We have some suggestions to make a dent."
Since obesity is a big risk factor in the most common form of diabetes, Bruno said, public education about diet and exercise is crucial. The report suggests remedies for policymakers and lawmakers that include adding diabetes screenings, developing walkable communities, and making fresh fruits and vegetables more accessible in poor neighborhoods.
Caption New Zika study raises concerns for men
Caption Telemedicine brings peace of mind to patient
The report also recommends some more controversial measures, such as taxes on surgary drinks, requiring warning labels about those drinks in retail outlets, and "healthy vending" laws that require most foods and drinks sold on government property to be lower-calorie.
A bill requiring that 75 percent of the options in vending machines on state property meet a set of dietary guidelines failed in the General Assembly this year, though sponsors said they plan to reintroduce the measure. Howard County and Baltimore City already have such laws.
An effort also stalled in Baltimore City to require businesses that sell or advertise sugar-sweetened sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, juices, coffees and teas to post signs warning consumers that they contribute to tooth decay, obesity and diabetes.
City Councilman Nick Mosby said he was moved to introduce the bill by the number of obese children in Baltimore who could face a lifetime of battling related diseases. He said he was disappointed that the measure has not gotten a vote.
"In Baltimore, we're going to be the leader in policy reforms and progress on things like this, or, unfortunately, we'll continue to see the impacts," he said. "We've already allowed the impacts on the city for far too long."
While Mosby said the warning labels did not restrict choice among consumers and only provided information, representatives of the beverage industry argue that consumers are already getting enough information to make purchasing decisions.
Ellen Valentino, a lobbyist for the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Beverage Association, opposed Mosby's bill and said the industry is already offering more choices with fewer calories and providing calorie counts on the products.
"We know government in every grocery cart is not a real solution," she said. "Real solutions are providing consumers choice, smaller portion sizes, lower calorie options and information on packaging."
Policymakers say they continue to work on other preventive programs to reduce obesity and the rate of diabetes — and the costs.
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which administers the Medicaid program for the federal government, said in a statement that the agency is participating in a national diabetes prevention program.
The state health department announced this summer that it had chosen four managed-care organizations under HealthChoice — Amerigroup, Jai Medical Systems, MedStar Family Choice and Priority Partners — to help implement diabetes prevention programs for Medicaid patients as part of a two-year pilot study by the federal government.
Maryland is one of two states that were awarded funding as part of the National Diabetes Prevention Program, which is focused on keeping low-income residents from developing diabetes
"The department welcomes the study and shares the concern about the impact of diabetes," the statement said. "For this reason, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, this summer, selected the managed care organizations that will participate in a demonstration project to show ways to offer the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicaid recipients."
But without more intervention, others fear that diabetes patients will continue to drive up spending. The MedChi study already found that more than a quarter of Medicaid's 2014 spending of $1.77 billion on patients ages 35 to 64 was for diabetics, though they made up only 14 percent of enrollees.
"The burden on our patients, their families and state taxpayers will continue to intensify, putting strain on Medicaid funding, enrollment, and perhaps even the quality of care provided," said MedChi's president, Dr. Stephen J. Rockow
_________________________________________
Generic drugs generally cost one-tenth to one-half the price of their brand-name counterparts.
When we see the spike in medical lawsuits against PHARMA and medical procedures since CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---we are seeing that Clinton era dismantling of oversight and accountability---of deregulation of a once strong public health sector oversight. Today US citizens are often fearful of PHARMA ---we see this with vaccines----because these products are being patent-milled out to market with insufficient research. What we saw as well at this time was this continual rebranding of ordinary medical products working fine. This is what we call PROFITEERING----when MEDICARE AND MEDICAID was hit with all those rising health costs----it was this patent-machine installed under Clinton.
CONGRESS IN 2000 WANTED TO ALLOW BRINGING IN IMPORTED PHARMA AND CLINTONS SAID NO
'when Congress in 2000 passed such bipartisan legislation, Bill Clinton’s administration used its executive authority to prevent an importation program from being implemented. At the time, Clinton’s administration said drugs imported from countries like Canada would be unsafe, later prompting bill proponents to demand to see evidence of mass Canadian casualties from fraudulent drugs'.
Using EXECUTIVE ORDER to keep from bringing imported PHARMA to lower health care cost!
If we look at Steve Jobs and Apple Technology we see the same global corporate maximizing process. Apple creates a good product then almost every year rebrands it by simply making a change that requires consumers buy new technology hardware......there's that new IPHONE! This is what Clinton did to our public health---and he made sure that the high cost name brands were mainstreamed while generics were kept at bay.
This is what Trans Pacific Trade Pact does on a global scale----it makes all nations pay those hyper-inflated profiteering prices for brand name products while it makes it harder and harder to create affordable generics.
CLINTON STARTED THAT STATUS OF US AS MOST EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE WITH CITIZENS HAVING THE WORST PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES----
'Since 1995, several new classes of diabetes medications have come on the market'.
'In a move that could cost consumers billions of dollars, the Food and Drug Administration ruled today that a new Federal law gives pharmaceutical companies an extension of up to three years on their drug patents. The ruling was hailed by big drug makers'.
Keep in mind this is 1995 and from CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----these brand name extensions have broadened---TPP makes this worse.
Ruling Gives Drug Makers Up to 3 Extra Years on Patents
By PHILIP J. HILTS
Published: May 26, 1995
WASHINGTON, May 25— In a move that could cost consumers billions of dollars, the Food and Drug Administration ruled today that a new Federal law gives pharmaceutical companies an extension of up to three years on their drug patents.
The ruling was hailed by big drug makers. But consumer groups immediately protested the change, and companies that make cheaper "generic" alternatives to brand-name drugs after their patents run out called on Congress to amend the law. Senator David Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas, vowed to introduce a bill to restore the traditional 17-year time limit for drugs currently under patent or in the application process.
The agency ruled on a law signed by President Clinton in December that put into effect last year's world trade agreement. The law requires the United States to switch from its system of granting 17-year patents from the time of their approval to match the practice in other nations of giving 20-year patents from the time they are applied for.
The F.D.A. made the decision reluctantly, and suggested in its ruling that Congress might not have intended this outcome and should act to clarify the law.
Depending on the time period needed to gain patent approval, the law will give drug companies up to three years of extra protection for their products. Glaxo Wellcome P.L.C., for example, received quick approval in 1978 in for its patent on the ulcer medicine Zantac, the world's largest-selling drug. With its patent due to expire in December, the company would gain an extra 19 months of protection.
Any patents applied for after June 8 will be subject to the new 20-year patent life even if Congress acts to restore the original time frame for drugs currently under patent or those with applications on file with the patent office.
Consumer advocates were quick to denounce the windfall to the pharmaceutical industry, which Steven Shondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota estimated could reach $6 billion.
"This is one of those hidden things that happens in Washington that is outrageous and will hurt people all across the country," said Dixie D. Horning, executive director of the Gray Panthers, a lobbying group for the elderly.
Ms. Horning added it was not just older people who would be affected. "Remember that more than a billion dollars of this will come from taxpayers who pay for Medicare and Medicaid," she said.
But big drug makers were clearly delighted. "This is very good news, not just for Glaxo but for upholding the patent rights of innovative companies," said Nancy Pekarek, a spokeswoman for Glaxo Wellcome. She added that the new world trade agreement "provided for a 20-year patent life, and what this decision does is uphold that patent protection."
Ms. Pekarek warned that any move to rewrite the current law could jeopardize the world trade accord, which was approved last year after years of wrangling. "It really would open the door," she said, for the pact "to be undermined in other countries for any patent holder."
Even so, Senator Pryor, the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, said he would seek to clarify the new law. He called the profits that might result from the extra patent life "obscene" and said he would soon introduce a bill to prevent what he said was a "classic case of unjust enrichment."
"It will create enormous and unintended profits for the brand-name companies," he added.
Even so, the chances for passage of such legislation are uncertain. Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, sided with Senator Pryor, describing today's ruling as "very bad policy, even though the F.D.A. felt it could go no other way legally."
"I would support legislation to correct this and prevent the windfall" to the large drug companies, he added. He said that passing such an amendment "would be difficult but not impossible."
On the other hand, Senator William Cohen, the Republican chairman of the Senate committee on aging, said he wanted to study Senator Pryor's proposed measure before deciding what position he would take.
Makers of generic drugs also expressed their disappointment with the F.D.A. ruling. Robert J. Gunter, president of Novopharm USA Inc., said his company had invested $40 million in a new plant to make drugs in bulk, including Zantac. Mr. Gunter said Novopharm would have to scale back its plans unless Congress acted to restored the 17-year life span for patents.
"It's a $6 billion windfall and it will come directly from the pocketbooks of the American public," Mr. Gunter said.
Generic drugs generally cost one-tenth to one-half the price of their brand-name counterparts. Most of the added income for the big drug companies would come from purchases by individual patients, but about $1.5 billion would be paid for by tax dollars through Medicare and Medicaid purchases of the more expensive drugs, according to Mr. Shondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota.
Robert F. Green, a lawyer representing Novopharm, said 109 drugs would be affected. Mr. Shondelmeyer said the drugs would include Mevacor, a cholesterol-lowering agent made by Merck & Company that would gain 19 months of patent life and potentially $448 million in revenues; Diflucan, an antifungal drug that would gain 20 months and possibly $410 million for Pfizer Inc., and Prilosec, an ulcer drug made by Merck that would gain 17 months and as much as $586 million.
RSS Feed
