Drugs

You are currently browsing articles tagged Drugs.

Marketplace reports that the FDA has blocked sales from one of India’s largest drug producersRanbaxy Pharmaceuticals.  “It prevented sales of Ranbaxy’s generic versions of the antibiotic Cipro and the cholesterol pill Zocor.”

This begs the question: should the FDA put office in foreign countries?  On the one hand, it is important to ensure that imported drugs are safe.  However, FDA decisions to ban certain drugs could be influenced by protectionist concerns rather than patient health. 

Ajay Sahai, executive director of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations: ”In many of the cases, Indian companies do have a case where they have been stopped by large companies present in the importing countries. They have tried to restrict the imports at whatever cost or citing whatever reason.”

Is the FDA doing a diligent job or protecting the safety of the U.S. drug supply, or is it engaged in protectionism.  Finding the true answer is exceedingly difficult.

Tags: , ,

Some of the biggest public health problems involve the use of drugs in alcohol.  Individuals use drugs and alcohol because they receive some psychic benefit.  However, this has a cost to their own health and often the health of others (e.g., drunk driving, increased homicide rates).  Whether or not the government should be involved in convincing people not to drink, smoke or take drugs is one question.  Another is whether it actually effective.

A paper by Hornik et al. (AJPH 2008) examines the effect of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign between 1999 and 2004.  The paper finds that ad campaigns like “Soccer: My Anti-Drug” generally had no effect on drug or alcohol use.  However, the campaign did seem to slightly increase marijuana use.  

Why does advertising not work?  Most people already know about the health costs of drugs, alcohol and smoking.  Thus, advertisements do not serve to change the public perception.  Any government who wants to start a advertising campaign against trans fat in order to reduce obesity must contend with the fact that most people already know which food are and are not good for them.  Thus, this type of advertisement likely has little impact.

Should public health officials just give up on stopping people from using drugs and alcohol?  Maybe not entirely.

The Economist cites the health benefits of Mikhail Gorbachev’s anti-booze campaign.  ”Mr Gorbachev’s anti-booze campaign—although hugely unpopular—raised life expectancy by fully three years between 1985 and 1987. After 1992 the state monopoly on alcohol (and health checks on its quality) collapsed. As anybody who lived in Russia at the time will recall, the effect was spectacular—and catastrophic. Death rates returned to their long-term trend.”

Tags: , ,

What percentage of your prescription drug costs should your insurance company cover?  You may say “100%, of course!”  However, if health insurance cover all pharmaceutical costs this will drive up premiums.  

One solution to this problem is reference pricing.  If generics are available for $10 and name brand drugs are available for $100, the insurance company only covers $10 for drugs in this category.  Why would anyone want a $100 drug when a $10 one is available?  The Health Care Blog gives 4 reasons why physicians don’t prescribe more generics:

  1. Many drugs are better known by their often simpler brand names and so physicians routinely write the brand name on the prescription, even if they do not mean that the brand has to be filled.
  2. Physicians do not have any idea what drugs actually cost their patients, because we are “too busy” and because prescription drug pricing transparency might wake us up.
  3. Some physicians believe, against the evidence in double-blind trials, that generics are inferior or less pure than the brand name version.
  4. Some patients are convinced, also against the evidence in double-blind trials, that they do better with the brand than with the generic version and request that their physician specify the brand.

Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that CMS may ban reference pricing.  Authors Dr. Rick Peters and Dr. Karl Luber claim that reference pricing does much good and should not be banned.

I tend to agree with them.  If low cost, safe generics are available, then insurance should only cover the cost of generics.  This will lower costs and convince more people to take generics.  

There is a down-side to reference pricing, however.  By giving less money to the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the name brand drugs, this may stifle innovation of these drugs in the long run.  However, incentives to innovate could be generated through extending patent lengths or giving prizes to pharmaceutical companies who develop new drugs.  

Reference pricing is a fair way to steer patients and physicians towards more cost-effective use of pharmaceuticals.

Tags: , , ,

NPR’s Marketplace reports that the Cleveland Clinic has announced it’s going to disclose its doctors’ ties to the drug industry, upfront, on its website.

Tags: ,

What happens to seized drug money? According to the Economist, in Montgomery County, Texas the sized drug money was used to fund the beer and liquor needs of the district attorney at their local county fair. The funds were also used to purchase a margarita machine.

Looks like seized illegal drugs were used to fund legal drug use (alcohol).

Tags: ,

The Economist has an interesting article on how pharmaceutical companies are trying to hawk their wares in developing countries (“Quagmire or goldmine?“) Generally, Pharma has stayed away from selling in developing countries due to uncertainties in their level of patent protection. For instance, Brazil has “threatened to invoke compulsory licensing (a legal mechanism that, in effect, legitimises such trampling [of patent rights]) to browbeat a foreign drugs firm into offering huge discounts.”

However, emerging economies are a growing market. Companies such as Moksha8, have started to market branded drugs to affluent customers in developing countries. Further, research into emerging economy-specific diseases is growing.

Hopefully, all this money rushing into emerging market pharmaceuticals will better the health of those living in poorer regions around the world.

Tags: ,

What is Medicare Part D?

Medicare Part D began in 2006 and provides insurance coverage for pharmaceuticals for the elderly. The program is set up so that the government does not purchase the drugs directly, but subsidizes private prescription drug plans, which then negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies. There are two types of Part D plans. The first are prescription drug plans (PDP) which only cover drugs. Medicare Advantage plans (MA-PD) are comprehensive, managed care insurance plans which also include insurance coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Typical Part D coverage includes a $250 deductible, with 75% coverage for the first $2000 (after the deductible). Part D defers 0% of the cost of drugs between $2000 and $3599–the “donut hole”–and then once annual spending reaches $3600, Part D pays only 95% of the costs.

The government subsidies these PDP and MA-PD plans based on a bidding process. A national average bid is calculated and multiplied by some constant percentage (it was 34% in 2007) to determine what premium the enrollees will pay. The 66% subsidy is distributed to the plans as a lump sum, so that if plans offer higher or lower premiums, the enrollee incurs the full cost (benefit) for higher (lower) premiums.

To reduce the possibility of crowd-out, CMS subsidies firms that provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees.

What does economic theory predict about Medicare Part D’s influence on prices?

Many economists would at first glance believe that this would lead to an increase in prices. Consumers should be have less elastic demand since they will only be paying for a fraction of the drug cost if they have Part D insurance. An NBER working paper by Duggan and Morton (2008) believe that this will not be the case. First, PDPs and MA-PD have large customer bases and can negotiate bulk discounts. Individuals do not have the buying power to negotiate these discounts. Further, drug companies often use formularies which advise patients as to alternative drugs (e.g., generics) which are cheaper. Physicians advice patients as to the most medically effective drug, but not the most cost effective treatment. Thus, insurance company formularies can make patient cross price demand elasticities for drugs more elastic since they are more aware of comparable drug substitutes.

Further, the production of pharmaceuticals is one with extremely high fixed costs (e.g., R&D, advertising) and very low, relatively flat marginal costs. Thus, prescription drug insurance will likely increase pharmaceutical utilization, which will decrease average costs.

Medicare Part D’s impact on Price

Duggan and Morton find the Medicare Part D decreased average overall price by 12%. Patients of course pay even less than this 12% figure, because insurance pays for a portion of the drug costs. Thus, for patients moving from cash payment to Medicare Part D, net drugs prices for them decreased 24%.

This decrease, however, could have reflected an overall decrease in drug costs and may be unrelated to Part D insurance. To test this, Duggan and Morton examine the prices of drugs in “protected” therapeutic classes. The government mandate that insurance companies must cover all drugs for treatment categories such HIV, anti-cancer, immunosuppressant, etc. Because the Part D plans are mandated to cover all drugs in the category, plans cannot 1) use their buying power to negotiate lower prices since producers know that the drug must be covered and 2) use formularies to direct enrollees to less expensive alternatives since all drugs must be covered. Thus, the authors predict that for drugs in these protected classes, their should be no price decrease. This is exactly what the authors find.

“The results…suggest that drug prices offered by Medicare part D plans grew with others in those therapeutic categories where their ability to move market share was most limited. This provides some support for our model…which predicted smaller price declines (or larger price increases) for those treatments without good substitutes.”

Tags: , ,

Is the free market working?  Looks like.  Wal-mart just dropped its prices on pharmaceuticals.  According to a Marketwatch article (“Wal-mart…“) :

  • Wal-mart will fill prescriptions for as many as 350 generic drugs costing $10 for a 90-day supply
  • Over 1000 over-the-counter drugs are priced at $4 or less.  Many of these include Wal-mart own private label Equate brand.

Wal-mart must compete with some supermarket chains that are offering free generic drugs to draw consumers into the store.

Tags: , ,

Consumers are starting to pay a larger share for high priced drugs.  According to the N.Y. Times (“Co-payments“), insurance companies “…are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.”  Medicare’s drug plans have introduced new fee schedules where patients pay larger copayments for Tier 4 and Tier 5 drugs.  Private insurers now followed Medicare’s lead.

Should consumers bear a larger burden of their health care costs?  On the one hand, moving towards more out-of-pocket costs will reduce premiums.  Further, higher co-payments will reduce moral hazard (i.e., the use of unnecessary medical care simply because insurance pays for it).  Also, this moves us closer toward insurance as a policy to insure people against catastrophic risk and not as a mechanism to pay for all medical care.

Still, health economist James Robinson from UC-Berkeley states that “It is very unfortunate social policy.  The more the sick person pays, the less the healthy person pays.”

Tags: , ,

Medicare is inefficient and expensive. Medicare has been expanded through Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs. Can expanding an inefficient, expensive system be a good thing? Gary Becker argues yes.

Since drugs have high fixed research costs but low marginal costs, having the government pay for drugs can increase innovation. In fact, a working paper by Blume-Kohout and Sood (2008) finds that “…the passage of Medicare Part D was associated with significant increases in pharmaceutical R&D, especially for classes with high elderly market share.” Further, the fact that there are high fixed costs and low marginal cost means that passing Medicare Part D will likely reduce the average cost of drugs. According to Becker:

This property of the cost of producing drugs has two extremely important implications for Medicare costs. The first is that drugs are an efficient way to treat diseases and disorders that hit a large number of men and women since then the fixed costs can be spread over a larger number of users. This makes them particularly valuable to the elderly who are a growing share of the population in the United States and all other developed countries, and in many developing countries as well, including China…

Drugs are also valuable in inefficient delivery systems that have trouble choking off medical treatments that would not pass a benefit-cost calculation. This would characterize systems with highly subsidized medical care, with excessively low deductibles, or with rules that cannot deny treatments to the very elderly and those close to dying who would benefit only a little from receiving treatment. Surgery, hospitalization, and close physician supervision are expensive ways to treat seniors who do not benefit much from this care since the cost of these procedures tend to rise in proportion to the number treated. On the other hand, while treating seniors with drugs sometimes also may not add much in the way of benefits, the additional cost per user would be much smaller than the average cost per user.

Medicare Part D may increase efficiency in the “second-best” world in which we live today.

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »