Pharma May Pay $20B More For Health Bill
3 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 17th, 2009 // 8:41 am
Democratic senators are saying they’ve been told drugmakers will contribute billions of dollars more than it has previously promised for President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, with the money being used to close a gap in Medicare drug coverage, the Associated Press reports.
Several said that expectation was a factor on Tuesday, when more than a dozen Democrats reversed their previous positions and voted to kill a Senate effort to allow drugs to be imported into the US. The extra money would be used to close the donut hole, the AP writes (background here).
Several health care lobbyists said they understood pharma would contribute about $20 billion above the $80 billion over 10 years they agreed to provide in a June deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat. Some lobbyists and lawmakers used higher figures.
“Some assurances were made that the doughnut hole would be filled” with money from drug companies, Jon Tester, another Montana Senator, told the AP, when asked why so many Democrats switched to oppose importation. Asked whether the drug industry will pay for closing the coverage gap, Kent Conrad, a Democratic Senator from North Dakota, tells the AP: “That’s my understanding. But I have not seen anything in writing.”
But Ken Johnson, senior vice president for PhRMA, says the trade group has not held talks with White House or Senate officials about closing the Medicare coverage gap. He says the deal limiting the industry’s contributions to $80 billion was “ironclad,” but he did not rule out a higher amount.
JaT
Drug companies aren’t paying this money. We are. They are supposed to raise drug prices by about 9%, increasing their cost to insurers and consumers, to kick billions to the fed in the name of supporting HCR and in exchange for some lobbied deals. No?
Sounds like a tax to me.
Additionally, I understand that hospitals are supposed to start charging more for their services- to get a jump on off-setting the medicaid style reumbersement rates to come- as the benefits of HCR comes a few years down the road.
Yeah, you can keep your private insurance- if it survives. Of course, they won’t be allowed raise their rates based on the increased costs to them. So then what? They will have to cover less- confirming that private insurance is evil. No?
Oh you could try to make the argument that the rich insurers should go down. The uber rich pharma industry is okay to raise costs though. You could complain about corporations & industry. Pharma gets a pass. Why? Innovation? Heh. Lately they seem more about mergers and acquisitions. When they are innovative they will provide all kinds of new jobs—- over seas.
You have to wonder too…
Because unions are all behind this reform- and considering that medical coverage is possibly the most valuable thing they have been assisting in protecting during contract negotiations- won’t government run health care decrease their value?
What a mess. As an independent, recent events have cemented my opposition to HCR. I just don’t see a lot in there that is beneficial. They need to scrap it and try again maybe.
(ducking under the table)
Evelyn Pringle
There is nothing beneficial.
Bend over Americans!
JaT
Re: my own question concerning the potential for decreased value of unions if universal health care removes one of the important things they bargain for.
Evidently there is language in the final Senate version that coincides with this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDvu77pZr7k4
That’s one way to go about unionizing workers, I guess. Lucky me- not so lucky for you.
“I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for”
Hmmm