Tag: insurance

Bioethics Blogs

Topsy-Turvy Brand Name Drug Pricing?

On August 7, 2017, The
New York Times
with ProPublica
(an independent, non-profit investigative new agency) reported
that some drug companies have struck deals with insurers to require that
prescriptions be dispensed for the more expensive brand name drug rather than
the less expensive generic alternative! Has the world turned upside down? What
has happened? Perhaps one could respond: Follow the money.

Pharmaceutical companies have apparently cut a deal with
health insurance companies and pharmacy benefits managers for some drug
products so that middle men pay prices that are very competitive, at least as
competitive as the generic equivalents. In one arrangement for a particular
drug – Shire’s Adderall XR, used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) – UnitedHealthcare insured patients were provided a discount
coupon which lowered the cost of the brand name considerably, but a patient’s
family still payed about $50 more a month than for the generic. Consumers
clearly are bearing the increased costs.

A spokesman for United Healthcare defended the program: “By
providing access to these drugs at lower cost, we are able to improve
affordability for our customers and members.” Of course, the statement is true,
but it is a poor justification because in this instance have no choice in the
matter. Even if patients’ physicians write for the generic equivalent, the
doctors are told that they “had to specify that patients required brand-name
versions of the drug.” This may or may not be true depending on the health
insurers’ and pharmacy benefits managers’ formulary requirements; but it may be
a moot point if the band name drug is the only one available, or unless the
patient wants to pay full price for a drug product that is not listed in the
formulary.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Topsy-Turvy Brand Name Drug Pricing?

On August 7, 2017, The
New York Times
with ProPublica
(an independent, non-profit investigative new agency) reported
that some drug companies have struck deals with insurers to require that
prescriptions be dispensed for the more expensive brand name drug rather than
the less expensive generic alternative! Has the world turned upside down? What
has happened? Perhaps one could respond: Follow the money.

Pharmaceutical companies have apparently cut a deal with
health insurance companies and pharmacy benefits managers for some drug
products so that middle men pay prices that are very competitive, at least as
competitive as the generic equivalents. In one arrangement for a particular
drug – Shire’s Adderall XR, used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) – UnitedHealthcare insured patients were provided a discount
coupon which lowered the cost of the brand name considerably, but a patient’s
family still payed about $50 more a month than for the generic. Consumers
clearly are bearing the increased costs.

A spokesman for United Healthcare defended the program: “By
providing access to these drugs at lower cost, we are able to improve
affordability for our customers and members.” Of course, the statement is true,
but it is a poor justification because in this instance have no choice in the
matter. Even if patients’ physicians write for the generic equivalent, the
doctors are told that they “had to specify that patients required brand-name
versions of the drug.” This may or may not be true depending on the health
insurers’ and pharmacy benefits managers’ formulary requirements; but it may be
a moot point if the band name drug is the only one available, or unless the
patient wants to pay full price for a drug product that is not listed in the
formulary.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Charlie Gard Post-Mortem: Could He Have Been Saved?

Charlie Gard would have turned one year old tomorrow.

Two days before the British infant died of a mitochondrial disease on July 28, a short article in MIT Technology Review teased that Shoukhrat Mtalipov and his team at Oregon Health & Science University and colleagues had used CRISPR-Cas9 to replace a mutation in human embryos, a titillating heads-up that didn’t actually name the gene or disease.

Yesterday Nature published the details of what the researchers call gene correction, not editing, because it uses natural DNA repair. I covered the news conference, with a bit of perspective, for Genetic Literacy Project.

Might gene editing enable Charlie’s parents, who might themselves develop mild symptoms as they age, to have another child free of the family’s disease? Could anything have saved the baby?

A TRAGIC CASE

The court hearing testimony on the case between Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) and the family, published April 11, chronicles the sad story. The hospital had requested discontinuing life support based on the lack of tested treatment.

Charlie was born August 4, 2016, at full term and of a good weight, but by a few weeks of age, his parents noticed that he could no longer lift his head nor support any part of his body. By the October 2 pediatrician visit, Charlie hadn’t gained any weight, despite frequent breastfeeding. After an MRI and EEG, Charlie had a nasogastric tube inserted to introduce high-caloric nutrition.

By October 11, the baby was lethargic, his breathing shallow. So his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, took him to GOSH.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Charlie Gard Post-Mortem: Could He Have Been Saved?

Charlie Gard would have turned one year old tomorrow.

Two days before the British infant died of a mitochondrial disease on July 28, a short article in MIT Technology Review teased that Shoukhrat Mtalipov and his team at Oregon Health & Science University and colleagues had used CRISPR-Cas9 to replace a mutation in human embryos, a titillating heads-up that didn’t actually name the gene or disease.

Yesterday Nature published the details of what the researchers call gene correction, not editing, because it uses natural DNA repair. I covered the news conference, with a bit of perspective, for Genetic Literacy Project.

Might gene editing enable Charlie’s parents, who might themselves develop mild symptoms as they age, to have another child free of the family’s disease? Could anything have saved the baby?

A TRAGIC CASE

The court hearing testimony on the case between Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) and the family, published April 11, chronicles the sad story. The hospital had requested discontinuing life support based on the lack of tested treatment.

Charlie was born August 4, 2016, at full term and of a good weight, but by a few weeks of age, his parents noticed that he could no longer lift his head nor support any part of his body. By the October 2 pediatrician visit, Charlie hadn’t gained any weight, despite frequent breastfeeding. After an MRI and EEG, Charlie had a nasogastric tube inserted to introduce high-caloric nutrition.

By October 11, the baby was lethargic, his breathing shallow. So his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, took him to GOSH.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

NIH Family Members Giving Back: Charlotte Phillips

Caption: Charlotte Phillips during a visit to a Missouri Mennonite community.
Credit: Richard Hillman

At 1 a.m., most people are fast asleep in their beds. But Charlotte Phillips sometimes finds herself up at that odd hour, waiting anxiously in a deserted Missouri parking lot far from her home. Phillips drives there to meet a contact for a very special delivery: a packet of cheek swabs and blood samples from a newborn Mennonite baby at risk of a life-threatening genetic condition called maple syrup urine disease (MSUD).

For more than two decades, Phillips, an NIH grantee at the University of Missouri, Columbia, has volunteered to ensure that the DNA in these swabs and samples is tested for MSUD within hours of a baby’s birth. If found to be positive for the condition, the baby can receive a needed special formula. Without it, the baby would suffer brain damage within days from its inability to break down amino acids in protein-rich foods, including breast milk and standard infant formula. Hurrying off at a moment’s notice isn’t always convenient, but Phillips, who is not Mennonite, feels a personal calling to do it. She wouldn’t want any babies to die.

MSUD is named for the sweet smell associated with the urine of people left untreated for the condition. The lifelong condition is exceedingly rare, affecting about 1 in 185,000 infants [1]. But, it’s relatively common among Old Order Mennonites, affecting about 1 in 380 infants. That’s because many Mennonites carry one copy of the mutated gene, meaning they won’t develop MSUD but can pass it on to their children if their spouse is also a carrier.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Take the Generic Drug, Patients Are Told — Unless Insurers Say No

Faced with competition, some pharmaceutical companies are cutting deals with insurance companies to favor their brand-name products over cheaper generics. Insurers pay less, but sometimes consumers pay more. Adderall XR, a drug to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, is a case in point

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Whatever Happened to Long-Term Care Reform?

From the Trenches: A Prescription for Change

I have enjoyed looking at the pictures of protestors being arrested in our nation’s capital. I concur with many commentators who credit the civil disobedience of the protestors – many of whom are members of the disability rights activist group ADAPT – with the defeat of the Senate bill to abolish the Affordable Care Act. It’s also been fun because I know so many people in the photos.

The Affordable Care Act was a massive piece of legislation. The complexities and moving parts are best understood by people who have very closely followed or implemented the law. I generally think of the ACA as three things:

1. Reform of the private insurance market with the goal of providing greater access to insurance coverage;

2. Changes to Medicare, such as closing the prescription drug donut hole; and

3. Changes to Medicaid. 

Mike Oxford, Executive Director for Policy at the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center and a member of the national chapter of ADAPT, was one of many who protested against the Senate bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Community Services Optional?

The Medicaid issue that has drawn the most attention is the matter of expanding access, appropriately called “Medicaid expansion.” But the law contains other Medicaid provisions as well. It provides incentives for states to continue to “re-balance” their systems of providing long-term care. “Re-balance” is often mentioned in quotation marks because states were never in balance. Nonetheless, through the ACA, states were provided additional federal matching funds if they would transfer more long-term care to community services and away from institutions, such as nursing homes.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Whatever Happened to Long-Term Care Reform?

From the Trenches: A Prescription for Change

I have enjoyed looking at the pictures of protestors being arrested in our nation’s capital. I concur with many commentators who credit the civil disobedience of the protestors – many of whom are members of the disability rights activist group ADAPT – with the defeat of the Senate bill to abolish the Affordable Care Act. It’s also been fun because I know so many people in the photos.

The Affordable Care Act was a massive piece of legislation. The complexities and moving parts are best understood by people who have very closely followed or implemented the law. I generally think of the ACA as three things:

1. Reform of the private insurance market with the goal of providing greater access to insurance coverage;

2. Changes to Medicare, such as closing the prescription drug donut hole; and

3. Changes to Medicaid. 

Mike Oxford, Executive Director for Policy at the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center and a member of the national chapter of ADAPT, was one of many who protested against the Senate bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Community Services Optional?

The Medicaid issue that has drawn the most attention is the matter of expanding access, appropriately called “Medicaid expansion.” But the law contains other Medicaid provisions as well. It provides incentives for states to continue to “re-balance” their systems of providing long-term care. “Re-balance” is often mentioned in quotation marks because states were never in balance. Nonetheless, through the ACA, states were provided additional federal matching funds if they would transfer more long-term care to community services and away from institutions, such as nursing homes.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

How Much Should Your Boss and the U.S. Department of Labor Know About Your Opioid Prescription History?

As the
price of health care and uncertainty about health insurance coverage increases,
employers are taking more of an interest in their employees’ health. Indeed,
this is not a new trend as the United States health insurance system has been
employment-based since its creation. However, this trend may seem more
justifiable when the federal government also takes an interest in employees’
health.  From a public health
perspective, monitoring a society’s health is very important but it must be
balanced against the individual’s privacy interest as well as the harms and
benefits of that monitoring. There is also the issue of who/what is the most
appropriate entity to be doing the monitoring.

On June
27, 2017,
the
United States Department of Labor announced
it
will officially be
monitoring
use of opioid prescriptions by workers
under the
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, which is the law surrounding the worker’s
compensation system.  The announcement
expressed a safety concern based on overdoses and addiction of opioids in the
midst of our current opioid crisis.

When an
employee files a worker’s compensation claim,
the
employer must be notified
and the employer
has access to the health records included in that claim
.
The employer’s access to health records is limited to whatever is included in
the claim and is justified based on the premise that the employer has an
interest in the worker’s compensation claim. However, this new monitoring
system means that an employer will now have access to its employees’ opioid
prescription history, as this is information the U.S. Department of Labor will
be monitoring as part of the worker’s compensation process.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

How Much Should Your Boss and the U.S. Department of Labor Know About Your Opioid Prescription History?

As the
price of health care and uncertainty about health insurance coverage increases,
employers are taking more of an interest in their employees’ health. Indeed,
this is not a new trend as the United States health insurance system has been
employment-based since its creation. However, this trend may seem more
justifiable when the federal government also takes an interest in employees’
health.  From a public health
perspective, monitoring a society’s health is very important but it must be
balanced against the individual’s privacy interest as well as the harms and
benefits of that monitoring. There is also the issue of who/what is the most
appropriate entity to be doing the monitoring.

On June
27, 2017,
the
United States Department of Labor announced
it
will officially be
monitoring
use of opioid prescriptions by workers
under the
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, which is the law surrounding the worker’s
compensation system.  The announcement
expressed a safety concern based on overdoses and addiction of opioids in the
midst of our current opioid crisis.

When an
employee files a worker’s compensation claim,
the
employer must be notified
and the employer
has access to the health records included in that claim
.
The employer’s access to health records is limited to whatever is included in
the claim and is justified based on the premise that the employer has an
interest in the worker’s compensation claim. However, this new monitoring
system means that an employer will now have access to its employees’ opioid
prescription history, as this is information the U.S. Department of Labor will
be monitoring as part of the worker’s compensation process.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.