New Survey: Consumers Hold Drug Companies Responsible for High Prices and Out-of-Pocket Costs

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new national survey finds most voters blame drug companies not only for high drug prices, but also for out-of-pocket costs. The findings undermine the drug industry's $100 million PR campaign to blame higher costs on employers, unions, health plans and the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) they use to negotiate discounts on prescription drugs.

"Consumers are well aware drug companies set drug prices and they know higher prices mean higher out-of-pocket costs. No one's buying the drug companies' campaign to shift blame to employers, unions, plans, or the PBMs that negotiate discounts on their behalf," said Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) President and CEO Mark Merritt.

North Star Opinion Research surveyed 1,000 registered voters nationwide.

Key findings from survey include:

By almost 3-to-1, voters blame high drug prices for increased cost-sharing.

Only 1-in-5 voters buy the drugmakers' "rebates cause high prices" message.

Three-quarters of voters say the cost of prescription drugs is too high.

More than 4-of-5 voters with prescription drug coverage are satisfied with it.

PCMA is the national association representing America's pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). PBMs administer prescription drug plans for more than 266 million Americans who have health insurance from a variety of sponsors including: commercial health plans, self-insured employer plans, union plans, Medicare Part D plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), state government employee plans, managed Medicaid plans, and others.

SOURCE Pharmaceutical Care Management Association

Independent Study confirms safety and cost-effectiveness of personal importation

St. Louis, MO, April 2, 2012--The publisher of a leading informational website for America’s seniors, caregivers and policy-makers says that an independent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research validates the claims of supporters and advocates that personal importation of brand-name prescription medicines from reputable sources outside the U.S. is both safe and cost effective.

Daniel Hines, publisher of www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com, says the study, ‘Unveiling the Mystery of Online Pharmacies: an Audit Study ‘ should serve as a guide for policy-makers, including elected officials and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to ensure that facts about the safety, efficacy and cost-savings of personal importation of prescription medicines are not buried under the efforts by the Pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) attempts to ‘lump’ legitimate sources of safe, affordable medicines from outside the U.S. with bogus, illegitimate sources.

Legitimate sources of prescription medicines for personal importation of brand-name medicnes into the U.S. have established their own rigorous standards of safety and efficacy, Hines says.

“U.S. citizens pay the highest cost in the world for their prescription medicines, a reflection of the success of Pharma in influencing policy that has made the country a ‘safe haven’ for medicines,” Hines says.

In the study, the investigators purchased four top-selling brand name medicines from U.S. pharmacies and via personal importation. The medicines from the U.S. pharmacies cost an average of 52.4 percent more.

“The newly released study illustrates that the attempts by Pharma to impugn the safety, efficacy and savings of brand-name prescription medicines from such legitimate sources outside the U.S. by a more than decade-long effort to cast them in the same light as bogus operations that have no regard for safety or health, and that provide counterfeit medicines without prescriptions has been misdirected,” Hines says.

Barrier to effective treatment for seniors - the cost of medicine... Elderly in the US find medication costs prohibitive

Publisher's Note: While Congress slaps itself on its collective back, the fact remains that no concrete steps have been taken to apply real-life solutions to problems such as the cost of prescription medicines, a major driver of our health care cost crisis which is a prime factor in the fiscal crisis the country faces. The question must be asked: Where are the Senators and Congressmen who have sponsored bill after bill in support of personal importation of prescription medicines? We have noted in previous entries that they have missed an obvious opportunity to advance lower medical costs by not bringing concrete proposals forth. And, ironically, while hailing the effectiveness of Part D, this latest report shows that even with Part D 'benefits', 10 percent or more of America's elderly cannot afford their medicines.

August 2, 2011--As many as one in ten elderly people in the US, registered with Medicare, do not stick to their prescribed medication because it is too expensive, according to Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov and colleagues from Harvard Medical School. Their work, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute, shows that cost-related medication non-adherence - skipping pills to make the medicine last longer, and not filling in a prescription because it is too expensive - is common among this group, whether or not they suffer from cancer.

This suggests that elderly cancer survivors do not face a greater financial burden related to medical costs than those without cancer. The study is published online in Springer's Journal of Cancer Survivorship.

As the population ages, the cost of medicines is rising and there is evidence that this has resulted in financial burden for patients. Cancer costs in particular have grown substantially and patients with cancer are faced with significant out-of-pocket expenses during diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care. Many cancer survivors also take drugs for other chronic illnesses (or co-morbidities), including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia and osteoporosis.

In order to better understand cancer patients' medication issues, the authors analyzed data from the 2005 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and Medicare claims. They looked at cost-related medication non-adherence, spending less on basic needs to afford medicines and other cost-reduction strategies among both cancer survivors and non-cancer sufferers.

Nekhlyudov and team found no differences in the rate of cost-related non-adherence between cancer survivors (10 percent) and those without cancer (11 percent). Six percent of cancer survivors and nine percent of those without cancer also said they spent less on basic needs (such as food and heat) so that they could afford medicines. In addition, more than half of all enrollees used other cost-saving measures, including taking generic medications, requesting free samples and comparing pharmacy prices before buying drugs.

Dr. Nekhlyudov concludes: "As the number of cancer survivors continues to increase and get older, the findings of our study enhance our understanding of the potential barriers to effective treatment of their non-cancer co-morbidities."

Dramatic Price Increases in Brand Name Drugs spur Shareholders to action…

Investors from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) say new policies are needed to reign in drug costs

NEW YORK, April 27, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As the skyrocketing costs of brand name drugs leave millions of Americans skipping doses or abandoning their prescriptions, investors representing 14 faith and health care organizations are petitioning the nation's top pharmaceutical companies to re-examine pricing for commonly used drugs like Lipitor, Plavix and Celebrex in an effort to make them more affordable.

The group is citing several benchmarking reports including one from the General Accountability Office this past February that found branded drugs consistently outpacing generics relative to inflation (6.3% vs. 3.8%). ICCR members are asking management for pricing that hews closer to the consumer price index, a strategy they believe is a more accurate reflection of value and a more sustainable policy over the long term.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that U.S. prescription drug spending will grow 93% during 2008-2018, exceeding all major categories of health expenditures. AARP reports that the branded prescriptions most widely used by Medicare patients increased 9.7%, far exceeding the cost for other consumer goods in the last 12 months: prices for generics during the same time period fell. ANovember 2010 report from Deloitte Consulting concluded that the issue will intensify, and that current pricing practices are not sustainable.

"The evidence from all the studies is clear, " said Ed Gerardo, director, Community Commitment and Social Investments of Bon Secours Health System, Inc. " Measures must be taken to control costs and bring transparency into the drug pricing equation."

Resolutions are on the ballots at the nation's top pharmaceutical companies including Johnson and Johnson, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, requesting that management utilize a combination of approaches to keep drug prices at reasonable levels.

ICCR members have been in dialogue with pharmaceutical companies for decades on issues of access and affordability.

Cathy Rowan, consultant to Trinity Health, said, " Many of us represent health care systems with missions to enhance the health of the communities they serve. We would like to see the pharmaceutical companies in which we invest have access to medicines at the heart of their business strategies."

"This isn't about charity or foregoing a profit," said Laura Berry, Executive Director of ICCR. "Our members expect that the companies they invest in espouse policies, pricing and otherwise, that promote both justice and sustainability while enhancing shareholder value. The absence of clear and reasonable pricing policies is neither just for consumers nor sustainable as a business practice."

Barbara Aires, coordinator, Corporate Responsibility, the Sisters of Charity of St Elizabeth, said, " It's hard to justify these increases in this economy. More and more, people have to choose between buying groceries and picking up their prescriptions and when people can't afford to take their medicines they get sick, straining an already fragile health care system. Our company needs a rational pricing policy that keeps branded products affordable and accessible to consumers yet will remain competitive to generics when patents expire."

About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility ( www.iccr.org ):

Currently celebrating its 40th year, ICCR is the pioneer coalition of active shareholders who view the management of their investments as a catalyst for change. Its 300 member organizations with over $100 billion in AUM have an enduring record of corporate engagement that has demonstrated influence on policies promoting justice and sustainability in the world.

SOURCE Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

Why RxforAmericanHealth believes personal importation of medicines from Tier One Countries can lower our debt at the local, State and Federal levels

· The United States faces what many believe to be the most severe fiscal crisis of its history—the burdensome Federal debt.

· Forty cents of every dollar spent by the government is today being applied to payment of interest for the debt.

· As of January 31, 2011 the amount of the U.S. debt had grown to $14.6 trillion.

· While there is debate among policy makers with differing political beliefs about contributors to this crisis, a consensus is rapidly emerging that a major contributor is the cost of healthcare.

· While the rate of the growth of healthcare costs has diminished somewhat, this is due to individuals not utilizing services due to the economic recession.

· At the same time, Prescription drug spending accelerated in 2009 to $249.9 billion, increasing 5.3 percent after 3.1 percent growth in 2008, driven by faster growth in both prices and utilization, according to the report.

· This reflects the fact that the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) is a major driver of the ongoing—and growing—fiscal crisis as it relates to the costs of healthcare.

· ‘Negotiations’ between the Obama Administration and the pharmaceutical industry have not only not reduced the costs of prescription medicines, but they have actually created a guaranteed market for Pharma that will generate additional sales of drugs to be paid for by the Federal Goverment as the Doughnut Hole Medicare Part D is gradually eliminated, and as Pharma has continued to raise prices to offset its promise to ‘reduce’ prices for America’s elderly utilizing Medicare Part D.

· The result has been to increase prices for prescription medicines for all Americans, all the while failing to offer true relief for the elderly, but adding to the burden of the Federal debt.

· There must be relief from the prices Americans pay for prescription medicines—the highest in the world.

· Allowing personal importation of brand-name prescription medicines is the most effect strategy to provide the competitive forces to reduce the negative impact upon personal and governmental budgets, and at the same time, enhance the health and well-being of Americans by providing a healthcare regimen that includes access to safe, affordable brand-name medicines.

o Access to safe, affordable prescription name-brand medicines from licensed, regulated pharmacies outside the U.S. will reduce costs of medications, while improving the health of U.S. citizens

o Every American is entitled to enjoy the health benefits made possible by prescription medicines.

o We believe that Americans are capable of making informed decisions about his or her personal health and can do so in a responsible manner.

· This is validated by the growing number of policy makers—including President Obama—who in January 2011 reiterated his oft-stated campaign position regarding personal importation as a means of lower prescription drug prices, and reflected his sponsorship of legislation allowing personal importation when he served in the U.S. Senate.

· The President is not alone. A growing number of members of the U.S. Congress has introduced or announced support of personal importation as a primary driver as an option to offset increased healthcare costs directly, and, therefore the Federal debt.

· · The pharmaceutical industry has conducted an ongoing campaign comprised of false charges, inaccuracies, and fear tactics to damage the reputation of companies, services and individuals supporting a role for brand-name prescription medicines from outside the U.S.

· This is a reflection of Pharma’s goal to protect the status quo, as well as to make moves to prevent the free market from offering Americans the opportunity to purchase lower-cost safe brand-name medicines, and the industry’s belief that Americans are not capable of making such responsible decisions.

· · We shall present the truth about the safety, efficacy and cost-savings of brand-name prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries where standards of safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S.·

· We shall support policies allowing U.S. citizens to exercise their right to freedom of choice in brand-name prescription medicine purchases from licensed, registered pharmacies outside the U.S.

More on The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act and personal importation of prescription medicines

· Personal Importation of safe, affordable prescription medicines from countries outside the U.S was spurred more than a decade ago as a reaction to the fact that the U.S. has the highest prescription drug prices in the world.

· Personal importation of prescription medicines is the only option available to provide lower-cost brand name medicines for Americans.

· These medicines—from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries with standards of oversight that meet or exceed those of the U.S.—have provided health benefits and financial relief to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

· The U.S. Congress has through repeated votes in the House and Senate expressed its support of the concept of making personally imported medicines available to U.S. citizens from pharmacies in Tier One countries.

· While a rash of bogus pharmacies and counterfeit medicines has arisen on the Internet, legitimate on-line pharmacies have taken extraordinary steps to distinguish themselves from bogus pharmacies.

· The pharmaceutical industry and its trade group (PhRMA) have targeted the right of personal importation of prescription medicines, which, ironically, they themselves have manufactured.

· The latest attempt to curtail access to personal importation is to define any online pharmacy from outside the U.S. as ‘bogus’ , even if an online pharmacy has met the standards of safety and efficacy of its practice required by the appropriate regulatory agency of its government.

Opponents of personal importation have taken steps that indicate they hope to use the anti-counterfeiting intent of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act as a rationale to claim that even licensed, registered pharmacies would be guilty of infringement of Copyright and Intellectual property rights

This would make the pharmacy liable to enforcement provisions of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act which include, but are not limited to, the shutting down of domains and websites not only of the pharmacy, but could be extended to the sites of advocacy groups and individuals that support personal importation.

· Because of that, specific legislative language should be included in The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act to ensure that the legislation meets its intended purpose, and cannot be co-opted by special interest groups that would utilize the bill to meet their own narrow interests.

Without the inclusion of language to more carefully define the intent of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act the stage would be set for the pharmaceutical industry to take actions to restrict the right of Americans to enjoy the health benefits provided by safe, vital medicines that they otherwise could not afford.

Publisher of informational Website for Seniors says Congress must clarify language of anti-counterfeiting bill to deter Pharma moves

The publisher of a leading informational website for America’s Seniors says that Congress must clarify the language of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) which is ostensibly designed to deal with the issue of the theft of U.S. intellectual property rights and counterfeit products sold in the U.S., to deter attempts by the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) to co-opt the legislation for its own limited purposes

Daniel Hines, publisher of www.TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com and http://RxforAmericanHealth.blogspot.com says that Pharma is attempting to utilize the ambiguous definition of ‘counterfeit’ as it applies to brand-name prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries as a new tactic to prevent Americans from utilizing personal importation of vital prescription medicines.

The Committee is holding a hearing Thursday, February 16, featuring representatives of Visa, Verizon, GoDaddy.com, Authors Guild and Rosetta Stone.

"Pharma has long attempted to deny access to safe, affordable medicines from Tier One Countries through its extensive lobbying among elected officials and with appointed /policy-makers, “ Hines says. “Now, it is attempting to co-opt the intent of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.

“This is unacceptable to those who believe Americans should be able to exercise their right to make personal health care decisions, including the purchase of safe, affordable medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies from Tier One Countries, whose standards of oversight for safety and efficacy meet or exceed those of the U.S."

Hines noted that "Pharma has spared no expense to create a series of 'front groups' to create the specter of 'bogus pharmacies' flooding the country with unsafe prescriptions, and to go so far as to attempt to falsely include legitimate pharmacies from Tier One Countries.

"But it has shown no interest in directing its vast resources to establishing the mechanism and framework which could address the best means of distinguishing 'rogue pharmacies' from legitimate, licensed pharmacies in Tier One countries.

“The reason for Pharma's opposition to personal importation-ironically, importation of the very medicines that they produce under FDA oversight-is that the imported medicines are priced at 40 to 80 percent less that the identical medicine in the U.S., Hines says. “These tremendous savings provide access to safe, affordable medicines that enhance the health and well-being of large numbers of Americans.

"We urge the Committee members and other Senators and members of Congress to pay special attention to ensuring that the language in The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act encompasses the real goals of deterring copyright and intellectual property theft, by clarifying the intent of the use of the term ‘counterfeit’, and that there be specific and clearly defined restrictions upon efforts by special interest groups to co-opt the intent of the bill."

"The health interests of large numbers of Americans receive utmost consideration and Pharma interests must be restricted from utilizing the legislation to attain its long-standing goal of limiting the access of Americans to vital medicines,” he concluded.

Stop Pharma from denying access for Americans to safe, affordable prescriptions

If you agree with this position, write your Congressman or Senator to let them know of your support of the right of Americans to purchase safe, affordable—and vital—medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries.

· Personal Importation of safe, affordable prescription medicines from countries outside the U.S was spurred more than a decade ago as a reaction to the fact that the U.S. has the highest prescription drug prices in the world.

· Personal importation of prescription medicines is the only option available to provide lower-cost brand name medicines for Americans.

· These medicines—from licensed, registered pharmacies in Canada and other countries with standards of oversight that meet or exceed those of the U.S.—have provided health benefits and financial relief to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

· The U.S. Congress has through repeated votes in the House and Senate expressed its support of the concept of making personally imported medicines available to U.S. citizens from pharmacies in Canada and 22 other countries whose standards of oversight for safety and efficacy equal or exceed those of the U.S.

· While a rash of bogus pharmacies and counterfeit medicines has arisen on the Internet, legitimate on-line pharmacies have taken extraordinary steps to distinguish them from bogus pharmacies.

· The pharmaceutical industry and its trade group (PhRMA) have targeted the right of personal importation of prescription medicines, which , ironically, they themselves have manufactured.

· The latest attempt to curtail access to personal importation is to define any online pharmacy from outside the U.S. as ‘bogus’ , even if an online pharmacy has met the standards of safety and efficacy of its practice required by the appropriate regulatory agency of its government.

· Opponents of personal importation have taken steps that indicate they hope to use the anti-counterfeiting intent of S 3804 as a rationale to claim that even licensed, registered pharmacies would be guilty of infringement of Copyright and Intellectual property rights.

· This would make the pharmacy liable to enforcement provisions of S 3804 which include, but are not limited to, the shutting down of domains and websites not only of the pharmacy, but could be extended to the sites of advocacy groups and individuals that support personal importation.

· Because of that, specific legislative language should be included in S 3804 to ensure that the legislation meets its intended purpose, and cannot be co-opted by special interest groups that would utilize the bill to meet their own narrow interests.

· Without the inclusion of language to more carefully define the intent of S 3804, the stage would be set for the pharmaceutical industry to take actions to restrict the right of Americans to enjoy the health benefits provided by safe, vital medicines that they otherwise could not afford.

· We believe that Americans have the right to make personal healthcare decisions including the right to purchase safe, affordable medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies, and that they have the capability to make such informed decisions in a responsible manner, free of governmental interference, and that current efforts to define legitimate pharmacies as bogus is an attempt by the pharmaceutical industry to extend its influence to impose its predatory pricing practices upon American citizens with regard only for industry profits, not the health and well-being of American citizens.

If you agree with this position, write your Congressman or Senator to let them know of your support of the right of Americans to purchase safe, affordable—and vital—medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries. We will be posting email addresses for the new session of Congress in early January 2011.

What is pharma's motive, payback for its cooperation?

The plan negotiated between the Senate Finance Committee and PhRMA, the trade association for the pharmaceutical industry is becoming increasingly troublesome as the debate over healthcare reform continues to drag on and on.

Many people worried about the new-found spirit of cooperation by the pharmaceutical industry when it was a guest/participant with others in the medical/insurance and healthcare industry at The White House.

This was after all the industry that had benefited from the last-minute engineered by then-LA Congressman Billy Tauzin that excluded negotiations for Medicare Part D prescription medicines, gave us the legacy of The Doughnut Hole, and helped pharmaceutical companies gain windfall profits.

And, it was former Congressman Tauzin who became a poster boy for pharma payback when he was rewarded with the $2 million a year job as head of PhRMA.

During the election, candidate Obama supported price negotiation for Part D medicine prices, and personal importation of safe, affordable prescription medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One countries. While in the Senate, he was even a co-sponsor of personal importation legislation and early in his administration provided budget support for importation.
Now, these positions seem to have been replaced with "outreach" to the drug companies, which have shown their appreciation by pledging to cooperate with health care reform, and even to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors in The Doughnut Hole by as much as $80 billion.

So sure of its position is PhRMA that during the President's meetings in Europe, with the Pope and then his African visit, that Tauzin boasted that at a meeting at The White House an unnamed aide had told him that importation might not be necessary since the industry was being so cooperative and that the other savings from the reforms might be so great as to make lower drug prices unnecessary.

In other words, even though pharma has imposed upon the American public the highest drug prices in the world, that's "OK" and it will be allowed to continue its predatory pricing rather than having to reduce prices.

It is a bold move by Tauzin to make statements about Administration policy. Our attempts to identify the source of the statement about no need for importation have elicited no reaction from The White House press office, even though we were promised two weeks ago that the inquiry had been directed to the proper people and that we would receive an answer. So much for transparency and open government.

We should have had an inkling of the possibility that an Obama administration might crumble on importation when, during the election, Dora Hughes, a medical advisor for the Obama campaign, said that the candidate, if elected, might be willing to change his position of support of importation.
At that time, we sought clarification from campaign spokespersons and were assured that candidate Obama's support of importation was as strong as ever.

Back to the present: policy-makers and many advocates continue to point to The Doughnut Hole offer by PhRMA as 'good' for seniors. But, there is confusion about details of the arrangement. And, as some have noted, by lowering prices for those in The Doughnut Hole, they will only be in many instances the same lower prices for a temporary time as the regular, everyday prices paid by citizens in other countries. Why shouldn't such prices be negotiated for all medicines.

The question must also be asked: Since there is a proven record of personal importation of safe, affordable medicines from licensed, registered pharmacies in Tier One Countries (those whose oversight and regulations of pharmaceutical medicines and pharmacies meet or even exceed those of the U.S, why shouldn't such personal importation be a part of public healthcare policy? Or has PhRMA, as indicated by Tauzin's statement after his White House meeting, negotiated restrictions on such importation, perhaps even seizures of vital medicines, which was banned by the U.S. Congress in 2006 and which has arisen more recently as Senator David Vitter (R-LA) successfully sponsored an amendment to ensure that U.S. customs is forbidden to engage in such seizures? Added to this, since the 'full price' as set by PhRMA will be credited towards satisfying The Doughnut Hole, it means that seniors who have been unable to purchase medicines while in the Hole will hopefully be able to continue their medications and will get out of The Doughnut Hole where they can has catastrophic coverage.

At that point, the medicines return to full price with the U.S. government paying 95 percent of full costs, generating a government-supported windfall for pharma. Is this what PhRMA negotiated with the U.S. Senate? And is this a part of the price we must pay for such 'cooperation?' In the next few postings, we show why this might only be the tip of the iceberg.