Last week, we highlighted how changing the structure of the Medicare Part D program would cause more harm than good by restricting beneficiary access to needed medicines.
Here’s a look at what is being said about harmful proposals to change the structure of the Part D program:
- “[I]f you talk to experts who study the pharmaceutical market in the United States, they aren’t optimistic that, by itself, letting the government play drug negotiator would take a big bite out of prescription drug spending,” the New York Times – The Upshot reported last week.
- “There’s a basic trade-off that any proposal would have to grapple with: To have any real effect on drug prices, Medicare would have to be able to say ‘no’ to drugs that might be expensive, but are still badly needed by people with chronic conditions,” STAT News reported in a recent piece on the topic.
- “This is a common pitch as a solution to rising drug costs […] . But without more detail, it’s hard to know what impact it would have. […] Even without the details, some question the proposal’s effectiveness at lowering taxpayer costs or drug prices,” Morning Consult
- And POLITICO reported that, “the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that empowering the feds to negotiate directly with drug companies would have a ‘negligible effect’ on overall spending.”
Nicole Longo Nicole is senior director of public affairs at PhRMA focusing on Medicare, 340B, importation and more. She previously worked for a D.C.-based public affairs firm where she assisted a wide range of clients with communications efforts on everything from trade policy to agriculture policy to health care policy. Outside the office, Nicole can be found trying new restaurants (usually Italian), taking an occasional barre class and cheering on the Cincinnati Bengals.