California Drug Price Relief Act Case Study

In looking into the opioid epidemic, Joe Rannazzisi, the head of the Office of Diversion Control in the DEA, started to notice a trend of distributors shipping large amounts of opioids to midsize to small pharmacies around the country. Based on the alarming consequences of pushing opioids in these communities, Rannazzisi decided to step in and freeze the distribution to these pharmacies. In addition, he decided to investigate them. The DEA has a broad authority to stop opioids being pumped into communities based on an imminent threat to the community. This all changed when lobbyists for the big pharmacies got legislation through Congress that essentially stopped the DEA from freezing the distribution of opioids to these communities. This legislation

It, as stated earlier, has many of the same traits that commonly posed solutions like reference pricing do. But it takes what these solutions have and expands upon it, by encouraging innovation rather than stifling it and offering the important power bestowed to Congress to march-in when not properly enforced. Although stated in the act that Congress may march-in when the guidelines of the act are not being followed (as they aren’t), the government has never once exercised its right to march in, and there only has been “five attempts (petitions from patients, advocacy groups, or corporations) to get the government to invoke march-in” rights (Mundy). Also, “Bayh-Dole has never been publicly discussed by any administration” so far (Arno and Davis). The lack of action by Congress can be attributed to pharmaceutical company’s hold on Congress as mentioned earlier, and the lack of public knowledge or push for the act. With only five attempts by the public to get Congress to march-in and not many institutions really talking about the Bayh-Dole Act, it’s no wonder not much has been done. If more attention were brought to the Bayh-Dole Act through petitions and focus groups as Mundy discusses, Congress could be more eager to exercise their march-in rights. Also, if more government agencies such as the National Institute of Heath talked about the Bayh-Dole Act and its

Although Canadians were largely supportive of the proposed national pharmacare plan, most said they would be concerned if their current private plan was replaced by a national pharmacare program with less coverage, if it increased costs to governments because patients use more prescription drugs than they do now, and of the ability of governments to administer the plan efficiently and effectively - these concerns will later be covered in the ethics section (Canadian Pharmacists Association, 2015).  Many political parties, like the Liberals and NDP, have realized the significance of universal drug coverage to the point that they have included it in campaign promises for both federal and provincial elections. The NDP has even introduced a motion in the House of Commons that gives the Liberal government one year to begin negotiations with the provinces in order to implement universal pharmaceutical drug coverage for all Canadians.  Additionally, both parties’ Ontario provincial election campaigns prominently feature contrasting pharmacare plans: the NDP will offer universal coverage but is limited to 125 medications deemed essential by an independent committee with the commitment to expand the coverage over time as savings are realized, while the Liberals have introduced improvements to the Ontario Drug Plan to cover over 4,400 drugs for the province's four million children and young adults (Fraser, 2017).

The prices of prescription drugs in the United States are by far the highest in the world. [1] On average, Europeans pay 40% less than Americans for the same medications. [2] Consumers have been resorting to several ways, sometimes putting themselves in harm’s way, to alleviate the burden of high prescription drug costs. Some buy their medications online or cross the borders to neighboring countries so they would be able to afford buying their needed medications. Others have resorted to the illegal act of selling their unused medications in online forums just to recover part of their expenses. Many factors contribute to the increased drug prices in the United States including research and

The Pharmaceutical lobbyist has a very powerful impact on the outcome of Medicare Part D. They were the ones that wrote the bill and presented it to the House and ultimately, it was passed. However, the tactics that were used were extremely questionable and unethical. A Democratic Representative from Michigan stated: “I can tell you when the bill passed, there were better than 1,000 pharmaceutical lobbyists working on this” (Singer, 2007). The

Imagine this: you are tragically diagnosed with a chronic life-threatening illness. Your only hope to survive is through medication to treat your disorder. The medicine is pricy but you can work out the costs each month. One day, you go to fill your prescriptions and realize the cost of a $13 pill has jumped to an astounding $750. You need this patented medication to survive and to afford it you end up losing your home, filing for bankruptcy, and sleeping in your car. This story sounds fictional but it is the reality for many Americans who can no longer afford their grossly overpriced medications.

As we advance in our healthcare system and continue to find cure for the deadly diseases we are also faced with prescription drug prices rising much faster than they were a few years back. Drug prices are increasing at an unmaintainable rate without any sign of reduction. People who are heavily affected by this rise are mostly elderly citizens and also the poor of this country because they can barely afford these expenses. These people either have no money to pay for their copays or no health insurances at all.

Whether you love it, hate it, support it, or detest it The Affordable Care Act as it stands, has been making waves across both news headlines and the medical community alike. For the most part, the focus of the act has been placed on the impact it will have on the consumer or the patient. However, the pharmaceutical division of the medical community is among the groups that are most impacted by the Affordable Care Act. In particular, retail pharmacies are feeling the effects of the act via the reimbursements and provisions surrounding the reimbursement policies that have been altered with the passing of the Affordable Care Act. Reimbursements and the provisions implemented upon retail pharmacies by the Affordable Care Act could prove to be detrimental towards the success and profits gained by private retail pharmacies.

The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act (S. 2011) would amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for the negotiation of drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for those medications covered under Medicare Part D. The policy would be enacted at the federal level, and the policy tool used to do so would be federal funding. Under this bill, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would be given the power to negotiate drug prices as well as establish and apply a specific formulary for Medicare-covered prescription drugs. Past rhetoric had implied that Donald Trump would have supported this bill; he condemned the role of pharmaceutical companies creating high drug prices as

Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers’ policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U.S. government. Macdonald reports:

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

Senator Carlucci received more than $85,000 in donations from the healthcare industry. As a result, he is now actively trying to help these drug companies squeeze out the natural alternative and create a monopoply on our healthcare. It is not up to the government to decide how we treat our diseases or what suits each of our specific needs.

In conclusion, it's understandable why the certain individuals will oppose lowering prescriptions because of the impact on pharmaceutical research. But if this continues, millions of people will be widely affect without giving them many options and it will only continue raising questions about the influence between the government

The cost of prescription drugs in America has risen to the level that most Americans could not afford them with out the help of an insurance plan. The greedy and capitalistic pharmaceutical companies rely on the United States to fund the future development of drugs with skyrocketing prices and enormous margins. Recently the issue has extended into the mainstream political arena, thanks in part to the new Medicare bill(2). With the push by congress for the importation of drugs from foreign sources, regardless of the potential long and short term consequences, the time to vocally support health care reform is upon the American public.

Body paragraph 1: One issue that's been debated throughout the 2016 election is healthcare. More specifically Obamacare and Medicare. I agree with Hillary's plan of action; to expand Medicare and uphold Obamacare. She says that “healthcare should be affordable and available in each state.” (Procon.com) Meanwhile Donald Trump’s stance on this issue is that he thinks that Obamacare is a disaster and that it should be demolished. He thinks that it's way too much money and that the lower class citizens aren't able to afford it. Another issue that's come up involving healthcare is the amount of money spent on pharmaceutical drugs. Medicine for high cholesterol is so pricey that it's being debated whether or not we should even have it. $4.6 million