******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 7 (Don't Wish Too Hard)

This is the seventh* and last of a series of posts analyzing randomly selected provisions in HR3200, the House Democratic health care restructuring bill. The hope is that through random selection of pages from the House Bill, using the dartboard method, some light will be shed on the otherwise dense House Bill.

The page selected for today’s post is page 794 of the House Bill, which is part of Section 1742 – “Prescription Drug Rebates.” Section 1742 is just over two pages. This should be easy. How hard could it be to understand, and who could be against, prescription drug rebates?

Section 1742 has two sections, an Additional Rebate for New Formulations of Existing Drugs, and an Increase Minimum Rebate for Single Source Drugs. One would think this would be simple, but see if you can follow the formula for rebates on new formulations of existing drugs:

In the case of a drug that is a line extension [i.e., extended release formulation] of a single source [i.e., generic drug with no generic equivalent] drug or an innovator multiple source drug that is an oral solid dosage form, the rebate obligation with respect to such drug under this section shall be the amount computed under this section for such new drug or, if greater, the product of—
(i) the average manufacturer price of the line extension of a single source drug or an innovator multiple source drug that is an oral solid dosage form;
(ii) the highest additional rebate (calculated as a percentage of average manufacturer price) under this section for any strength of the original single source drug or innovator multiple source drug; and
(iii) the total number of units of each dosage form and strength of the line extension product paid for under the State plan in the rebate period (as reported by the State).
Okay, well that cleared it up. The sub-section on an Increase Minimum Rebate for Single Source Drugs amends Section 1927(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act to increase the discount to 22.1%. If I am reading Section 1927(c)(B)(i) correctly, since 1995 the discount has been 15.1%.

What does all this mean? It sounds to me like the government is planning to squeeze the pharmaceutical companies for larger drug discounts. Who could be against that?

Well, for starters, people who are not on a government plan who will end up subsidizing the discounts. Am I wrong on this?

A Congressional Budget Office report in 1996 examined the effect of these rebates, and found:

Although the basic rebate has lowered Medicaid's expenditures on outpatient prescription drugs, spending on prescription drugs by non-Medicaid patients may have increased as a result of the Medicaid rebate program.
This makes sense. Unless pharmaceutical companies are to lower their research and development budgets, which are enormous, the companies have to make up the revenue from the private sector purchasers of their products.

There is no free lunch when it comes to rebates forced on the pharmaceutical industry by government. Either private purchasers pay, or society pays through decreased research and development.

The House Bill increases the rebate on prescription drugs dramatically. Will there be unintended consequences? While beating up the pharmaceutical companies will be popular, from where will the next miracle drugs arise? The same drugs which, while expensive, prolong lives, ease suffering, and often eliminate the need for expensive surgery.

When it comes to beating up the pharmaceutical industry, don’t wish too hard for something, you may get it.

*Cross-posted at American Thinker. This was scheduled to be posted yesterday, but some techical issues on my end caused a delay.

Related Posts:
Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 6 (No Mulligans)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 5 (Cutting Hospital Readmissions)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 4 (Birth of a New Entitlement)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 3 (Cost Sharing Limits Gone Wild)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 - Day 2 (Enhanced Penalties)
Throwing Darts At HR3200 - Day 1

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. It sounds like a sleight of hand to me... just not sure.

    Again, a good comparison is the Australian system which is called the PBS these days (used to be called NHS I think).

    In Australian the govt gives there is a "free list" of medications, except that these drugs are not free. What it means that there is a co-pay. For pensioners and those on health benefits cards, and Veterans' Affairs, the maximum co-pay is $5. This is indexed every year. For the rest of us, even those who do not work, the co-pay is $32.90. If the drug is worth less than the current co-pay the amount paid is to the value of the drug e.g. a script for an antibiotic that is worth $15 the customer will only pay $15 :). There is no rebate to the drug company because full price has been charged. On the other hand, Plaquenil may cost $38 but the co-pay is restricted to $32.90 which means the govt then pays the drug company the difference between the co-pay and the full amount of the drug. Note: the amount paid by the govt for pensioners etc. will be greater than for the middle income people.

    However, drugs not currently on the free list are charged at full price. Example: Lyrica, a drug that helps with nerve pain and a few other on-label conditions, the price varies from $89 to over $100 per script. If a member of a health fund then the amount above the co-pay is refundable to the patient.

    This seems to be the opposite of what the Chappaquidickcare proposal. If they are going for reform they need to think outside the box to see what is wrong with the status quo.

  2. can i say, i would love it if you kept doing these?