Cost of Health Care Continues to Rise

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Another big problem is how slowly reforms are being phased in. For consumers, that was a very expensive compromise. The lobbyists served their clients well by giving them a couple of extra years of price gouging to pad their bankroll. I know our experience has been that each year we pay more for less coverage. It would be cost prohibitive to retain the coverage that we had, so we increase co-pays or deductibles to try and maintain a reasonable monthly nut.

Regards,

D-Ray

Tell me about it, between Medicare Part B and Blue Cross Blue Shield we put out a little over $10,000 per year - as of last year. For that we get no better coverage than I got in Ontario for $54 per month. The payroll tax is about equal in both countries.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I can't understand why the powers that be are so eager to kiss the arse of big pharma, they are all based off-shore. The only reason they maintain a presence here is for access to the research of NIH. The major reason for the rising cost of drugs has SFA to do with research. The increase is to cover advertising - four or five pages in every issue of major magazines - endless TV commercials, and executive salaries. What have they come up with of late besides skippy stiffeners.

FYI - 8 of the 15 major players in the pharma industry are US - based. The others are in the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany and Japan. I think Phizer, based in NJ, is still the worlds largest phrama company.

Profit margins are higher in the phrama industry, but are eroded by lower return on assets due to shortening of patent protection, litigation and high R&D costs.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

FYI - 8 of the 15 major players in the pharma industry are US - based. The others are in the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany and Japan. I think Phizer, based in NJ, is still the worlds largest phrama company.

Profit margins are higher in the phrama industry, but are eroded by lower return on assets due to shortening of patent protection, litigation and high R&D costs.

I think you missed Rob's point. He wasn't claiming that all the major players are US based as opposed to overseas based, a difference with an ever-waning distinction, but that they all have huge "bricks and mortar" presence here in the Land of the Free Access to government-funded research.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

FYI - 8 of the 15 major players in the pharma industry are US - based. The others are in the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany and Japan. I think Phizer, based in NJ, is still the worlds largest phrama company.

Profit margins are higher in the phrama industry, but are eroded by lower return on assets due to shortening of patent protection, litigation and high R&D costs.

Well Phizer just bought out Wyeth so that certainly gets them in the big league, but regardless the off shore companies only have a presence here for access to NIH and University research.

Big pharma will only research diseases that are very common, bigger user base, more profit. If your disease is rare you are SOL.

Shortening patent protection Hoho, can you say Prilosec and Nexium? All Astra Zenica did was tweak the makeup, change the name and voila! a whole new patent.

Then they have the unmitgated gall to state "If you can't afford the medication we may be able to help." Sure if you and your wife only have a yearly income below $35,000. Meanwhile they jack up the cost by 10-12% per year so three guesses who it is that is "helping" these poor folk with their prescription cost.

This BS about the high cost of drugs here is because we are bearing the whole cost of research is just that - BS. We are paying for the advertising, executive salaries, and whatever it costs big pharma to employ all those thieves on K street.

Never heard back from Novartis, guess comparing them to leeches upset them.

[Boreas]

I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Republicans retake Congress in November and repeal Obamacare health insurance rates will plummet.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Republicans retake Congress in November and repeal Obamacare health insurance rates will plummet.

John

There's no question that the federal coverage mandates in the PPACA have an impact on premiums for both individual and group policies. Estaimtes range from 0 - 2% for large group policies, to 5 - 7% for many small group policies that will require signficant adjustments in coverage.

I doubt seriouly that PPACA will be repealed if the majorities change in Congress following the November elections. At most, if the Republicans attain a majority, there might be leeway to change funding for some requirements of PPACA. However, the President still has the power of the Veto.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

There's no question that the federal coverage mandates in the PPACA have an impact on premiums for both individual and group policies. Estaimtes range from 0 - 2% for large group policies, to 5 - 7% for many small group policies that will require signficant adjustments in coverage.

Ample justification for another double digit rate increase.

By the way, it's perfectly reasonable to adjust premiums upward to reflect increased/improved coverage. Heretofore, we've seen premiums rise and coverage fall.

I doubt seriouly that PPACA will be repealed if the majorities change in Congress following the November elections. At most, if the Republicans attain a majority, there might be leeway to change funding for some requirements of PPACA.

As in defund.

However, the President still has the power of the Veto.

Well, yes, I think we pretty much all realize that. I guess the sarcasm of my emoticon free post lost something in the reading. Rates will continue to increase when and as the industry wishes, regardless of the party in power (which will be the Democrats but with much reduced majorities).


John

[whell]

Again - pretty wide question.

Product - overall, very good. Opportunities for improvement / efficiency can be found that do not negatively impact quality of care.
Delivery - hit and miss, cumbersome, over-regulated
Access - could be improved. Impacted by delivery.
Cost - out of control, over - regulated. The value proposition is fair, but the potential for erosion is increasing.
Regulatory enviroment - a mess. A hodge-podge of local, state and federal regulations that add costs and decrease efficiencies at every level.
Funding - a mess. Federal and state mandates and programs skew the costs and for all participants in the system. Group insurance creates a cost structure that tends to favor the largest groups, or groups that are most favorable (healthy) from an underwriting perspective. Tax treatment for health care premiums creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others, irrespective of income.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Again - pretty wide question.

Product - overall, very good. Opportunities for improvement / efficiency can be found that do not negatively impact quality of care.
Delivery - hit and miss, cumbersome, over-regulated
Access - could be improved. Impacted by delivery.
Cost - out of control, over - regulated. The value proposition is fair, but the potential for erosion is increasing.
Regulatory enviroment - a mess. A hodge-podge of local, state and federal regulations that add costs and decrease efficiencies at every level.
Funding - a mess. Federal and state mandates and programs skew the costs and for all participants in the system. Group insurance creates a cost structure that tends to favor the largest groups, or groups that are most favorable (healthy) from an underwriting perspective. Tax treatment for health care premiums creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others, irrespective of income.

Those are very cogent argument in favor of single-payer, IMHO. With single payer, there would be no need for the regulation aspect that you hammer upon. I think the recent health care bill was little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Here's a question: Is there any nation with a system such as ours that functions well. I would have to say that the response is a double negative (no such system and if there was it would be as hosed as ours).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Those are very cogent argument in favor of single-payer, IMHO. With single payer, there would be no need for the regulation aspect that you hammer upon. I think the recent health care bill was little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Here's a question: Is there any nation with a system such as ours that functions well. I would have to say that the response is a double negative (no such system and if there was it would be as hosed as ours).

Single - payer systems do not seem to be faring well either. In fact, many such systems, including the Canadian system, appear to be ready to explore market - based alternatives.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

I would also challenge you on a couple of points:

First, that single - payer is disconnected from the regulatory enviroment. Rather, single - payer is the ultimate regulation of the health care delivery system. It removes the free market almost completely from the equation, and fully regulates the delivery of care in the market: who can deliver care, under what circumstances the care can be delivered, the timing of the delivery of care, and the cost of delivery.

Second, that PPACA is "little more that re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. PPACA does little in the near term to impact the delivery of health care. It gets at cost in a rather hopeful way - that requiring individuals to purchase health care will increase improve overall funding by increasing the amount of incoming premium dollars. I'd suggest that there are still plenty of holes in the funding scenario that could likely result in further - you guessed it - regulatory intervention to plug the holes.

PPACA utlimtely could change how most poeple in this country buy health insurance. In the extreme, it could signficantly reduce the number of individuals who buy health insurance in the group market from an employer. On its face, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I've often said that if I were King for a day, I'd outlaw employer sponsored group health insurance. (I might even go so far as to outlaw health insurance, but that's a whole differnent thread). It creates an uneven playing field where the largest groups can puchase coverage more economically than smaller groups, and subjects small groups to more unpredictable year over year health insurance premium cost increases. PPACA doesn't necessarily solve this. It does, however, create a powerful incentive for employers - and I'd suggest in partcilular smaller employers - to get out of providing group health insurance coverage. This could result in dramatic change in how the health insurance market, and ultimately the health care delivery system, might operate.