Healthcare reform has been a stumbling block for the Trump Administration. It is a black eye in comparison to the widespread success on the economic front, where the GDP continues to hum at well above 2% in quarterly growth. Although other executive actions have withstood judicial challenges, the same cannot be said about the recent push for greater price discretion in the healthcare industry.

Big Pharma has “done a number” to the proposed executive reform, though their cause has also been furthered by a Congress that is currently unwilling to grapple with the issue itself. Gigantic multi-nationals, like Pfizer and GSK, have hundreds of lobbyists in their back pockets, while the large majority of the people that buy their drugs and services are at the mercy of these special interests.

These gears of change, or lack thereof, were seen Monday when a federal judge in the District Court of Washington, DC blocked a rule instituted in May that required pharmaceutical companies to publish the list price of their drugs in television commercials. This action is not without precedent, like other vital information- side effects and warnings-has been required disclosure for years. The judge in the case, Amit Mehta, touted the decision as a victory for the free speech rights of corporations, but other parties saw it as a loss for the greater public and its fight for transparency. To many people, price information has the same level of importance to them as the side effects pharmaceutical companies are obliged to list on a regular basis.

Advertisements

Given that actual pharmaceutical prices do not have to be disclosed right away, Big Pharma can continue to hide behind these percentages. These companies will claim that any price increase is minimal and because the price of the drug need not be disclosed, consumers will not question the claims. It may be easy to overlook a low-percentage hike, but those in need of certain drugs may sound the alarm when a hike reaches the magnitude of 100%. Which is similar to that of drug-manufacturer B Braun’s increase in the price of Isolyte-S, an IV hydration solution, this year.

With this defeat in mind, the Trump Administration has chosen to move forward with new disclosure rules for price negotiations with insurance companies for hospitals. This executive order will work to alleviate the wait for the bill from healthcare providers. The idea behind the executive order is that patients should be able to “shop around” for their procedures—possibly saving themselves thousands of dollars in the process. The order also allows those in need of care to plan for the financial contribution they will have to make.

Insurance companies and hospital networks have pledged to tie-up the issue in court in hopes of delaying its implementation for months. Their primary intent of stalling is to avoid driving prices down due to the competition. An argument like this is going to be a tough sell; however, based on precedent, the argument might have merit. Given this, we can expect hospitals and insurers will take lessons from the pharmaceutical companies that faced parallel cases. There is uncertainty in either case at the moment, but the battle is far from over. It wouldn’t be surprising if both cases landed in the Supreme Court in the near future.

Advertisements

Jacob Burnam Jacob is currently a sophomore at Transylvania University concentrating in the pre-medical track with a major in German Studies. He plans on attending medical school and making a lasting mark in the field of healthcare policy. In his free time, he can often be found handicapping horses and enjoying the ambiance of a day at the track, a long-lived Kentucky tradition.

Share this: Facebook

Twitter



Leave this field empty if you're human: