#46 President Joe Biden

pjl44

mickeyrat said:

this administration at work....

ACTUAL BIG DEAL POLICY NEWS: Per the AP,  the prices for 10 of Medicare’s most popular and costliest drugs will be cut after deals struck between the government and the drug companies. “White House officials said Wednesday night they expect U.S. taxpayers to save $6 billion on the new prices, while older Americans could save roughly $1.5 billion on their medications.” Prescription drug costs consistently rate as one of the most salient election issues. Just sayin’.

Deceptive framing on this issue. The savings refers to the reductions on the list price of the drug. The vast majority of older Americans are not paying for these meds out of pocket so they're not realizing $1.5 billion in savings. Depending on how those savings shift, PBMs or insurance companies recognize the savings and then it's just a matter of if/how that makes its way to the customer.

This detail is laid out in the NBC article. Since we're always on the lookout for misinformation.

mickeyrat

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

this administration at work....

ACTUAL BIG DEAL POLICY NEWS: Per the AP,  the prices for 10 of Medicare’s most popular and costliest drugs will be cut after deals struck between the government and the drug companies. “White House officials said Wednesday night they expect U.S. taxpayers to save $6 billion on the new prices, while older Americans could save roughly $1.5 billion on their medications.” Prescription drug costs consistently rate as one of the most salient election issues. Just sayin’.

Deceptive framing on this issue. The savings refers to the reductions on the list price of the drug. The vast majority of older Americans are not paying for these meds out of pocket so they're not realizing $1.5 billion in savings. Depending on how those savings shift, PBMs or insurance companies recognize the savings and then it's just a matter of if/how that makes its way to the customer.

This detail is laid out in the NBC article. Since we're always on the lookout for misinformation.

prior to biden pushing for it, medicare couldnt negotiate.  so theres government price, retail, and insurance pricing and those discount card prices

Gern Blansten

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

this administration at work....

ACTUAL BIG DEAL POLICY NEWS: Per the AP,  the prices for 10 of Medicare’s most popular and costliest drugs will be cut after deals struck between the government and the drug companies. “White House officials said Wednesday night they expect U.S. taxpayers to save $6 billion on the new prices, while older Americans could save roughly $1.5 billion on their medications.” Prescription drug costs consistently rate as one of the most salient election issues. Just sayin’.

Deceptive framing on this issue. The savings refers to the reductions on the list price of the drug. The vast majority of older Americans are not paying for these meds out of pocket so they're not realizing $1.5 billion in savings. Depending on how those savings shift, PBMs or insurance companies recognize the savings and then it's just a matter of if/how that makes its way to the customer.

This detail is laid out in the NBC article. Since we're always on the lookout for misinformation.

As someone who pays out of pocket for Eliquis I look forward to 2026. The savings is real.

pjl44

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

this administration at work....

ACTUAL BIG DEAL POLICY NEWS: Per the AP,  the prices for 10 of Medicare’s most popular and costliest drugs will be cut after deals struck between the government and the drug companies. “White House officials said Wednesday night they expect U.S. taxpayers to save $6 billion on the new prices, while older Americans could save roughly $1.5 billion on their medications.” Prescription drug costs consistently rate as one of the most salient election issues. Just sayin’.

Deceptive framing on this issue. The savings refers to the reductions on the list price of the drug. The vast majority of older Americans are not paying for these meds out of pocket so they're not realizing $1.5 billion in savings. Depending on how those savings shift, PBMs or insurance companies recognize the savings and then it's just a matter of if/how that makes its way to the customer.

This detail is laid out in the NBC article. Since we're always on the lookout for misinformation.

prior to biden pushing for it, medicare couldnt negotiate.  so theres government price, retail, and insurance pricing and those discount card prices

You do not understand this ecosystem 

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

this administration at work....

ACTUAL BIG DEAL POLICY NEWS: Per the AP,  the prices for 10 of Medicare’s most popular and costliest drugs will be cut after deals struck between the government and the drug companies. “White House officials said Wednesday night they expect U.S. taxpayers to save $6 billion on the new prices, while older Americans could save roughly $1.5 billion on their medications.” Prescription drug costs consistently rate as one of the most salient election issues. Just sayin’.

Deceptive framing on this issue. The savings refers to the reductions on the list price of the drug. The vast majority of older Americans are not paying for these meds out of pocket so they're not realizing $1.5 billion in savings. Depending on how those savings shift, PBMs or insurance companies recognize the savings and then it's just a matter of if/how that makes its way to the customer.

This detail is laid out in the NBC article. Since we're always on the lookout for misinformation.

As someone who pays out of pocket for Eliquis I look forward to 2026. The savings is real.

This is great news for you, who is a narrow exception and not remotely the rule

Gern Blansten

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations/index.html

The initial round of negotiations with drugmakers – who have been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to quash the program in federal court – focused on the most widely used and expensive drugs taken by Medicare enrollees. The medications are Eliquis, Jardiance, Xarelto, Januvia, Farxiga, Entresto, Enbrel, Imbruvica and Stelara, as well as Fiasp and certain other insulins made by Novo Nordisk, including NovoLog.
The $6 billion in savings estimate is based on Medicare’s 2023 cost for these drugs, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters.

Seems odd that a program that won't actually save anything would be so strongly opposed by the drugmakers....

pjl44

Medicare negotiating drug prices is negotiating on behalf of PBMs and insurance companies who actually administer the plans. We need more information to know how those entities intend on passing savings on to their customers with Medicare.

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations/index.html

The initial round of negotiations with drugmakers – who have been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to quash the program in federal court – focused on the most widely used and expensive drugs taken by Medicare enrollees. The medications are Eliquis, Jardiance, Xarelto, Januvia, Farxiga, Entresto, Enbrel, Imbruvica and Stelara, as well as Fiasp and certain other insulins made by Novo Nordisk, including NovoLog.
The $6 billion in savings estimate is based on Medicare’s 2023 cost for these drugs, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters.

Seems odd that a program that won't actually save anything would be so strongly opposed by the drugmakers....

I'm not saying it doesn't save. It does. I'm saying the framing is deceptive about WHO saves and how much.

pjl44

One thing that is certain is that older Americans will save nowhere near $1.5 billion. "Could" doing enough heavy lifting to be a lie.

Gern Blansten

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

Gern Blansten

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

pjl44

And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go 

Gern Blansten

pjl44 said:

And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go 

In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.

Halifax2TheMax

Someone please tell us what the repub plan is for lowering prescription drug prices? Anyone? Oh, right.

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

Halifax2TheMax

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go 

In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.

Man. Have you looked into GoodRx or anything like that?

pjl44

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

tbergs

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

pjl44

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________

tbergs

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________

"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.

pjl44

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________

"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.

That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?

Gern Blansten

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go 

In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.

Man. Have you looked into GoodRx or anything like that?

Not yet...I'm actually using their initial discount right now but once that expires I'm fucked. I had a blood clot in my leg a little over a year ago and my doctor says I need to be on this until I die because the clot was unexplained. I have this weird gene (Factor V?) so I'm screwed.

I assume at some point a generic will become available. I hope.

Halifax2TheMax

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________

"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.

That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?

“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.

gimmesometruth27

Halifax2TheMax said:

Someone please tell us what the repub plan is for lowering prescription drug prices? Anyone? Oh, right.

there isn't. many of them do not even believe in medicare, so why would they try to fix the prices?

pjl44

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go 

In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.

Man. Have you looked into GoodRx or anything like that?

Not yet...I'm actually using their initial discount right now but once that expires I'm fucked. I had a blood clot in my leg a little over a year ago and my doctor says I need to be on this until I die because the clot was unexplained. I have this weird gene (Factor V?) so I'm screwed.

I assume at some point a generic will become available. I hope.

From some quick googling it looks like the patent is up in late 2026 but I have no idea which direction legal wrangling could push that. I'm always happy to talk through how to navigate the system in PMs if you're sweating the discount expiring.

pjl44

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________

"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.

That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?

“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.

Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from

pjl44

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go 

In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.

Man. Have you looked into GoodRx or anything like that?

Not yet...I'm actually using their initial discount right now but once that expires I'm fucked. I had a blood clot in my leg a little over a year ago and my doctor says I need to be on this until I die because the clot was unexplained. I have this weird gene (Factor V?) so I'm screwed.

I assume at some point a generic will become available. I hope.

From some quick googling it looks like the patent is up in late 2026 but I have no idea which direction legal wrangling could push that. I'm always happy to talk through how to navigate the system in PMs if you're sweating the discount expiring.

I didn't even consider the other extremely cynical explanation which is: Pfizer was willing to cut the price of this drug starting in 2026 because the patent expires then, a generic becomes available, and the cost would drop anyway. Could be interesting to see when the other 9 patents expire lol.

Halifax2TheMax

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjl44 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.

ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.

Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.

One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.

"One of 25% of seniors" what?

You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.

Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________

"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.

That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?

“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.

Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from

Tell me why you think I’m full of shit and why you were unable to follow my “mangled post.” Maybe you’ve heard of the CDC and the NIH? Maybe not but I think, think, you’re smart enough to do your own research, eh? Isn’t that what all the kids say, do your own research? Report back, eh?