Tag Archives: health care

Right Idea, but…

Posted on by
Reply

…details in the implementation will matter, also. Competition always drives costs to a level approaching the cost of production, and that’s to the good, not only of consumers but for competitors and others looking to enter the market, as well.

However.

On Monday, [Congresswoman and MD Mariannette (R, IA)] Miller-Meeks along with three of her colleagues introduced a bill titled the “Biologics Competition Act,” which seeks “to evaluate the process by which interchangeable biological products are approved to be used in pharmaceuticals.”
“So in essence, what we’re trying to get is biosimilar drugs that are the same chemically—that they have an equivalency to let those be prescribed as generic drugs, which would bring down the cost of medication[.]”

There’s a reason generics, in general, are delayed in getting authorization to be marketed: to allow the drug’s initial developer(s) time to recoup the costs of development and to begin realizing profit, and thereby encourage further drug development.

Such permission delays would need to apply to the biosimilar drugs, too. With a fillip: defining how much change is necessary while remaining biosimilar without leaving the required change so trivial that the new drug is an outright plagiary with only a token item grafted on.

That may well be the eye of a needle—passable, but with difficulty, especially when trying to write down a specific law. Worth going for, though, absolutely.

Rearranging the Furniture

Posted on by
Reply

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky now claims she’s going to reorganize the CDC after saying that her agency did not reliably meet expectations during the course of the Wuhan Virus Situation.

The changes will include elevating the laboratory division to report to the CDC’s director and restructuring the communications office….

Because the CDC needs to do a better job of selling its claims. And this bit:

shift the CDC’s culture from highly academic to focus more on preparedness and response

And

Dr Walensky also wants additional funding and more authority for the CDC on matters including mandating data collection from states….

There it is. The Progressive-Democratic Party’s go-to solution for all of our ails—more government funding and more government power.

No.

Aside from the interest in being better at the agency’s used car salesman patter, the wasteful increase in taxpayer money coming her way, and the dangerous increase in government power, mechanically, this is just a cosmetic rearrangement of the furniture. The CDC needs reorganization, but it needs to be seriously reorganized.

There’ll be no culture change so long as the personnel of the current culture remain. Any reorg must begin with personnel, not a change of office symbols. That beginning, then, must be the termination, for reasons ranging from cause to what the military refers to as the good of the service, of the agency’s managers, from Walensky and her staff through her deputies and their staffs on down through (not to) middle management.

Every single one of them needs to go. And then Walensky’s replacement as Director, before any additional hiring occurs, needs to justify in concrete and measurable terms, line by line and position by position, why the personnel slot for that proposed new hire needs to exist.

Only with that change in personnel and that streamlining can the CDC become an efficient and effective organization and an organization us American citizens can trust.

And to Reduce Development of New Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal headline reads Democrats Vote to Raise Drug Prices. That’s in response to the Senate Progressive-Democratic Party’s unilateral vote to pass President Joe Biden’s (D) Build Reduced Back Act last Sunday. Included in that bill is a capability for Medicare to “negotiate” the prices on a select list of drugs. Negotiate: accept Medicare’s offer or pay a 95% tax on revenues. Nice drug you got there….

This is one inevitable result:

If drug makers must give Medicare steep discounts on certain drugs, they will compensate by increasing prices in the commercial market.

Even the Progressive-Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT) recognized the foolishness of the price control, even as he voted for it Sunday:

You can’t untangle the private sector from the public sector—one doesn’t work without the other.

Except that Murphy is wrong in one regard, a regard to which Progressive-Democrats everywhere are blind: the private sector works just fine without the public sector. Better, even.

There’s another inevitable outcome for which the Progressive-Democratic Party voted with their just passed Medicare price controls, and it’s far longer lasting and far more dangerous to Americans’ health. That outcome is the delayed effort to innovate and the reduced level of drug development that will occur even then, given the severe restrictions that will exist on a pharmaceutical company’s ability to recoup its cost of development, much less turn a profit on the development, and therewith have funds for further development.

Progressive-Democratic Party Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) has a new entry. While using her authority to line-item veto $21 million she says was allocated for “anti-choice” programs.

Anti-choice: what she vetoed was this:

$10 million for marketing programs about adoption, $2 million in tax credits for adoptive parents, $3 million for a “maternal navigator pilot program,” $1.5 million for pregnancy resource centers and $700,000 for a nonprofit pregnancy center.

She claims her veto was based on the pregnancy crisis centers spread disinformation and withhold other information. These are plainly bogus beefs.

Instead, Whitmer is claiming that giving women options regarding their pregnancies is anti-choice.

A Performance Principle

Posted on by
Reply

Norway, it turns out, did really well as a nation during the recent Wuhan Virus Situation.

Not long ago, the World Health Organization published mortality stats from the past two years, which showed that nearly every country’s excess death count spiked during the pandemic. Norway’s barely moved. The Norwegians had pulled off the closest thing possible to an optimal response to the most vexing problems that Covid-19 presented.

Then what? Norway, rather than rest on its laurels, studied the situation, with particular reference to the nation’s successes and failures—and there were some failures, even as Norway did so well overall. Why was Norway, in the words of the WSJ article’s author, so eager to probe its failures? Norwegian economist Egil Matsen is the second chair of the Norwegian commission that was set up early in the virus situation to plan ahead and then to study in hindsight Norway’s response for future reference. He said,

It reflects a desire to see what we did well—and what we did not do well. I think there is perhaps even an expectation that when something this unusual and serious happens to our country, it should be evaluated and we should try to learn from it in the aftermath.

What a concept. Plan ahead, and then see how well the plan did and did not do in an actual situation. Don’t just kick back in celebration—do that, sure, and rue failure when that occurs—but work to do better. Learn from experience. And one lesson here is that, while a physician chaired this sort of commission, an economist was second chair. Economists are trained to take a much more systems approach, to look at the broader picture, of a problem that has a range of national-level implications; a medical professional is trained to understand only the medical implication.

Responding to a pandemic is nothing if not the classic economics problem of weighing costs and benefits.