GAO looks at ‘extraordinary’ drug price hikes
Filed under: Government, Pharmaceuticals, Studies
In a new report (pdf), the Government Accountability Office looks into what caused hundreds of extraordinary increases in prescription drug prices during the past decade. The GAO defines an “extraordinary” price increase as a single hike that more than doubled a drug’s price, an event that occurred regularly throughout the past decade. In their summary of the report (pdf), the GAO summarizes the relevant numbers thus:
From 2000 to 2008, 416 brand-name drug products—different drug strengths and dosage forms of the same drug brands—had extraordinary price increases. These 416 brand-name drug products represented 321 different drug brands. The number of brand-name drug products that had these extraordinary price increases represents half of 1 percent of all brand-name drug products. The number of extraordinary price increases each year more than doubled from 2000 to 2008 and most of the extraordinary price increases ranged between 100 percent and 499 percent. Almost 90 percent of all brand-name drug products that had an extraordinary price increase sustained the new higher price—by either having another increase in price or remaining at the increased price.
More than half of the these extraordinary increases came in drugs in the central nervous system, anti-infective, and cardiovascular classes. According to the report, limited competition and a lack of equivalent drugs (either from generics or brand-name competitors) may be to blame for the price increases. Industry consolidation is also an issue, analysts said, as several drugs jumped in price after their parent company’s acquisition had been finalized.
Related: FDA approval causes drug price to skyrocket
Med school prof: Dartmouth Atlas is ‘malarkey’
Filed under: Conflicts of interest, Health data, Hot Health Headline
In a story done in collaboration with The Philadelphia Inquirer, Kaiser Health News’ Jordan Rau’s report on a leading physician’s provocative attack on the Dartmouth Atlas gets off to a lively start:
As he raced through the U.S. Capitol this fall, Dr. Richard “Buz” Cooper, a 73-year-old University of Pennsylvania medical school professor, didn’t mince words. He denounced as “malarkey” a reigning premise of the health care debate – that one-third of the nation’s $2.5 trillion in annual health spending is unnecessary – and said that the idea came from “a bunch of clowns.”
Digging beyond these inflammatory comments, Rau finds that Cooper’s argument revolves around one idea: That the research “doesn’t take into account the high cost of helping the impoverished, who often spend more time in hospitals because they don’t have people to care for them at home and often return to the hospital when they can’t afford needed medications.”
Meanwhile, the Atlas folks’ response has been as blunt as Cooper’s attacks. They say the Penn researcher is wrong and doesn’t adequately understand Dartmouth’s statistical controls.
“It’s impossible to carry on a debate with somebody who does not understand statistics, and seems uninterested in learning,” Jonathan Skinner, a senior author of the Atlas, says of Cooper.
Most experts seem to be lining up on the Dartmouth side of the dispute, and Rau digs past the “clowns” and “malarkey” and helps readers understand the validity of Cooper’s criticism and the Atlas.
Related
To learn more about the Dartmouth Atlas and how to use it to determine how medical resources are distributed and used in the United States, read AHCJ’s Covering Hospitals, a slim guide that focuses on how journalists can best use Dartmouth Atlas and Hospital Compare.
- Covering Health: How hysterectomies spurred Dartmouth Atlas’ birth
- Covering Health: Poor, rural hospitals have higher death rates
- Covering Health: Dartmouth Atlas: Powerful when used right
- Covering Health: Why health costs in McAllen, Texas, resonate
Dartmouth Atlas: Powerful when used right
Filed under: Health care reform, Health data, Health journalism, Health policy, Hot Health Headline, Pharmaceuticals
The Dartmouth Atlas contains detailed information on regional variations in health care spending and use and therefore has the potential to play a key role in the debate over health care cost and efficiency.
Nonetheless, it has come under fire in a few prominent publications lately. Writing for the Health Affairs blog, Amitabh Chandra defends the utility of the Atlas, pointing out that in many cases quibbles with the Atlas arise due to a lack of broad perspective or understanding of the health care system as a whole and an inability to properly interpret Dartmouth’s findings.
In addition to refuting certain attacks on the Atlas, Chandra expands his defense to include an outline of just why it can be a useful resource when trying to evaluate health care spending and effectiveness.
To learn more about the Dartmouth Atlas and how to use it to determine how medical resources are distributed and used in the United States, read AHCJ’s Covering Hospitals, a slim guide that focuses on how journalists can best use Dartmouth Atlas and Hospital Compare.
Hastings Center debuts ‘Health Care Cost Monitor’
Filed under: Health care reform, Health journalism, Health policy
The Hastings Center, an independent bioethics think tank, has launched the ‘Health Care Cost Monitor,’ a blog aimed at covering the “crisis” of rising health care costs with “care, depth, and nuance.”
Daniel Callahan, co-founder, senior research scholar and president emeritus of The Hastings Center, NAS Institute of Medicine member and author will edit the blog. According to the Center, “other regular American and international contributors to the blog will include Henry Aaron, Eric Cassell, Anthony Culyer (UK), Muriel Gillick, Hans Maarse (Netherlands), Theodore Marmor, James Morone, Jonathan Oberlander, Steven Pearson, Louise Russell, Richard Saltman, Mark Schlesinger, Peter Ubel, and Joseph White.”
Here’s a look at the blog’s posts so far. Already, it has established itself as a bit more nuanced and deliberative than most blogs, with the result that it’s also quite a bit longer in form.
Speaking Truth to Evasion
Callahan argues that cost controls invite evasion, and declares that health care cost may be a more important issue than universal coverage, primarily because costs are one of the biggest obstacles to such proposals. He writes that an effective cost control plan would probably have to include some form of rationing, a practice that invites the sort of ethical dilemmas in which his Center specializes. In that vein, Callahan makes his editorial position clear: “We think it important to get a reform plan in place that will stand the test of time, one that has built cost control into it from the start, and that the public is fully informed about that necessity.”
Ending the Cost Insanity: Some First Steps
Senior Brookings fellow Henry J. Aaron dismantles the health care industry’s much-publicized pledge to cut $2 trillion in spending in the next decade, saying that the U.S. system is constructed to be “as immune as possible to health discipline” and detailing just why that is the case. He then shows why the tax burden of a universal system would be unbearable without cost reductions, and outlines a possible solution including comparative effectiveness research and spending constraints and bargaining power for government health care entities.
-
Health Journalism 2010, AHCJ's annual conference, features a world-class program with story ideas, sources, stronger reporting skills, chances to meet newsmakers and network with other journalists.
- Health and education: Covering these intersecting beats
- Reporting on the business of health care
- Health reporting resources for journalists on state and local government beats
- Shortened Lives: How location, lifestyle affect health
- Covering a complex story for the long haul
- Aging in the 21st Century: Presentations and tip sheets
- AHCJ calls for better information from Joint Commission Web site
