InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 252525
Next 10
Followers 75
Posts 4696
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/06/2003

Re: linhdtu post# 205271

Monday, 10/17/2016 7:48:28 AM

Monday, October 17, 2016 7:48:28 AM

Post# of 252525

I intend to vote for it even though I am a speculator in biotech values and profit from it. lol.

Yes I am a hypocrite in the tradition of Chuck Prince of the "one gotta dance when the music is still playing" famous quote about the financial bubble of 2007

But my conscience tells me that LT either prop 61 in CA and/or something like it has to happen nationwide in order to bring US national healthcare costs under control for future generations.



Comments:

1) I am on the record (repeatedly) as being the same kind of 'hypocrite'. However...

2) I agree with Dew that this particular bill will make zero difference - even the legislative analysis of the bill noted that it is too easy to work around and there is too much incentive to do so. (For those not tracking the Cal initiatives... it sets the price of all state drugs to be the min cost paid by the VA System, but as the analyst points out, much of that is not disclosed due to 'confidentiality'. And, further, it incentivizes the drug companies to change what they charge the VA and what they disclose.)

3) Drug costs are a small portion of the medical care cost explosion. Between about 12% (lowest I've seen) and 20%. Call it 16%. Services (i.e. healthcare professional salaries) is almost 2x as big, and hospitals make up the rest (i.e. the biggest chunk). To put this in perspective, if drug costs were cut 30% and then didn't grow at all, within a little over 2 years the historic growth rate in the rest of the sector would negate all of that savings.

What amuses me is that the legislative analysis of the initiative seems to show the greatest understanding I've seen to date of the problem by a governmental agency. But it is nonetheless depressing because it does nothing.

BTW - I find it difficult/interesting to try to explain why drug companies are seen by the public seem as the primary villain of the medical cost explosion. My working hypothesis is:

a) They are more routinely visible (hospital costs are really big, but only sporadic for any given individual).

b) They are faceless (hard to have an argument that the MD you know should have a salary cut).

c) The arcane pricing scheme (i.e. list prices that are absurdly higher than what most are paying) makes it look even worse than it really is.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.