From a very smart blogger: Thinking Out Loud: Privatizing Social Security Social Security is meant to be insurance, not an investment. What it insures against is people becoming destitute after their working years are over. Insurance companies take your money in the form of premiums, invest it to earn a return, and pay claims from those earnings when people suffer losses. You don
Posted in House Improvement Home | 
No Comments » |
From a very smart blogger: Thinking Out Loud: Privatizing Social Security Social Security is meant to be insurance, not an investment. What it insures against is people becoming destitute after their working years are over. Insurance companies take your money in the form of premiums, invest it to earn a return, and pay claims from those earnings when people suffer losses. You don
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be a regular member or just a one gig stand. Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. Thanks, David Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds like dog shit.
VOX VTX modeling amp…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will > be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. > Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure > that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
Vox Valvetronix modeling amp..I have the 50 watt. Simply incredible on the cleans, and you have a choice of a few different styles of clean to choose from.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will > be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. > Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure > that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
>So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be >a regular member or just a one gig stand. >Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then >she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a >$100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her.
I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. Unless 335s cost insane amounts more than their solid body guitars…. >What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that >she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. >Thanks, >David
Just about anything would be an improvement. Her Squire amp might have suited her needs for playing at home. That usual budget question, again… I won’t bother asking. >Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds >like dog shit.
I’m not sure if I see a problem here. I mean, just looking the situation from a safe distance. I mean, assuming that you’ve been faithfully paying your "AGA Too Many Amps Club" (the TMAC) dues. You just plug her into a real amp, and say, "This is what a real amp can do for your sound." Then you plug her back into her Squier amp. Further comments shouldn’t be necessary. Pete — Boy, this *is* a long story you know… maybe I *will* go get somethin’ to eat. –Meatwad
> I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s.
They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today.
>> I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. >They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today.
No thanks. I have limited interest in what other people are willing to pay. What she paid for it is none of business. If someone finds a guitar they like, and’re willing to pay the asking price, fine by me. But I’m steering clear of those markets, for obvious reasons. My feeling is that if it’s not from the ’50s, it’s too new be worth a significant amount of money. The market for used guitars from eras that weren’t all that impressive, is way on the stupid side. Pete — Boy, this *is* a long story you know… maybe I *will* go get somethin’ to eat. –Meatwad
> >> I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. >They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today. > No thanks. I have limited interest in what other people are willing > to pay. > What she paid for it is none of business. If someone finds a guitar > they like, and’re willing to pay the asking price, fine by me. But > I’m steering clear of those markets, for obvious reasons. > My feeling is that if it’s not from the ’50s, it’s too new be worth a > significant amount of money. The market for used guitars from eras > that weren’t all that impressive, is way on the stupid side.
I totally agree with you.
> What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
You might like to try out a Behringer V-Ampire amp. It’s a 60 watt, 1×12 combo that does a nice job for less than $300.
> What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure > that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
Silver face Fender Princeton Reverb. They’re probably more than she could spend though. Any old (read: cheaper) valve amp will make that guit sing.
> > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > You might like to try out a Behringer V-Ampire amp. It’s a 60 watt, 1×12 > combo that does a nice job for less than $300.
I really can recommend the Koch Twintone. It’s a small size 50w tube combo 1×12 with an amazingly good sounding clean channel. Really fenderesque type sound. Also the overdrive channel is superb. Really useable feature is build in powersoak to switch it to 25w. Do some reading on this one it’s really that good. Good luck. Dennis
>>What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that >she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
If she’s only really interested in a clean tone and doesn’t want to break the bank or lug a Fender Twin then the clean on the Fender Hot Rod Deluxe is a true Fender clean. The gain is not to my taste. — Tim Westcott
SMALL (not real light, though), excellent clean with really nice reverb, plus great high gain: Mesa Boogie Mark III 1×12 combo. Comes either 60W, or 100W with switching. The bad news is that street price is near $700. You’re local, right? If she’s willing to pay that price range, I’d bring mine to a practice or gig. Mine is NOT for sale, just for her to try. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the ’70s. " In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could get a Martin D-35 for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of beer $1.50 … ;-)
That matches my recollection, more or less: in the mid 70s, Strats and P-basses listed about $400, Teles $385, and LPs around $800. In ‘75, gas was about 60c or so. Sigh. Those were the days, though, eh? In 1979, I bought a brand new BC Rich Mockingbird, solid birdseye maple, hand made and neck through (the only way back then; the cheapies hadn’t happened yet) for right about $900. I think freaking *Epiphone* LPs list around there nowadays… Freep
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the > ’70s. " > In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-)
Texas Pete isn’t PMG. I’ve never been to Texas. Ever. Haven’t been any farther south than the southern tip of Illinois. I like Skynyrd, but I’m not from the South. But that was about what my guess with the 335 prices in the ’70s. Got my ‘69 Tele for a little over $200 in the mid ’70s, and I saw what someone was asking for one that had been played hard (and put away wet) and I was going….. "you have GOT to be kidding!!!" Pete >Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the >’70s. " >In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could >get a Martin D-35 >for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and >Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of >beer $1.50 … ;-)
– Boy, this *is* a long story you know… maybe I *will* go get somethin’ to eat. –Meatwad
> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
First, make sure whatever amp she ends up with, she can carry it herself. ;-) Second, How much cash is she willing to spend..??? How loud does it need to be..??? Etc..etc… > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
Good luck… more free advice… drop the phrase "dog shit", and go for the "you are really doing an injustice to that BEAUTIFUL guitar.." angle… 
Just my most humble opinion… gtski
> SMALL (not real light, though), excellent clean with really nice reverb, > plus great high gain: Mesa Boogie Mark III 1×12 combo. Comes either > 60W, or 100W with switching. The bad news is that street price is near > $700. > You’re local, right? If she’s willing to pay that price range, I’d > bring mine to a practice or gig. Mine is NOT for sale, just for her to > try.
There are plenty of Peaveys that might fit the bill for WAY under $700… I’m assuming she hasn’t a clue that her tiny POS amp sounds like poop. Therefore, she may need a only an "introduction" to bigger/louder *better* amps..????? Even a Fender HR Deluxe can fill a lot of room… and still be carried by most women. Peavey Delta Blues 1-15".. ? ? ? $350-$400 used… and 335s sound pretty good thru them. gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she > will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson > 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar > with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not > sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
>> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
My favorite amp to use with my 335, is a 1980 Peavey Artist VT-series. Very compact dimensions but still rather heavy. 12" BW speaker, SS pre-amp, 4 x 6L6 power-amp. Automix input to cascade both bright and normal inputs. Nice spring-reverb. IMO a very underrated amp. Leo.
>> SMALL (not real light, though), excellent clean with really nice > reverb, plus great high gain: Mesa Boogie Mark III 1×12 combo. Comes > either 60W, or 100W with switching. The bad news is that street price > is near $700. > You’re local, right? If she’s willing to pay that price range, I’d > bring mine to a practice or gig. Mine is NOT for sale, just for her > to try. > There are plenty of Peaveys that might fit the bill for WAY under > $700…
For half way decent clean? Yeah. But not the same clean and ‘verb as the Mesa, and definitely not the same gain tones (if she also wants that). Plus, I think David is local, and my offer was to let her try my amp so that maybe he doesn’t have to tell her her amp sounds like poo. She’d figure it out on her own! I’m assuming she hasn’t a clue that her tiny POS amp sounds – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> like poop. Therefore, she may need a only an "introduction" to > bigger/louder *better* amps..????? Even a Fender HR Deluxe can fill a > lot of room… and still be carried by most women. > Peavey Delta Blues 1-15".. ? ? ? $350-$400 used… and 335s sound > pretty good thru them. > gtski >> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she >> will be >> a regular member or just a one gig stand. >> Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson >> 335. Then >> she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar >> with a >> $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. >> What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not >> sure that >> she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. >> Thanks, >> David >> Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds >> like dog shit.
> Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the > ’70s. " > In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-)
So, to put a fine point on it, the ES335 in today’s dollars: on the gas scale 180/30 = 6x; $800 * 6 = $4800 on the beer scale (cheap beer) 6/1.5 4x; $800 * 4 = $3200. I’d say the OP about hit it on the head on the beer scale. Thanks for the metrics, Chief.
> In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-)
What KIND of beer????
>>Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the >’70s. " >In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case.
Really..?? In 1973 I bought a ‘70 Gibson 335 used for $300 with a case. It had the original strings on it. I didn’t *bargain* with the guy because it was the ONLY 335 for sale used at the time. > You could >get a Martin D-35 >for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600.
How about THAT.. ?!?!? The LP Custom for less than the 335.. ??? ! ! ! > Strats and Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of >beer $1.50 … ;-)
Ummmm…. In 70-71 maybe gas was 30 cents a gallon… and I DID buy beer for $1.00 per six-pack..! ! ! ! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So, to put a fine point on it, the ES335 in today’s dollars: > on the gas scale 180/30 = 6x; $800 * 6 = $4800 > on the beer scale (cheap beer) 6/1.5 4x; $800 * 4 = $3200. > I’d say the OP about hit it on the head on the beer scale. > Thanks for the metrics, Chief.
>> In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-) >What KIND of beer????
Must have been 70 or 71. Twin Reverbs were about $500……. Cigs were cheap. In 73/74 Gas (petrol) shot up to $1.00 / Gallon. I remember because I was in the Shetland Islands at the time and paid about 73 pence/gallon which was close to $1.75. And folks back home complained about $1.00.
>>I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. >They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today.
A lot of the ’70s 335s especially from ‘72 had their bridge posts in the wrong place making them impossible to intonate. Schaller even made a bridge with multiple post holes to correct the problem… TG
>Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the >’70s. " >In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could >get a Martin D-35 >for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and >Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of >beer $1.50 … ;-)
I used to get Shop Rite beer for $.99. It came in white cans with BEER printed in big block letters and a little shop Rite logo. That was the only writing on the can… Those were thwe days…. TG
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be a regular member or just a one gig stand. Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. Thanks, David Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds like dog shit.
VOX VTX modeling amp…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will > be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. > Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure > that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
Vox Valvetronix modeling amp..I have the 50 watt. Simply incredible on the cleans, and you have a choice of a few different styles of clean to choose from.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will > be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. > Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure > that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
>So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be >a regular member or just a one gig stand. >Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then >she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a >$100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her.
I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. Unless 335s cost insane amounts more than their solid body guitars…. >What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that >she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. >Thanks, >David
Just about anything would be an improvement. Her Squire amp might have suited her needs for playing at home. That usual budget question, again… I won’t bother asking. >Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds >like dog shit.
I’m not sure if I see a problem here. I mean, just looking the situation from a safe distance. I mean, assuming that you’ve been faithfully paying your "AGA Too Many Amps Club" (the TMAC) dues. You just plug her into a real amp, and say, "This is what a real amp can do for your sound." Then you plug her back into her Squier amp. Further comments shouldn’t be necessary. Pete — Boy, this *is* a long story you know… maybe I *will* go get somethin’ to eat. –Meatwad
> I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s.
They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today.
>> I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. >They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today.
No thanks. I have limited interest in what other people are willing to pay. What she paid for it is none of business. If someone finds a guitar they like, and’re willing to pay the asking price, fine by me. But I’m steering clear of those markets, for obvious reasons. My feeling is that if it’s not from the ’50s, it’s too new be worth a significant amount of money. The market for used guitars from eras that weren’t all that impressive, is way on the stupid side. Pete — Boy, this *is* a long story you know… maybe I *will* go get somethin’ to eat. –Meatwad
> >> I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. >They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today. > No thanks. I have limited interest in what other people are willing > to pay. > What she paid for it is none of business. If someone finds a guitar > they like, and’re willing to pay the asking price, fine by me. But > I’m steering clear of those markets, for obvious reasons. > My feeling is that if it’s not from the ’50s, it’s too new be worth a > significant amount of money. The market for used guitars from eras > that weren’t all that impressive, is way on the stupid side.
I totally agree with you.
> What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
You might like to try out a Behringer V-Ampire amp. It’s a 60 watt, 1×12 combo that does a nice job for less than $300.
> What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure > that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
Silver face Fender Princeton Reverb. They’re probably more than she could spend though. Any old (read: cheaper) valve amp will make that guit sing.
> > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > You might like to try out a Behringer V-Ampire amp. It’s a 60 watt, 1×12 > combo that does a nice job for less than $300.
I really can recommend the Koch Twintone. It’s a small size 50w tube combo 1×12 with an amazingly good sounding clean channel. Really fenderesque type sound. Also the overdrive channel is superb. Really useable feature is build in powersoak to switch it to 25w. Do some reading on this one it’s really that good. Good luck. Dennis
>>What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that >she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
If she’s only really interested in a clean tone and doesn’t want to break the bank or lug a Fender Twin then the clean on the Fender Hot Rod Deluxe is a true Fender clean. The gain is not to my taste. — Tim Westcott
SMALL (not real light, though), excellent clean with really nice reverb, plus great high gain: Mesa Boogie Mark III 1×12 combo. Comes either 60W, or 100W with switching. The bad news is that street price is near $700. You’re local, right? If she’s willing to pay that price range, I’d bring mine to a practice or gig. Mine is NOT for sale, just for her to try. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the ’70s. " In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could get a Martin D-35 for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of beer $1.50 … ;-)
That matches my recollection, more or less: in the mid 70s, Strats and P-basses listed about $400, Teles $385, and LPs around $800. In ‘75, gas was about 60c or so. Sigh. Those were the days, though, eh? In 1979, I bought a brand new BC Rich Mockingbird, solid birdseye maple, hand made and neck through (the only way back then; the cheapies hadn’t happened yet) for right about $900. I think freaking *Epiphone* LPs list around there nowadays… Freep
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the > ’70s. " > In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-)
Texas Pete isn’t PMG. I’ve never been to Texas. Ever. Haven’t been any farther south than the southern tip of Illinois. I like Skynyrd, but I’m not from the South. But that was about what my guess with the 335 prices in the ’70s. Got my ‘69 Tele for a little over $200 in the mid ’70s, and I saw what someone was asking for one that had been played hard (and put away wet) and I was going….. "you have GOT to be kidding!!!" Pete >Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the >’70s. " >In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could >get a Martin D-35 >for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and >Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of >beer $1.50 … ;-)
– Boy, this *is* a long story you know… maybe I *will* go get somethin’ to eat. –Meatwad
> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
First, make sure whatever amp she ends up with, she can carry it herself. ;-) Second, How much cash is she willing to spend..??? How loud does it need to be..??? Etc..etc… > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
Good luck… more free advice… drop the phrase "dog shit", and go for the "you are really doing an injustice to that BEAUTIFUL guitar.." angle… Just my most humble opinion… gtski
> SMALL (not real light, though), excellent clean with really nice reverb, > plus great high gain: Mesa Boogie Mark III 1×12 combo. Comes either > 60W, or 100W with switching. The bad news is that street price is near > $700. > You’re local, right? If she’s willing to pay that price range, I’d > bring mine to a practice or gig. Mine is NOT for sale, just for her to > try.
There are plenty of Peaveys that might fit the bill for WAY under $700… I’m assuming she hasn’t a clue that her tiny POS amp sounds like poop. Therefore, she may need a only an "introduction" to bigger/louder *better* amps..????? Even a Fender HR Deluxe can fill a lot of room… and still be carried by most women. Peavey Delta Blues 1-15".. ? ? ? $350-$400 used… and 335s sound pretty good thru them. gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she > will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson > 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar > with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not > sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. > Thanks, > David > Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds > like dog shit.
>> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she will be > a regular member or just a one gig stand. > Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson 335. Then > she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar with a > $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. > What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not sure that > she wants to lug around a Fender Twin.
My favorite amp to use with my 335, is a 1980 Peavey Artist VT-series. Very compact dimensions but still rather heavy. 12" BW speaker, SS pre-amp, 4 x 6L6 power-amp. Automix input to cascade both bright and normal inputs. Nice spring-reverb. IMO a very underrated amp. Leo.
>> SMALL (not real light, though), excellent clean with really nice > reverb, plus great high gain: Mesa Boogie Mark III 1×12 combo. Comes > either 60W, or 100W with switching. The bad news is that street price > is near $700. > You’re local, right? If she’s willing to pay that price range, I’d > bring mine to a practice or gig. Mine is NOT for sale, just for her > to try. > There are plenty of Peaveys that might fit the bill for WAY under > $700…
For half way decent clean? Yeah. But not the same clean and ‘verb as the Mesa, and definitely not the same gain tones (if she also wants that). Plus, I think David is local, and my offer was to let her try my amp so that maybe he doesn’t have to tell her her amp sounds like poo. She’d figure it out on her own! I’m assuming she hasn’t a clue that her tiny POS amp sounds – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> like poop. Therefore, she may need a only an "introduction" to > bigger/louder *better* amps..????? Even a Fender HR Deluxe can fill a > lot of room… and still be carried by most women. > Peavey Delta Blues 1-15".. ? ? ? $350-$400 used… and 335s sound > pretty good thru them. > gtski >> So a new lady joins the band for the next gig. I don’t know if she >> will be >> a regular member or just a one gig stand. >> Anyhow she arrives at the house and pulls out a early 70’s Gibson >> 335. Then >> she pulls out a cheap crappy Squire amp. Okay she has a $3k guitar >> with a >> $100 amp. I felt like pimp slapping her. >> What small amp would you recommend for a nice clean tone? I’m not >> sure that >> she wants to lug around a Fender Twin. >> Thanks, >> David >> Now I have to figure out a way to tactfully tell her that her amp sounds >> like dog shit.
> Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the > ’70s. " > In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-)
So, to put a fine point on it, the ES335 in today’s dollars: on the gas scale 180/30 = 6x; $800 * 6 = $4800 on the beer scale (cheap beer) 6/1.5 4x; $800 * 4 = $3200. I’d say the OP about hit it on the head on the beer scale. Thanks for the metrics, Chief.
> In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-)
What KIND of beer????
>>Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the >’70s. " >In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case.
Really..?? In 1973 I bought a ‘70 Gibson 335 used for $300 with a case. It had the original strings on it. I didn’t *bargain* with the guy because it was the ONLY 335 for sale used at the time. > You could >get a Martin D-35 >for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600.
How about THAT.. ?!?!? The LP Custom for less than the 335.. ??? ! ! ! > Strats and Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of >beer $1.50 … ;-)
Ummmm…. In 70-71 maybe gas was 30 cents a gallon… and I DID buy beer for $1.00 per six-pack..! ! ! ! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So, to put a fine point on it, the ES335 in today’s dollars: > on the gas scale 180/30 = 6x; $800 * 6 = $4800 > on the beer scale (cheap beer) 6/1.5 4x; $800 * 4 = $3200. > I’d say the OP about hit it on the head on the beer scale. > Thanks for the metrics, Chief.
>> In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could > get a Martin D-35 > for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and > Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of > beer $1.50 … ;-) >What KIND of beer????
Must have been 70 or 71. Twin Reverbs were about $500……. Cigs were cheap. In 73/74 Gas (petrol) shot up to $1.00 / Gallon. I remember because I was in the Shetland Islands at the time and paid about 73 pence/gallon which was close to $1.75. And folks back home complained about $1.00.
>>I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive in the ’70s. >They didn’t then, but price a 70’s model today.
A lot of the ’70s 335s especially from ‘72 had their bridge posts in the wrong place making them impossible to intonate. Schaller even made a bridge with multiple post holes to correct the problem… TG
>Texas Pete ( aka PMG) posted: > "I don’t remember Gibsons costing *that* expensive(sic $3K) in the >’70s. " >In the ’70’s, you could buy a 335 for about $795…with case. You could >get a Martin D-35 >for about that much as well, and a Les Paul Custom for $600. Strats and >Teles were under $400. And gas was 30 cents a gallon and a 6-pack of >beer $1.50 … ;-)
I used to get Shop Rite beer for $.99. It came in white cans with BEER printed in big block letters and a little shop Rite logo. That was the only writing on the can… Those were thwe days…. TG
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the collector media. Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? TIA, D
> I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered > fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably > doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle > some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the
… I’m no expert but I can give you some general information. Polycarbonates have lower melting points than glass. The stagnation temperatures in a solar heating panel (when no air is circulating) can easily get high enough to at least soften, if not melt, most plastics. That said, my recommendation is to go with what’s cheapest. A little less efficiency or durability can be overcome with bigger panels and a little more maintenance. Recycled materials are good for this kind of thing. You can sometimes get glass cheap (or free) from outfits that remodel homes or repair glass. Some folks have even used those fiberglass translucent panels you see in the roofing dept of home improvement stores. Since it looks like you’re going the do-it-yourself route, if the thing doesn’t work well enough the first time around then you can always rebuild it with something better and you will have learned by experience. 
A Cheap and simple check valve for an air heater is a flap of thin plastic over a wire mesh grill. Attach it with tape or the like at the top and air pressure will blow it open. Suitable plastic would be, say, dry cleaner garment bag, grocery store bag or even (at worst) garbage bags. You might even try some food storage plastic wrap. If you want a maximum insulating check valve you can make them using foam insulation panels balanced on pin pivots. If you counterbalance them right they won’t require much air pressure to open. They often use something very similar for whole house fans that are mounted in attics. If you use a check flap then you don’t have to worry too much about heat loss at night through the panels because there won’t be any reverse flow at night. If you use a fan and simply turn it off at night then you likewise won’t have air flow or heat loss. Small DC (and even AC) fans can be found fairly inexpensively. You’ll see a lot of them designed for computers and most of these operate on 12V DC. If you build the panel right and make the most of thermosiphoning then you won’t need a lot of fan power (or any at all) to make the things work. Anthony
JameCo Electronics has a good variety of DC fans under 100CFM, at fairly decent prices. They have their catalog online at http://www.jameco.com regards, Joe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. >I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered >fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably >doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle >some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the >collector media. >Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw >guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector >as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? >TIA, >D
Hi Dan, Depending on your needs. You could try one or two 12 volt computer fans costs about 10 to 15 dollars each. Just make sure that the total voltage does not burn out your fans. I use a 5 watt solar panel to power 2 fans and seems to work pretty well. When only using one it burned out in about 3 months. It gives about 1 litre of air per second. mk
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. > I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered > fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably > doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle > some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the > collector media. > Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw > guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector > as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? > TIA, > D
solar panel (24W 24 VDC). Even though the fans were only rated at 12 V the total load on the panel was high enough to prevent the fans from burning out. I didn’t need any additional circuitry because this small panel never gets close to a voltage sufficient to hurt the fans because of the amperage the fans draw. I use the fans to cool my 4 2500 W inverters in my solar system. They just rest on top of the inverter cooling heat sink, but they drop the heat sinks from 180 deg. to 145 deg. on a 105 degree day. This is more than enough to keep the 4 inverters from reducing their output to prevent overtemp. I like this approach since I didn’t need thermal switches, or wallworts to run the fans. Another plus is, no sun no fans, which is the same for your application. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi Dan, > Depending on your needs. You could try one or two 12 volt computer fans > costs about 10 to 15 dollars each. Just make sure that the total voltage > does not burn out your fans. I use a 5 watt solar panel to power 2 fans and > seems to work pretty well. When only using one it burned out in about 3 > months. > It gives about 1 litre of air per second. > mk >one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. >I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered >fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably >doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle >some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the >collector media. >Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw >guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector >as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? >TIA, >D
– Jim Baber (see my 10kW grid tied solar system at "www.baber.org") 1350 W Mesa Ave. Fresno CA, 93711 (559) 435-9068 (559) 905-2204 cell
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. > I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered > fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably > doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle > some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the > collector media. > Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw > guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector > as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? > TIA, > D
Here are some DC centrifugal fans with more pressure drop capability: http://www.orientalmotor.co.jp/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UPOMFan.woa/wa/f2?c… Would probably work with direct PV connection? Gary
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the collector media. Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? TIA, D
> I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered > fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably > doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle > some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the
… I’m no expert but I can give you some general information. Polycarbonates have lower melting points than glass. The stagnation temperatures in a solar heating panel (when no air is circulating) can easily get high enough to at least soften, if not melt, most plastics. That said, my recommendation is to go with what’s cheapest. A little less efficiency or durability can be overcome with bigger panels and a little more maintenance. Recycled materials are good for this kind of thing. You can sometimes get glass cheap (or free) from outfits that remodel homes or repair glass. Some folks have even used those fiberglass translucent panels you see in the roofing dept of home improvement stores. Since it looks like you’re going the do-it-yourself route, if the thing doesn’t work well enough the first time around then you can always rebuild it with something better and you will have learned by experience. A Cheap and simple check valve for an air heater is a flap of thin plastic over a wire mesh grill. Attach it with tape or the like at the top and air pressure will blow it open. Suitable plastic would be, say, dry cleaner garment bag, grocery store bag or even (at worst) garbage bags. You might even try some food storage plastic wrap. If you want a maximum insulating check valve you can make them using foam insulation panels balanced on pin pivots. If you counterbalance them right they won’t require much air pressure to open. They often use something very similar for whole house fans that are mounted in attics. If you use a check flap then you don’t have to worry too much about heat loss at night through the panels because there won’t be any reverse flow at night. If you use a fan and simply turn it off at night then you likewise won’t have air flow or heat loss. Small DC (and even AC) fans can be found fairly inexpensively. You’ll see a lot of them designed for computers and most of these operate on 12V DC. If you build the panel right and make the most of thermosiphoning then you won’t need a lot of fan power (or any at all) to make the things work. Anthony
JameCo Electronics has a good variety of DC fans under 100CFM, at fairly decent prices. They have their catalog online at http://www.jameco.com regards, Joe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. >I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered >fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably >doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle >some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the >collector media. >Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw >guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector >as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? >TIA, >D
Hi Dan, Depending on your needs. You could try one or two 12 volt computer fans costs about 10 to 15 dollars each. Just make sure that the total voltage does not burn out your fans. I use a 5 watt solar panel to power 2 fans and seems to work pretty well. When only using one it burned out in about 3 months. It gives about 1 litre of air per second. mk
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. > I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered > fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably > doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle > some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the > collector media. > Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw > guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector > as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? > TIA, > D
solar panel (24W 24 VDC). Even though the fans were only rated at 12 V the total load on the panel was high enough to prevent the fans from burning out. I didn’t need any additional circuitry because this small panel never gets close to a voltage sufficient to hurt the fans because of the amperage the fans draw. I use the fans to cool my 4 2500 W inverters in my solar system. They just rest on top of the inverter cooling heat sink, but they drop the heat sinks from 180 deg. to 145 deg. on a 105 degree day. This is more than enough to keep the 4 inverters from reducing their output to prevent overtemp. I like this approach since I didn’t need thermal switches, or wallworts to run the fans. Another plus is, no sun no fans, which is the same for your application. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi Dan, > Depending on your needs. You could try one or two 12 volt computer fans > costs about 10 to 15 dollars each. Just make sure that the total voltage > does not burn out your fans. I use a 5 watt solar panel to power 2 fans and > seems to work pretty well. When only using one it burned out in about 3 > months. > It gives about 1 litre of air per second. > mk >one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. >I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered >fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably >doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle >some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the >collector media. >Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw >guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector >as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? >TIA, >D
– Jim Baber (see my 10kW grid tied solar system at "www.baber.org") 1350 W Mesa Ave. Fresno CA, 93711 (559) 435-9068 (559) 905-2204 cell
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > one more thing…. geez, I feel like Columbo. > I’ve been wondering about sources for reasonably priced solar powered > fans I could use to pump air thru a solar powered collector. Probably > doesn’t have to be too big, but probably needs to be able to handle > some backpressure to open check vents and push the air thru the > collector media. > Is there a good source for small DC fans like this? I’m taking a raw > guess at what it might take to move the air through a 4′x8′ collector > as maybe 30cfm. Is that anywhere near close? > TIA, > D
Here are some DC centrifugal fans with more pressure drop capability: http://www.orientalmotor.co.jp/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UPOMFan.woa/wa/f2?c… Would probably work with direct PV connection? Gary
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Close enough on the spelling, I could read it. martial arts takes a > lot of stamina. That speaks volumes about his health. > Mike >Yes, it is, thanks. He also loves Tai-kwan-do (forgive the spelling). >:) mgbio >>That is fantastic. >>Mike >>>He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >>>:) mgbio >>>>I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? >>>>Mike >>>>>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>>>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>>>>>INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>>>>>INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>>>>>THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>>>>>INDUSTRY ALLEGATION:
… read more »
Close enough on the spelling, I could read it. martial arts takes a lot of stamina. That speaks volumes about his health. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Yes, it is, thanks. He also loves Tai-kwan-do (forgive the spelling). >:) mgbio > That is fantastic. > Mike >>He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >>:) mgbio >>>I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? >>>Mike >>>>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>>>:) mgbio >>>>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from
… read more »
Yes, it is, thanks. He also loves Tai-kwan-do (forgive the spelling). mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That is fantastic. > Mike >He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >:) mgbio >>I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? >>Mike >>>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>>:) mgbio >>>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>>Mike >>>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>>>>scientific
… read more »
That is fantastic. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >:) mgbio > I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? > Mike >>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>:) mgbio >>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>Mike >>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>:) mgbio >>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field
… read more »
He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? > Mike >It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >:) mgbio >>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>Mike >>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>:) mgbio >>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>are few and far between. >>>>Mike >>>>>Mike, >>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>mgbio >>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>>>>> However,
… read more »
It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right > support your neighborhood pharmacy. > Mike >I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >:) mgbio >>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>are few and far between. >>Mike >>>Mike, >>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>mgbio >>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>Mike >>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>mgbio >>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did
… read more »
I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >:) mgbio > How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right > support your neighborhood pharmacy. > Mike >>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>:) mgbio >>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>are few and far between. >>>Mike >>>>Mike, >>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>mgbio >>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>>>>Medicaid drug rebate,
… read more »
How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right support your neighborhood pharmacy. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >:) mgbio > Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They > are few and far between. > Mike >>Mike, >>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>mgbio >>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>Mike >>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>mgbio >>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>Debs >>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>>>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>>>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>>>>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>>>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>>>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>>>>of America, competition within
… read more »
I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They > are few and far between. > Mike >Mike, >Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >mgbio >>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>Mike >>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>mgbio >>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>Mike >>>>>Debs >>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>these same low prices. >>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>last 30 years. >>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>>>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>>>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>>>>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>>>>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>>>>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>>>>still going up." >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION:
… read more »
Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They are few and far between. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Mike, >Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >mgbio > The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in > our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at > wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or > medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for > the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to > work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy > you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to > see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the > facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look > for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on > transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick > up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday > and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money > for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing > else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted > other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. > Mike >>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>mgbio >>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>Mike >>>>Debs >>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>September 1, 1999 >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>these same low prices. >>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>last 30 years. >>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>>>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>>>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>>>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>>>still going up." >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >>>>simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >>>>development. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >>>>could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >>>>were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >>>>billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >>>>annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2
… read more »
Debs, Very interesting! Thank-you for finding that. Be healthy…. NinaW
Mike, Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in > our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at > wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or > medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for > the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to > work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy > you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to > see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the > facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look > for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on > transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick > up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday > and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money > for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing > else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted > other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. > Mike >But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >mgbio >>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>Mike >>>Debs >>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>Minority Staff Report >>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>September 1, 1999 >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>pharmaceutical industry. >>> THE FACTS: >>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>these same low prices. >>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>> THE FACTS: >>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>> THE FACTS: >>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>last 30 years. >>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>>still going up." >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >>>simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >>>development. >>> THE FACTS: >>> There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >>>could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >>>were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >>>billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >>>annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >>>profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >>>times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >>>consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >>>industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >>>increase its spending on research and development.
… read more »
The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >mgbio > Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the > wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. > Mike >>Debs >>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>Minority Staff Report >>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>U.S. House of Representatives >>September 1, 1999 >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> The legislation extends price controls to the >>pharmaceutical industry. >> THE FACTS: >> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>these same low prices. >> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >> THE FACTS: >> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>companies charge their most favored customers." >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>reduce research and development expenditures. >> THE FACTS: >> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>country, including serious implications for the future of >>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>last 30 years. >> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>still going up." >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >>simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >>development. >> THE FACTS: >> There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >>could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >>were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >>billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >>annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >>profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >>times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >>consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >>industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >>increase its spending on research and development. >> While the industry’s research and development expenditures >>are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >>percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >>example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >>equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >>and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. >> This industry assertion of reductions in research also >>assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >>shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >>prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of
… read more »
But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the > wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. > Mike >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems:
… read more »
i was thinking the same thing when i read that. after all, how could you ever miss THAT price tag? jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the > wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. > Mike >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: > Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the >patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed >on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, >of the prescription because of
… read more »
BTW there is another layer of people we are not talking about, the wholeseller. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: > Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the >patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed >on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, >of the prescription because of the competitive retail environment." > The analyses by the minority staff of the Committee on >Government Reform demonstrate that the legislation will be effective: >lowering prices that pharmacies pay for prescription drugs will lower >retail prices for seniors. The study compared the retail markup due to >pharmacies with the total markup paid by retail customers. It found that >drug companies, not retail pharmacies, were responsible for the >significant price differential between the prices paid by retail >customers and
… read more »
Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: > Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the >patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed >on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, >of the prescription because of the competitive retail environment." > The analyses by the minority staff of the Committee on >Government Reform demonstrate that the legislation will be effective: >lowering prices that pharmacies pay for prescription drugs will lower >retail prices for seniors. The study compared the retail markup due to >pharmacies with the total markup paid by retail customers. It found that >drug companies, not retail pharmacies, were responsible for the >significant price differential between the
… read more »
Debs The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: Industry Myths Vs. Reality Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders Minority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform and Oversight U.S. House of Representatives September 1, 1999 INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The legislation extends price controls to the pharmaceutical industry. THE FACTS: The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at these same low prices. Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s "best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to the drug companies’ lowest prices. INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. THE FACTS: The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this "best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to the most favored private-sector purchasers. It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge their most favored customers." INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to reduce research and development expenditures. THE FACTS: Historically, there is no evidence to support the industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, "the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this country, including serious implications for the future of university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the last 30 years. However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and still going up." INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and development. THE FACTS: There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even increase its spending on research and development. While the industry’s research and development expenditures are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. This industry assertion of reductions in research also assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill Lynch analysis: Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no drug coverage). INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail markups paid by senior citizens. THE FACTS: At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, of the prescription because of the competitive retail environment." The analyses by the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform demonstrate that the legislation will be effective: lowering prices that pharmacies pay for prescription drugs will lower retail prices for seniors. The study compared the retail markup due to pharmacies with the total markup paid by retail customers. It found that drug companies, not retail pharmacies, were responsible for the significant price differential between the prices paid by retail customers and the prices paid by the drug companies’ most favored customers. The analysis found that while the average retail price differential is approximately 100%, pharmacy markups only account for 22% of the price paid by retail cutsomers. This indicates that it is drug company pricing policies, not pharmacies, that are responsible for the high prescription drug prices paid by seniors.
… read more »
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Close enough on the spelling, I could read it. martial arts takes a > lot of stamina. That speaks volumes about his health. > Mike >Yes, it is, thanks. He also loves Tai-kwan-do (forgive the spelling). >:) mgbio >>That is fantastic. >>Mike >>>He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >>>:) mgbio >>>>I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? >>>>Mike >>>>>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>>>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>>>>>INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>>>>>INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>>>>>THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>>>>>INDUSTRY ALLEGATION:
… read more »
Close enough on the spelling, I could read it. martial arts takes a lot of stamina. That speaks volumes about his health. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Yes, it is, thanks. He also loves Tai-kwan-do (forgive the spelling). >:) mgbio > That is fantastic. > Mike >>He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >>:) mgbio >>>I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? >>>Mike >>>>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>>>:) mgbio >>>>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from
… read more »
Yes, it is, thanks. He also loves Tai-kwan-do (forgive the spelling). mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That is fantastic. > Mike >He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >:) mgbio >>I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? >>Mike >>>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>>:) mgbio >>>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>>Mike >>>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>>:) mgbio >>>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>>>>scientific
… read more »
That is fantastic. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. >:) mgbio > I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? > Mike >>It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >>:) mgbio >>>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>>Mike >>>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>>:) mgbio >>>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>>are few and far between. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>Mike, >>>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field
… read more »
He is now 10 years old and the only child we know with his disease who needs to watch his weight, thank G-d! Thanks for asking. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? > Mike >It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >:) mgbio >>How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right >>support your neighborhood pharmacy. >>Mike >>>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>>:) mgbio >>>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>>are few and far between. >>>>Mike >>>>>Mike, >>>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>>mgbio >>>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>>>>> However,
… read more »
It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right > support your neighborhood pharmacy. > Mike >I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >:) mgbio >>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>are few and far between. >>Mike >>>Mike, >>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>mgbio >>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>Mike >>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>mgbio >>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did
… read more »
I know, I was playing… How is the little one doing now? Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >It is a specially made formula for those who can’t properly absorb regular formula. It is the only thing that kept this particular child alive and even w/ this formula he was malnourished despite a healthy appetite. You also need a physicians prescription I believe. >:) mgbio > How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right > support your neighborhood pharmacy. > Mike >>I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >>:) mgbio >>>Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They >>>are few and far between. >>>Mike >>>>Mike, >>>>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>>>mgbio >>>>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>>>mgbio >>>>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>Debs >>>>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>>>>Medicaid drug rebate,
… read more »
How do you get pre-digested formula?? sounds yucky. You are right support your neighborhood pharmacy. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. >:) mgbio > Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They > are few and far between. > Mike >>Mike, >>Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >>mgbio >>>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>>Mike >>>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>>mgbio >>>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>>Mike >>>>>>Debs >>>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>>these same low prices. >>>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>>last 30 years. >>>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>>>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>>>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>>>>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>>>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>>>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>>>>of America, competition within
… read more »
I know. My best friend had to find one for an Rx for one of her young children. Of course, none of the chains compounded, only an independent. She has stuck with that pharmacist. Interestingly enough, he was also able to get her a special pre-digested formula for her son at a cheaper price than anyone else. It does pay to be loyal to the little guy. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They > are few and far between. > Mike >Mike, >Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >mgbio >>The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in >>our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at >>wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or >>medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for >>the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to >>work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy >>you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to >>see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the >>facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look >>for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on >>transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick >>up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday >>and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money >>for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing >>else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted >>other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. >>Mike >>>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>>mgbio >>>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>>Mike >>>>>Debs >>>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>>September 1, 1999 >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>>these same low prices. >>>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>>> THE FACTS: >>>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>>last 30 years. >>>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>>>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>>>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>>>>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>>>>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>>>>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>>>>still going up." >>>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION:
… read more »
Very true. Heck try to find a pharmicist that compound anymore. They are few and far between. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Mike, >Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. >mgbio > The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in > our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at > wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or > medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for > the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to > work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy > you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to > see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the > facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look > for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on > transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick > up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday > and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money > for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing > else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted > other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. > Mike >>But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >>mgbio >>>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>>Mike >>>>Debs >>>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>>Minority Staff Report >>>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>>September 1, 1999 >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>>pharmaceutical industry. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>>these same low prices. >>>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>>last 30 years. >>>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>>>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>>>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>>>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>>>still going up." >>>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>>> If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >>>>simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >>>>development. >>>> THE FACTS: >>>> There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >>>>could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >>>>were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >>>>billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >>>>annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2
… read more »
Debs, Very interesting! Thank-you for finding that. Be healthy…. NinaW
Mike, Pharmacists, who used to make money compounding prescriptions or dispensing them, today have to sell a host of other "stuff" in order to make a living since there is no longer enough of a profit margin to earn a living dispensing the life saving medicines the drug companies produce. Ask any independent pharmacist. Not being able to go to your local pharmacist who has known you for years and years is yet another casualty of managed medicine and this time we can’t blame the drug companies. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in > our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at > wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or > medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for > the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to > work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy > you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to > see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the > facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look > for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on > transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick > up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday > and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money > for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing > else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted > other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. > Mike >But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >mgbio >>Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the >>wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. >>Mike >>>Debs >>>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>>Minority Staff Report >>>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>>U.S. House of Representatives >>>September 1, 1999 >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> The legislation extends price controls to the >>>pharmaceutical industry. >>> THE FACTS: >>> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>>these same low prices. >>> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >>> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >>> THE FACTS: >>> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >>> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>>companies charge their most favored customers." >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>>reduce research and development expenditures. >>> THE FACTS: >>> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >>> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>>country, including serious implications for the future of >>>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>>last 30 years. >>> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >>> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >>> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>>still going up." >>> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >>> If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >>>simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >>>development. >>> THE FACTS: >>> There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >>>could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >>>were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >>>billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >>>annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >>>profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >>>times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >>>consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >>>industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >>>increase its spending on research and development.
… read more »
The wholesale cost is the same. Drugs are bought by wholesellers, in our case Cardnial supplies most of them. The pharmacy buys them at wholesale and marks them up. The insurance companies or medicare/medicade tells the pharmacy what they are willing to pay for the drug. The pharmacy has the choice to take that rate or refuse to work with that insurance company. Now in the long term care pharmacy you have another layer added and that is the facility. I will have to see exactly how it works but I believe the insurance company pays the facility, they in turn pay the pharmacy. I know the facilities look for the best price and service. That price can not be based only on transportation costs or the homes would send their own people to pick up at the pharmacy. Let me look into it. I will try to find out Monday and post it on Tuesday. What ever it is based on there is enough money for me to drive an extra 60 miles to deliver a Fleet enema and nothing else. The transport cost for that would be around $28.56. Now granted other times I take $3000+ worth of meds for that same $28.56. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. >mgbio > Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the > wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. > Mike >>Debs >>The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >>Industry Myths Vs. Reality >>Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >>Minority Staff Report >>Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >>U.S. House of Representatives >>September 1, 1999 >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> The legislation extends price controls to the >>pharmaceutical industry. >> THE FACTS: >> The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >>does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >>the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >>companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >>of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >>these same low prices. >> Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >>trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >>"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >>government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >>make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >>at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. >> If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >>prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >>company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >>company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >>government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >>the drug companies’ lowest prices. >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >>effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >>lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. >> THE FACTS: >> The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >>programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >>(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >>prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >>each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >>the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >>program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >>discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >>private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >>"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >>different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >>prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >>the most favored private-sector purchasers. >> It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >>private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >>government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >>the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >>pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >>customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >>has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >>publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >>companies charge their most favored customers." >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >>reduce research and development expenditures. >> THE FACTS: >> Historically, there is no evidence to support the >>industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >>overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >>passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >>drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >>legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >>"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >>scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, >> The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >>ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >>country, including serious implications for the future of >>university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >>of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >>research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >>products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >>last 30 years. >> However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >>pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >>next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >>investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. >> In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >>Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >>for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >>Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >>prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >>reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >>pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >>than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >>billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. >> Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >>research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >>Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >>of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >>from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >>to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >>spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >>still going up." >> INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: >> If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >>simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >>development. >> THE FACTS: >> There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >>could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >>were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >>billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >>annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >>profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >>times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >>consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >>industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >>increase its spending on research and development. >> While the industry’s research and development expenditures >>are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >>percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >>example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >>equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >>and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. >> This industry assertion of reductions in research also >>assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >>shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >>prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of
… read more »
But that is not the price everyone pays for the same drug. The price will vary depending on your insurance plan and what that particular plan negotiated with that particular drug company. Then again, you may only pay a co-pay of $5, $10, $20,$30, etc. while someone else without insurance could be paying the full cost. None of these prices will reflect what the drug company has charged that particular pharmacy chain or independent pharmacist based on how well they can negotiate based on their customer base. It just isn’t that simple. mgbio – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the > wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. > Mike >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems:
… read more »
i was thinking the same thing when i read that. after all, how could you ever miss THAT price tag? jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the > wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. > Mike >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: > Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the >patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed >on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, >of the prescription because of
… read more »
BTW there is another layer of people we are not talking about, the wholeseller. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: > Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the >patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed >on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, >of the prescription because of the competitive retail environment." > The analyses by the minority staff of the Committee on >Government Reform demonstrate that the legislation will be effective: >lowering prices that pharmacies pay for prescription drugs will lower >retail prices for seniors. The study compared the retail markup due to >pharmacies with the total markup paid by retail customers. It found that >drug companies, not retail pharmacies, were responsible for the >significant price differential between the prices paid by retail >customers and
… read more »
Drug prices are not a trade secret. Every bottle at work has the wholesale price stuck on it. Maybe they mean cost. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Debs >The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: >Industry Myths Vs. Reality >Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders >Minority Staff Report >Committee on Government Reform and Oversight >U.S. House of Representatives >September 1, 1999 > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation extends price controls to the >pharmaceutical industry. > THE FACTS: > The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) >does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, >the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, >companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal >of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at >these same low prices. > Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as >trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s >"best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal >government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to >make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens >at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. > If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal >prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug >company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the >company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal >government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to >the drug companies’ lowest prices. > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in >effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are >lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. > THE FACTS: > The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of >programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule >(FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine >prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and >each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of >the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government >program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory >discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best >private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this >"best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use >different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain >prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to >the most favored private-sector purchasers. > It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some >private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal >government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that >the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The >pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored >customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO >has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best >publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical >companies charge their most favored customers." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to >reduce research and development expenditures. > THE FACTS: > Historically, there is no evidence to support the >industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from >overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress >passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic >drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the >legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, >"the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in >scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, > The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far >ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this >country, including serious implications for the future of >university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field >of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical >research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of >products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the >last 30 years. > However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the >next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their >investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. > In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the >Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices >for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical >Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug >prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be >reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the >pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more >than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 >billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. > Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the >research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey >Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers >of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry >from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going >to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to >spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and >still going up." > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry >simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and >development. > THE FACTS: > There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it >could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation >were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 >billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion >annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in >profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three >times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded >consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing >industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even >increase its spending on research and development. > While the industry’s research and development expenditures >are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a >percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For >example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were >equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research >and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. > This industry assertion of reductions in research also >assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not >shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing >prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of >sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription >drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill >Lynch analysis: > Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. >It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug >prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, >is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased >utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no >drug coverage). > INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: > The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because >pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail >markups paid by senior citizens. > THE FACTS: > At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly >competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one >retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different >outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to >senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. > According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen >W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department >of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: > Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the >patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed >on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, >of the prescription because of the competitive retail environment." > The analyses by the minority staff of the Committee on >Government Reform demonstrate that the legislation will be effective: >lowering prices that pharmacies pay for prescription drugs will lower >retail prices for seniors. The study compared the retail markup due to >pharmacies with the total markup paid by retail customers. It found that >drug companies, not retail pharmacies, were responsible for the >significant price differential between the
… read more »
Debs The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act: Industry Myths Vs. Reality Prepared for Rep. Bernard Sanders Minority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform and Oversight U.S. House of Representatives September 1, 1999 INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The legislation extends price controls to the pharmaceutical industry. THE FACTS: The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act (H.R. 664) does not impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, the legislation ends price discrimination. Under the legislation, companies can set their best price at whatever level they want. The goal of the bill is to allow senior citizens access to prescription drugs at these same low prices. Since drug companies closely guard their drug prices as trade secrets, the best publicly available indicator of the industry’s "best prices" are the prices that the industry charges the federal government. For this reason, the bill requires the drug companies to make their drugs available to pharmacies for resale to senior citizens at the lowest prices the drug companies charge the federal government. If a drug company refuses to extend its lowest federal prices to the senior citizen market, the only consequence to the drug company is that the federal government will no longer buy drugs from the company. In this way, the bill uses the buying power of the federal government to end price discrimination and help seniors gain access to the drug companies’ lowest prices. INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The lowest federal prices mandated by the bill are in effect price controls because the prices are set by statute and are lower than the prices that many private-sector buyers must pay. THE FACTS: The federal government buys its drugs under a multitude of programs. Some of these programs (such as the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), the VA Formulary, and the VA "Blanket Price" Program) determine prices through voluntary negotiations between the federal government and each participating manufacturer. Other programs (such as section 340B of the Public Health Services Act) use statutory discounts. One government program (the Medicaid drug rebate program) explicitly ties the statutory discounts for drugs participating in the Medicaid program to the best private-sector prices, but is prohibited by statute from making this "best price" information publicly available. Although these programs use different mechanisms for acquiring drugs, their common goal is to obtain prices for the federal government that are as low as those offered to the most favored private-sector purchasers. It may be true, as the drug companies assert, that some private-sector buyers pay more for their drugs than the federal government. The crucial question, however, is what are the prices that the industry charges its most favored private-sector customers. The pharmaceutical industry has never asserted that these most favored customers must pay more than the federal government. Furthermore, GAO has confirmed that "federal supply schedule prices represent the best publicly available information on the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge their most favored customers." INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The legislation will force the pharmaceutical industry to reduce research and development expenditures. THE FACTS: Historically, there is no evidence to support the industry’s claim that preventing pharmaceutical companies from overcharging for their products reduces research. In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which increased the availability of generic drugs and provided more competition for brand name drugs. Before the legislation was enacted, the pharmaceutical industry testified that, "the bill under consideration today could result in a decline in scientific research and innovation." According to the industry, The bill’s proposed restrictions . . . could have far ranging adverse effects on the development of new technology in this country, including serious implications for the future of university-based research and the emerging and vitally important field of biotechnology research . . . Investment in private pharmaceutical research is likely to decline and will no longer provide the kind of products that have brought such an improvement in public health over the last 30 years. However, this legislation did not reduce innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, according to industry data, over the next five years pharmaceutical companies more than doubled their investment in research and development, from $4.1- billion to $8.4 billion. In 1990, Congress passed legislation that created the Medicaid drug rebate, requiring drug companies to reduce their prices for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. At the time, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association opposed legislation to reduce Medicaid drug prices because "[i]ncentives for pharmaceutical research will be reduced." This legislation, however, did not reduce innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Since 1990, pharmaceutical companies again more than doubled their spending on research and development, from $8.4 billion in 1990 to $18.9 billion in 1997. Industry spokesmen have themselves conceded that the research and development argument is a red herring. According to Jeffrey Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, competition within the drug industry will keep the industry from reducing research and development: "Basically, companies are going to do whatever they need to do to be able to have the money necessary to spend on research and development, even if its $24 billion a year and still going up." INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: If the legislation is enacted, the pharmaceutical industry simply will not be able to afford to pay for high levels of research and development. THE FACTS: There is no support for the industry’s assertion that it could not afford its research and development budget if the legislation were enacted. While the pharmaceutical industry current spends $17 billion annually on research and development, it spends $11 billion annually on advertising and marketing and reported $26.2 billion in profits in 1998. Its operating profit margin is 28.7% — nearly three times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded consumer goods. Even if the legislation had the effect of reducing industry revenues, the industry could afford to maintain or even increase its spending on research and development. While the industry’s research and development expenditures are relatively large as a percentage of revenue, they are not high as a percentage of profit when compared to other large U.S. companies. For example, Ford’s expenditures on research and development in 1997 were equal to 90% of its profits, whereas Merck’s expenditures on research and development were equal to only 37% of its profits. This industry assertion of reductions in research also assume a decrease in drug industry revenues – an assumption that is not shared by independent analysts in the securities industry. Reducing prescription drug prices will lead to an increase in the volume of sales, as seniors that were previously unable to afford prescription drugs can now afford their medications. According to a recent Merrill Lynch analysis: Volume increases could overwhelm negative pricing impact. It is important to remember that a reduction in prescription drug prices, both with or without associated prescription benefit coverage, is likely to be associated with price elasticity and increased utilization (especially for Medicare recipients that currently have no drug coverage). INDUSTRY ALLEGATION: The legislation does not guarantee lower prices because pharmacies, not drug companies, are responsible for the high retail markups paid by senior citizens. THE FACTS: At the retail level, the pharmacy market is highly competitive: if consumers are unhappy with the prices charged at one retail outlet, they can buy their prescription drugs at a different outlet. This competitiveness guarantees that pharmacies will pass on to senior citizens the benefits of any lower prices for prescription drugs. According to a leading academic expert, Professor Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems: Once a patient is on a given prescription medication, the patient becomes a price competitive consumer. . . . Any discounts passed on to community pharmacies will be passed on to the consumer, or payor, of the prescription because of the competitive retail environment." The analyses by the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform demonstrate that the legislation will be effective: lowering prices that pharmacies pay for prescription drugs will lower retail prices for seniors. The study compared the retail markup due to pharmacies with the total markup paid by retail customers. It found that drug companies, not retail pharmacies, were responsible for the significant price differential between the prices paid by retail customers and the prices paid by the drug companies’ most favored customers. The analysis found that while the average retail price differential is approximately 100%, pharmacy markups only account for 22% of the price paid by retail cutsomers. This indicates that it is drug company pricing policies, not pharmacies, that are responsible for the high prescription drug prices paid by seniors.
… read more »
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only have 2-prong and no grounding. My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a baseboard heater? Any other option? Thanks in advance. Jay Chan
> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option?
You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction or home improvement to get a reasonable answer. It might also help to name the city/county you are dealing with. The specific solution allowed will depend on the agency involved, but first I would question the requirement that 3-prong outlets be installed. Is that inspector going to show up again in two or three years? I doubt it. On the other hand, things like this can turn into a real headache when you are trying to sell a property and it won’t pass inspection. Or worse, the new buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring and therefore can’t get a mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal. From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater will fly for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe. Vaughn
In Oregon it is permitted to connect the ground to the neutral. If you look in the panel, they both go to the same block.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction or > home improvement to get a reasonable answer. It might also help to name the > city/county you are dealing with. The specific solution allowed will depend on > the agency involved, but first I would question the requirement that 3-prong > outlets be installed. Is that inspector going to show up again in two or three > years? I doubt it. > On the other hand, things like this can turn into a real headache when you > are trying to sell a property and it won’t pass inspection. Or worse, the new > buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring and therefore can’t get a > mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal. > From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater will fly > for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe. > Vaughn
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
Three prong adaptor should work. There is no need for the ground wire to be connected for proper opperation of the equiptment. Possible exceptions are surge protectors, Florescent lamps. Contray to popular belief, a GFI doesn’t need the ground to work correctly. Now the warning. The 3rd (ground) wire is there to protect you incase the case of the equiptment should become electricly live. It also prtects the equiptment from ESD (Static discharge) by providing a path the ground around the sensitive electronics. — Just my $0.02 worth. Hope it helps Gordon Reeder greeder at: myself.com Where is George Bush leading this country and what are we doing in this hand basket??
The fact that the power (supply?) cable is cloth covered is no reason to tell a person that the cable needs to have a metal jacket (BX?) unless that is a local or city requirement (Chicago?). Often home inspectors know little more than they were taught in school and make many bad judgements, often condemning something. If they don’t know about it, or it is not used today — "it must be bad, lets warn the client".
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
> You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction or > home improvement to get a reasonable answer.
Sorry. I posted this to the wrong newsgroup. I meant to post it to alt.homerepair. This is good that I still get good responses here. > It might also help to name the city/county you are dealing with.
In Sanford, CT. > but first I would question the requirement that 3-prong outlets be installed.
No, the inspector was referring to the old power cables that are fabric coated. He still passed the inspection; but he warmed my brother-in-law that the co-op may need to replace all the power cables in the entire co-op in 2 to 3 years time frame. I don’t know what he based this on; I still have some old fabric coated power cables in the basement of my house. I guess he meant the fabric coating may crack and short or something like that. > Or worse, the new buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring > and therefore can’t get a mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal.
In that case, I have a feeling that the co-op would be forced into action; otherwise, the unit-owners would have a hard time selling their units, and the market value would drop. I doubt the co-op will allow this to happen. > From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater will > fly for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe.
I see. That will be hard to locate a cold water pipe in a living room. Can we change the outlet into a GFCI outlet? Thanks. Jay Chan
> Three prong adaptor should work. There is no need for the ground > wire to be connected for proper opperation of the equiptment. > Possible exceptions are surge protectors, Florescent lamps. > Contray to popular belief, a GFI doesn’t need the ground to > work correctly. > Now the warning. The 3rd (ground) wire is there to protect you > incase the case of the equiptment should become electricly > live. It also prtects the equiptment from ESD (Static > discharge) by providing a path the ground around the sensitive > electronics.
Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the GFCI outlets to protect us from shock? Thanks. Jay Chan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
First off there are millions of buildings with no grounds. They were not even introduced until the mid 50’s (guess). Replacing wiring is a pain and can be expensive. If someone told me that the wiring in my new home needed to be replaced in the next few years I would ask if that was an opinion or part of the building code. If part of the building code I would be looking at a different place to buy. Most places where I have worked try for volunteer compliance by suggesting the replacement of what ever. I have never seen a building code that could enforce say the 2000 code on an 1950’s building. Unless there is a major remodel in progress. Work around, that is not always a good idea. Ground paths should be short and properly made. Yes I know of people that have used a water pipe. That is not to code any more. 2 pronged to 3 pronged is still not grounded properly. There are electronics that do not like being not grounded properly. Baseboard heater, also not a good idea. Bottom line your dealing with ancient technology. Either deal with it or fix it right.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > In Oregon it is permitted to connect the ground to the neutral. If you look > in the panel, they both go to the same block. > > I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > > have 2-prong and no grounding. > > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > > baseboard heater? Any other option? > You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction > or > home improvement to get a reasonable answer. It might also help to name > the > city/county you are dealing with. The specific solution allowed will > depend on > the agency involved, but first I would question the requirement that > 3-prong > outlets be installed. Is that inspector going to show up again in two or > three > years? I doubt it. > On the other hand, things like this can turn into a real headache > when you > are trying to sell a property and it won’t pass inspection. Or worse, > the new > buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring and therefore can’t get a > mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal. > From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater > will fly > for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe. > Vaughn
Cold water pipe is no longer considered a "good" ground….do to the danger of it changing from metal to plastic….you no longer know how much of the metal pipe is buried under the earth….. have fun…..sno
> Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: > Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the > GFCI outlets to protect us from shock?
Yes. However, without a proper ground, the "test" button on the GFCI might not work, leading you to think it’s defective when it really isn’t. CM
> > Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: > Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the > GFCI outlets to protect us from shock? > Yes. However, without a proper ground, the "test" button on the GFCI > might not work, leading you to think it’s defective when it really > isn’t.
I see. This seems to lead to trouble down the road. How’s about replacing the power break with something that can detect power short and automatically shut itself down. I don’t know how it is called. But I saw it being mentioned in one of the recent home improvement show. Here, I assume that the apartment has dedicated power breaks, and are not shared with other apartments (I believe this is the case because each apartment owner pay their electric bill). Jay Chan
> The fact that the power (supply?) cable is cloth covered is no reason to > tell a person that the cable needs to have a metal jacket (BX?) unless that > is a local or city requirement (Chicago?). Often home inspectors know little > more than they were taught in school and make many bad judgements, often > condemning something. If they don’t know about it, or it is not used > today — "it must be bad, lets warn the client".
You are probably right. In that case, my brother-in-law probably doesn’t need to worry about too much. Thanks. Still, the question is how we can work around the 2-prong outlets. The 3-to-2-prong adapter probably is not good enough as mentioned by other posters. I am wondering if we can replace the 2-prong outlets with GFCI outlets or replace the power breaks with something that can detect short. Jay Chan
> First off there are millions of buildings with no grounds. They were not > even introduced until the mid 50’s (guess). Replacing wiring is a pain and > can be expensive. If someone told me that the wiring in my new home needed > to be replaced in the next few years I would ask if that was an opinion or > part of the building code. If part of the building code I would be looking > at a different place to buy. Most places where I have worked try for > volunteer compliance by suggesting the replacement of what ever. I have > never seen a building code that could enforce say the 2000 code on an 1950’s > building. Unless there is a major remodel in progress.
Good to know this. My brother-in-law will not do any major remodeling in the apartment. I guess his place will be grand-fathered. > Work around, that is not always a good idea. … Bottom line > your dealing with ancient technology. Either deal with it or fix > it right.
I understand the part about "fix it right". But I don’t know what you meant by "deal with it". How do we deal with a power outlet that has no ground? Is a GFCI outlet a way to somewhat minimize the problem associates with no-grounding? Thanks. Jay Chan
> In Oregon it is permitted to connect the ground to the neutral. If you look > in the panel, they both go to the same block.
NOT anywhere except at the service entrance. That is the *only* place that the EGC (equipment grounding conductor) and the ‘neutral’ properly called the ‘grounded conductor) can be tied together by the NEC. Water pipes are no longer considered valid grounds (too much risk of plastic). It *is* permissible to replace a two-prong outlet with a three-prong outlet and leave the ground unconnected *IF* it is protected by a GFCI and is labeled to indicate GFCI protected, no ground. The guys over on alt.engineering.electrical can discuss for hundreds of messages all the ins and outs of the NEC. daestrom
> Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: > Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the > GFCI outlets to protect us from shock? > Yes. However, without a proper ground, the "test" button on the GFCI > might not work, leading you to think it’s defective when it really > isn’t.
Most newer GFCI’s don’t use the ground lead to ‘test’. They have a circuit from line side of one lead to load side of other lead to test the GFCI. If the OP can determine which outlet is the ‘first’ in the string, that is the only one that needs replacing with a GFCI. But *all* outlets are supposed to be labeled ‘GFCI Protected’. That’s why the typical GFCI outlet comes with a sheet full of such labels. daestrom
> The fact that the power (supply?) cable is cloth covered is no reason to > tell a person that the cable needs to have a metal jacket (BX?) unless that > is a local or city requirement (Chicago?). Often home inspectors know little > more than they were taught in school and make many bad judgements, often > condemning something. If they don’t know about it, or it is not used > today — "it must be bad, lets warn the client".
And if it was code compliant when it was installed, it doesn’t need to be replaced just because the code changes (unless re-wiring or new work). There are some homes that still have ‘knob and tube’ wiring, and they still pass inspections because it was done properly the first time. daestrom
> Most newer GFCI’s don’t use the ground lead to ‘test’. They have a circuit > from line side of one lead to load side of other lead to test the GFCI. > If the OP can determine which outlet is the ‘first’ in the string, that is > the only one that needs replacing with a GFCI. But *all* outlets are > supposed to be labeled ‘GFCI Protected’. That’s why the typical GFCI outlet > comes with a sheet full of such labels.
Great to know this!! In this case, my brother-in-law probably can replace _all_ the 2-prong outlets with 3-prong GFCI outlets. Then he doesn’t need to play around with 3-2-prong adapter that seem to come loose too easily. Do we need to mark the GFCI outlets in a special way to indicate that the outlets are not actually grounded? Like a 110-volt outlet looks differently from a 220-volt outlet. By the way, how can we tell if a GFCI outlet in a home improvement store doesn’t need to "use the ground lead to ‘test’"? Does its label come with a special UL rating? Thanks in advance for any info on this question. Jay Chan
>Still, the question is how we can work around the 2-prong outlets. The >3-to-2-prong adapter probably is not good enough as mentioned by other >posters. I am wondering if we can replace the 2-prong outlets with >GFCI outlets or replace the power breaks with something that can >detect short.
[Circuit breakers _are_ something that can detect shorts, that's what they do. Do you really have fabric-covered wire, no grounds, and circuit breakers?] You’ll need to either replace the appropriate breakers with GFCI breakers, or replace the first outlet in each string with a GFCI outlet. Hire an electrician either way. [Also note that disturbing fabric-coated wiring may be detrimental to it...] — William Smith ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
> [Circuit breakers _are_ something that can detect shorts, that's what > they do. Do you really have fabric-covered wire, no grounds, and > circuit breakers?]
Good to know this. But I might have used the term "power break" too loosely. I haven’t seen the service panel; therefore, I have no idea whether the power wires are connected to circuit breakers or some old ancient power-shut-off devices. But one thing is sure is that the power cables are fabric-covered and no ground — that was what the inspector said. > You’ll need to either replace the appropriate breakers with GFCI > breakers, or replace the first outlet in each string with a GFCI > outlet. Hire an electrician either way.
Here, I assume GFCI outlets all have 3-holes. Seem like replacing all the outlets with GFCI outlets will be a better choice. Then, my brother-in-law doesn’t need to use any 3-2-prong adapter that seems to come loose very easily. Of course, this costs more; but this will be a one-time-expense instead of dealing with the problem of having 3-2-prong adapter coming loose. Sound like a plan. Thanks! > [Also note that disturbing fabric-coated wiring may be detrimental to > it...]
I assume this is the reason why you recommend hiring an electrician if my brother-in-law decides to replace the 2-hole-outlets with GFCI outlets. Thanks for the warning. Jay Chan
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
He should get an estimate on the cost of the replacement of the electrical system and deduct that from what he is willing to offer on the place. Since that sort of job requires ripping out walls and replacing all the wire, this will be substantial. I’d stay away anyway, I’ve heard a lot of horror stories coming out of condos and co-ops with out of control neighbors and overzealous condo boards. –Dale
One of the problems with working with wire with older forms of insulation is that pulling on the wire can crack and open up the insulation, allowing it to short out against metal boxes or the armor cladding around the cable. Can start some real nasty fires. Steve
> He should get an estimate on the cost of the replacement of the > electrical system and deduct that from what he is willing to offer on > the place. Since that sort of job requires ripping out walls and > replacing all the wire, this will be substantial. > I’d stay away anyway, I’ve heard a lot of horror stories coming > out of condos and co-ops with out of control neighbors and > overzealous condo boards.
Unfortunately, that co-op apartment is still the best deal around given the not-very-good electrical system, and the apartment-owner knows it. That is unlikely to replace the electrical system in the near future because that will require changing the electrical system of the entire co-op and need everyone in the co-op to agree (that is what the inspector told my brother-in-law). This is the reason why I am asking for a way for him to work around the shortcoming of the ancient electrical system instead of replacing it. Yes, condo and coop have shortcomings (been there done that). This is the reason why I live in a house, not in an apartment. But that is all my brother-in-law can afford at this point in his life. The other alternative is to continue renting in his current apartment; but he will not have anything to show in equity if he continues renting (when we moved out from our old apartment a couple years ago, we found that we got everything back plus some more; we were effectively like living in that place rent-free for many years). The last alternative is for him to move in to live with us :O Jay Chan
> One of the problems with working with wire with older forms of > insulation is that pulling on the wire can crack and open up > the insulation, allowing it to short out against metal boxes > or the armor cladding around the cable. Can start some real > nasty fires.
Thanks for the warning. Will a GFCI breaker or a GFCI outlet prevent this type of problem from happening? I saw a TV show not so long ago; the host said that replacing the circuit breaker with some kind of a special breaker (forgot the name) can automatically shut down the power at the breaker whenever it detects a power-short in the wire. This sounds like this device can fix this particular problem. But that will mean that my brother-in-law needs to replace the ancient 40-amps service panel (with screw-in fuses) with a modern service panel that uses circuit breakers. By the way, is there such a thing called 40-amps service panel? Shouldn’t it be 60-amps? According to a book, it shows old 30-amps and 60-amps service panels, and a modern 100-amps service panel, and it doesn’t show any 40-amps service panel. How can it be 40-amps anyway? Can it be four 10A fuses? I haven’t seen the service panel myself. I am just wondering… Jay Chan
>> One of the problems with working with wire with older forms of > insulation is that pulling on the wire can crack and open up > the insulation, allowing it to short out against metal boxes > or the armor cladding around the cable. Can start some real > nasty fires. >Thanks for the warning. Will a GFCI breaker or a GFCI outlet prevent >this type of problem from happening?
Well, it might trip if you have this problem, but it’s the opening up of the boxes that will cause the insulation to disintegrate. You might use external GFCI breakers to get around this problem, bu it really sounds like a nightmare.
>Unfortunately, that co-op apartment is still the best deal around >given the not-very-good electrical system, and the apartment-owner >knows it.
Well, I guess you get what you pay for, though once the bill comes due for replacing the {electrical system, building}, it’s not going to be such a good deal. >That is unlikely to replace the electrical system in the near future >because that will require changing the electrical system of the entire >co-op and need everyone in the co-op to agree (that is what the >inspector told my brother-in-law). This is the reason why I am asking >for a way for him to work around the shortcoming of the ancient >electrical system instead of replacing it.
Well, he can do various things to patch around his problems, but that’s not going to prevent his neighbor’s electrical system problems from burning the building down. I’d not want to live in such a situation, but if I did I’d make sure my insurance was properly designed and paid up, and that the fire alarms and emergency exits were in good shape…
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only have 2-prong and no grounding. My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a baseboard heater? Any other option? Thanks in advance. Jay Chan
> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option?
You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction or home improvement to get a reasonable answer. It might also help to name the city/county you are dealing with. The specific solution allowed will depend on the agency involved, but first I would question the requirement that 3-prong outlets be installed. Is that inspector going to show up again in two or three years? I doubt it. On the other hand, things like this can turn into a real headache when you are trying to sell a property and it won’t pass inspection. Or worse, the new buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring and therefore can’t get a mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal. From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater will fly for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe. Vaughn
In Oregon it is permitted to connect the ground to the neutral. If you look in the panel, they both go to the same block.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction or > home improvement to get a reasonable answer. It might also help to name the > city/county you are dealing with. The specific solution allowed will depend on > the agency involved, but first I would question the requirement that 3-prong > outlets be installed. Is that inspector going to show up again in two or three > years? I doubt it. > On the other hand, things like this can turn into a real headache when you > are trying to sell a property and it won’t pass inspection. Or worse, the new > buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring and therefore can’t get a > mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal. > From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater will fly > for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe. > Vaughn
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
Three prong adaptor should work. There is no need for the ground wire to be connected for proper opperation of the equiptment. Possible exceptions are surge protectors, Florescent lamps. Contray to popular belief, a GFI doesn’t need the ground to work correctly. Now the warning. The 3rd (ground) wire is there to protect you incase the case of the equiptment should become electricly live. It also prtects the equiptment from ESD (Static discharge) by providing a path the ground around the sensitive electronics. — Just my $0.02 worth. Hope it helps Gordon Reeder greeder at: myself.com Where is George Bush leading this country and what are we doing in this hand basket??
The fact that the power (supply?) cable is cloth covered is no reason to tell a person that the cable needs to have a metal jacket (BX?) unless that is a local or city requirement (Chicago?). Often home inspectors know little more than they were taught in school and make many bad judgements, often condemning something. If they don’t know about it, or it is not used today — "it must be bad, lets warn the client".
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
> You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction or > home improvement to get a reasonable answer.
Sorry. I posted this to the wrong newsgroup. I meant to post it to alt.homerepair. This is good that I still get good responses here. > It might also help to name the city/county you are dealing with.
In Sanford, CT. > but first I would question the requirement that 3-prong outlets be installed.
No, the inspector was referring to the old power cables that are fabric coated. He still passed the inspection; but he warmed my brother-in-law that the co-op may need to replace all the power cables in the entire co-op in 2 to 3 years time frame. I don’t know what he based this on; I still have some old fabric coated power cables in the basement of my house. I guess he meant the fabric coating may crack and short or something like that. > Or worse, the new buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring > and therefore can’t get a mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal.
In that case, I have a feeling that the co-op would be forced into action; otherwise, the unit-owners would have a hard time selling their units, and the market value would drop. I doubt the co-op will allow this to happen. > From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater will > fly for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe.
I see. That will be hard to locate a cold water pipe in a living room. Can we change the outlet into a GFCI outlet? Thanks. Jay Chan
> Three prong adaptor should work. There is no need for the ground > wire to be connected for proper opperation of the equiptment. > Possible exceptions are surge protectors, Florescent lamps. > Contray to popular belief, a GFI doesn’t need the ground to > work correctly. > Now the warning. The 3rd (ground) wire is there to protect you > incase the case of the equiptment should become electricly > live. It also prtects the equiptment from ESD (Static > discharge) by providing a path the ground around the sensitive > electronics.
Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the GFCI outlets to protect us from shock? Thanks. Jay Chan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
First off there are millions of buildings with no grounds. They were not even introduced until the mid 50’s (guess). Replacing wiring is a pain and can be expensive. If someone told me that the wiring in my new home needed to be replaced in the next few years I would ask if that was an opinion or part of the building code. If part of the building code I would be looking at a different place to buy. Most places where I have worked try for volunteer compliance by suggesting the replacement of what ever. I have never seen a building code that could enforce say the 2000 code on an 1950’s building. Unless there is a major remodel in progress. Work around, that is not always a good idea. Ground paths should be short and properly made. Yes I know of people that have used a water pipe. That is not to code any more. 2 pronged to 3 pronged is still not grounded properly. There are electronics that do not like being not grounded properly. Baseboard heater, also not a good idea. Bottom line your dealing with ancient technology. Either deal with it or fix it right.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > In Oregon it is permitted to connect the ground to the neutral. If you look > in the panel, they both go to the same block. > > I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > > have 2-prong and no grounding. > > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > > baseboard heater? Any other option? > You are probably going to find a newsgroup dedicated to construction > or > home improvement to get a reasonable answer. It might also help to name > the > city/county you are dealing with. The specific solution allowed will > depend on > the agency involved, but first I would question the requirement that > 3-prong > outlets be installed. Is that inspector going to show up again in two or > three > years? I doubt it. > On the other hand, things like this can turn into a real headache > when you > are trying to sell a property and it won’t pass inspection. Or worse, > the new > buyer can’t get insurance because of the wiring and therefore can’t get a > mortgage, effectively killing the whole deal. > From my code class 20+ years ago, I don’t think a baseboard heater > will fly > for a ground. They usually want a cold water pipe. > Vaughn
Cold water pipe is no longer considered a "good" ground….do to the danger of it changing from metal to plastic….you no longer know how much of the metal pipe is buried under the earth….. have fun…..sno
> Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: > Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the > GFCI outlets to protect us from shock?
Yes. However, without a proper ground, the "test" button on the GFCI might not work, leading you to think it’s defective when it really isn’t. CM
> > Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: > Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the > GFCI outlets to protect us from shock? > Yes. However, without a proper ground, the "test" button on the GFCI > might not work, leading you to think it’s defective when it really > isn’t.
I see. This seems to lead to trouble down the road. How’s about replacing the power break with something that can detect power short and automatically shut itself down. I don’t know how it is called. But I saw it being mentioned in one of the recent home improvement show. Here, I assume that the apartment has dedicated power breaks, and are not shared with other apartments (I believe this is the case because each apartment owner pay their electric bill). Jay Chan
> The fact that the power (supply?) cable is cloth covered is no reason to > tell a person that the cable needs to have a metal jacket (BX?) unless that > is a local or city requirement (Chicago?). Often home inspectors know little > more than they were taught in school and make many bad judgements, often > condemning something. If they don’t know about it, or it is not used > today — "it must be bad, lets warn the client".
You are probably right. In that case, my brother-in-law probably doesn’t need to worry about too much. Thanks. Still, the question is how we can work around the 2-prong outlets. The 3-to-2-prong adapter probably is not good enough as mentioned by other posters. I am wondering if we can replace the 2-prong outlets with GFCI outlets or replace the power breaks with something that can detect short. Jay Chan
> First off there are millions of buildings with no grounds. They were not > even introduced until the mid 50’s (guess). Replacing wiring is a pain and > can be expensive. If someone told me that the wiring in my new home needed > to be replaced in the next few years I would ask if that was an opinion or > part of the building code. If part of the building code I would be looking > at a different place to buy. Most places where I have worked try for > volunteer compliance by suggesting the replacement of what ever. I have > never seen a building code that could enforce say the 2000 code on an 1950’s > building. Unless there is a major remodel in progress.
Good to know this. My brother-in-law will not do any major remodeling in the apartment. I guess his place will be grand-fathered. > Work around, that is not always a good idea. … Bottom line > your dealing with ancient technology. Either deal with it or fix > it right.
I understand the part about "fix it right". But I don’t know what you meant by "deal with it". How do we deal with a power outlet that has no ground? Is a GFCI outlet a way to somewhat minimize the problem associates with no-grounding? Thanks. Jay Chan
> In Oregon it is permitted to connect the ground to the neutral. If you look > in the panel, they both go to the same block.
NOT anywhere except at the service entrance. That is the *only* place that the EGC (equipment grounding conductor) and the ‘neutral’ properly called the ‘grounded conductor) can be tied together by the NEC. Water pipes are no longer considered valid grounds (too much risk of plastic). It *is* permissible to replace a two-prong outlet with a three-prong outlet and leave the ground unconnected *IF* it is protected by a GFCI and is labeled to indicate GFCI protected, no ground. The guys over on alt.engineering.electrical can discuss for hundreds of messages all the ins and outs of the NEC. daestrom
> Now that you mentioned about GFCI outlets, I have a question: > Can we replace the 2-prong outlet with GFCI outlets and expect the > GFCI outlets to protect us from shock? > Yes. However, without a proper ground, the "test" button on the GFCI > might not work, leading you to think it’s defective when it really > isn’t.
Most newer GFCI’s don’t use the ground lead to ‘test’. They have a circuit from line side of one lead to load side of other lead to test the GFCI. If the OP can determine which outlet is the ‘first’ in the string, that is the only one that needs replacing with a GFCI. But *all* outlets are supposed to be labeled ‘GFCI Protected’. That’s why the typical GFCI outlet comes with a sheet full of such labels. daestrom
> The fact that the power (supply?) cable is cloth covered is no reason to > tell a person that the cable needs to have a metal jacket (BX?) unless that > is a local or city requirement (Chicago?). Often home inspectors know little > more than they were taught in school and make many bad judgements, often > condemning something. If they don’t know about it, or it is not used > today — "it must be bad, lets warn the client".
And if it was code compliant when it was installed, it doesn’t need to be replaced just because the code changes (unless re-wiring or new work). There are some homes that still have ‘knob and tube’ wiring, and they still pass inspections because it was done properly the first time. daestrom
> Most newer GFCI’s don’t use the ground lead to ‘test’. They have a circuit > from line side of one lead to load side of other lead to test the GFCI. > If the OP can determine which outlet is the ‘first’ in the string, that is > the only one that needs replacing with a GFCI. But *all* outlets are > supposed to be labeled ‘GFCI Protected’. That’s why the typical GFCI outlet > comes with a sheet full of such labels.
Great to know this!! In this case, my brother-in-law probably can replace _all_ the 2-prong outlets with 3-prong GFCI outlets. Then he doesn’t need to play around with 3-2-prong adapter that seem to come loose too easily. Do we need to mark the GFCI outlets in a special way to indicate that the outlets are not actually grounded? Like a 110-volt outlet looks differently from a 220-volt outlet. By the way, how can we tell if a GFCI outlet in a home improvement store doesn’t need to "use the ground lead to ‘test’"? Does its label come with a special UL rating? Thanks in advance for any info on this question. Jay Chan
>Still, the question is how we can work around the 2-prong outlets. The >3-to-2-prong adapter probably is not good enough as mentioned by other >posters. I am wondering if we can replace the 2-prong outlets with >GFCI outlets or replace the power breaks with something that can >detect short.
[Circuit breakers _are_ something that can detect shorts, that's what they do. Do you really have fabric-covered wire, no grounds, and circuit breakers?] You’ll need to either replace the appropriate breakers with GFCI breakers, or replace the first outlet in each string with a GFCI outlet. Hire an electrician either way. [Also note that disturbing fabric-coated wiring may be detrimental to it...] — William Smith ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
> [Circuit breakers _are_ something that can detect shorts, that's what > they do. Do you really have fabric-covered wire, no grounds, and > circuit breakers?]
Good to know this. But I might have used the term "power break" too loosely. I haven’t seen the service panel; therefore, I have no idea whether the power wires are connected to circuit breakers or some old ancient power-shut-off devices. But one thing is sure is that the power cables are fabric-covered and no ground — that was what the inspector said. > You’ll need to either replace the appropriate breakers with GFCI > breakers, or replace the first outlet in each string with a GFCI > outlet. Hire an electrician either way.
Here, I assume GFCI outlets all have 3-holes. Seem like replacing all the outlets with GFCI outlets will be a better choice. Then, my brother-in-law doesn’t need to use any 3-2-prong adapter that seems to come loose very easily. Of course, this costs more; but this will be a one-time-expense instead of dealing with the problem of having 3-2-prong adapter coming loose. Sound like a plan. Thanks! > [Also note that disturbing fabric-coated wiring may be detrimental to > it...]
I assume this is the reason why you recommend hiring an electrician if my brother-in-law decides to replace the 2-hole-outlets with GFCI outlets. Thanks for the warning. Jay Chan
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I would like to know how someone can work with power outlets that only > have 2-prong and no grounding. > My brother-in-law is buying an old apartment (a co-op). The apartment > is fine except for the power outlets that only have 2-prong, and the > inspector told him that the power cable is old (the cable is covered > with fabric coating, not metal jacket) and need to be replaced in the > next 2 to 3 years. He cannot replace the power cable because the co-op > manages that area. I am wondering how someone can work around the > limitation of not having grounding in the power outlets. Can we use a > 3-prong to 2-prong adapter and run a wire from the adapter to a > baseboard heater? Any other option? > Thanks in advance. > Jay Chan
He should get an estimate on the cost of the replacement of the electrical system and deduct that from what he is willing to offer on the place. Since that sort of job requires ripping out walls and replacing all the wire, this will be substantial. I’d stay away anyway, I’ve heard a lot of horror stories coming out of condos and co-ops with out of control neighbors and overzealous condo boards. –Dale
One of the problems with working with wire with older forms of insulation is that pulling on the wire can crack and open up the insulation, allowing it to short out against metal boxes or the armor cladding around the cable. Can start some real nasty fires. Steve
> He should get an estimate on the cost of the replacement of the > electrical system and deduct that from what he is willing to offer on > the place. Since that sort of job requires ripping out walls and > replacing all the wire, this will be substantial. > I’d stay away anyway, I’ve heard a lot of horror stories coming > out of condos and co-ops with out of control neighbors and > overzealous condo boards.
Unfortunately, that co-op apartment is still the best deal around given the not-very-good electrical system, and the apartment-owner knows it. That is unlikely to replace the electrical system in the near future because that will require changing the electrical system of the entire co-op and need everyone in the co-op to agree (that is what the inspector told my brother-in-law). This is the reason why I am asking for a way for him to work around the shortcoming of the ancient electrical system instead of replacing it. Yes, condo and coop have shortcomings (been there done that). This is the reason why I live in a house, not in an apartment. But that is all my brother-in-law can afford at this point in his life. The other alternative is to continue renting in his current apartment; but he will not have anything to show in equity if he continues renting (when we moved out from our old apartment a couple years ago, we found that we got everything back plus some more; we were effectively like living in that place rent-free for many years). The last alternative is for him to move in to live with us :O Jay Chan
> One of the problems with working with wire with older forms of > insulation is that pulling on the wire can crack and open up > the insulation, allowing it to short out against metal boxes > or the armor cladding around the cable. Can start some real > nasty fires.
Thanks for the warning. Will a GFCI breaker or a GFCI outlet prevent this type of problem from happening? I saw a TV show not so long ago; the host said that replacing the circuit breaker with some kind of a special breaker (forgot the name) can automatically shut down the power at the breaker whenever it detects a power-short in the wire. This sounds like this device can fix this particular problem. But that will mean that my brother-in-law needs to replace the ancient 40-amps service panel (with screw-in fuses) with a modern service panel that uses circuit breakers. By the way, is there such a thing called 40-amps service panel? Shouldn’t it be 60-amps? According to a book, it shows old 30-amps and 60-amps service panels, and a modern 100-amps service panel, and it doesn’t show any 40-amps service panel. How can it be 40-amps anyway? Can it be four 10A fuses? I haven’t seen the service panel myself. I am just wondering… Jay Chan
>> One of the problems with working with wire with older forms of > insulation is that pulling on the wire can crack and open up > the insulation, allowing it to short out against metal boxes > or the armor cladding around the cable. Can start some real > nasty fires. >Thanks for the warning. Will a GFCI breaker or a GFCI outlet prevent >this type of problem from happening?
Well, it might trip if you have this problem, but it’s the opening up of the boxes that will cause the insulation to disintegrate. You might use external GFCI breakers to get around this problem, bu it really sounds like a nightmare.
>Unfortunately, that co-op apartment is still the best deal around >given the not-very-good electrical system, and the apartment-owner >knows it.
Well, I guess you get what you pay for, though once the bill comes due for replacing the {electrical system, building}, it’s not going to be such a good deal. >That is unlikely to replace the electrical system in the near future >because that will require changing the electrical system of the entire >co-op and need everyone in the co-op to agree (that is what the >inspector told my brother-in-law). This is the reason why I am asking >for a way for him to work around the shortcoming of the ancient >electrical system instead of replacing it.
Well, he can do various things to patch around his problems, but that’s not going to prevent his neighbor’s electrical system problems from burning the building down. I’d not want to live in such a situation, but if I did I’d make sure my insurance was properly designed and paid up, and that the fire alarms and emergency exits were in good shape…
Posted in House Improvement Home | No Comments » |
