Live data from Hacker News

Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

reuters.com

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year I needed to get blood work done, some of which may or may not be covered. It took me two weeks, dozens of phone calls, and multiple "escalations" to learn what would be covered and what the price would be if it wasn't Totally insane. The kicker is that after all that, the price I was billed wasn't even the price I was given (thankfully it was less though).

That’s what is insane. I called my insurance to ask if some tests were covered since preventative care is 100% covered. They couldn’t answer if cholesterol test would count. How is that not automatically classified as preventative? It’s one of the most basic metrics. So they want me to get the doctor to give me the ICD code and the diagnosis code. Or something. Two different codes. They’ve added so much bureaucracy a…

> How is that not automatically classified as preventative? It’s one of the most basic metrics.

They're incentivized to classify whatever they can as not being their problem, so it makes sense for them to double-check everything - there is always a possibility that some edge case was found that lets them off the hook for some specific test or treatment. Moreover, obscuring information and spreading support staff as thinly as possible means that extra barriers heavily discourage people from fully knowing what they'll be on the hook for, which makes them more likely to just nod their heads and do/pay what is asked. These decisions aren't driven by medical concerns. It's a universal problem of nearly all kinds of privatized insurance - their core incentive is to ask for as much money as possible and provide as little in return as it's legally feasible. All the things mentioned in this comment thread are used to thwart any possibility of competition, which would otherwise act against this strong pull towards pure profit-seeking.

The place where I live is often used by Americans as the first line of defense to justify their healthcare system. Among certain political circles, there is almost a reflex to point at us and say "see how terrible it is?!" by exaggerating all the drawbacks and minimizing all the upsides. Yet even in such a flawed, underfunded, mismanaged system, my government insurance plan covers all "medically necessary" lab testing, with a couple rare exceptions that are only covered if you're diagnosed with certain conditions. The process of getting a test consists of a doctor filling out a standardized sheet, then going to a lab and handing them that sheet and my regional insurance card. No money exchanged.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#102

"Rome said the companies seem to be maximizing prices while negotiating discounts behind the scenes with health and drug insurers and then setting yet another price for direct-to-consumer cash-pay sales." This describes the biggest problem in US healthcare. No clear and consistent pricing. If we had a real market, you would get a prescription and then go to the seller with the lowest price. And everybody would get th…

> This describes the biggest problem in US healthcare. No clear and consistent pricing.

For anyone not in the US wondering if this is an exaggeration, here is my history of buying prescription drugs.

1. For years, when I had insurance through my employer, I'd go the the nearest in-network pharmacy, which was Rite-Aid, for them. Those insurance plans always had a copay which was typically $10-15.

It was this way across several different insurance providers I had over the years at that employer. (For non-Americans wondering why my insurance company changed so often, it is common for employers to frequently switch providers to try to save money. Besides that being annoying because it means frequently changing coverage limits, it also means frequent changes in what doctors and dentists are in-network).

2. I saw something about Walmart's generic drug program. They were selling many generic drugs for a cash price of $4 for a month supply and $10 for a 3 month supply. Most of my drugs were included, so for those I switched my prescriptions to Walmart and didn't use insurance.

3. Later, for my drugs not in Walmart's generic drug program, I found that the GoodRx app or website could usually provide a discount coupon that would bring the cash price with coupon down below my insurance copay.

The GoodRx discount could vary significantly from pharmacy to pharmacy so I had my prescriptions split across two pharmacies.

4. My employer downsized and could no longer afford to provide insurance. I switched to a plan purchased on my state's Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. I made too much money to get a government subsidy on my premiums, but not enough to afford a marketplace plan in the top two of the three tiers of plans (gold and silver). I had to settle for the third tier, bronze. That basically meant bigger copays and/or bigger coinsurance on everything, including drugs, than I had when I was on plans through my employer. Walmart generics + GoodRx coupons continued to be how I bought drugs.

5. I eventually switched to an HMO plan from the ACA marketplace, when rising costs made it so even the bronze non-HMO plans were too expensive. This meant I had to switch doctors to one that worked for the HMO (Kaiser), and the only in-network pharmacy was the one from the HMO.

It remained cheaper for nearly everything to continue with Walmart and GoodRx. The only drug I regularly got through Kaiser's pharmacy was generic Lipitor. That was $0. I refilled one of my other prescripts at Kaiser once, and my out of pocket came to twice what that drug was at Safeway with a GoodRx coupon.

I didn't try any of the others through Kaiser because there was no way that I could find to get the price other than actually getting the prescription filled there. Even though it was a Kaiser pharmacy, which is located in a Kaiser building and only takes Kaiser plans (and maybe people paying cash), they have no way apparently to answer the hypothetical "If I get drug X and I have Kaiser plan Y and my ID number is 12345678, what will my out of pocket cost be?".

I would have expected that one of the benefits of an integrated system like Kaiser where it is one company basically providing all of your health care except for some special services they contract out for would be that they could tell you the damn costs. I would have expected that when I'm in the doctor's office and he gives me a new prescription that on his terminal it would have the cost of getting it filled in the Kaiser pharmacy that is in the same building.

Nope. So I'd have to waste his time and mine getting out my phone, looking up the drug he's about to prescribe in the GoodRx app, and then decide where I want it. A nice thing about the GoodRx app was for Walmart if they did not have a GoodRx coupon because the drug was in Walmart's generic program GoodRx would still include it in the listing, showing the cash price so I didn't have to separately check Walmart's generics list.

6. It does get better when you get older. When I turned 65 and switched from a marketplace plan to Medicare I had to choose an insurance company that offered a Medicare drug plan. You can enter all your prescriptions on Medicare.gov and you can enter 5 pharmacies and the listing of available plans in your area will show you the annual total (premiums plug drugs) for each plan for both getting your drugs at the cheapest pharmacies on your pharmacy list and for getting them via mail order. By default it sorts the list by lowest total.

You still have the hassle of plans possibly changing each year. My plan on my first year went away. It was a $0 premium and $0 for all my drugs. There is still a $0 premium and $0 for all my drugs plan available for 2026, but I'll have to change pharmacies to one less convenient.

The above is if you choose regular Medicare when you enroll in Medicare. You can instead choose Medicare Advantage. The way Medicare Advantage works is instead of providing your medical coverage itself Medicare pays a private insurance company to do it. The plans offered by those private insurance companies broadly look a lot like the marketplace plans that offer on the ACA marketplaces or the plans they offer through employers.

They are usually pretty cheap, often with no premium from the insurance company (although you still have to pay a premium to the government for Medicare). Some even have negative premium plans. They also have most of the annoyances of ACA marketplace and employer plans, but there are usually ones that include drug coverage similar to the part D plan coverage for people on regular Medicare.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#103
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don't think the hospital expects to actually ever get paid what they bill out OH YES THEY ABSOLUTELY DO! When I was in-between jobs I had a medical emergency and I was on the ACA around the first year it was offered. I was billed above medicare rates so I was on the hook for ~40k after out of pocket max. They told me this limit is what insurance has to cover but hospitals can still bill above it. First they told…

This is called "balance billing" and the No Surprises Act usually prevents it, especially in emergency cases. https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/no-surprises-act/

This happened in 2013, 9 years before the Act. Hopefully the Act prevents this kind of stuff. The medicare limit is what really confused me. If there is a limit insurance will cover up to, then how is it possible to exceed that limit?

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#104

"Rome said the companies seem to be maximizing prices while negotiating discounts behind the scenes with health and drug insurers and then setting yet another price for direct-to-consumer cash-pay sales." This describes the biggest problem in US healthcare. No clear and consistent pricing. If we had a real market, you would get a prescription and then go to the seller with the lowest price. And everybody would get th…

Most of the non "cut everything" GOP plans still involve trying to get the consumer to shop around, but shopping around is impossible. The consumer can't be a consumer and impact the market if they don't know what is going on.

The system is fundamentally broken.

I go to the doctor and I have zero clue what will come back on the bills.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#105
post #40
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe drugs, or these drugs, aren't the most efficient solutions. Shouldn't we direct resources toward more efficient ones?

There are a lot of bad health outcomes built into our society, yes, but by the time people are confronted with the health impacts of cars, agriculture subsidies, for-profit healthcare, etc. it is likely that drugs will be necessary to treat the very real, immediate problems which any given patient has. Reversing the subsidies for things like car-dependency would positively benefit millions of people but it’s a genera…

I agree about the significance of those large-scale changes; still ...

> Reversing the subsidies for things like car-dependency would positively benefit millions of people but it’s a generational change, not something most individuals can do.

Individuals frequently can chose to not use a car, of course. Still, it's not realistic for everyone or all the time, especially in a society built for automobile use.

> by the time people are confronted with the health impacts of cars, agriculture subsidies, for-profit healthcare, etc. it is likely that drugs will be necessary

My point is that there are other treatments for illness. I doubt it's a coincidence that this patentable technology is so relied on in a hyper-capitalist society; other countries with better health outcomes use far fewer pills, iirc. Who will fund the large-scale study that says a valuable pill is unnecessary?

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#106

"Rome said the companies seem to be maximizing prices while negotiating discounts behind the scenes with health and drug insurers and then setting yet another price for direct-to-consumer cash-pay sales." This describes the biggest problem in US healthcare. No clear and consistent pricing. If we had a real market, you would get a prescription and then go to the seller with the lowest price. And everybody would get th…

As a european living in the US, the idea there is a market at all is laughable. I tried to get price quotes for treatments several time just to get a "well, it's hard to say" or "it's very complicated".

There is a market but you aren't part of it :-)

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#107
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing a chain of reasoning to support a logical conclusion is not “pro bono PR for those companies”. Claiming that someone doing that seems like an emotional kneejerk reaction to an idea that does not jive with the model of the world you would like to have. I even provided an example of a healthcare provider choosing to be more transparent. It is always Eli Lilly’s choice to sell their medicine at a flat price to…

> US textbooks cost multiple times more than the international version of the textbook I mean, I think a lot of the incentives behind textbook pricing in the US are honestly not that dissimilar to the ones in healthcare. I know Pearson is particularly egregious for price gouging students because they have exclusive deals with schools to provide the textbook for some specific class or subject. They raise prices becaus…

"they raise prices because f*ck it why not, they won’t get pushback"

This applies to more and more businesses these days. Textbooks, hospitals, colleges, veterinarians and so on. They basically have a captive audience so they do whatever they want.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#108
post #10

Why is the supreme-court slow-walking the tariff decision which is crystal clear as lower courts clearly demonstrate only Congress can set taxes/tariffs? It would end inflation within 90 days Even their silly 15% tariff fallback law abuse would be more sane than the 50-150% currently Next few years is going to be insanity

Someone once proposed a National Sales Tax. I think it was suggested that we could eliminate personal income taxes if we imposed a federal sales tax on all purchases. Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally". For some reason, a majority of public opinion leaned left on this part…

> Liberals vehemently opposed the idea, calling it 'regressive', meaning it would be socially backwards, but the idea held appeal as a simple and fair way of "taxing everyone equally"

I'm not sure what you mean by "socially backwards".

"Regressive" and "progressive" are terms of art in tax law and theory. A tax is regressive if people with less income pay a higher percentage of their income toward that tax than do people with more income. Progressive is the opposite.

Sales taxes are regressive because most people with lower income necessarily spend a higher percent of their income than most people with higher income, and so even if a sales tax is the same percentage of the sale price of items lower income people end up spending a higher percentage of their income on sales tax.

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#109
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing a chain of reasoning to support a logical conclusion is not “pro bono PR for those companies”. Claiming that someone doing that seems like an emotional kneejerk reaction to an idea that does not jive with the model of the world you would like to have. I even provided an example of a healthcare provider choosing to be more transparent. It is always Eli Lilly’s choice to sell their medicine at a flat price to…

What you gave us wasn’t a chain of reasoning: you just regurgitated the industry’s preferred excuses (“it’s complicated”, “people will use too much healthcare if it’s cheaper”, “liability!”) while begging the questions of whether those are true or why they affect the United States far more than any other advanced country. If you wanted to construct a logical chain of reasoning, that would be far more interesting than…

If you need proof that delivering cutting edge services requiring split second decisions and multiple highly qualified people who are liable to the tune of millions of dollars for each decision is not complicated, then we are living on different planets.

> If you wanted to construct a logical chain of reasoning, that would be far more interesting than repeating another round of simply asserting that the status quo is inevitable.

You are welcome to explain why an insurance company would want to make things so complicated. They don’t make it so complicated for claims on a vehicle or a house. They are earning meager profit margins with the situation as is. There is literally nowhere they could go except up…why are they choosing not to?

And if you can come up with a more efficient system to administer insurance, I’m sure a few rich people like Dimon and Buffett and Bezos would be interested in your services. These two “titans” of industry couldn’t figure out how to make it better.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2021/01/04/amazons-...

Re: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure

#110
post #10

Why is the supreme-court slow-walking the tariff decision which is crystal clear as lower courts clearly demonstrate only Congress can set taxes/tariffs? It would end inflation within 90 days Even their silly 15% tariff fallback law abuse would be more sane than the 50-150% currently Next few years is going to be insanity

Mate, this Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune to prosecution and de facto outside and above the law. I’m honestly not sure what to tell you if you’re still hoping for rule-of-law decisions to come out of it.

The 14th Amendment says all people born or naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.

If someone is immune to prosecution and de facto outside and above the law, I wonder if a case could be made that they are not subject to US jurisdiction, and that invalidates prior citizenship by birth or naturalization.

Post reply on HN