Walgreens Pill-Flipping Scheme Costs Taxpayers Millions
Thanks to an anonymous whistle-blower, a Walgreens pill-flipping scheme has been blown wide open, according to CBS. "Pill-flipping" refers the practice of pharmacies that purposefully switch Medicaid patients to more expensive versions of certain drugs for the sole reason of collecting more money from the government. Naturally, when this happens, taxpayers pick up the bill. Athough, Walgreen's officially denies any wrongdoing they have agreed to pay the government more than $35 million. Details, inside...
CBS explains the scheme,
To save taxpayer dollars, Medicaid limits how much it pays for popular forms of drugs. But it doesn't bother to set price-ceilings on rarely-used versions.
Take generic Zantac, or ranitidine, for example. The antacid is a huge seller in tablet form. Medicaid limits payment to 34 cents apiece.
The same drug as capsules has no price-ceiling because it was so rarely-prescribed. Medicaid pays $1.25 each. Walgreens figured it could pocket millions by switching patients from tablets to capsules.
...
And they're not the only ones. CVS and Omnicare quietly settled similar cases coughing up $86 million more. The whole pill-flipping episode proves just how imperfect some drugstore chains can be. ...
Monday, June 16, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
20-29 unisured up again: 30 percent of the uninsured: 53 percent of Hispanics uninsured in age range
Number of uninsured U.S. young adults grows | Fri May 30, 2008 | By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of uninsured U.S. young adults, who already represent a major chunk of the American population without health coverage, rose again in 2006, according to a study released on Friday.
Based on census data, 13.7 million people aged 19 to 29 had no health insurance, either public or private, in 2006, up from 13.3 million in 2005, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that researches health policy.
Men and women in this age group accounted for 17 percent of the under-65 U.S. population, but made up almost 30 percent of the uninsured, according to the report.
...
Hispanic and black young adults were at greater risk of being uninsured than whites, the report showed. While 23 percent of whites ages 19 to 29 lacked insurance, the figure was 36 percent of blacks and 53 percent of Hispanics. ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of uninsured U.S. young adults, who already represent a major chunk of the American population without health coverage, rose again in 2006, according to a study released on Friday.
Based on census data, 13.7 million people aged 19 to 29 had no health insurance, either public or private, in 2006, up from 13.3 million in 2005, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that researches health policy.
Men and women in this age group accounted for 17 percent of the under-65 U.S. population, but made up almost 30 percent of the uninsured, according to the report.
...
Hispanic and black young adults were at greater risk of being uninsured than whites, the report showed. While 23 percent of whites ages 19 to 29 lacked insurance, the figure was 36 percent of blacks and 53 percent of Hispanics. ...
An immigrant women from Honduras - with legal documentation - faces deportation because her insurance does not cover long-term care
Hospital Attempts Deportation of Woman With Inadequate Insurance | Posted by Cara , Feministe at 3:23 PM on May 19, 2008.
An immigrant woman from Honduras who has very recently awakened from a coma is being threatened with what can effectively be called deportation, because she does not have the insurance needed to cover her medical bills. (Don’t read the comments in these articles unless you want to lose your lunch.) But here is the real kicker: while it would be repulsive and incredibly inhumane to deport an uninsured/under-insured person with a serious medical condition because of their undocumented status, despite the lack of adequate facilities for their care in their nations of citizenship, it isn’t even the case here. Sonia del Cid Iscoa has a current visa and in the U.S. legally. (All emphasis in quoted text is mine.)
A gravely ill woman at risk of being removed from the country for lack of adequate insurance coverage awoke from a coma Tuesday.
The hospital has been seeking to return her to her native Honduras; her family took the hospital to court.
[. . .]
Iscoa, 34, has a valid visa and has lived in the United States for more than 17 years. She has no family in Honduras.
But St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center sought to have her sent to Honduras when she went into a coma April 20 after giving birth to a daughter about 8 weeks premature. Iscoa has an amended version of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System coverage that does not cover long-term care, Curtin said. But her family worried that the move would seriously harm her, or, at the very least, prevent her from ever returning to the United States.
Iscoa’s mother, Joaquina del Cid Plasecea, obtained a temporary restraining order to keep her from being moved. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Carey Hyatt also ordered that the family post a $20,000 bond by Tuesday to cover St. Joseph’s costs of postponing the transfer. ...
Stressed Moms May Give Birth to Asthmatic or Allergic Kids
Stressed Moms May Give Birth to Asthmatic or Allergic KidsBy Anna Boyd | 16:46, May 19th 2008
Women should avoid being stressed during pregnancy, as recent research warns that stress may raise the risk of their child developing asthma or other allergies.
The findings by researchers from Harvard Medical School were presented Sunday at the American Thoracic Society’s 2008 International Conference in Toronto. They were based on the study of 387 babies enrolled in the Asthma Coalition on Community, Environment and Social project in Boston.
According to the study, mothers who were the most distressed during pregnancy were most likely to give birth to infants with higher levels of Immunoglobulin E or IgE, an immune system chemical linked to allergic responses. For example, a mom having three or more negative events would have a 12 percent increased risk of having a baby with elevated cord blood IgE.
“While predisposition to asthma may be, in part, set at birth, the factors that may determine this are not strictly genetic. This research supports the notion that stress can be thought of as a social pollutant that, when ‘breathed’ into the body, may influence the immune response, similar to the effects of physical pollutants like allergens,” Dr. Rosalind Wright, of Brigham & Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release, according to Reuters. ...
Women should avoid being stressed during pregnancy, as recent research warns that stress may raise the risk of their child developing asthma or other allergies.
The findings by researchers from Harvard Medical School were presented Sunday at the American Thoracic Society’s 2008 International Conference in Toronto. They were based on the study of 387 babies enrolled in the Asthma Coalition on Community, Environment and Social project in Boston.
According to the study, mothers who were the most distressed during pregnancy were most likely to give birth to infants with higher levels of Immunoglobulin E or IgE, an immune system chemical linked to allergic responses. For example, a mom having three or more negative events would have a 12 percent increased risk of having a baby with elevated cord blood IgE.
“While predisposition to asthma may be, in part, set at birth, the factors that may determine this are not strictly genetic. This research supports the notion that stress can be thought of as a social pollutant that, when ‘breathed’ into the body, may influence the immune response, similar to the effects of physical pollutants like allergens,” Dr. Rosalind Wright, of Brigham & Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release, according to Reuters. ...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
$200 billion in higher drug prices buys $25B in drug research ... huge markups created by patent monopolies are an invitation to corruption.
Firefighters and Prescription Drugs | Monday 02 June 2008 |
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
...
The drugs we need for our health or our lives are almost invariably cheap to produce, just as the firefighters might be able to easily stage the rescue once they have arrived at the fire. But the drug companies, like the firefighters on the scene, have a virtual monopoly on their services at the critical moment. Therefore, they are quite likely to get their price.
...
The United States is currently spending almost $250 billion a year for prescription drugs. If drugs were sold in a competitive market, without government-imposed patent monopolies, we could save close to $200 billion a year. The $200 billion in higher drug prices buys a bit less than $25 billion a year in pharmaceutical research, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Paying $8 in higher drug prices for $1 in research does not seem like a very good deal.
Furthermore, as economists who don't work for the drug companies will tell you, the huge markups created by patent monopolies are an invitation to corruption. When a drug company can sell a drug for $500 that costs it $4 to manufacture and distribute, it has an enormous incentive to mislead doctors and the public about the safety and effectiveness of the drug. And, when the drug company performs the research on the drug, and controls the dissemination of research findings, they also have the ability to act on this incentive.
Under the current system, we should not be surprised to find drug companies conceal evidence that their drugs might be ineffective or even harmful. Given the structure of the incentives that the government has created, we should be surprised if drug companies are not dishonest.
There are many different alternatives to patent monopolies for financing drug research. In fact, the US government already spends $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. Virtually everyone, including the drug companies, agrees this government-funded research has been extremely valuable.
Would it make sense to double the level of public funding to pay the full cost of developing drugs, and then let all drugs be sold at $4 a prescription in a competitive market? We could more than cover the cost to the government by the savings each year on drugs purchased through Medicare and Medicaid. If the drug companies did not own our politicians, we would be having this debate. ...
We should be having a serious national debate on the relative efficiency of the current patent system and various alternative mechanisms for financing drug research. Unfortunately, the drug companies are so powerful that few politicians are even willing to consider alternatives. In fact, the drug companies are so powerful that few media outlets would even print a column suggesting alternatives. In fact, the drug companies are so powerful that few economists would ever consider researching alternative mechanisms. ...
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
...
The drugs we need for our health or our lives are almost invariably cheap to produce, just as the firefighters might be able to easily stage the rescue once they have arrived at the fire. But the drug companies, like the firefighters on the scene, have a virtual monopoly on their services at the critical moment. Therefore, they are quite likely to get their price.
...
The United States is currently spending almost $250 billion a year for prescription drugs. If drugs were sold in a competitive market, without government-imposed patent monopolies, we could save close to $200 billion a year. The $200 billion in higher drug prices buys a bit less than $25 billion a year in pharmaceutical research, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Paying $8 in higher drug prices for $1 in research does not seem like a very good deal.
Furthermore, as economists who don't work for the drug companies will tell you, the huge markups created by patent monopolies are an invitation to corruption. When a drug company can sell a drug for $500 that costs it $4 to manufacture and distribute, it has an enormous incentive to mislead doctors and the public about the safety and effectiveness of the drug. And, when the drug company performs the research on the drug, and controls the dissemination of research findings, they also have the ability to act on this incentive.
Under the current system, we should not be surprised to find drug companies conceal evidence that their drugs might be ineffective or even harmful. Given the structure of the incentives that the government has created, we should be surprised if drug companies are not dishonest.
There are many different alternatives to patent monopolies for financing drug research. In fact, the US government already spends $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. Virtually everyone, including the drug companies, agrees this government-funded research has been extremely valuable.
Would it make sense to double the level of public funding to pay the full cost of developing drugs, and then let all drugs be sold at $4 a prescription in a competitive market? We could more than cover the cost to the government by the savings each year on drugs purchased through Medicare and Medicaid. If the drug companies did not own our politicians, we would be having this debate. ...
We should be having a serious national debate on the relative efficiency of the current patent system and various alternative mechanisms for financing drug research. Unfortunately, the drug companies are so powerful that few politicians are even willing to consider alternatives. In fact, the drug companies are so powerful that few media outlets would even print a column suggesting alternatives. In fact, the drug companies are so powerful that few economists would ever consider researching alternative mechanisms. ...
Depleted Uranium has Destroyed the Genetic Future of Iraq
Depleted Uranium has Destroyed the Genetic Future of Iraq | markthshark, Daily Kos | May 30, 2008
It’s not just the U.S. military, and it's not just Iraq. The U.K. has also used depleted uranium in both Iraq and Afghanistan; NATO forces have used it in Kosovo, and Israel allegedly used it in Lebanon and on the Palestinians.
It’s not just the U.S. military, and it's not just Iraq. The U.K. has also used depleted uranium in both Iraq and Afghanistan; NATO forces have used it in Kosovo, and Israel allegedly used it in Lebanon and on the Palestinians.
A waste product from the enrichment of uranium, DU, contains nearly one-third the radioactive isotopes of uranium that occurs naturally. DU is generally used in armor-piercing ammunition; despite its classification as a weapon of mass destruction, and subsequent banning by the United Nations.
Incidental inhalation or ingestion of DU particles is very toxic and can remain so forever. To give you an idea of just how toxic: at the end of the first Gulf War, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority estimated that 50 tons remained in Iraq, and that amount could be responsible for 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. Now, it’s not clear whether that prediction came true or not, but to date, an estimated 2,000 tons of DU dust have been generated in the Middle East in general. ...
...
Since George H.W. Bush’s first Gulf War, birth defects and childhood cancer rates have increased seven fold in Iraq. And, our troops have paid a heavy price as well. More than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict. ...
Survey of Medical Schools Is Critical of Perks - "sales reps in clinics with free lunches and marketing paraphernalia"
Survey of Medical Schools Is Critical of Perks - NYTimes.comBy GARDINER HARRIS | Published: June 3, 2008
Most medical schools in the United States fail to police adequately the money, gifts and free drug samples that pharmaceutical companies routinely shower on doctors and trainees, according to a ranking by the American Medical Student Association.
Only 7 of the 150 medical schools included in the rankings received a grade of A while 14 were given a B. Sixty got a failing grade, and the student association found that 28 schools, or nearly one in five, were in the midst of revising their conflict-of-interest policies.
...
Gabriel Silverman, a medical student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who oversaw the grading, said medical students were increasingly put off by school policies that allowed drug companies to market their products to doctors and faculty members.
“We see all these pharma sales reps in clinics with free lunches and marketing paraphernalia giving us the hard sell,” Mr. Silverman said. ...
Most medical schools in the United States fail to police adequately the money, gifts and free drug samples that pharmaceutical companies routinely shower on doctors and trainees, according to a ranking by the American Medical Student Association.
Only 7 of the 150 medical schools included in the rankings received a grade of A while 14 were given a B. Sixty got a failing grade, and the student association found that 28 schools, or nearly one in five, were in the midst of revising their conflict-of-interest policies.
...
Gabriel Silverman, a medical student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who oversaw the grading, said medical students were increasingly put off by school policies that allowed drug companies to market their products to doctors and faculty members.
“We see all these pharma sales reps in clinics with free lunches and marketing paraphernalia giving us the hard sell,” Mr. Silverman said. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)