¶ … Health Care and the Law - Are Preferred Drugs Lists Helpful or Harmful to Low-Income Patients?
Pear, Robert. (April 6, 2004) "U.S. Appeals Court Backs State Efforts at Drug Cost Control." New York Times. Article Retrieved at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/politics/06DRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
One of the most controversial issues today when questioning how the nation's health care system will deal with the spiraling cost of prescription drug care is how to manage the cost of prescription drugs within the Medicare system. The escalating cost of vitally necessary drugs has driven many otherwise law-abiding American consumers to make use of the Internet, purchasing their drugs from dubious sources around the world -- or Canada, which has nationally controlled, subsidized health care, a system that both limits costs and care. However, low-income patients do not even have this recourse, and are at the mercy of their physicians, the legal system, and the pharmaceutical industry.
On Friday of last week, as this article U.S. Appeals Court Backs State Efforts at Drug Cost Control." Illustrates a U.S. Appeals court recently rejected a challenge by the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobby for...
Michigan's Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services of the state in 2002, approved Michigan's strategy for encouraging low-income patients to use lower-cost medicines.
According to the article, "a rapidly growing number of states have adopted 'preferred drug lists'" as a way to control drug costs, redirecting patients to particular drugs because of cost. Although interpreted as a victory for such low-income patients facing escalating drug costs, on first examination this remains rather a dubious proposition -- do the drugs in question really have the same value as their higher-priced competitors. In some cases they may. Also, the pharmaceutical giants' resistances to such laws as Michigan may have its roots in economically motivated reasons, rather than humanist and compassionate reasons.
Still, there is concern about patients being diverted, based purely on their ability to pay, towards less medically viable treatment. The idea should raise a 'red flag' for any individual involved in either the medical or legal system. One judge on the appellate court noted "non-preferred drugs" would still be "available as an option if a doctor certifies that they are medically…
