Last week news broke that the Obama administration had struck a deal with big pharma to spend up to $150 million in advertising in support of President Obama’s health care reform. This got a lot of people wondering what deals were struck, and some of the rumors even included prevention of Congress from negotiating for lower drug prices. Sen. Sherrod Brown decided to ask the White House about the deal:
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked two top White House aides, David Axelrod and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina, if the administration had cut such a deal with PhRMA.
“He says there’s no deal. I take him at his word,” Brown told the Huffington Post.
But there is something else to this – something much less sinister.
Every year big pharma gives away millions in free drugs to uninsured people who can’t afford them. Pfizer has their Connection to Care program, while Glaxo-Smith-Kline has Bridges to Access and Bristol Meyer offers their Patient Assistance Program. Each of these programs are extremely beneficial to those who can’t afford their much needed medications.
If we see a truly comprehensive health care bill like President Obama wants, which includes a public option, then these companies stand to benefit from it. Instead of giving away all these drugs, they will now be able to charge the government for them. It means increased profit for big pharma, and not in a bad way.
Also consider this. $300 prescriptions aren’t all that uncommon. When paying such high prices for your needed meds, your also paying to help support these existing programs. In a sense its universal health care in the most minimalistic of terms. If the drug companies could eliminate or greatly reduce the number of people on these programs then their increased profits could lead to decreased drug prices.
Next time some teabagger says they don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare, kindly inform them that they already are. This provides a good example of that.