Archive

Posts Tagged ‘health care’
May 15th, 2023 at 11:14 am
Without Certificate of Need Laws, States Would Have More Hospitals

Last week was National Hospital Week, when we recognized and expressed our gratitude for hospitals, health care facilities and caregivers who provide vital health care services across the nation. National Hospital Week also serves as a reminder that antiquated and burdensome Certificate of Need (CON) laws create government red tape and needlessly empower unelected bureaucrats to limit access to care.

Recently, the Beacon Center of Tennessee released a report showing how, in the last two decades, CON laws have prevented up to 63 new hospitals in Tennessee and deprived Tennessee communities of $733.6 in direct investment. The report also found that Tennessee has seen a 70 percent decrease in applications for new health care facilities and expanded services since 2004 due to the state’s CON laws.

Florida has seen a rapid increase in new hospitals and other healthcare facilities since its Certificate of Need requirements were dropped a couple of years ago.

It’s no wonder that South Carolina in recent weeks repealed its CON laws and Georgia is working to follow suit.

CON laws limit patient access to care and increase health care costs by preventing new health care facilities from opening, particularly in rural communities that desperately need health care infrastructure.

Lawmakers in states where CON laws still exist should recognize the obvious harm they cause and move to fully repeal them.

May 8th, 2023 at 4:31 pm
South Carolina Moves to Repeal Certificate of Need Laws, Tennessee and Others Should Follow

The South Carolina Legislature voted last week to repeal the state’s Certificate of Need (CON) laws. The legislation, which immediately eliminates CON requirements for the majority of health care facilities and establishes a three-year CON “sunset” period for existing hospitals, serves as a massive victory against unelected bureaucrats who have been unnecessarily empowered to block patients’ access to new healthcare facilities and services.

In Tennessee, similar antiquated CON laws continue to stifle the free market, limit access to affordable health care choices and deprive communities across the state of critical jobs and investment. Tennessee’s CON laws require health care providers in the state, even private ones, to receive government permission slips approved by unelected government bureaucrats prior to opening new facilities or offering new health care services.

CFIF has been actively advocating full repeal of Tennessee’s CON laws.

The Beacon Center of Tennessee outlined the devastating impact CON laws have on the state in a report released earlier this year. Over the last twenty years, CON laws have:

  • Cost the state more than 60 additional hospitals – many in underserved or rural areas.
  • Denied 5.5 million Tennesseans increased access to much-needed new health care services.
  • Deprived local communities of $733 million dollars of direct investment.

Florida, a conservative state that prioritizes free-market solutions and medical freedom, has experienced a rapid increase in new health care facilities since repealing its Certificate of Need requirements.

Tennessee should follow its Southern neighbors’ example and eliminate its remaining CON laws during next year’s legislative session. Doing so would remove burdensome and unnecessary government red tape that currently serves as a barrier to new health care choices, restore medical freedoms and increase access to affordable, high-quality health care for Tennesseans across the state.

March 28th, 2023 at 1:09 pm
Steve Forbes: ‘It’s Time to Get Rid of the Biggest CON Job in Healthcare’

Steve Forbes, chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes, recently released a video calling for citizens and local groups to “demand their legislators get rid of” Certificate of Need (CON) laws. Currently, 35 states and Washington, D.C. still have CON laws on the books.

Forbes outlines the flawed CON approval process that requires special government permission for private health care providers to build new hospitals or expand the services they offer. Additionally, Forbes explains how CON laws disrupt competition in the healthcare market and limit access to care while increasing costs for consumers.

In Tennessee, where CFIF has been actively advocating full repeal of the state’s remaining CON laws, such laws continue to stifle the free market, limit access to health care choices for Tennesseans and deprive communities of critical investment. A recent Beacon Center of Tennessee report found that over the last two decades, the state’s CON laws have cost Tennessee up to 63 hospitals, many of them in underserved rural areas. In total, 5.5 million Tennesseans have been denied increased access to health care services and local communities have lost out on over $700 million dollars in direct investment as a result of the state’s CON laws.

KEY EXCERPTS FROM THE VIDEO:

  • “CONs restrict competition and promote regional and local monopolies, which means higher prices and restricted access to medical care. After all, approval boards are often loaded with personnel tied to existing facilities. It’s like a panel of people from McDonalds passing judgment on an application for a new Wendy’s. To obtain a certificate of need is not cheap, what with unavoidable outlays for lawyers and consultants, not to mention unnecessary time delays.”
  • “CONs are costly. The Kaiser family Foundation found that states with CON laws have higher health care costs than states that don’t. A study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University confirms that CON states have fewer hospitals, fewer beds and fewer service centers per capita than CON-free states.”

Watch the Video Here

February 3rd, 2020 at 4:46 pm
President Trump Should Again Reject Socialism, Including HHS’s Drug Price Control Proposal

During his 2019 State of the Union address, President Donald Trump confidently stated, “We will never be a socialist country.”  Today, however, his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is pushing an International Pricing Index (IPI) proposal, a socialist policy idea that would peg what Medicare Part B pays for prescription drugs to prices in other developed countries. Simply stated, the IPI proposal would require the U.S. to adopt the price controls of foreign nations that have socialized medicine policies.

Here’s hoping that at this year’s SOTU, President Trump sticks to his guns and continues to reject socialist policies, including HHS’s destructive IPI proposal.

To understand how bad the IPI proposal is, consider this: Its two most vocal proponents in Congress are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and self-proclaimed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.

Speaker Pelosi’s proposed H.R. 3, among other things, applies the IPI rate-setting model to the U.S. drug market.  It’s noteworthy that the White House Council of Economic Advisors rightly says that, “the threat [H.R. 3] poses to continued medical innovation will harm American patients in ways that far outweigh any benefits.”  That’s because rate setting restricts access to life saving medicines.  For example, in many European counties, patients have to wait about a year, sometimes longer, to access new cancer medicines.  No patient should suffer that risk. In the U.S., in contrast, patients wait an average of only 3 months and have access to a far greater variety of medicines.

The IPI proposal would also diminish U.S. economic leadership in biopharma innovation.  That industry is an economic engine that supports 4 million U.S. jobs and invests billions of dollars in R&D in the United States – roughly $80 billion in 2018 alone.

Simply put, HHS’s misguided IPI proposal amounts to socialized medicine. If President Trump is true to his declaration at last year’s SOTU, he will banish it to the dustbin of history.

April 4th, 2019 at 10:16 am
CFIF Urges Opposition to the Importation of Foreign Price Controls
ALEXANDRIA, VA — In November of last year, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) joined with 57 free-market organizations and individuals on a coalition letter opposing the importation of foreign price controls on prescription drugs, a proposal currently under consideration at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”).  In a coalition video released last week, several leading free-market voices, including CFIF, spoke out once again against the perils of imposing foreign price controls.

Unfortunately, recently introduced legislation by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) entirely ignores that overwhelming opposition from conservatives and the free-market community and seeks to import foreign price controls into the U.S.  This legislation, known as the “Transparent Drug Pricing Act” (S.977), would fix U.S. drug prices to the lowest cost of the same drugs sold in five other countries: Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Japan and Germany.

It is CFIF’s strong belief that importing socialist price controls in an effort to lower drug prices is the wrong approach and will reduce access to medicines, kill innovation and harm patients.  Therefore, CFIF urges Senators not to cosponsor or vote in favor of this harmful legislation.

###
October 25th, 2018 at 2:09 pm
HHS Prepares to Commit Unforced Error On Drug Price Disclosure Mandate
Posted by Print

Healthcare costs, including pharmaceutical costs, remain a legitimate concern.  But the Trump Administration Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is about to commit a needless unforced error.

The issue in question is an effort to force pharmaceutical companies to announce “list price” of drugs that they advertise.

A similar effort was recently introduced as legislation in Congress by Senator Dick Durbin (D – Illinois), which is itself proof of the wrongfulness of the idea.  A coalition of conservative and libertarian voices, including CFIF, stopped Senator Durbin’s effort.  But for some reason the HHS announced intent to impose the mandate via regulation, reminiscent of Barack Obama’s “pen and phone” manner of presiding.

Here’s why this is a terrible idea.

First, a drug’s “list price” is more likely to confuse consumers than enlighten them.  The reason is that what consumers actually pay for a drug is almost always very different, and much lower, than its list price.  Most patients’ drugs are subsidized by co-pays or co-insurance programs, whether via Medicare, Medicaid or insurance companies.  Insurance companies themselves typically don’t even pay the full list price, since they also receive various rebates and discounts from pharmaceutical sellers.  Overall, approximately 9 out of 10 consumers pay below the technical list price.  Consequently, compelling advertisers to state the list price in ads would mislead consumers into assuming that their out-of-pocket cost would be higher than they price they’d actually pay.

That hardly advances the goal of informing consumers.

An even more fundamental problem with the contemplated HHS mandate is that it would violate the First Amendment by compelling speech.

Under First Amendment free speech application, including commercial speech, courts strictly scrutinize any effort by government to force private citizens or entities to what it wants them to say.  Only where the compelled speech is purely factual and non-controversial will allow exceptions to the general prohibition against compulsory words.  As noted above, a drug’s list price doesn’t qualify as purely factual for purposes of informing consumers, because consumers rarely pay that price.  Nor does the HHS proposal qualify as non-controversial, for obvious reasons.

Accordingly, a government attempt to force advertisers to state prices that are higher than what almost all consumers actually pay can’t withstand First Amendment scrutiny, and will be struck down when challenged in court.

Finally, the HHS doesn’t even possess authority to impose this proposed mandate.  That authority under Congressional statute instead lies with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Proponents of the HHS mandate assert that the Social Security Act provides a loophole to force this proposal upon the pharmaceutical market, but that too won’t withstand court scrutiny.

For all of these reasons, the HHS proposal to engage in compulsory speech, speech that isn’t even accurate or informative, is a head-scratcher.  Hopefully it will reconsider this ill-advised effort sooner rather than later, and pursue more effective ways of reducing pharmaceutical and healthcare costs.

July 13th, 2018 at 9:37 am
The Price and Importance of Innovation

America’s pharmaceutical innovators lead the world, saving and improving people’s lives on a daily basis.  But relentless efforts to move toward a single-payer system and impose destructive price controls threaten our continuing progress.

Drug maker Biogen recently announced exciting results of a clinical trial for a new drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Yet, despite the promise that this could be a breakthrough that gets us closer to a cure, the medical community and families with loved ones suffering from the disease are holding their collective breath.

Why? Because we’ve been down this road before.

Alzheimer’s is one of the most complex and pernicious medical conditions that we face, with no known cure and an immense emotional and economic toll. Worse, the rate of diagnosis is increasing and estimates suggest the cost of the disease has already surpassed $259 billion.  According to one Alzheimer’s Association spokesperson, it will “bankrupt Medicare.” By 2050, the cost of care for Alzheimer’s patients could exceed $1 trillion annually.

That is a crisis medical professionals are rushing to solve, but progress has been slow. An estimated 99.6 percent of Alzheimer’s drug “candidates” (i.e. experimental drugs designed to treat Alzheimer’s) fail.

In 2018 alone, high profile failures in Phase 3 clinical trials from drug makers like Eli Lilly and Merck represent decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars in research yielding little to no results. Even Biogen’s announcement, as promising as it is, has only a 50 percent chance of gaining FDA approval, according to analysts.

The issue of high drug prices is real, but too often the public doesn’t understand the immense risk – and cost pharmaceutical companies take on to research and develop new treatments for devastating diseases like Alzheimer’s. While everyone hopes Biogen’s new drug is a success, many drugs – including many recent potential treatments for Alzheimer’s – never make it through the clinical trials to market. What’s worse, the lack of transparency in our health care payment system drives costs up even further.

Drug makers invest hundreds of millions of dollars and more into developing new treatments and cures, with no guarantees their research and development will yield results.  That risk must be protected to ensure the continued motivation to strive for better treatments and new cures.

Efforts to cap prices and leverage government buying power via a single-payer system threaten to curtail research and delay or eliminate future cures. It’s a gamble that the United States cannot make, both for our own health and for future generations.

June 14th, 2018 at 3:33 pm
President Trump’s Prescription Drug Reforms Already Showing Progress
Posted by Print
It’s been just one month since President Trump unveiled his American Patients First plan to reduce drug prices and, despite the naysayers, we’re already seeing results.

This week, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee to provide detail on the progress that has already occurred.  His testimony extended over two hours, and Sec. Azar answered tough questions from both Democrats and Republicans, reiterating some key parts of the President’s plan.  Among other important testimony, he highlighted the transparency failures of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and stressed the need to increase competition throughout the market to bring prices down.

That stands to reason, since President Trump’s plan pays special attention to PBMs – “middlemen” that operate in the opaque prescription drug pipeline – who negotiate with insurers, drug manufacturers and pharmacists to bring drugs to market.  As Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) pointed out in the hearing, the way in which PBMs earn profits creates an “incentive for higher list prices,” further driving up the price of prescriptions throughout the industry.

Accordingly, President Trump’s plan deliberately opens up this opaque system, providing greater information to all parties to stop what Sec. Azar characterized as the “perverse” incentives in the system.  By removing the ability for PBMs to profit from price increases, the President’s plan allows the natural downward pressures of the market to take hold, eliminating another driver of cost that consumers feel at the pharmacy counter.  Secretary Azar described the blueprint as a “comprehensive tackling and restructuring of the drug channel, nothing short of that,” further evidence of the President’s bold commitment to this issue.

Senator Collins continued to highlight PBM abuses, explaining how PBMs often employ “gag clauses” that prevent pharmacists from helping consumers to find the best price for their medication.  Those clauses are widely used to help PBMs maximize their profits, but the Trump Administration has already taken action to ensure that contracts with CMS cannot employ gag clauses.

Secretary Azar also explained how the President’s plan will bring greater competition to Medicare Part B, modeled on the success of the Part D program.  Currently, the federal government purchases drugs for Part B at the list price, costing the program billions in extra costs.  In contrast, Medicare Part D allows private companies to negotiate and manage plans to keep costs low.

Secretary Azar further explained to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) that President Trump’s plan proposes greater negotiation between private-sector actors to help lower costs down across the program.  Nevertheless, Sec. Azar cautioned that, due to the size and complexity of the program, the President’s plan purposefully remains open on that issue, so that the Administration can work with Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that these competitive reforms are implemented without harming existing enrollees.

Those actions, along with an overall increase in transparency in the marketplace for all parties to bring more information and competition, are already at work.  President Trump’s plan works because it finally addresses the real drivers of cost, and removes the barriers that are stopping free market forces from bringing costs down.  On that basis, Sec. Azar’s testimony shows us that we are finally on the right path to bring prices down.

February 5th, 2017 at 10:05 am
The Pressing Opioid Epidemic
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Sally Satel, M.D., Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, discusses how to treat America’s pressing opioid epidemic, mental health policies, and political trends in medicine.

Listen to the interview here.

January 13th, 2017 at 2:37 pm
ObamaCare: Repeal and Replace, Not Repeal and Delay
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Sally Pipes, President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, discusses the fate of ObamaCare, why Congress should not delay ObamaCare’s repeal and different options for its replacement.

Listen to the interview here.

November 29th, 2016 at 9:16 am
How ObamaCare is Severely Harming Americans Nationwide
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Jim Martin, Chairman of 60 Plus Association, discusses skyrocketing healthcare premiums, ObamaCare’s march toward full government control over our healthcare system, and the issue of physician and nursing shortages.

Listen to the interview here.

October 31st, 2016 at 11:35 am
ObamaCare’s October Surprise
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Sally Pipes, President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, discusses the latest bad news regarding ObamaCare premiums and options, what the presidential candidates propose we do about ObamaCare, and Representative Warren Davidson’s (R-OH) “Lead by Example Act,” which proposes lawmakers sign up for medical care exclusively through the VA.

Listen to the interview here.

October 31st, 2016 at 11:01 am
Ramirez Cartoon: These Scare the Heck Out of Me
Posted by Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

October 3rd, 2016 at 2:49 pm
Image of the Day: ObamaCare Less Popular Than System In Place Before
Posted by Print

From broken promises to fewer choices to higher costs to tens of millions still uninsured, ObamaCare has been a disaster.   Its defenders insist that it’s still better than we had before, but Americans disagree:

Americans Prefer Pre-ObamaCare Healthcare System

Americans Prefer Pre-ObamaCare Healthcare Syst

November 10th, 2015 at 8:59 am
Ramirez Cartoon: ObamaCare Costs
Posted by Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

June 22nd, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Healthcare Scares: ObamaCare, Government Regulations, and Bioterrorism
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Robert King, Healthcare Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, discusses King v. Burwell, ObamaCare’s impact on small businesses, prescription drugs and government intervention, and whether America is ready for a bioterror attack.

Listen to the interview here.

June 22nd, 2015 at 7:56 am
Video: The Wisdom of Justice Obama
Posted by Print

CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses how President Obama’s rhetoric regarding ObamaCare and the challenge currently before the Supreme Court to the law’s subsidies is both unseemly and not presidential.

June 12th, 2015 at 12:55 pm
Podcast: How Pointless Regulations Hurt Patients
Posted by Print

Thomas P. Stossel, M.D., American Enterprise Institute Scholar, discusses his book Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation, how heavy regulation makes medical innovation difficult and expensive, and how bureaucrats, reporters, politicians, and predatory lawyers have built careers attacking the medical products industry.

Listen to the interview here.

May 22nd, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Clock Ticking Down on SCOTUS’ Decision On ObamaCare Subsidies
Posted by Print

Ashton Ellis, CFIF Contributing Editor, discusses what Congress should do if the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare subsidies for health insurance purchased on exchanges set up by the federal government, why some Americans had to pay back the IRS for ObamaCare subsidies, and the negative implications of ObamaCare across the nation.

Listen to the interview here.

February 20th, 2015 at 8:22 am
How Physicians Can Help Reform Healthcare
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Dr. Gerard Gianoli, a Neuro-otologist in Louisiana and Doc Squads member, discusses how it is time for America’s doctors to put forward innovative solutions to solve the problems in our healthcare system that have only been made worse by ObamaCare, and how to say goodbye to third-party medical payments through alternative practice models.

Listen to the interview here.