[WSJ] Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s

Are you really going to boast about one-tenth of one percent?

 

Considering we're talking about the first time in four decades, this is a pretty significant 0.1%.

 

the biggest driver is the weak economy.

nice try to spin

 

I had read the article, and knew this would pop up here evantually.

But for me, a response like this shows minimal effort at discussion or debate. This part was excerpted clearly.

In any case, the WSJ spends an eternity spinning this within the article, so if you want to find spluttering counter-arguments against Obamacare, read the whole thing.

(drop in prescription-drug costs is largely due to the pharma life-cycle of brand patents, and generic replacements, something I am keenly aware of as an occupational sort of thing. The recent Supreme Court ruling on generics making arrangements with the brands will give even more competition with regards to that, so prices may drop even more)

 

It is a step in the right direction. I'm sure we can all agree with that.

 

We have had far weaker economies over the last 4 decades, including a number of recessions - in none of those cases did health care costs drop.

Goldman Sachs and PWC disagree with you:


“The slowing of healthcare inflation right now seems to be driven by onset of new policies,” said Alec Phillips, a Goldman Sachs GS -1.42% economist who follows health care trends.

...

A PricewaterhouseCoopers report released Tuesday said a soon-to-be-implemented provision of the law that penalizes hospitals for expensive readmissions could help contain costs next year, supporting proponents’ views that the law will push down costs in the long run.

...

“I think this is a longer-term trend,” said Randall Ellis, a professor of health-care economics at Boston University. “It appears that the reforms will stick and health-care exchanges and other policies will bring competitive pressure to markets.”

 

So you trust a one-liner more than the Altarum Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation's research on this topic? Your interpretation of a one-liner shows minimal effort at a discussion or a debate.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/news/economy/health-care-spending/index.html

 

No, I trust my own insight into the matter. The WSJ's point is very valid, and if you knew your way about pharma like I do, you'd know that is a huge driver for cost reduction. One of the largest, in fact, I have almost no doubt, and certainly taking precedence over a recovering economy that will go full-steam mid-2014.

It is nice to see you do your own research though. Please do look into the patent cliff!

 

"trusting your gut"

great way to argue...or rather raise the white flag

 

So we have had no economic downturn in the last 40 years? Why didn't it go down a few years ago when the economy was even worse?

 

Also, texxx, having actually read your source---

will you look at that?

 

I'm glad to hear it. Which policy is it that impacted the price of prescription drugs?

 

If you want, I can drag out the numbers and projections for each major pharma, and what they stand to lose on their patent expiries per product, per even region of America---but I don't think you'll ever read them, so what's the point?

What they lose is what the consumer gains. This is a trend that is overwhelmingly pushing health-care prices down not only in America, but around the world. You can see the power in even the NHS system, and the Canadian system---given that the NHS is already close to the policy ideal, and the Canadian economy is on much more solid grounding than America, I am convinced it is the patent cliff that is one of, if not the largest factors driving cost reductions. The WSJ has agreed with me (though it would be intresting to see who they sourced from, and the IMS data they use to come to that conclusion).

http://www.pharmafield.co.uk/be/post/2012/04/05/Patent-cliff-hits-NHS-drug-spending.aspx

 

great timing of multuple patent expiries, more than anything.

Cheers to the generics, though!

 

So it wasn't policy levers being pulled?

 

Well, here's the thing.

Obamacare certainly has had an early effect, that can't be denied, and that's encouraging.

But the larger overriding trend is the patent cliff that would have happened regardless---patents expiring and generics falling into the breach.



it speaks, I think, to the need to balence the excessive profits brands need to make to do their R&D with the power of the free markets in generics to bring competition that can make a significant difference in people's lives. Certainly the Supreme Court thinks so---and I suppose that is a policy lever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/b...an-be-sued-over-pay-for-delay-deals.html?_r=0

 

I'm not denying it, but nobody is showing anything to back it up. Spending fell because of pharmacy costs which you've already shown a cause for. I'm asking for one policy provision that can be tied to medical cost reduction in the specific, not in the abstract sense of "costs fell, Obamacare is law, Obamacare caused costs to fall!"

 

OK, that's good, but that is not what I asked about. That's not reducing the cost curve, that's just giving more people insurance. We are talking about a reduction in the actual costs of medical care.