Judge Blocks Rule Requiring Drug Companies to List Prices in TV Ads(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Judge Blocks Rule Requiring Drug Companies to List Prices in TV Ads
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/health/drug-prices-tv-ads-trump.html
44 comments
They usually don't know what the cost would be.
I once went to a walk-in clinic once for a cold, and they told me upfront the cost for the visit with co-pay (~$40 or something). Several months later, I hear from their collections office.
Apparently, as they told it, my insurance company declined to pay their part of the co-pay because they insurance company claimed it wasn't part of routine care. Absurd.
Anyways, the clinic's response was to retroactively increase the price they charged me. But because I paid in cash, they couldn't just take it from me. So they spammed an old mail address from when I was in college (poor student with the current PO box), and then called me on the phone. And the amount was only $10; far less than their staff time.
Zero part of that seems square with common law. When is it possible to change a price months after a transaction? None of this makes sense, but if they have beef with the insurer that's on them.
So if the hospital tells you the cost up front, and they're wrong, they stand to lose money if they can't swing the negotiations with the HMOs.
The US system just makes no sense.
I once went to a walk-in clinic once for a cold, and they told me upfront the cost for the visit with co-pay (~$40 or something). Several months later, I hear from their collections office.
Apparently, as they told it, my insurance company declined to pay their part of the co-pay because they insurance company claimed it wasn't part of routine care. Absurd.
Anyways, the clinic's response was to retroactively increase the price they charged me. But because I paid in cash, they couldn't just take it from me. So they spammed an old mail address from when I was in college (poor student with the current PO box), and then called me on the phone. And the amount was only $10; far less than their staff time.
Zero part of that seems square with common law. When is it possible to change a price months after a transaction? None of this makes sense, but if they have beef with the insurer that's on them.
So if the hospital tells you the cost up front, and they're wrong, they stand to lose money if they can't swing the negotiations with the HMOs.
The US system just makes no sense.
Like you say, fixing this is important, and it seems crazy that secret pricing is the universal norm in medicine. I'm pleased to agree with you on that, but I'm ecstatic to see you say it exceeds executive authority. It's rare to find anyone anymore who will see a law that should be made, and still remember that it should only be done by the correct people, i.e. Congress.
> it seems crazy that secret pricing is the universal norm in medicine
...in the USA. In other parts of the world these things are pretty transparent.
...in the USA. In other parts of the world these things are pretty transparent.
My PCP, chiropractor, physical therapist, massage therapist, and acupuncturist all refuse to tell me how much treatment will be despite knowing exactly what they will do and how much it costs. Unless I don't use insurance, then here you go, these are our prices. But with insurance? We don't know the prices. It's fucking absurd. It's not even a market. It's just a way for them to fuck people over. Because everyone wants to live and be healthy. But seriously, you think congress will solve this shit? They are the ones benefiting from all the bribes... sorry, I mean donations I forgot I was in the US for a second. That's rich.
[deleted]
Looks like "freedom of speech" angle. Even congress will not be able to pass this law.
Freedom of speech should only apply to humans. Corporations are not humans they are made up of humans who have that right. There is no reason non living entities rights should exceed those of living humans the rights were intended to protect.
The freedom of speech angle seems odd here as there are plenty of regulations about disclosing pricing in various forms.
The judge ruled that the the Department of Health & Human Services exceeded its mandate. Additionally, drug companies argued that the new requirement violated their freedom of speech.
The U.S. Department of Transportation requires airlines to advertise only the final price customers pay including taxes and fees. This is to protect consumers and avoid deception.
I think it’s pretty easy to justify a requirement to disclose drug prices in ads following similar logic.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see this ruling overturned.
The U.S. Department of Transportation requires airlines to advertise only the final price customers pay including taxes and fees. This is to protect consumers and avoid deception.
I think it’s pretty easy to justify a requirement to disclose drug prices in ads following similar logic.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see this ruling overturned.
Do drug companies' arguments that they are entitled to freedom of speech hold any water?
I know people like to overemphasize the effects of Citizens United, etc
But I am curious if they could solely win on a speech argument. If so, one would think all sorts of advertising regulations would be easily overturned.
I know people like to overemphasize the effects of Citizens United, etc
But I am curious if they could solely win on a speech argument. If so, one would think all sorts of advertising regulations would be easily overturned.
This doesn’t seem like a bad rule - but I’m surprised to being agreeing with something this administration is trying to do. Is there some argument against this that I don’t see?
Or may be, well, not everything current administration is trying to do is bad.
Ruling by executive fiat isn't necessarily bad, but it's a hell of a trend. Should you be able to sidestep Congress to implement mandatory listing of drug pricing (especially when you also control one chamber of Congress)? Should you be able to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling by issuing an executive order? What legislative issue is the administration working around exactly?
Sometimes you do need someone with a vision to make the calls instead of a consensus. Especially when that consensus involves people on the receiving end of lobbying.
Which is to say, maybe we can start making lobbying less of a thing.
Which is to say, maybe we can start making lobbying less of a thing.
Exception to the rule
I dislike trump probably more than the median american (and have and will continue to put my money where my mouth is) but let's see:
1) lobbied for criminal justice reform (first step act)
2) has at least tried to make peace with north korea
3) pulled back some hawks from war with iran (and in three years has not initiated a new foreign war - by this time in his presidency Obama had already started to bomb Libya)
1) lobbied for criminal justice reform (first step act)
2) has at least tried to make peace with north korea
3) pulled back some hawks from war with iran (and in three years has not initiated a new foreign war - by this time in his presidency Obama had already started to bomb Libya)
The way the article reads seems to suggest that this is like the bare minimum the administration can do to appear to be doing something about health care costs. The judge is probably right though. America's congress is broken and so healthcare in this country :( Hopefully they help with something soon..
I did think the exact same thing you did though when I read the headline.
I did think the exact same thing you did though when I read the headline.
Just the usual stuff over federal/corporate overreach paid for by big pharma; the party of either the judge or the president is kinda irrelevant in this context. I'm surprised some higher up didn't lean on the judge to throw out the case however; the optics of this whole thing are horrendous for the Democrats considering all the noise Trump makes over the deep state and whatever
There is probably more you'd agree on, but only the inflammatory stuff really makes the news. I see that the news did actually cover Trump going into North Korea last week, but it sure was buried -- did you see that it happened?
Also regarding drug prices, Trump is trying to do a sort of most-favored-nation status for the prices, and/or allow reimporting. That too will be fought in court I'm sure, even if it goes through congress. If it survives court challenges, then Americans no longer pay more for drugs than the rest of the world.
Also regarding drug prices, Trump is trying to do a sort of most-favored-nation status for the prices, and/or allow reimporting. That too will be fought in court I'm sure, even if it goes through congress. If it survives court challenges, then Americans no longer pay more for drugs than the rest of the world.
The visit was pretty widely covered on cable news, after all this was the first president to enter the DPRK. Why did no president before now want to visit the DPRK, and what public good did this administration secure in exchange for doing so?
It's diplomacy. It's a gesture. Not everything has to be transactional when it doesn't cost anything but a couple hours of time.
Sure, and it's objectively a diplomatic win for North Korea. But what diplomatic outcome is expected for the U.S. for visiting the DPRK for the first time?
There was just a bipartisan bill passed to make it harder for the IRS to seize bank accounts that was signed by Trump that didn’t make the news but the North Korea visit did.
But I wonder how long it will take both parties to realize the ridiculousness of the current health care system the same way that they are both slowly turning back government overreach when it comes to being “tough on crime”.
But I wonder how long it will take both parties to realize the ridiculousness of the current health care system the same way that they are both slowly turning back government overreach when it comes to being “tough on crime”.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Some inflated drug price on TV may shame drug companies to lower a "list price" which is in no way related to what it actually costs. I'm much more interested in getting real prices of various procedures, but to be perfectly honest if I had an expensive procedure that could be scheduled like a knee replacement, going to a foreign hospital that is cheaper, cleaner, and has less infections is certainly a better and safer deal than the typical US hospital.
This makes the most sense for one of procedures and follow ups within weeks timeframe.
With employers providing healthcare, out of pocket price often is affordable, and nobody would bother that over a few thousands of dollars difference. However, companies end up paying the price (most often large employers self insure), and that is hidden from the employee.
It almost makes sense if companies lobbied for something like this for once....
With employers providing healthcare, out of pocket price often is affordable, and nobody would bother that over a few thousands of dollars difference. However, companies end up paying the price (most often large employers self insure), and that is hidden from the employee.
It almost makes sense if companies lobbied for something like this for once....
It seems like it would benefit consumers to know what the drugs cost.
I'm disappointed in this ruling.
I'm disappointed in this ruling.
Just how and why do corporations have free speech rights? Afaik, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights to corporations. Corporations are not individuals; they are capable of significant harm on a national or global scale.
From Wikipedia:
> Mehta ruled that requiring big pharmaceutical companies to disclose prices to consumers in television advertisements aimed directly at consumers would violate their free speech rights as corporations.[11]
From Wikipedia:
> Mehta ruled that requiring big pharmaceutical companies to disclose prices to consumers in television advertisements aimed directly at consumers would violate their free speech rights as corporations.[11]
Corporations are just groups of people, do individuals lose the right of free speech when they assemble?
If a company puts out an ad, is that the speech of the assembled individuals? Which individual is responsible for the speech? What if the individuals within a company disagree with one another?
There has to be some kind of separation of "individuals" and "entity". To only see companies as simply "people" I think is short-sighted. A company is so much more than that.
If companies are truly entitled, as an entity, to protection of speech, how do any marketing/advertising regulations stay valid, period?
There has to be some kind of separation of "individuals" and "entity". To only see companies as simply "people" I think is short-sighted. A company is so much more than that.
If companies are truly entitled, as an entity, to protection of speech, how do any marketing/advertising regulations stay valid, period?
Fraud is as illegal for individuals as it is for corporations. That isn't really a speech issue as it is a commerce and contract issue. Anything outside of fraud, libel/slander or calls to violence should be legal under the constitution. The more you look you will find the constitution is routinely ignored.
[deleted]
jedberg(1)
Doesn't the executive branch have some authority regarding FTC and FCC?
There's also truth in advertising. Individuals and companies don't have a right to buy air time and say whatever they want without repercussion.
I think this is another Obama-era judge overstepping their bounds.
There's also truth in advertising. Individuals and companies don't have a right to buy air time and say whatever they want without repercussion.
I think this is another Obama-era judge overstepping their bounds.
To be fair, we pay 500+ people to do nothing but write laws. Maybe they should do it?
Companies do lobby to change laws, and they do not always in publics best interest. So maybe?
Congress? How many more years to solve this?
Honestly, I don't even know how secret prices stands up to basic contract law. There's no meeting of the minds on the mutual consideration.
Once, I broke my finger. I was about 90% sure the treatment would be to tape it and wait. But, given my profession, I might as well get an XRay at urgent care. They completely refused to tell me how much to examine me or treat me.
A. Broken. Finger. Not some crazy treatment or exploratory surgery.