The Rising Cost of Cheaper Prescription Drugs
October 16, 2012Student Blogs ArticleIf given the choice between a name brand drug and its generic version, which would you pick? Of course, you would first have to consider a number of factors, one of which would likely be the price. If you have health insurance, chances are you would only be on the hook for the copay, with your insurance company footing the rest of the bill. In such a system, insurance companies typically charge their customers less for generic drugs when they are available, as the cheaper generic leaves the insurance company with a smaller bill on their end.
Makers of name brand drugs are aware of this situation, and try to sweeten the deal for the consumer through the use of so-called “copay cards.” These can be in the form of cards or rebate forms that are given to consumers, frequently in exchange for detailed personal information that the companies use for marketing purposes. Upon purchase of the name brand drug, the discount automatically takes effect and covers some or all of the consumer’s copay for that drug, often making it a cheaper option than the generic from the consumer’s point of view. Insurance companies see the situation differently because the benefit to the consumer does not reduce the burden on the insurance company, which now finds itself paying for a typically expensive name brand drug instead of a cheaper generic drug.
There are both short-term and long-term consequences of copay cards and similar instant rebate systems. For the consumer, immediate costs are reduced as they receive the name brand drug for less than they would have paid for the generic. However, insurance companies are businesses first and foremost and if their costs go up from paying for name brand drugs instead of generics for their insured, they simply pass that cost along to the consumer in the form of higher premiums, turning the system into a cost-shifting vehicle. Since most consumers receive their insurance through their employers, the amount the insurance company charges the employers goes up, and they in turn either pass the costs on to their employees or eat the costs and trim the budget in other areas.
The use of copay cards has increased exponentially in the past few years, with analysts expecting the practice to grow at an even faster rate in the next ten years. Copay cards and other such programs are banned in the government funded insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid. In those programs, the use of the copay cards would violate the Federal Anti-Kickback statute by inducing the consumer to purchase something they wouldn’t otherwise purchase under the federal healthcare programs. Analysts expect costs for prescription drugs to increase as much as $32 billion over the next ten years if the practice of administering copay cards grows as expected.
Some insurance companies are fighting the practice by filing lawsuits against the drug makers, claiming that the copay cards are a means of commercial bribery. The drug companies retort that they are simply trying to help the consumer follow their prescribed therapies by reducing the costs of the drugs that their doctors believe they need. One way to solve this dilemma is for the state legislature to simply ban the practice, as Massachusetts did, claiming the system was in violation of a MA anti-kickback law. The practicality of such a ban will be brought into question as Massachusetts recently overturned their ban on copay cards, including a carve out excluding copay cards from the prohibition on illegal kickbacks.
All we know for certain at this point is that copay cards are a relatively new addition to the ever-changing healthcare market. Unless insurance companies and drug makers find a happy medium, the price of insurance could be on the rise in the near future.
You may also like
2 comments
- November 2024
- October 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
This article provides an interesting look at how insurance companies are dealing with generic brand competition. While co-pay cards may look like violations of anti-kickback laws shouldn’t the consumer have the right to have both options open to them? Despite whether insurance companies are acting out of self-interest, the benefit to consumers should also be weighed. Consumers may prefer brand names for various reasons.
The entire medical payments system has failed. We need at a *minimum* single-payer (like Canada) and at a *maximum* a National Health Service such as Clement Atlee instituted in the UK.
Nothing less than single-payer is going to fix the escalating problems with the medical payments system. The existing system has to be liquidated; there is no other option. It will probably be a very messy liquidation.