Wyden and Pallone said they will continue to push CMS for specific information about how and when these communications occurred. Additionally, CMS has provided guidance to industry and Mylan regarding the proper classification of drugs and the steps that should be taken to correct any improper classifications. The correct rebate would have been at least 23.1 percent, plus an additional inflationary rebate.ĬMS also confirmed to Wyden and Pallone that the agency “expressly told Mylan that the product is incorrectly classified”, however, that it is the responsibility of drug manufacturers for ensuring their products are correctly classified. The letter also notes that Medicaid has spent nearly $800 million on EpiPen since 2011, which includes the lower generic rebate of 13 percent, which the drug manufacturer is required to pay back to Medicaid. ![]() The letter from CMS backs up Wyden and Pallone’s claim that EpiPen has been misclassified as a generic drug since the fourth quarter of 1997, despite all evidence indicating it was a brand-name drug. “Essential medicines like EpiPen are increasingly out of reach for families across the nation due to unjustified price hikes, and it’s high time for drug companies to take responsibility for their actions. “Today’s letter is more evidence that while Mylan irresponsibly raised the price of EpiPen, they were also bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars,” Wyden and Pallone said. (NJ-06) and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), issued a statement following a letter from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt regarding the misclassification of EpiPen as a generic drug for nearly two decades: There are a number of things that we can work on constructively to make insurance more affordable for people, to make insurance more competitive.WASHINGTON – House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. If this legislation fails in the Senate, I do think we'll have an opportunity. ![]() This is really an interesting question because I actually am a big believer in bipartisanship, in large part because I don't think our country deserves to go through the back-and-forth of changing our health care system every election cycle.īut the only way bipartisanship happens is if partisanship fails. If the Republican proposal does not pass, what could and should be done to strengthen what's already there? You've talked about how the Affordable Care Act isn't perfect. ![]() That's just not a national concern for us right now. The problem we don't have is how to help 27-year-olds get cheaper insurance. The problem our country has is how to help people who are in the lowest economic straits, who have the most health challenges, get access to affordable coverage and, indeed, get well. In fact, people who are over 50, many of them would be asked to pay as much as 50 percent of their income, and that's all in order to make the policies cheaper for younger people. The challenge of course is that if you're over 50, or if you're sick, or if you live in rural areas and if your income is low, you pay the price. It will cover a lot less, but that may not be a problem to you. If you are younger and don't get your insurance through your employer, your insurance will be cheaper. If you are a 27-year-old person who makes $70,000 a year and has no illness, this is a good bill for you. There are choices and trade-offs made within bill that we should acknowledge. And we know that there needs to be something that helps keep healthy people in the pool, because if we leave people to their own devices to buy health insurance when they get sick, that will just drive the cost up for everybody. Well, the individual mandate is about as popular as vegetables are with my kids. And that this new proposal would allow people to have more choice. Supporters of the Republican plan say the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate forced people to do something they often didn't want to do. They're not particularly good for people who are sicker, and they're not good for people who are older. The details that we've seen, at least so far, aren't particularly good for people with lower incomes. And I don't mean to exaggerate, but in the main, it's very hard to be supportive of something that takes health insurance away from 20 million or so Americans. Well, it's hard to say that you like the uniforms of the team that's got the guns pointed at you, trying to kill you. Fair to say there isn't anything you like in this new plan?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |