- Say Cheese: The story behind the famous sandwiches at the East Perry Fair (9/22/17)
- McClure man accused of leaving children in hot truck while gambling in casino (9/19/17)1
- Anne Limbaugh dies, leaves legacy of caring (9/22/17)
- New boutique store advocates for special-needs people (9/19/17)
- Former football players provide leadership training at middle school (9/24/17)
- Cape Girardeau native Jessica Johnston to compete as castaway on 'Survivor' season 35 (9/24/17)
- New businesses popping up all over Cape Girardeau (9/24/17)
- Former major-league slugger Darryl Strawberry to speak at La Croix (9/20/17)
- Mo. conservation agents help fight fires in western U.S. (9/15/17)
- Young entrepreneurs add fresh ideas, unique offerings for area market (9/18/17)
Negotiated drugs not beneficial
To the editor:U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson's call for the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies is seriously misguided ("Emerson sees big problems coming in health care," July 6).
First, it is not even clear that allowing the government to negotiate prices would save any money. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded, "Government price negotiation would not yield lower drug prices compared to current law."
Second, the only government program that has been successful at reducing drug costs through negotiations is the VA, which doesn't negotiate at all. Rather, it imposes price controls. Under the VA model, drug companies must sell their products to the government at a price that is at least 24 percent less than the non-federal average manufacturer price.
If similar price controls were imposed under Medicare Part D, the end result would be less patient choice and stifled innovation into new drugs.
PETER PITTS, Director, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, New York