- Deputies: Man, woman tried to arrange killing of his estranged wife (5/21/17)1
- Former coroner convicted of felony theft now faces prison in misdemeanor case (5/23/17)2
- Cape police say man assaulted, kidnapped girlfriend (5/21/17)2
- Woman may lose foot after being hit by moped (5/24/17)
- Mississippi County sheriff fights efforts in court to remove him from office (5/21/17)4
- Business notebook: Woman, sister-in-law buy Perryville custom-wear shop (5/22/17)
- Cape man accused of shooting a woman in Jackson (5/21/17)
- Police apprehend Charleston man they say hit Cape woman with car (5/24/17)
- Illinois Trail of Tears site where Cherokee buried named to National Historic Register (5/24/17)
- Broadening horizons: Heartland Dream Team founder stays committed to area youth (5/21/17)2
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