- Man transitioning to woman killed herself in Cape City Jail in June; news comes from architect's pitch in Kansas (2/15/18)2
- Cape Girardeau businessman proposes redevelopment project; seeks taxing district to fund improvements (2/17/18)16
- Bell City arrest, Scott City incident highlight high-alert status following Fla. school shooting (2/20/18)4
- Plans in the works to save Esquire Theater on Broadway in Cape (2/21/18)1
- TJ's Burgers, Wings & Pizza expands with dining area in Fruitland (2/16/18)
- Pence gets it right in response to attack on Christian faith (2/17/18)6
- Charges filed in Sunday murder; suspects in custody (2/14/18)2
- Lovebirds for 80 years give advice: Trust, patience and 'Tell 'em you love 'em' (2/14/18)2
- Jackson schools purchased former orchard land, will lease for farming for now (2/15/18)
- The heart of the matter: Clinic helps patients rise above congestive heart failure (2/17/18)
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