Conversations and healthy debate about issues facing our industry and the health care system are critical to addressing some of today’s challenges and opportunities. The Catalyst welcomes guest contributors, including patients, stakeholders, innovators and others, to share their perspectives and point of view. Views represented here may not be those of PhRMA, though they are no less key to a healthy dialogue on issues in health care today.
Today, we are pleased to welcome a guest post from Voters for Cures advocate David Conners. David is a type 2 diabetic who believes that H.R.3 is not the right solution to help him, and patients like him, afford their medications.
I have a full life and a loving family. My six kids keep me busy every day so keeping my type 2 diabetes under control is a must – but managing my condition comes with high out-of-pocket costs. Like many parents, I worry about my own health and about making ends meet.
I’m glad that elected officials in Washington are looking for solutions to the financial burden on patients, but I am concerned they are going about it in the wrong way. Speaker Pelosi’s H.R.3 bill may aim to bring down costs, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of new medicines down the road. We need a more thoughtful approach so that patients can have the options they need.
I know from personal experience how important it is to have a range of medicines available. My journey to find the right treatment for my chronic condition took some time and required real trial and error. Eventually, I found a medication that helped me tremendously. I was able to be present for and with my family – until my insurance company cut off my access to the treatment.
The medication that worked so well for my body is no longer financially accessible to me. Instead, my insurance company has selected a new treatment for me to use. Perhaps not surprisingly, I’ve experienced numerous negative side-effects with the new medication. I am embroiled in an ongoing fight with my insurance company, asking for coverage of the medication I need.
Accessing the medicine, I need has a drastic impact on my quality of life. That’s why we must address the financial hurdles in place for patients like me. But we also need to protect the system that brought me the treatment options in the first place. Rather than the blunt approach of H.R.3, which simply pegs prices to foreign systems, a simpler, better solution would be to pass on the savings insurers receive from middlemen to patients like me.
I recently met with a congressional staffer on this very topic during a Voters for Cures event. I urged the staffer to focus on addressing the insurance barriers – including making sure that discounts get to patients directly. I am more than just a number or a claim to be filed away. Talking with policymakers and their staff was just the beginning – everyone in Washington has an obligation to help patients afford their treatment by fixing insurance barriers that make it harder for patients to improve their health. H.R.3 is not the way to do that.
Join me in calling on Congress to focus on solutions that remove insurance barriers and protect continued innovation into treatments that could change lives here.
Guest Contributor
The PhRMA blog welcomes guest contributors, including patients, stakeholders, innovators and others, to share their perspectives and point of view on issues facing our industry and the health care system.
Guest Contributor
New poll: 2 in 3 voters prefer a candidate committed to lowering health insurance premiums
Voters continue to voice their concerns on government price controls
Guest Blog: Price controls won’t lower costs when insurers control access
Patients speak out: MFN won't address my affordability concerns
Guest Perspective: Prioritize Innovative Care
PhRMA CEOs Tee Up Next Week's Health Care Conference
Celebrating advances in diabetes research
Guest Post: My health care vote
The Patient Perspective: Vaccines
Did the administration consider the importance of blood clot medicines to patients in the price setting process?
Patient priorities in the 2024 election
Did the administration consider the value of innovative diabetes medicines in price setting process?
Three things to know about the United Nations’ new HIV/AIDS report
ICYMI: What patients care about this election year
What recent rhetoric on the cost of diabetes and anti-obesity medicines gets wrong
New calculator demonstrates how improved adherence to anti-diabetic medicines can benefit people in Medicaid
4 key facts on medicine prices and spending
New Report: More than 400 medicines in development for leading chronic conditions affecting older Americans
New Report: Nearly 800 medicines in development to treat chronic conditions
Insulin and reconciliation
ICYMI: Patients across the country are sharing concerns about government price setting
The Patient Perspective: Government price-setting harms patients
Guest Post: If we truly want to cure complex diseases, politicians should reject price setting
Post-approval research save lives. Why is Congress trying disincentivize it?
Guest post: Congress should not put future innovation at risk
New report shows more than 260 medicines in development to fight neurodegenerative diseases
What they’re saying: Patient advocates want to protect Medicare from government interference
Guest Post: A patient’s story of the long-term health impacts of COVID-19
3 factors impacting medication adherence for patients with diabetes
New insulin report highlights how incentives benefit middlemen, harm patients
Sharing rebates can improve access to medicines and increase health equity
The patient perspective navigating COVID-19
What you need to know about H.R. 3
R&D Focus: Four ways the biopharmaceutical industry leads in delivering new treatments and cures
New poll: 76% of voters concerned Speaker Pelosi’s plan would result in fewer new medicines
Speaker Pelosi’s drug pricing plan could result in 56 fewer new medicines over 10 years
Pelosi’s radical plan would leave patients with sickle cell disease behind
R&D Focus: It takes an ecosystem to deliver innovative new therapies
Pelosi’s radical plan would leave patients with rare pediatric diseases behind
What they are saying: Negative impact of Pelosi’s plan on biopharmaceutical innovation
Pelosi’s radical plan leaves lung cancer patients behind
Guest post: Sharing discounts and rebates is the right thing to do
PhRMA CEO in STAT: Pelosi’s drug pricing plan puts medical innovation at risk
Pelosi’s radical plan would leave Alzheimer’s patients behind
Pelosi’s radical plan would leave ALS patients behind
What they are saying: Broad opposition to Pelosi’s radical drug pricing plan
By the Numbers: Pelosi’s radical plan puts America’s economy and jobs at risk
Four reasons why the radical Pelosi Plan is the wrong approach
Guest Post: Following my stroke, having access to ground-breaking medical innovation has never been more important
"If Washington isn’t careful, we might leave innovation behind"
New report shows more than 160 medicines in development for diabetes and related conditions
Five key facts about the market for insulins
Six key facts about the market for insulins
Ask About Adherence: New study finds one-third of newly diagnosed diabetic patients aren’t starting treatment
Improve women’s health by treating the disease, not the pain
Reality check: Value-based contracts are good for patients
Ask About Adherence: Private-sector collaboration can lead to savings and care improvement
New report shows better diabetes management saves money and improves patient outcomes
Disease modifying therapies for the management of multiple sclerosis save money and improve patient outcomes
Protect your health: Important disaster preparedness tips for Harvey and Irma
How do multiple sclerosis patients define value?
Guest post: H.R.3 is the wrong approach to help patients like me
Diabetes
Chronic Disease
Voters for Cures
Pelosi Plan
Guest post: H.R.3 is the wrong approach to help patients like me
Guest post: H.R.3 is the wrong approach to help patients like me