�Թϲ�����

Let’s think about this for a second. Pharmaceutical companies charge low prices for prescription drugs in Canada, Europe, and Japan. At the same time, they charge American consumers significantly more. Why? Because politicians have let them for far too long. I recently met Sheldon Armus, who has Type-2 Diabetes. The price of his insulin went from $60 a month to more than $300 a month in a short period of time. (Sen. Rick Scott, 5/21)

The Trump administration makes a lot of noise about drug pricing. Its actions so far aren’t as resounding. This dynamic was on display Thursday, when the administration moved forward with a regulation that will help privately run Medicare Advantage plans that cover about 20 million seniors negotiate prices on some medicines. But at the same time, it decided not to go ahead with a planned change that could have cut costs in a larger program. The net result is that the overall impact is dulled. (Max Nisen, 5/17)

When it comes to the prescription drugs America use, too often money is the last thing consumers think about. Formulaic prescription drug ads are part of the reason why. Suffer from blood clotting or find yourself at an elevated risk of stroke due to an irregular heartbeat? Then Eliquis is your answer. Got moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, psoriatic arthritis or Crohn’s disease? Then talk to your doctor about Humira. (5/16)

The House Oversight Committee just held a hearing to examine Gilead Sciences’ pricing on Truvada for PrEP — an HIV prevention drug that was funded almost entirely by the U.S. taxpayer and private charities, not the pharmaceutical industry. Not since the 1989 hearing over AZT has the House held a hearing on HIV drug pricing. (Christian Urrutia and Nicholas Faust, 5/21)

Louisiana is putting the final touches on a revolutionary deal that promises to simultaneously control health care costs and increase access to a drug that actually cures Hepatitis C, an infectious disease that kills more Americans than any other, including HIV/AIDS. The idea is remarkably simple: The state would pay a flat fee over a set number of years — in effect, a subscription — and in return, the drug company provides the drug to every sick patient covered by the state, without limit. (Ike Brannon, 5/20)

The pharmaceutical industry can be selective when it wants to talk about the role of “market forces” regarding the price of medications. Drug makers are quick to explain that price increases are helping to continue the work of research and development that can lead to new and better medications, for example. Fair enough. But when it comes to the most basic of market forces — knowing what patients are paying for a particular medication and why the price keeps going up — there’s less interest in providing the transparency most of us expect for the goods and services we purchase. (5/21)

When you leave the doctor’s office to pick up a new prescription, do you know how much you’ll pay out-of-pocket to fill it? If you’re like the vast majority of Americans, probably not.Think about that for a second. In what other industry would you agree to purchase an item or service without knowing the cost? We’re so used to sticker shock at the pharmacy that it has taken over a decade of rising drug prices for the issue to make it under the national spotlight. (Joe Harpaz, 5/17)