• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Galen Institute

A not-for-profit health and tax policy research organization.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Mission and History
    • Officers and Trustees
    • Scholars and Staff
    • Who was Galen?
  • Activities
    • Core Activities
    • State Leaders Calls
    • Commentary and Oped Tutorial
    • Our Book
    • Galen Guides
  • Donate
  • Contact Us
  • Major Papers
  • Broadcast Interviews

Response to Bill Hammond article in The New York Daily News

POSTED BY Galen Institute on March 23, 2005.

Bill Hammond takes a one-sided view of prescription drug costs in his article, “Drug lobbyists push bitter pill on taxpayers,” (March 23). He says New York State “could save hundreds of millions of dollars” by instituting a preferred drug list for Medicaid that would “steer patients away” from newer brand name drugs. However, research has shown that restricting access to these drugs may actually increase overall health costs.


Columbia University Prof. Frank Lichtenberg has found that replacing older medicines with newer ones reduced other health expenditures by up to $8 for every $1 spent on the newer drugs. Newer medicines are usually more effective, have fewer side effects, and may treat conditions for which no existing effective treatment is available. Denying patients these drugs may mean more doctors’ visits, more hospitalizations, and more spending on less effective medicines.


Is it possible that New York legislators are actually looking at the bigger picture and are not simply beholden to lobbyists, as Mr. Hammond suggests?



Grace-Marie Turner

President

Galen Institute

www.galen.org

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Response to Bill Hammond article in The New York Daily News

POSTED BY Galen Institute on March 23, 2005.

Bill Hammond takes a one-sided view of prescription drug costs in his article, “Drug lobbyists push bitter pill on taxpayers,” (March 23). He says New York State “could save hundreds of millions of dollars” by instituting a preferred drug list for Medicaid that would “steer patients away” from newer brand name drugs. However, research has shown that restricting access to these drugs may actually increase overall health costs.


Columbia University Prof. Frank Lichtenberg has found that replacing older medicines with newer ones reduced other health expenditures by up to $8 for every $1 spent on the newer drugs. Newer medicines are usually more effective, have fewer side effects, and may treat conditions for which no existing effective treatment is available. Denying patients these drugs may mean more doctors’ visits, more hospitalizations, and more spending on less effective medicines.


Is it possible that New York legislators are actually looking at the bigger picture and are not simply beholden to lobbyists, as Mr. Hammond suggests?



Grace-Marie Turner

President

Galen Institute

www.galen.org

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

NEW – OF INTEREST

Health Care Choices 20/20:

A Vision for the Future


See the latest interview of Grace-Marie Turner on C-SPAN

SEARCH

Categories

  • Brian Blase
  • Consumer-Directed Care
  • Doug Badger
  • Grace-Marie Turner
  • Health Insurance
  • Health Savings Accounts
  • Innovation
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Newsletter
  • ObamaCare
  • Prescription Drugs
  • Published
    • Forbes
    • Fox Business
    • Health Affairs
    • LA Times
    • National Review
    • New York Post
    • RealClearHealth
    • The Daily Signal
    • The Hill
    • The New York Times
    • The Wall Street Journal
    • The Washington Times
  • Reform Initiatives
  • State Issues
  • Uncategorized

LATEST NEWSLETTER ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

Social Media

Like Us On Facebook

Twitter: @galeninstitute

 

Copyright Galen Institute, Inc © 2021; · Log in