Why we can't afford to lose the Prescription Drug Affordability Board
"In just one year, the PDAB identified $6 million in potential savings for our state." (Getty Images)
When 1 in 4 New Hampshire residents are rationing or skipping their prescription medications due to cost, we need to strengthen our efforts to make life-saving prescriptions more affordable — not weaken them. Yet that's exactly what some lawmakers are attempting to do by dismantling our strongest defense against skyrocketing prescription prices.
The New Hampshire Legislature's budget proposal, which has passed the House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the Senate, would completely defund the Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB), our state's only independent, nonpartisan entity dedicated to addressing the rising costs of life-saving prescriptions that so many Granite Staters rely on.
The statistics around prescription prices are both alarming and personal. More than half of our residents (53%) are worried about affording their prescription medications, regardless of if they make less than $50,000 a year or more than $100,000 a year. Additionally, 80% believe that drug companies charge too much money. These aren't just statistics; they represent real Granite Staters struggling to choose between filling a necessary prescription and paying for groceries or rent.
The burden is particularly heavy on our older residents, who are expected to comprise nearly 30% of our population in the next 10 years. A 2024 New Hampshire survey found that 93% of adults aged 65 and older took at least one prescription medication regularly, with nearly one-third taking four or more. The same survey found that nearly 40% of people in New Hampshire have cut back in some way (food, fuel, electricity, etc.) due to the cost of prescription medications. Skipping critical medications isn't just a financial decision — it's a potentially life-threatening risk that can worsen chronic conditions and lead to costly emergency interventions.
New Hampshire's PDAB, established in 2020, is rooted in our state's values, like taking care of our own. The PDAB works for Granite State residents and taxpayers — not for drug companies, middlemen, or insurers.
Since its inception, the PDAB has brought much-needed transparency and accountability to the complex world of drug pricing, which has long operated in the shadows. It is working to identify ways to reduce the massive amounts our state spends on medications through public insurance programs and state employee benefit plans. For example, the PDAB has identified that the state is struggling with the same high-cost prescription drugs now negotiated by Medicare. As more high-cost drugs are negotiated for lower prices, the PDAB could make recommendations about how to leverage price negotiations at the federal level to achieve similar savings in New Hampshire.
In just one year, the PDAB identified $6 million in potential savings for our state. Currently, they are exploring a partnership with a discount card program that could save the state an average of $212 per prescription while protecting patient data and supporting independent pharmacies. Further, the PDAB identified that the state could realize savings by allowing pharmacies to substitute FDA-approved biosimilar biologic drugs; this measure was included in the House budget as a cost savings. These are tangible, meaningful interventions that directly impact our people and our communities.
Now is not the time to dismantle our PDAB. There is simply no other organization that can step in to provide the same level of oversight and insight into this critical area of our health care system. The PDAB has identified millions of dollars in savings, which far outweigh the PDAB's budget. To abandon the PDAB at this juncture is penny wise and pound foolish.
The PDAB is our only defense against rising prescription costs.
Stand with the 53% of residents who worry about medication costs. Stand with the 80% who recognize that drug companies are charging too much. Stand with the only strategy currently available to control prescription drug costs in our state.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
19 hours ago
- New York Post
Biden should've been given multiple cognitive tests while in the White House, Obama's doctor says
WASHINGTON — Joe Biden's doctor should've made him undergo multiple neurocognitive tests during his presidency, former President Barack Obama's physician told The Post. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as Obama's doctor from 2009 to 2013, highlighted in a phone interview Saturday how Biden — and all politicians over the age of 70 — should be submitted to 'a few hours' of annual mental exams and release those results to the public. 'My position is that a 78-year-old candidate, Trump at the time, an 82-year-old president [Biden] would both benefit from neurocognitive testing,' said Kuhlman, who published a book 'Transforming Presidential Healthcare,' recommending that in November 2024. Advertisement 'Any politician over the age of 70 has normal age-related cognitive decline,' Kuhlman said, pointing out that he's been making the recommendation for nearly a year — and did so in a New York Times op-ed on the day Biden bowed out of the 2024 race. 'If you look at his three physicals that were released as president, Dr. [Kevin] O'Connor wrote five to six pages, single-spaced. He referenced 10 to 20 specialist physicians.' 5 Joe Biden's doctor should've made him undergo multiple neurocognitive tests during his presidency, former President Barack Obama's physician told The Post. Getty Images Advertisement But the tests did not include any neurocognitive work, nor did Biden submit to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, as Trump did in his first term, a two-minute screening comprising around 30 questions to test for signs of dementia, according to Obama's ex-physician. 'I have no doubt that President Trump aced it,' he said of the test, but said the current White House, in the interest of full transparency, should also release CT scans that were taken after the assassination attempt against the Republican candidate in Butler, Pa., last July. Kuhlman added the Montreal Cognitive Assessment isn't adequate to determine more serious mental slippage, one of the three main areas that medical professionals should be considering when evaluating the president, along with cancer and cardiovascular issues. Memory, reasoning, speed of processing and spacial visualization all begin to decline around the age of 60, he also said. Advertisement 5 Kevin O'Connor served as Biden's doctor during his vice presidency, overlapping with Kuhlman in the White House medical unit. David Lienemann/The White House O'Connor served as Biden's doctor during his vice presidency, overlapping with Kuhlman in the White House medical unit. Kuhlman said he 'respects' O'Connor's 'medical judgment,' but also told The Washington Post: 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest.' In apparently his only media interview during Biden's term, O'Connor insisted to The Post in July 2024 that the president's cognitive health was 'excellent' — days after being forced out of a re-election bid and replaced by Vice President Kamala Harris due to a dismal debate performance June 27. Advertisement 5 Kuhlman said he 'respects' O'Connor's 'medical judgment,' but also told The Washington Post: 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest.' Getty Images In a break from his predecessors, Biden's doctor never answered questions from the press in the White House briefing room but submitted annual physical reports that noted some physical ailments without addressing the president's mental acuity, other than to say he was 'fit for duty.' 'The president doesn't need a cognitive test,' claimed White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a February 2024 briefing following what would be Biden's final physical as commander-in-chief. 'He passes a cognitive test every day.' White House visitor logs show the oldest-ever president did submit to evaluation from an expert in Parkinson's disease and 20-year veteran of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Dr. Kevin Cannard, but O'Connor said the January 2024 meeting was part of Biden's annual physical. 'If somebody turns up a report that Kevin Cannard said he has Parkinson's,' said Kuhlman, 'then that's a completely different story, but we have 14 years of Kevin Cannard evaluating him and that's who I would trust.' 5 O'Connor said that was part of his annual physical and ruled out a Parkinson's diagnosis, though other doctors expressed skepticism. American Osteopathic Association O'Connor said that was part of his annual physical and ruled out a Parkinson's diagnosis, though other doctors expressed skepticism. 'I could've diagnosed him from across the Mall,' neurologist Dr. Tom Pitts told NBC in July 2024, pointing to Biden's 'rigidity,' 'shuffling gait' and 'slow movement.' Advertisement Special Counsel Robert Hur, who determined that Biden 'willfully' hoarded classified documents after leaving the Obama White House, chose not to bring charges months earlier that year in February, in part because a jury would view the president as a 'sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.' The Republican-led House Oversight Committee subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday to appear for questioning about the former president's mental abilities on June 27. 5 The Republican-led House Oversight Committee subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday to appear for questioning about the former president's mental abilities on June 27. AP Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in a cover letter accompanying the subpoena suggested the doctor's past 'financial relationship with the Biden family' may have 'contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden's fitness to serve from the American people.' Advertisement Jean-Pierre, who left the Democratic Party and is publishing a tell-all book about the 'broken' Biden administration, is also expected to be hauled in for testimony. Days before a book was set to be published alleging a vast cover-up of his decline during his last two years in the White House, Biden announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer that had spread to his bones. The book, 'Original Sin,' notes that O'Connor was reluctant to administer a cognitive test, according to co-authors Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. Advertisement Kuhlman said O'Connor had conducted tests for that kind of cancer between 2009 and 2014 when they served together in the White House, but it may not have been 'worth doing in the next 10 years' based on the findings of that final exam, known as a PSA, in the vice presidency. 'I hope that Kevin O'Connor had that conversation every year with his patient, Joe Biden, and documented that in the medical record,' he said. 'If he did the PSA and chose not to release it, I don't agree with that.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Why Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) Soared On Thursday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) stands against other best-performing stocks on Thursday. Oscar Health snapped a five-day losing streak on Thursday, jumping 10.6 percent to close at $15.65 apiece as investors resorted to bargain-hunting while waiting for more concrete developments on the Trump administration's Medicare Advantage review. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a $5-trillion tax-and-spending package that shaves as much as $900 billion in Medicaid, which servers over 70 million low-income households. A close up of a patient and a healthcare professional engaging in conversation, showing the company's commitment to patient care. Now, Senate Republicans to broaden savings by looking for supposed inefficiencies in the Medicare program for senior citizens. In the first quarter of the year, Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) registered a 55-percent increase in attributable net income of $275 million versus the $177 million registered in the same period last year. Revenues rose by 42 percent to $3.046 billion from $2.142 billion year-on-year. Overall, OSCR ranks 5th on our list of best-performing stocks on Thursday. While we acknowledge the potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.
