Pay-4-Delay: Why Prescription Drug Costs Soar

CA State Senator Tom Umberg, Terri Elders, AARP Vounteer, Jordan Rosenthal, MS Volunteer

Everybody, rich or poor, should be able to afford their medical bills without going bankrupt or going hungry. A 2010 study by the Federal Trade Commissioner concluded that pay-for-pay delay agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion each year in higher costs for prescription drugs. Older adults on average take three or four medications daily for multiple chronic conditions and they need these medications for the rest of their lives.

I'm fortunate in that I take only two. Others take a dozen or more. A close friend has to take an extra carry-on when he travels, just to tote his meds.

So what can anybody do about it? Take some action.

Today I visited the new offices of California State Senator Tom Umberg, to speak on behalf of AARP California. Together with Jordan Rosenthal, an MS District Activist Leader, we outlined for Senator Umberg some of our concerns about the Pay-for-Delay agreements where drug companies pay competitors to delay research, marketing or sales of a competing drug.

Why would they do that, you might wonder. Despite what pharmaceutical lobbyists might say, the purpose of such delay can be traced to the simple old adage, "follow the money." The longer the drug companies can keep competition out, the longer they can charge ever-increasingly exorbitant prices for their brand-name drug even after their patents have expired.

Sounds like something out of a Dickens novel? Precisely. Would that Dickens were here today to 

Charles Dickens

expose these charlatans for what they are and how they profit from human misery.  In a late preface to "Oliver Twist," Dickens wrote, "I fear there are in the world some insensible and callous natures, that do become utterly and incurably bad. . . . Whether every gentler human feeling is dead within such bosoms, or the proper chord to strike has rusted and is hard to find, I do not pretend to know; but the fact is as I state it, I am sure."

I shared some stories today with Senator Umberg. I started with mine. I live in an active senior living complex in Westminster. This is a lower income neighborhood. Some of the residents who here live are on subsidized housing and SNAP. Even with this help, their income barely meets basic needs from one SSI payment to the next. When the prescription requires a copay that has gone up, many have to choose to do without it. I saw one woman in our recreation area last week crying because of pain because she couldn’t afford her regular medication. She lived in constant agony once her meds ran out and she had to wait a week before she could scrape enough together to pay for another supply.

I heard this from a member of my American Association of University Women branch: 

“I recently renewed a prescription for blood pressure. It more than doubled in price. One more dollar, it would have tripled in cost.  I am able to afford the increase in price. However, I was upset that the increase was so significant.  I called my pharmacy insurance. They said it was an increase due to the drug company.”

And a fellow Orange County 2018-2019 Grand Juror  told me this:

“About 4 months ago I had an infection that required a very targeted antibiotic.  My physician warned me that it was very expensive but said he would work with my insurer (Anthem Blue Shield/Medicare) to see if the price could be lowered.  The drug was Xifaxan.  Three times a day for 2 weeks.  Price without insurance=$1400.  Price to me=$440.”

Jordan Rosenthal, whose late wife lost her struggle with multiple sclerosis 11 years ago, told Umberg that even then he had to pay $1500 out of pocket each month for her prescription drugs. There were no generics. Even on a two-income living basis, he explained, this took a substantial amount of money that he could have been setting aside for his children's college fund.

Senator Umberg listened intently. He had been familiar with State Assemblyman Wood's AB 824 and had voted for it when it came before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rosenthal and I thanked him

heartily for his vote. Umberg understood that the bill had been altered slightly, after pressure by Big Pharma lobbyists, but that it still gave California some teeth to enforce already existing laws. Umberg promised to be alert for when the bill reappears in the Senate.

"I can't promise 100% I will vote for it," he said, "But the chances are if I've voted on an earlier version of a bill, unless it's been substantially altered, the chances are 99.9 I'd vote for it again."

Thank you, Senator Umberg and fellow advocate Jordan Rosenthal. And thank you to AARP California and Health Access for collaborating on setting up this meeting. 

And thank you to any of my California readers who can stay up-to-date on AARP's National Rx campaign by visiting https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/prescription-drugs/?CMP=RDRCT-ADV-POLT-022519

Together we can stop greed. A recent AARP report finds costs average more than four times the average annual Social Security benefit. What the Dickens?!!?