Issue 2

[Richard Cranium]

I keep hearing all sorts of things about the upcoming Issue 2. Who are the medical professionals on here that could explain what Issue 2 is and why the medical community seems against it?

[Mitch]

This is a nonbiased explanation (I think) https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_2,_Drug_Price_Standards_Initiative_(2017)

[Mace1647545504]

It sounds good at first..lower drug costs but the thing about having to pay his attorney fees while he sues the state which again we are paying for turns me off.

 

I don't think you want a medical professional as someone who's read the law and understands it..an attorney

 

mace

[Furloaf]

The unlimited legal fees is complete bullshit and should kill the bill for anyone considering it

 

other than that the merits of the bill, from analysts and whatnot is basically a toss up either way with helping or hurting

[10phone2]

here is a run down that I got from my dad who is retired military and has spent a good portion of his career working with the VA. He could be dead wrong, but this is what I was told. Issue 2 is getting negative press that is paid for by the drug companies because the highest amount for any prescription drug in the state would be what the VA pays. The story regarding the lawyer is being misrepresented. The lawyer in question basically travels the company to sue states to help reduce their prescription drug cost. As normal court protocol, if he wins a case against a state or prescription drug company, they would pay his legal fees. Edited October 16, 2017 by 10phone2

[El Karacho1647545492]

I always go to the bill sponsors to see what's what and this one appears to be special interests vs politicians so we're basically screwed either way. I'd rather be screwed with lower drug prices.

[Furloaf]

As i understood the prices affected are only what the state will pay, not every average Joe Schmo in Ohio.

[Orion]

I'm for pretty much anything that "big pharm" is against.

[BStowers023]

I'm for pretty much anything that "big pharm" is against.

 

+1

[Richard Cranium]

As i understood the prices affected are only what the state will pay, not every average Joe Schmo in Ohio.

 

So it results in the rest of us paying more to make up the difference? That's the kind of thing I'm asking about. Most legislation has unintended consequences.

[Orion]

So it results in the rest of us paying more to make up the difference? That's the kind of thing I'm asking about. Most legislation has unintended consequences.

 

It's my understanding that vets typically have their medicine paid for by the VA. That price is negotiated down from the prices that a typical customer would pay for it. The goal of this bill would be to bring the prices for everyone else (EDIT: who gets their meds through a state agency) down to the same prices that the VA pays. That MAY cause the price the VA pays to rise a bit, but since Vets aren't paying out of pocket, the idea that Vets would pay more for their meds is a misrepresentation.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Orion

[TTQ B4U]

So it results in the rest of us paying more to make up the difference? That's the kind of thing I'm asking about. Most legislation has unintended consequences.

 

that's how I read it too Rick. there's no free-lunches so the delta is going to be paid for by someone and it's likely to be the rest of us. I'm still trying to learn about these issues too and no one makes it easy which pisses me off.

[xlr8tn]

they continually make these bills more and more confusing so they can dupe people into voting based on commercials. I watched the debate and came away knowing not much more than I did going in. Just seems like a greed fight between 2 entities that no one likes much.

My understanding is that it basically effects the cost of medicare and medicaid drug prices the state pays and those can't be higher than what the VA pays. The sponsor of the bill (Weinstein) at face value seems like he might be trying to do the right thing and he's the ceo of a healthcare company that does aids/hiv prevention and treatment. It does sound like they do good work but then you notice how much they're spending to get this bill passed here ($6M) and the limitless defense budget. It all starts to look like someone is going to get richer if it passes and someone is going to get richer if it fails.

 

The NO vote is pretty much all Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and they're throwing money at it like there's no tomorrow. They spent $120M getting it defeated in Kalifornia and seems like they have the same game plan for Ohio.

 

I've tried to read and learn about the issue but I'll be honest with you.....I have no idea which is the "correct" way for me to vote. I would probably slightly lean "yes" but only because it does benefit a company that does good in the world helping people who ordinarily wouldn't get help. A "no" vote helps who? Big pharmacy. Not sure I've ever noticed them doing much to help the less fortunate other than selling them drugs at insane prices. That's my take on it anyhow.

[Spidey2721]

^^^ because big pharm is against it makes me want to vote for it. although it is a cluster fudge of two girls and a cup proportions. Edited October 26, 2017 by Spidey2721

[mmrmnhrm]

^^^ because big pharm is against it makes me want to vote for it. although its is a cluster fudge of two girls and a cup proportions.

 

Pretty much this. From what I gather, most state Medicaid-type plans already negotiate prices down to very close to what the VA pays, so it's not as if the pharma industry is going to be losing a huge amount of money. Then add on the fact that the vast majority of working schmucks like us (not all, but most) get some sort of drug coverage via employment. So maybe co-pays go up a little, but probably not by much since those co-pays are calculated based on the entire pool of employees and the various plans/groups/pools/whatever the HR people work out. So yeah, I don't mind jabbing a stick in their eye, even if it's going to do jack for the occasional script the little one needs for pink eye.

[Smokey]

So what about if I have a regular script that I essentially pay cash price for? Have a high deductible plan so it’s not subsidized by my insurance, no government price, and no VA. What happens to that cost?

 

Vote no because the devil I know is better than the one I don’t?

[mrs.cos]

Kinda a sidebar but if you are paying out of pocket make sure you are using GoodRX.com discount card and website to find the best prices locally

 

Lyndens concerta is rediculously high and the goodrx Card lets us get it for $118 at Walgreens where it’s $200+ elsewhere

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zeitgeist57]

So, I spoke with my FiL (who's a surgeon) about this, and the consensus is that the "lower drug costs" thing is a trojan horse to try to get folks to vote for it.

 

The BIG PROBLEM if you look at the actual ballot language is it opens the state up for medical malpractice lawsuits that the State of Ohio has to pay for.

 

That alone will make me VOTE NO. If your generic drugs are cheap now, they will still be cheap b'cuz Obamacare at a federal level. This has nothing to do with what you all are currently playing!

[Geeto67]

 

The BIG PROBLEM if you look at the actual ballot language is it opens the state up for medical malpractice lawsuits that the State of Ohio has to pay for.

 

Can you point to the exact language that states this? I don't think this is accurate.

 

here, let me save you some time - here is the exact language of the bill that deals with legal defense:

 

(G) Legal Defense.

 

If any provision of this Act is challenged in court, it shall be defended by the Attorney General of Ohio. The People of Ohio, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the committee of individuals responsible for the circulation of the petition proposing this Act (“the Proponents”) have a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or other challenges. In the event of a challenge, any one or more of the Act's Proponents shall be entitled to assert their direct and personal stake by defending the Act's validity in any court of law, including on appeal. The Proponents shall be indemnified by the State of Ohio for their reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending the validity of the challenged Act. In the event that the Act or any of its provisions or parts are held by a court of law, after exhaustion of any appeals, to be unenforceable as being in conflict with other statutory or constitutional provisions, the Proponents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay a civil fine of $10,000 to the State of Ohio, but shall have no other personal liability to any person or entity.

 

Point to me the sentence or sentences that opens the state up to medical malpractice liability. you can ask your wife for help if you like.

 

The way I read this, in the context of existing laws, is that the state has to fund defense of the measure itself. These are NOT medical malpractice suits but are going to be civil suits brought by big pharma to try and get the courts to declare the measure unconstitutional or invalid.

 

Why do they put measure in? to scare away big pharma. Without it, the Durg industry knows they can just pour buckets of money into suing the state until it threatens the well being of the state budget and then the state government caves. This provision commits the state to having to spend money to defend the measure no matter what which means that the big pharma strategy of trying to outspend the state in the court system won't work. It's a pretty effective deterrent and has been working in california. Basically this is a big nuclear bomb that says to the drug companies "you wanna get crazy, we'll blow this whole motherfucker up so you don't win".

 

From what I am hearing, the pharma industry is spreading a lot of false information around, even in professional circles (e.g like physicians they supply), about how this measure will impact the medical industry. Malpractice suits are not a credible threat from this because price regulation does not legally qualify as a medical decision deviating from the standard of care. There are lots of other lawsuits that could be brought against this measure, most having to do with business regulation, but not ones brought by patients who suffered an adverse medical event because of this bill.

[zeitgeist57]

Can you point to the exact language that states this? I don't think this is accurate.

 

Point to me the sentence or sentences that opens the state up to medical malpractice liability. you can ask your wife for help if you like.

 

I don't appreciate this patronizing comment. You feeling better about yourself?

 

 

"If any provision of this Act is challenged in court, it shall be defended by the Attorney General of Ohio. The People of Ohio, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the committee of individuals responsible for the circulation of the petition proposing this Act (“the Proponents”) have a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or other challenges. In the event of a challenge, any one or more of the Act's Proponents shall be entitled to assert their direct and personal stake by defending the Act's validity in any court of law, including on appeal. The Proponents shall be indemnified by the State of Ohio for their reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending the validity of the challenged Act. In the event that the Act or any of its provisions or parts are held by a court of law, after exhaustion of any appeals, to be unenforceable as being in conflict with other statutory or constitutional provisions, the Proponents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay a civil fine of $10,000 to the State of Ohio, but shall have no other personal liability to any person or entity."

 

Alright, sounds like "Medical Malpractice" isn't the right term. However, now that I'm looking at what I am assuming is part of the Act (since I'm not verifying what you copy/pasta'd above), I don't see - in this case - why we allow an outside influencer to act on our behalf to fight for cheaper drug prices, when we as Ohio citizens have to have the State pay this Proponent's legal fees if we want to use the courts to put them to task if they fail (except for a $10k fee).

 

My pharma is provided at a discounted rate by health insurance coverage through a corporate employer that I pay a controlled annualized amount for out of my pocket. I don't need someone to push that which the Federal gov't and capitalist forces has already priced downward. I'm still a NO on this one.

[Geeto67]

I don't appreciate this patronizing comment. You feeling better about yourself?

 

Not Patronizing. Your wife is an attorney. One of the more frustrating things about legislation is that there are "regular" definitions and "legal industry" definitions which are not always the same. I am encouraging you to have her help you with this because she has insight you may not have, I'm just saying it in a way that sounds slightly dickish because I assumed everyone on here already knew she is an atty and it didn't need restating.

 

 

"If any provision of this Act is challenged in court, it shall be defended by the Attorney General of Ohio. The People of Ohio, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the committee of individuals responsible for the circulation of the petition proposing this Act (“the Proponents”) have a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or other challenges. In the event of a challenge, any one or more of the Act's Proponents shall be entitled to assert their direct and personal stake by defending the Act's validity in any court of law, including on appeal. The Proponents shall be indemnified by the State of Ohio for their reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending the validity of the challenged Act. In the event that the Act or any of its provisions or parts are held by a court of law, after exhaustion of any appeals, to be unenforceable as being in conflict with other statutory or constitutional provisions, the Proponents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay a civil fine of $10,000 to the State of Ohio, but shall have no other personal liability to any person or entity."

 

 

Alright, sounds like "Medical Malpractice" isn't the right term. However, now that I'm looking at what I am assuming is part of the Act (since I'm not verifying what you copy/pasta'd above), I don't see - in this case - why we allow an outside influencer to act on our behalf to fight for cheaper drug prices, when we as Ohio citizens have to have the State pay this Proponent's legal fees if we want to use the courts to put them to task if they fail (except for a $10k fee).

 

here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170626021434/http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/2015-07-21-petition.pdf

 

if it comes up network error, hit the go button at the top of the page as it should have the cite in the txt box.

 

Maybe Influencer isn't the correct term either. I think a better way to look at it is "why is the act appointing an Advocate who is an outsider of the state to look after the interests of the state" when we have an Atty General and state level representative politicians. Well....

 

Positives:

- familiarity with the specific healthcare issue at stake

 

- experience with challenges to the act.

 

- independent of the political process, esp the party process and lobbying. often with these measures the enemies of the bill attack from all sides: Litigation + federal lobbying + state lobbying + public attack at campaigns

 

Negatives:

 

- No check on actions because they are not answerable to the state politicians.

 

- not familiar with how the issue effects ohio at the local community level.

 

 

So you have a valid concern. Ohio already has an adovcate in it's Atty General and politicans, but those can be influenced by Pharma's spending and it puts the fight on us as citizens to continually fight through vote against the drug company's interests.

 

 

My pharma is provided at a discounted rate by health insurance coverage through a corporate employer that I pay a controlled annualized amount for out of my pocket. I don't need someone to push that which the Federal gov't and capitalist forces has already priced downward. I'm still a NO on this one.

 

You aren't really who this bill is aimed at, and consequently you won't feel the effect. The question is, do you know whom this bill is seeking to have the most effect on and do you feel they need a reduction in cost?

 

and slow your roll on "capitalist forces" because the only thing those "capitalist forces" in medicine have done for America is make us the country with the highest drug costs. Personally I don't think profitability has any place in something that is considered a necessary social good because it has a tendency to skew the decision making away from the good of the people it serves and toward the good of the shareholders.

[Fiji ST]

Since the vote is coming up tomorrow, has CR come to a consensus on this yet? I've been reading it this morning and it seems like it won't help me at all since I'm not on any state-funded programs and have private insurance. I'm hoping that's correct.

 

It also seems like A LOT of groups are against it, including the major newspapers. I'm sure this is an old-school view, but if the newspapers are against something, that's saying something to me.

[Orion]

because big pharm is against it makes me want to vote for it.

 

Big Pharm is PAYING a lot of folks to be against it, bruh. This bill will most likely not affect me in any way, but I'm voting for it.

[Vulcan900]

Big Pharm is PAYING a lot of folks to be against it, bruh. This bill will most likely not affect me in any way, but I'm voting for it.

 

+1

[Geeto67]

Big Pharm is PAYING a lot of folks to be against it, bruh. This bill will most likely not affect me in any way, but I'm voting for it.

 

just to add, There is a lot of "talk" about the NFP proponents of the bill (Aids Healthcare Foundation) as having an financial interest in the legislation. This is just not true.

 

The Organization provides medicine to those in need, and then bills various insurance companies, including medicaid, for reimbursement. If this measure goes through, the AHF will actually get paid less when they bill medicaid for reimbursement of the drug.

 

The primary goal of AHF is to provide medicine to people in need who can't afford to pay or who may be experiencing a shortage. They are a not for profit which means they fundamentally don't have a financial interest in maximizing profit.

 

On the one side you have Big Pharma, on the other you have a charity that brings medicine to the sick and dying. Just in case you weren't clear on who was supporting what.

 

AHF has spent $16 million campaigning for this bill here. By comparison Big Pharma has spent $50 million here on issue #2 and $109million in California to try and defeat prop 61 - in both cases it is/was the most expensive ballot measure for either state in the state's history.