It’s an unreliable rule of thumb to vote on a ballot
propositions based on who backs or opposes it. But when drug
companies spend tens of millions of dollars to pass one proposition
and defeat another, it’s a pretty good bet they’re not doing it
because it will result in cheaper drugs for you.
It’s an unreliable rule of thumb to vote on a ballot propositions based on who backs or opposes it. But when drug companies spend tens of millions of dollars to pass one proposition and defeat another, it’s a pretty good bet they’re not doing it because it will result in cheaper drugs for you.
That’s the case with Propositions 78 and 79. The drug companies are fighting hard to pass Proposition 78, and see Proposition 79 as a serious threat to their bottom lines.
Both set up drug discount plans. The difference is that Proposition 78 is set up by the drug companies themselves, and Proposition 79 is run by the state of California.
We recommend no on 78 and yes on 79.
Proposition 79 is not a cure-all, but it’s a good start. The League of Women Voters estimates it would cover eight to 10 million people – those up to 400 percent of the poverty line – with cost savings as deep as 50 percent. The League estimates Proposition 78 would cover only half as many people with discounts up to 40 percent.
One drug company ad says Proposition 78 leaves drug decisions in the hands of doctors, whereas Proposition 79 puts it in the hands of bureaucrats. This is disingenuous.
With Proposition 78, the choice of offering the discounts is left to the drug companies, meaning that the ability to pay, not need, is likely to remain the determining factor in who gets a drug. Proposition 79 uses the buying power of the state to forces the drug companies to negotiate lower prices, making them more accessible to everyone.
We think that’s fair. Medical need should govern the design of our health care system, not ability to pay.
There are some things, such as universal education and mass transit, that government does better than the private sector. In view of the decades of failure of the latter to provide widely available affordable health care, it is time to add that to that list.
Even people who can afford to pay for their drugs now should support Proposition 79 and oppose Proposition 78. One reason drugs are so expensive is because of what’s known as cost-shifting. Drug companies charge people who can afford to pay more than people, especially in Third World countries, who can’t. Proposition 79 will level the playing field.
Opponents argue that Proposition 79 will result in drug rationing. Maybe. But we already have that now, based on ability to pay. With the cost of drugs sending more Americans to Canada to fill prescriptions, the track record of the drug companies doesn’t inspire us with confidence that they can make Proposition 78 work.
