Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

An Interview with Walid Gellad

Tremendous Waste in Medicare Diabetes Drugs Revealed

by MARTHA ROSENBERG

Walid Gellad, M.D., M.P.H. is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a staff physician and researcher at the Pittsburgh VA Medical Center.  His research focuses on physician prescribing practices and on policy issues affecting access to medications for patients. He recently granted this interview with CounterPunch reporter Martha Rosenberg.

Martha Rosenberg: Your study in the Annals of Internal Medicine’s July 16 issue [Brand-Name Prescription Drug Use Among Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D Patients With Diabetes] compares the use of brand name diabetes drugs in Medicare and the VA and concludes that one billion dollars a year could be saved a year if Medicare adopted the VA’s prescribing habits.

Walid Gellad: Yes we looked at diabetes-related medications like oral hypoglycemics, insulins, statins and ACE inhibitors and found that use of brand-name drugs was much greater in Medicare than the VA in almost every region of the country–two to three times as high as Medicare.

Rosenberg: When you started this research, did you expect such dramatic findings?

Gellad: I expected rates would be higher in Medicare, but didn’t realize they would be so much higher. As a VA doctor, I often see veterans who have outside insurance but still come to the VA to get cheaper drugs. For example, some patients might come in to get Lipitor at the discounted, VA price, but they didn’t realize they could switch drugs to get a less expensive, generic instead–one that could be filled outside the VA.

Rosenberg: Can you explain the difference between the two agencies’ prescribing systems?

Gellad: Medicare uses over 1,000 private plans with distinct formularies to administer its drug benefit, whereas the VA administers its own benefit using one national formulary. All veterans face the same low cost sharing, and benefits are managed by a central pharmacy benefits manager which has substantially lowered pharmacy spending for the VA.

Rosenberg: You write that previous studies have compared medication pricesbetween the VA and Medicare but not medication choices and cite the VA’s promotion of therapeutic substitution. Can you explain?

Gellad: That’s rightand medication choice is just as important for controlling spending as price is.  In this paper we look at what might happen to spending if price actually stays the same, but we changed the drugs prescribed. Unlike generic substitution in which a generic drug might be switched for a brand drug like simvastatin for Zocor [the generic and brand names of the same drug] therapeutic substitution, done by a clinician, interchanges generic drugs that are in the same class but not identical to the brand drug–for example, generic simvastatin might be substituted for the brand name atorvastatin which is Lipitor.

Rosenberg: Another factor you cite in cost savings is the lack of visits of drug reps to the VA.

Gellad: That is one potential factor, yes. Most VA doctors are not visited by pharmaceutical sales representatives and do not give out free samples. We are also a salaried workforce and it may be possible that doctors who are willing to accept salaries have a different perspective on marketed drugs.

Rosenberg: You write that private Part D plans can lose market share if they don’t offer the popular, brand name drugs. Yet those are the exact drugs that inflate costs!

Gellad: Yes, it was thought that if the Part D plans had to compete to get members they will keep prices lower, but the flip side is they need to offer the drugs patients are asking for if they want Medicare beneficiaries to enroll.

Rosenberg: If government administered plans produce such cost savings, what is the appeal of private plans?

Gellad: The appeal of having many private plans administer the drug benefit is that competition between them presumably will offer patients more choices and better prices, in a well functioning marketMany people would not accept a central government authority making decisions about drugs available to them. It turns out, however, that all drugs are available to individuals receiving benefits through VA, it’s just that in some cases physicians have to make a good case for why they are needed.  I am not proposing Medicare turn into the VA, but the truth is that financial resources for Medicare are limited. Money spent in one place that is not needed cannot be spent in another. There can’t be a medical reason that so many more patients on Medicare need brand name drugs compared to those than at the VA.

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter. She is the author of  Born With A Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Prometheus).