Nursing Home Transparency—Title IV, Transparency and Program Integrity
The Nursing Home Transparency provisions in America’s Healthy Future Act are based on the recommendations of consumers, regulators, prosecutors, the Government Accountability Office, and the HHS Office of Inspector General. The no-cost requirements would bring greater transparency and accountability to nursing homes, which receive over $75 billion a year from Medicare and Medicaid, and improve the government’s capacity to oversee the quality of care provided by corporations that control chains of facilities. The legislation would also enable American families to be better-informed when choosing a nursing home and empower them to be stronger advocates for their parents, spouses, and other loved ones with long-term disabilities. We urge you to pass Nursing Home Transparency without amendment.
Amendment #37—Elder Justice (Senator Hatch and Senator Lincoln)
Among other provisions to improve the nation’s ability to combat elder abuse, the Elder Justice Act mandates reporting of crimes against residents in long-term care facilities; provides for adequate notice and relocation planning for residents when nursing homes close; and improves training of long-term care ombudsmen, who investigate resident complaints. This legislation was passed by the Finance Committee in the 110th Congress.
Amendment #84—Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention (Senator Stabenow)
This amendment would support states in developing a system to conduct national background checks on employees of nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and home health agencies. It would extend a seven-state pilot in which over 9,500 applicants were identified as having serious criminal or abuse records that caused them to be denied employment with long-term care providers. The legislation is urgently needed to ensure that workers who abuse or exploit the elderly do not cross state lines to obtain employment.
We deeply appreciate your support.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
FINANCE COMMITEE Health Reform
Four other congressional committees have already passed good bills that include the public option, but the Finance Committee has been dragging its feet and considering half-measures—like the trigger—that won't fix our nation's broken health care system.
Make no mistake: the trigger is a Trojan horse designed to kill the public option by delaying its availability and then offering it only in a limited number of states after certain conditions are met.
So we need to send a strong message to the Senate Finance Committee that health care reform must include a strong public health insurance option that's available immediately—not a trigger.
Make no mistake: the trigger is a Trojan horse designed to kill the public option by delaying its availability and then offering it only in a limited number of states after certain conditions are met.
So we need to send a strong message to the Senate Finance Committee that health care reform must include a strong public health insurance option that's available immediately—not a trigger.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
GENERIC DRUGS
Visit: The Burrill Report
Stopping manufacturers of brand-name drugs from paying potential generic competitors to stay out of the market would save consumers $3.5 billion a year, says the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz says that eliminating these so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements between brand and generic pharmaceutical firms would also result in major savings for the federal government, which pays about one-third of all prescription drug costs. Last week, Leibowitz urged Congress to pass pending legislation to ban or restrict what he describes as anticompetitive patent settlements to control prescription drug costs, restore generic competition, and help pay for healthcare reform.
“The decision about whether to restrict pay-for-delay settlements should be simple,” Leibowitz said in a speech before the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. “On the one hand, you have savings to American consumers of $35 billion or more over 10 years—about $12 billion of which would be savings to the federal government—and the prospect of helping to pay for healthcare reform as well as the ability to set a clear national standard to stop anticompetitive conduct. On the other hand, you have a permissive legal regime that allows competitors to make collusive deals on the backs of consumers.”
Leibowitz called eliminating pay-for-delay deals one of the FTC’s highest priorities. In these agreements, a brand-name company settles its patent lawsuit by paying the generic firm to delay entering the market, the FTC says. Such deals can cost consumers billions of dollars because generic drugs are typically priced significantly less than their branded counterparts.
More than two decades ago, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act. The legislation was designed to make it easier for generic drugs to enter the market, while giving brand-name manufacturers the patent protection they need to encourage lifesaving research, the FTC says. The FTC says that the legislation initially worked in lowering prices for consumers through generic drugs. But it says, eventually drug companies found they could delay generic entry by settling patent litigation using pay-for-delay tactics.
Earlier this decade, the FTC says it had successfully stopped such illegal payments. But recent appellate court decisions have blessed these anticompetitive settlements, it adds,
with generic firms competing to be the first to get paid off to stay out of the market instead of competing to be the first to come to market.
In addition to the savings to consumers, ending such payments could save the government roughly $1.2 billion a year, or $12 billion over 10 years, because the federal government currently pays about one-third of the nation’s $235 billion prescription drug bill, the FTC says. Leibowitz says there have been some encouraging trends. Among them, the Obama Administration has created momentum for a national solution to stop pay-for-delay settlements. What’s more, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has questioned its own precedent, set in the Tamoxifen case, by asking the Department of Justice to weigh in on a pending case raising similar competitive issues, the FTC adds. Also, Congress is seeking a solution, with a House subcommittee this month voting in favor of a bill that would prohibit these settlements.
Related Articles
»
Howard McGowan
MaldenSenior
Stopping manufacturers of brand-name drugs from paying potential generic competitors to stay out of the market would save consumers $3.5 billion a year, says the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz says that eliminating these so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements between brand and generic pharmaceutical firms would also result in major savings for the federal government, which pays about one-third of all prescription drug costs. Last week, Leibowitz urged Congress to pass pending legislation to ban or restrict what he describes as anticompetitive patent settlements to control prescription drug costs, restore generic competition, and help pay for healthcare reform.
“The decision about whether to restrict pay-for-delay settlements should be simple,” Leibowitz said in a speech before the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. “On the one hand, you have savings to American consumers of $35 billion or more over 10 years—about $12 billion of which would be savings to the federal government—and the prospect of helping to pay for healthcare reform as well as the ability to set a clear national standard to stop anticompetitive conduct. On the other hand, you have a permissive legal regime that allows competitors to make collusive deals on the backs of consumers.”
Leibowitz called eliminating pay-for-delay deals one of the FTC’s highest priorities. In these agreements, a brand-name company settles its patent lawsuit by paying the generic firm to delay entering the market, the FTC says. Such deals can cost consumers billions of dollars because generic drugs are typically priced significantly less than their branded counterparts.
More than two decades ago, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act. The legislation was designed to make it easier for generic drugs to enter the market, while giving brand-name manufacturers the patent protection they need to encourage lifesaving research, the FTC says. The FTC says that the legislation initially worked in lowering prices for consumers through generic drugs. But it says, eventually drug companies found they could delay generic entry by settling patent litigation using pay-for-delay tactics.
Earlier this decade, the FTC says it had successfully stopped such illegal payments. But recent appellate court decisions have blessed these anticompetitive settlements, it adds,
with generic firms competing to be the first to get paid off to stay out of the market instead of competing to be the first to come to market.
In addition to the savings to consumers, ending such payments could save the government roughly $1.2 billion a year, or $12 billion over 10 years, because the federal government currently pays about one-third of the nation’s $235 billion prescription drug bill, the FTC says. Leibowitz says there have been some encouraging trends. Among them, the Obama Administration has created momentum for a national solution to stop pay-for-delay settlements. What’s more, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has questioned its own precedent, set in the Tamoxifen case, by asking the Department of Justice to weigh in on a pending case raising similar competitive issues, the FTC adds. Also, Congress is seeking a solution, with a House subcommittee this month voting in favor of a bill that would prohibit these settlements.
Related Articles
»
Howard McGowan
MaldenSenior
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Notch Legislation
Notch Bulletin: March 2009 Advisor | Print | E-mail
Notch Reform Tops List Of Bills Introduced In New Congress
Notch Babies and their families often feel that Congress plays a waiting game. The longer Congress drags its feet on Notch Reform, the greater the chance the Notch will just quietly “die away.” But with the start of the new Congress and with an overwhelming desire among voters for change, TSCL has high hopes for enactment of Notch Reform.
The Notch Fairness Act (S. 81) was one of the first pieces of legislation to be introduced in the opening days of the new 111th Congress. And for the first time in more than four years, the bill was introduced in the Senate, by Senator David Vitter (LA). The Notch Fairness Act would allow Notch Babies born from 1917 through 1926, and beneficiaries on their accounts, a choice of $5,000 payable in four annual installments, or an improved monthly benefit.
Support the Notch Fairness Act today.
Notch Reform legislation was also introduced in the House. Representative Jo Ann Emerson (MO) re-introduced her bill H.R. 238 that would provide an improved monthly benefit for Notch Babies born from 1917 through 1926.
The Social Security Notch refers to a disparity in the amount of Social Security benefits received by retirees who were born during 1917 through 1926 and other retirees having similar work and earnings record born outside those years. Due to changes in the benefit formula enacted by Congress in 1977, seniors born during the Notch period receive lower benefits than other retirees having similar records. Studies for TSCL have found that Notch Babies appear to receive about $1,000 to $3,000 per year less in benefits than other retirees.
Based on Social Security data through December 2008, TSCL estimates that about 5.3 million Notch Babies could benefit if Congress enacts the The Notch Fairness Act in 2009. We also estimate that the cost of that legislation would be about $24 billion. As of January 31, 2009, payroll taxes earmarked to pay retirement benefits are estimated to be enough to pay benefits for all current retirees and still have extra left over to afford Notch benefits. In addition, TSCL believes the increased Notch benefit payments could even have a stimulative effect on the economy because reform paments would be spent right away.
TSCL hopes you will continue to join our efforts to educate Members of Congress about the need for putting an end to the Notch. Please send a letter or e-mail to your Members of Congress asking them to co-sponsor Notch reform legislation.
Social Security Issues COLA
Notch
Totalization
SS Reform/Privatization
Notch Information Articles
Questions & Answers
Notch Action Center Sign Petitions
Track Important Bills
Congressional Responses
Legislative Updates
Notch Reform Tops List Of Bills Introduced In New Congress
Notch Babies and their families often feel that Congress plays a waiting game. The longer Congress drags its feet on Notch Reform, the greater the chance the Notch will just quietly “die away.” But with the start of the new Congress and with an overwhelming desire among voters for change, TSCL has high hopes for enactment of Notch Reform.
The Notch Fairness Act (S. 81) was one of the first pieces of legislation to be introduced in the opening days of the new 111th Congress. And for the first time in more than four years, the bill was introduced in the Senate, by Senator David Vitter (LA). The Notch Fairness Act would allow Notch Babies born from 1917 through 1926, and beneficiaries on their accounts, a choice of $5,000 payable in four annual installments, or an improved monthly benefit.
Support the Notch Fairness Act today.
Notch Reform legislation was also introduced in the House. Representative Jo Ann Emerson (MO) re-introduced her bill H.R. 238 that would provide an improved monthly benefit for Notch Babies born from 1917 through 1926.
The Social Security Notch refers to a disparity in the amount of Social Security benefits received by retirees who were born during 1917 through 1926 and other retirees having similar work and earnings record born outside those years. Due to changes in the benefit formula enacted by Congress in 1977, seniors born during the Notch period receive lower benefits than other retirees having similar records. Studies for TSCL have found that Notch Babies appear to receive about $1,000 to $3,000 per year less in benefits than other retirees.
Based on Social Security data through December 2008, TSCL estimates that about 5.3 million Notch Babies could benefit if Congress enacts the The Notch Fairness Act in 2009. We also estimate that the cost of that legislation would be about $24 billion. As of January 31, 2009, payroll taxes earmarked to pay retirement benefits are estimated to be enough to pay benefits for all current retirees and still have extra left over to afford Notch benefits. In addition, TSCL believes the increased Notch benefit payments could even have a stimulative effect on the economy because reform paments would be spent right away.
TSCL hopes you will continue to join our efforts to educate Members of Congress about the need for putting an end to the Notch. Please send a letter or e-mail to your Members of Congress asking them to co-sponsor Notch reform legislation.
Social Security Issues COLA
Notch
Totalization
SS Reform/Privatization
Notch Information Articles
Questions & Answers
Notch Action Center Sign Petitions
Track Important Bills
Congressional Responses
Legislative Updates
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
