Madness yes indeed : and it will cost over $200 million dollars.
Read More at:
Showing posts with label Costs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Costs. Show all posts
11/3/18
Defending the US border against a small group of Asylum seekers with 15.000 troops is total madness
Madness yes indeed : and it will cost over $200 million dollars.
Read More at:
6/11/18
The Internet - Net Neutrality is dead for Americans: Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official. Here’s How That Could Affect You - by Keith Collins
It’s official. The Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules, which had required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content, took effect on Monday.
The rules, enacted by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2015 prohibited internet providers from charging more for certain content or from giving preferential treatment to certain websites.
After the commission voted to repeal the rules in December, it faced a public outcry, legal challenges from state attorneys general and public interest groups, and a push by Democratic lawmakers to overturn the decision.
The opponents argued that the repeal would open the door for service providers to censor content online or charge additional fees for better service — something that could hurt small companies — and several states have taken steps to impose the rules on a local level.
Still,the repeal was a big win for Ajit Pai, the F.C.C.’s chairman, who has long opposed the regulations, saying they impeded innovation. He once said they were based on “hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom.”
Read more: Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official. Here’s How That Could Affect You. - The New YorkTimes
10/14/17
US Economy:: Devastating California wildfires predicted to cost US economy $85 billion; Containment may take weeks - by Brian Lada
Devastating fires charring California have claimed more lives than
any fire in the state's history, and the economic toll is predicted to
climb to $85 billion.
"These wildfires, especially in Northern California, are particularly devastating,” said Dr. Joel N. Myers, founder, president and chairman of AccuWeather.
“We estimate the California wildfires will profoundly affect the economy of California. The cost to contain and fight the fire and deal with the aftermath will be in the billions. And, the loss in tax revenue from businesses no longer around, including the vineyards; the workers who have lost their jobs and can no longer pay taxes as well as other impacts will be quite costly.
This will create a hole in the California budget, which may necessitate an increase in taxes. If California has to borrow more this might negatively impact its bond ratings and it will have to pay higher interest rates on all borrowings, which can cost upwards of 10s of billions of dollars. At this time, we estimate the economic impact of the fires is already approaching $70 billion dollars. Based on our forecast the total costs from this disaster on the economy would exceed $85 billion and, if the fires are not contained in the next couple of weeks, the total economic impact could even reach $100 billion.”
Read more: Devastating California wildfires predicted to cost US economy $85 billion; Containment may take weeks
"These wildfires, especially in Northern California, are particularly devastating,” said Dr. Joel N. Myers, founder, president and chairman of AccuWeather.
“We estimate the California wildfires will profoundly affect the economy of California. The cost to contain and fight the fire and deal with the aftermath will be in the billions. And, the loss in tax revenue from businesses no longer around, including the vineyards; the workers who have lost their jobs and can no longer pay taxes as well as other impacts will be quite costly.
This will create a hole in the California budget, which may necessitate an increase in taxes. If California has to borrow more this might negatively impact its bond ratings and it will have to pay higher interest rates on all borrowings, which can cost upwards of 10s of billions of dollars. At this time, we estimate the economic impact of the fires is already approaching $70 billion dollars. Based on our forecast the total costs from this disaster on the economy would exceed $85 billion and, if the fires are not contained in the next couple of weeks, the total economic impact could even reach $100 billion.”
Read more: Devastating California wildfires predicted to cost US economy $85 billion; Containment may take weeks
5/13/16
European Regulators Drawn Into Debate on Drug Pricing - by Zachary Brennan
Although drug regulators aren’t supposed to
be concerned with pricing when making decisions on products’ safety and
efficacy, they’re increasingly being drawn into what two
representatives of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the heads of
two national regulators call an “acrimonious debate” over drug costs.
In a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published Thursday, EMA’s Executive Director Guido Rasi, its Senior Medical Officer Hans-Georg Eichler, the Executive Director of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board Hugo Hurts and President of the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices Karl Broich cautioned against the growing sentiment that the value of regulators is declining.
“Without evidence that has been vetted by regulators, why would anyone pay more for any drug than they would for, say, a dietary supplement?” they write. “If we eliminated regulation, the current biopharmaceutical business model would collapse — and so would science-based drug development.
Without a requirement for regulatory approval, companies would have no incentive to conduct expensive clinical trials of their products. Lowering regulatory standards would be unwise for both patients and organizations that invest in pharmaceutical R&D. Robust regulation improves public health and creates economic value.”
And for the sake of affordability, they also argue that regulators should not yield to pressure to lower standards or be oblivious to the growing budget pains caused by newly authorized products.
The article comes just a day after former US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and former National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni called for more regulatory harmonization worldwide. The European Commission also released a report in February on drug pricing, regulators and policy options.
The EU authors also call for fast-tracking additional generic approvals when “companies are taking advantage of monopoly conditions.”
And while consumer advocates criticize the number of me-too drugs that provide limited or no added value over available drugs, the authors say that “some me-too products that were originally criticized have benefited patients and provided additional treatment options.
More important, sometimes the availability of these products can drive down prices almost as much as the availability of generics.”
The regulators use the example of the entry of hepatitis C medications similar to Gilead’s Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), which reduced prices and expanded access to treatment.
Thirdly, the EU authors point to the idea of including payers at the table when regulatory decisions are made in order for drugmakers to provide more information upfront on measures of quality of life or health care resource utilization.
EMA, and some EU member states, have hosted nearly 70 “parallel scientific advice” sessions so far, during which regulators, health technology assessment experts and drug developers discuss premarket clinical trial designs.
And finally, the authors say that regulators can facilitate the collection of other kinds of data that payers need.
“Increasingly, payers and pharmaceutical companies are considering outcome-focused deals tying a drug’s price to the results achieved,” Rasi, et al. write. “Although pay-for-performance schemes are attractive in theory, practical hurdles have prevented widespread adoption.
Most important is the difficulty of collecting and interpreting the relevant patient-level data in a given health care system. Regulators, at least in some countries, can facilitate data collection by considering payers’ needs when asking companies to conduct post approval studies.”
And the EMA is now exploring with HTAs new ways to collaborate on collecting postmarket data. In conclusion, the authors are wary of placing all of the onus for drug pricing on regulators, particularly because as price gouging continues.
“Regulators alone cannot solve the growing problem of high drug prices. We understand that new drugs should command prices that reward and provide incentives for R&D investment. However, we fail to comprehend prices that, like Sovaldi’s, recoup the entire investment within the first few months after a product’s launch but are so unaffordable that patients in need are denied access. We are committed to doing our part to facilitate continued access to effective and safe treatments.”
Read more: European Regulators Drawn Into Debate on Drug Pricing | RAPS
In a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published Thursday, EMA’s Executive Director Guido Rasi, its Senior Medical Officer Hans-Georg Eichler, the Executive Director of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board Hugo Hurts and President of the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices Karl Broich cautioned against the growing sentiment that the value of regulators is declining.
“Without evidence that has been vetted by regulators, why would anyone pay more for any drug than they would for, say, a dietary supplement?” they write. “If we eliminated regulation, the current biopharmaceutical business model would collapse — and so would science-based drug development.
Without a requirement for regulatory approval, companies would have no incentive to conduct expensive clinical trials of their products. Lowering regulatory standards would be unwise for both patients and organizations that invest in pharmaceutical R&D. Robust regulation improves public health and creates economic value.”
And for the sake of affordability, they also argue that regulators should not yield to pressure to lower standards or be oblivious to the growing budget pains caused by newly authorized products.
The article comes just a day after former US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and former National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni called for more regulatory harmonization worldwide. The European Commission also released a report in February on drug pricing, regulators and policy options.
The EU authors also call for fast-tracking additional generic approvals when “companies are taking advantage of monopoly conditions.”
And while consumer advocates criticize the number of me-too drugs that provide limited or no added value over available drugs, the authors say that “some me-too products that were originally criticized have benefited patients and provided additional treatment options.
More important, sometimes the availability of these products can drive down prices almost as much as the availability of generics.”
The regulators use the example of the entry of hepatitis C medications similar to Gilead’s Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), which reduced prices and expanded access to treatment.
Thirdly, the EU authors point to the idea of including payers at the table when regulatory decisions are made in order for drugmakers to provide more information upfront on measures of quality of life or health care resource utilization.
EMA, and some EU member states, have hosted nearly 70 “parallel scientific advice” sessions so far, during which regulators, health technology assessment experts and drug developers discuss premarket clinical trial designs.
And finally, the authors say that regulators can facilitate the collection of other kinds of data that payers need.
“Increasingly, payers and pharmaceutical companies are considering outcome-focused deals tying a drug’s price to the results achieved,” Rasi, et al. write. “Although pay-for-performance schemes are attractive in theory, practical hurdles have prevented widespread adoption.
Most important is the difficulty of collecting and interpreting the relevant patient-level data in a given health care system. Regulators, at least in some countries, can facilitate data collection by considering payers’ needs when asking companies to conduct post approval studies.”
And the EMA is now exploring with HTAs new ways to collaborate on collecting postmarket data. In conclusion, the authors are wary of placing all of the onus for drug pricing on regulators, particularly because as price gouging continues.
“Regulators alone cannot solve the growing problem of high drug prices. We understand that new drugs should command prices that reward and provide incentives for R&D investment. However, we fail to comprehend prices that, like Sovaldi’s, recoup the entire investment within the first few months after a product’s launch but are so unaffordable that patients in need are denied access. We are committed to doing our part to facilitate continued access to effective and safe treatments.”
Read more: European Regulators Drawn Into Debate on Drug Pricing | RAPS
1/13/14
The Netherlands: Prisoners to pay €16 a day for their time in jail: Ministry of Justice says
 |
| One person Dutch Prison cell |
The justice ministry said in a statement on Monday it is to introduce a charge of €16 a day for prisoners, people in psychiatric prison and the parents of juveniles in detention.
Prisoners and parents would be liable to pay the charge for a maximum two years, costing them up to €11,680.
Read more: DutchNews.nl - Prisoners to pay €16 a day for their time in jail: justice ministry
1/12/13
Pharmaceutical Industry - EU: The scandalous rise (176 - 640%) of EU drug costs needs to be investigated
It is widely acknowledged that the political and administrative class allowed public spending to run out of control during the boom and bubble periods. But even by the wasteful and reckless standards of that time, the increase in spending on drugs was exceptional.
Europeans who point their finger at the US, when it comes to "gone out of control" medical and pharmaceutical industry pricing structures should instead look more closely at similar trends at home.
The fact is that the global Pharmaceutical industry has become an uncontrollable "monster" threatening governments and taxpayers economic well being.
In 1995 Ireland spent €279 million on pharmaceutical products and medical equipment. By 2008 that figure had not doubled, trebled nor quadrupled, but was 640 per cent higher at more than €2 billion. (It has since fallen only marginally despite much talk of the State getting a better deal from drugs companies.)
This is not just astounding, it is scandalous. To see how scandalous it is, comparison with peer countries is needed. Of the western European countries for which figures are available (from Eurostat), the second biggest increase in pharma spending over that period took place in Spain. In Spain spending increased by 176 per cent.
The formidable lobbying power of the Pharmaceutical industry is a vital context in all of this. When it comes to influencing governments, big pharma has few rivals. One lever the industry has is the threat of withdrawing supplies of a drug in a given country if a government displeases it.
In the case of Ireland the Pharmaceutical industry has a very strong economic grip on that country, because their economy stands out from others in that many of the world’s leading drugs companies have large-scale operations there. In 2011 the Pharmaceutical Industry shipped €26.4 billion, equivalent to 17 per cent of GDP of their products out of Ireland.
Obviously, since their contribution to the Irish economy is great – in terms of jobs and taxes paid, as well as technology and know-how spillovers the Irish government does not dare to "rock the boat" when it comes to the Pharmaceutical industry excesses.
There are strict and comprehensive EU rules on how states aid industry with taxpayers’ money. In the interests of European taxpayers the competition authorities in Brussels should investigate the matter rigorously because local governments apparently don't dare to do so.
Read more: The scandalous rise in drug costs needs to be tackled - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 11, 2013
Europeans who point their finger at the US, when it comes to "gone out of control" medical and pharmaceutical industry pricing structures should instead look more closely at similar trends at home.
The fact is that the global Pharmaceutical industry has become an uncontrollable "monster" threatening governments and taxpayers economic well being.
In 1995 Ireland spent €279 million on pharmaceutical products and medical equipment. By 2008 that figure had not doubled, trebled nor quadrupled, but was 640 per cent higher at more than €2 billion. (It has since fallen only marginally despite much talk of the State getting a better deal from drugs companies.)
This is not just astounding, it is scandalous. To see how scandalous it is, comparison with peer countries is needed. Of the western European countries for which figures are available (from Eurostat), the second biggest increase in pharma spending over that period took place in Spain. In Spain spending increased by 176 per cent.
The formidable lobbying power of the Pharmaceutical industry is a vital context in all of this. When it comes to influencing governments, big pharma has few rivals. One lever the industry has is the threat of withdrawing supplies of a drug in a given country if a government displeases it.
In the case of Ireland the Pharmaceutical industry has a very strong economic grip on that country, because their economy stands out from others in that many of the world’s leading drugs companies have large-scale operations there. In 2011 the Pharmaceutical Industry shipped €26.4 billion, equivalent to 17 per cent of GDP of their products out of Ireland.
Obviously, since their contribution to the Irish economy is great – in terms of jobs and taxes paid, as well as technology and know-how spillovers the Irish government does not dare to "rock the boat" when it comes to the Pharmaceutical industry excesses.
There are strict and comprehensive EU rules on how states aid industry with taxpayers’ money. In the interests of European taxpayers the competition authorities in Brussels should investigate the matter rigorously because local governments apparently don't dare to do so.
Read more: The scandalous rise in drug costs needs to be tackled - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 11, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)