Overcharges on generic Prilosec give Ohio taxpayers heartburn

Overcharges on generic Prilosec give Ohio taxpayers heartburn

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190310/overcharges-on-generic-prilosec-give-ohio-taxpayers-heartburn

For the past couple of years, Ohioans could buy the generic version of the heartburn treatment Prilosec off the shelf at most any drugstore for less than 60 cents a tablet — and less than 40 cents online.

At the same time, however, Ohioans were being charged $6.57 a tablet to provide large quantities of the exact same drug through the state’s Medicaid program.

Those apparent overcharges for just this one 20-mg pill totaled about $2.4 million in only 18 months, from the start of 2017 to mid-2018 (the latest figures available).

“This is a case of 42 tabs can be mailed to your house without a prescription for $15.99 (or less), while a state’s Medicaid budget forked over $283.08 (17.7 times as much) for the same quantity,” said an analysis released this past week by Robert W. Baird Co., a multinational independent investment bank and financial services company based in Wisconsin.

The higher price stems from an almost-unnoticed decision by a middleman in the drug-supply chain who ironically was hired to help keep prices down: pharmacy benefit manager CVS Caremark.

Why?

That’s where things get complicated — not uncommon when delving into reasons behind the high cost of prescription drugs. But it’s yet another chapter in the story of how even the smallest of moves by pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen in the prescription-drug-supply and payment chain, can have multimillion-dollar effects on the public.

“This is a textbook example of concerns taxpayers have across the nation and (underscores) the need for transparency across the entire drug-supply chain,” said new Ohio Medicaid Director Maureen Corcoran.

One fact that’s undisputed: CVS is involved in a joint venture called Red Oak Sourcing with Dublin-based Cardinal Health, and Cardinal is the parent company of Major Pharmaceuticals — the marketer/distributor for the expensive version of generic Prilosec. Along with heartburn, the drug is used to treat acid reflux and stomach ulcers.

More complicated is the disputed part, which revolves around something called the Maximum Allowable Cost list. Like many things in the drug-pricing world, it has an acronym: the “MAC list.”

In Ohio’s Medicaid setup, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) stands between pharmacies that provide the drugs and the managed-care plans that taxpayers support. CVS Caremark is the PBM for four of Ohio’s five managed-care organizations.

The PBMs typically set up a MAC list for drugs funded by Medicaid. The MAC list shows the amount a pharmacy will be reimbursed by the state for each drug, dosage and distributor.

Indeed, CVS Caremark established the usual MAC list for five sources of generic Prilosec, known as Omeprazole. The price for each 20-mg tablet ranged from 51 cents to 63 cents.

But there was one company left off the MAC list: Cardinal’s Major Pharmaceuticals. Its price tag was $6.57 for the exact same tablet.

Not only that, but Ohio pharmacies also squeezed by lower MAC prices for most drugs quickly seized on the one version of Omeprazole that would provide them the most profit from Medicaid. The market share for Omeprazole from Major Pharmaceuticals skyrocketed from less than 2 percent to almost 60 percent in about 15 months, Baird found, using data from 46brooklyn Research.

If the state had paid Major Pharmaceuticals the average of what it paid the MAC-listed Omeprazole suppliers, the overall price tag would have been $2,366,574 from January 2017 through June 2018.

“Clearly, the PBM dropped the ball (whether purposely or not) with this drug, subjecting the state of Ohio to the wildly off-the-mark (price) set by one manufacturer to grab market share,” said a report by 46brooklyn, run by Eric Pachman, former president of a chain of Ohio pharmacies, and Antonio Ciaccia, top lobbyist for the Ohio Pharmacy Association.

Corcoran, the Medicaid director, said the state pays managed-care companies a set per-recipient, per-month cost — known as the capitation rate — so fluctuations in drug costs don’t change that amount, and taxpayers aren’t directly losing any money.

Mike DeAngelis, senior director of corporate communications for CVS Health, pointed to the same factor to say Ohio taxpayers are not affected by higher Medicaid drug prices.

Ciaccia’s response: “Give me a break. Yes, the state uses capitation rates, but the state uses the (drug) utilization data and claims information to set the capitation rates. Chicken-and-egg argument. If we used their logic, the price the state pays would never change, but it does. Those capitation rates keep going up. So clearly, these overcharges do matter.”

DeAngelis offered a range of explanations to absolve CVS of any responsibility for the overpayment.

First, he went after the Baird report, saying the financial adviser’s conclusions “appear to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how pharmacy pricing works” because “PBMs such as CVS Caremark have no input or control over pharmacies’ product selection.”

The response from one of the report’s authors, senior research analyst Eric Coldwell, was biting.

“We simply and methodically highlighted a string of eye-opening coincidences, and then provided facts as determined via double-checked, government-reported data,” he said. “I believe that astute observers would seriously question statements such as PBMs ‘have no input or control over pharmacies’ product selection’ and that the economics to CVS are 100 percent identical no matter what product is selected at the pharmacy.”

And about “these ridiculously priced tablets,” Coldwell questioned: “If CVS doesn’t have any control over the items that they claim not to control, then why are we (taxpayers) paying them so handsomely?”

Ciaccia sounded a similar theme: “For a PBM to say, ‘Well, we don’t control this; it’s the pharmacy,’ is a (BS) response. One of the main reasons they are paid $200 million is to keep things like this under control. Best-case scenario: They suck at their job. … Anything worse points to cashing in on conflicts of interest.”

DeAngelis also said the Major Pharmaceuticals version of Omeprazole “does not have the appropriate third-party generic national drug code” to be included on CVS’s MAC list. It was unclear how the national drug code — already established by the Federal Drug Administration for Major’s Omeprazole — would keep it off CVS’s MAC list. He did not elaborate despite further inquiries.

But the Baird report noted that Ohio Medicaid’s other PBM, OptumRx, had no trouble including the version from Major Pharmaceuticals on its MAC list. Plus, Ohio’s fee-for-service branch of Medicaid also has put Major on a MAC list. So it was not readily apparent why CVS could not include them as well.

Greg Lopes, senior director of strategic communications for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM trade group, said that getting drugs on a MAC list is normally important to the benefit manager. The drug middlemen use those price lists to “make the generic market more competitive and more efficient,” noting, “without MACs, drugstores could overcharge for generics, earning excess profits.”

DeAngelis also said the company makes no additional money from the higher price charged for the drug from Cardinal Health’s subsidiary, so “CVS Health’s business relationship with Cardinal Health plays no role in CVS Caremark’s MAC decisions regarding this product.”

Cardinal spokeswoman Brandi Martin declined to comment about the high price paid by Medicaid or whether the company’s business relationship with CVS was a factor in its drug’s pricing.

“Neither Cardinal Health nor Major Pharmaceuticals play a role in payer/PBM plan design or reimbursement,” she said.

The questions surrounding these price variations on a single brand of generic Prilosec mark another controversy involving the impact of pharmacy benefit managers on Ohio, many of which have been revealed by The Dispatch.

State Attorney General Dave Yost sued a PBM last month on behalf of the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, seeking repayment of some $16 million. More action is coming, he promised.

Gov. Mike DeWine told the Medicaid agency to rebid its managed-care setup, of which the PBMs are a key part. Medicaid officials recently amended the managed-care contracts to give the state greater scrutiny of PBMs, including twice-a-year reports on drug-pricing data.

Those changes that began in January stemmed from a Medicaid consultant who found that PBMs were charging Ohio three to six times the standard rate, resulting in excessive profits approaching $200 million in a single year. A state audit also found questionable amounts obtained by the PBMs.

The state intervened when PBMs dropped their reimbursements to pharmacies for potentially lifesaving naloxone, an overdose antidote, so low that many stopped stocking it.

State lawmakers have criticized CVS tactics of cutting reimbursements virtually across the board to Ohio pharmacies, then approaching those same pharmacies with offers to buy them.

The state probed a CVS mailing that exposed HIV patients’ identity, and a lawsuit filed on their behalf is pending.

An Ohio Ethics Commission investigation is pending of a top Medicaid official who worked for CVS at the same time as the state and immediately after she left the state payroll.

It’s not clear whether anything will be done about the overcharges for generic Prilosec. But a Dispatch price check at a half-dozen stores last week found it still on the shelf — and still available at a price many times lower than what the state was charged.

drowland@dispatch.com

@darreldrowland

ccandisky@dispatch.com

@CCandisky

CVS Health is Cardinal wholesaler’s largest customer , but that has NOTHING to do with Major Pharmaceutical’s Prilosec’s reimbursement got left off the CVS Medicaid’s MAC pricing/pharmacy reimbursement ?

Physician outrage over CVS’ new diabetic testing policy

diabetes, glucose monitoring, diabetic testing supplies, Medicare, CVS Pharmacy

Physician outrage over CVS’ new diabetic testing policy

https://www.physicianspractice.com/patients/physician-outrage-over-cvs-new-diabetic-testing-policy

Editor’s Note: Physicians Practice’s blog features contributions from members of the medical community. The opinions expressed are that of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Physicians Practice or its publisher.

 

Self-monitoring of blood glucose is an essential part of managing diabetes. It is both a necessary practice for those who adjust their insulin based on their glucose levels and an educational tool for patients who want to know what happens if/when they eat three slices of pizza instead of a salad for dinner. Visit https://www.timesunion.com/.

Monitoring glucose is also a kind of safety precaution. Patients with diabetes who feel weak or dizzy are instructed to check their glucose to make sure it’s not too low. Glucose monitoring is so important for diabetes management that Medicare will pay for one test strip per day for patients who have diabetes and are only taking oral agents. Medicare will pay for three test strips per day for those on insulin. Beyond that, Medicare will cover more if there is a documented need, such as episodes of hypoglycemia or for medication adjustment.

However, I learned several local CVS pharmacies and endocrinologists in other states that CVS as a company has decided it will not dispense more than Medicare’s basic allowance, one if on pills and three if on insulin. I was told that is all they will dispense regardless of what a physician prescribes or any circumstances that may justify more frequent testing.

I believe this is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license. I could not believe that a pharmacy would take it upon itself to decide what is appropriate testing for patients.

Physicians Practice reached out to CVS for comment (see below). CVS confirmed it has decided to restrict patients to the number of strips covered under Medicare’s “standard utilization guidelines.” For those who have been prescribed more than the ‘standard,’ CVS is asking for new prescriptions that meet such guidelines. The company makes no mention of accommodations for patients with legitimate reasons to check more often nor does the company mention that Medicare makes exceptions for patients with documented reasons for more frequent testing.

I was so incredulous at this new development and so upset on behalf on my patients that I wrote two my state representatives and state senator. My state senator’s chief of staff reached out to me, and he is also going to contact CVS. I’m waiting for his reply. I also wrote to our local paper. The deafening silence has me even more perturbed. To me, this is an emergency. What are patients who need these supplies supposed to do?

To make sure this wasn’t a change in Medicare’s policy I was unaware of, I also called a local Walgreens to find out if they have similar protocol. I was told no—it’s business as usual. However, Walgreens sends physicians a form asking for a diagnosis code and for a reason for more frequent testing, if applicable.

Some colleagues have tried to talk me off the edge. They tell me patients can get their supplies cheaper on Amazon. While some patients can go to different pharmacies, some payer plans require them to go to specific pharmacies. And yes, patients can also use a durable medical equipment supplier.

But I don’t think patients should have to seek care elsewhere or potentially pay out of pocket because their pharmacy refused to fill a prescription that a physician wrote and the payer authorized.

It’s bad enough that decisions are made by non-medical people at payers or insurance companies, which are more concerned about profit than patients. This is unacceptable, and we must draw a line.

If we allow CVS to make this decision on behalf of physicians and our patients, then where does this end? What else can pharmacies restrict? Will pharmacies now dictate what our patients can and cannot have?

If so, the healthcare system is even more broken than I thought.

Melissa Young, MD, FACE, FACP, is sole owner and solo practitioner at Mid Atlantic Diabetes and Endocrinology Associates, LLC. As such, she is both actively involved in patient care and practice management while also raising two kids and a dog in suburban New Jersey

 


Editor’s Note: Physicians Practice reached out to CVS Pharmacy for comment. The company shared the following statement:

“CVS Pharmacy is committed to supporting the health needs of patients who have diabetes while also complying with applicable requirements and guidelines. Effective January 29, 2019, CVS Pharmacy limits quantities of diabetic testing supplies (DTS) covered under Medicare Part B to Medicare’s standard utilization guidelines in order to meet Medicare’s medical necessity requirements. 

“Under these guidelines, CVS will dispense DTS – including diabetic test strips and lancets – to non-insulin dependent Medicare Part B patients for testing no more than once per day; and to insulin dependent Medicare Part B patients for testing no more than three times per day.

“In the lead up to the January 29 effective date, we contacted our diabetic Medicare Part B patients, and their prescribers, who have previously filled a DTS prescription at CVS Pharmacy to inform them of our adherence to Medicare’s standard utilization guidelines. Medicare Part B patients with current DTS prescriptions that exceed the guidelines will require a new prescription that meets Medicare’s standard utilization.”

Could it be that CVS doesn’t want to spend the “extra time” to get bills processed thru the Part B system to justify extra glucose tests/day that the pt needs ?

Years ago I met a young woman who was required 10 insulin shots a day while she was pregnant (gestational diabetes).  CVS keeps promoting that they are transitioning the company into more of a provider of health, but this article seem to suggest that their idea of “health” is by conforming to some “cookie cutter formula” ?

 

Likes vs Sharing

who remembers this old commercial…  when you like a post on a blog, FB or twitter all you are doing is letting the company behind the website to collect data about YOU… when you regularly share…then your friends gets the post to hopefully read and hopefully share with their friends.

How many people that there are spread out there on at least a THOUSANDS different FB pages that deal with pain and/or diseases where pain is a significant factor ?

I know that I get and I am sure that many other who post things that should “educate” the chronic pain community … same/similar questions every week. Is this because chronic pain pts and their advocates are spread out over 1000+ different websites, FB and twitter locations ?

Many complain that there is a great deal of unity lacking among those in the chronic pain community.  Maybe that is because they “function” within their own little social circle ?

Progress moving forward for the chronic pain community will be very slow, if the vast majority are sitting with their “engine idling and their transmission in NEUTRAL”

Advocates decry Ohio pharmacy board vote to ban kratom

Advocates decry Ohio pharmacy board vote to ban kratom

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190308/advocates-decry-ohio-pharmacy-board-vote-to-ban-kratom

A group that advocates for consumer access to the herbal supplement kratom says the State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy erred in approving a proposal to ban the product that has been touted as way to fight the opioid epidemic.

The board on Wednesday voted to approve its proposal to classify the Southeast Asian herb as a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, which would place it in the same class as heroin, LSD and other illegal drugs. It now faces review by two other government bodies.

The board was not swayed by scientific studies that the association presented refuting U.S. Food and Drug Administration findings, said C.M. Haddow, a public policy fellow at the Virginia-based American Kratom Association. Opposed to bans, the association is lobbying in Ohio and elsewhere for laws that would make the product illegal for minors, require labeling and regulate for quality and purity.

Pharmacy board spokesman Cameron McNamee said staff members scoured medical journals to provide board members with scientific research and also presented them with the research provided by the Kratom Association.

He said regulation instead of a ban could represent a “middle ground,” but “at this point the board feels the science behind it is more of a concern from a public health perspective.”

The leaves of the tropical kratom tree, native to Southeast Asia, contain substances that can have mind-altering effects, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Haddow said its use increased in the U.S. after soldiers who fought in Vietnam found it reduced fatigue and pain.

The Kratom Association estimates there are 5 million users in the U.S, and say it is sold by a number of retailers in central Ohio.

The herbal supplement is banned in six states and the District of Columbia.

The FDA has reported 44 deaths associated with kratom since 2011, but Haddow said a review by the Kratom Association shows that figure represents global deaths.

At least one of the deaths is being investigated as possible use of pure kratom, and most appear to have resulted from other drugs being mixed with kratom by the manufacturer or from using it with other substances or medications, such as illegal drugs or cough syrup, the National Institute on Drug Abuse says on its website.

Haddow said regulation is necessary to prevent a “Wild West marketplace” in which kratom can be spiked with anything from synthetic materials to heroin.

The pharmacy board vote came two weeks after a study published by the journal Clinical Toxicology showed that reports to U.S. poison-control centers about kratom rose from 13 in 2011 to 682 in 2017. In that period, there were 11 U.S. deaths associated with kratom exposure, including two after exposure to kratom only, according to the study by researchers at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Northeast Ohio Medical University, the Central Ohio Poison Center and Ohio State University.

The board vote also came two weeks after the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State hosted a panel discussion on kratom. Among panelists were Haddow and Dr. Robert Weber, administrator for pharmacy services at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, who has a far different opinion of the herb than Haddow.

Weber said in a Friday interview that kratom stimulates opiate receptors in the brain, making it similar in action to opioid medications. Overdoses have been documented, he said, and it is important to be careful about how kratom is used by the public.

“This should be considered to be a dangerous substance because of the fact that it has very similar characteristics to opiates,” he said. “To protect the health of the public, I think there needs to be education, and there needs to be regulation.”

Doug Berman, executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at the law college, moderated the panel, and he said issues discussed included the effect a ban would have on driving the product to the black market.

“The huge fundamental issue is do we want the government saying ‘we’re unsure about this, therefore we prohibit it until we can be sure it’s safe’?” he said. “Or do we say ‘some people are benefiting from this, even if there is risk, let it be legal until we get proof that it’s more harmful than healthy’?’”

The proposed ban will be sent to the Common Sense Initiative in Gov. Mike DeWine’s office, where it will by analyzed for how it will impact business, said board spokeswoman Ali Simon. If it is accepted there, the ban will move to the legislature’s Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, which would determine if the ban is within the board’s rule-making authority.

Both reviews will involve public comment periods.

Did anyone notice that in this copy/text that they reference that Kratom is “associated” with some OD deaths… so it MUST BE BANNED… but have anyone noticed that it is not tracked nor made public how many OD”s have ALCOHOL ASSOCIATED WITH THE OD ?

Also never tracked nor made public how many OD’s that there is some sort of MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES associated with the person… diagnosed, undiagnosed and/or just untreated

It is like trying to figure out what a puzzle is going to look like with a lot of pieces still missing

Here is the MOST MORONIC STATEMENT:   The proposed ban will be sent to the Common Sense Initiative in Gov. Mike DeWine’s office, where it will by analyzed for how it will impact business

Forget the hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio that benefit from the use of Kratom… Let’s worry about the loss of SALES TAX and other TAXES that businesses generate and pay to the state

Pt had ingested far more pills than prescribed on the day he died and had taken other drugs that were not prescribed

Kansas doctor sentenced to life in prison for patient death

https://wtop.com/national/2019/03/kansas-doctor-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-patient-death/amp/

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas doctor was sentenced to life in prison Friday for unlawfully prescribing medication blamed for an overdose death, the latest prosecution in a government crackdown on physicians amid an opioid epidemic.

Steven R. Henson was immediately taken into custody following sentencing. There was an audible gasp in the packed courtroom when U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten pronounced the life sentence. Henson showed no emotion.

A federal jury convicted the 57-year-old Wichita doctor for the 2015 death of Nick McGovern. Prosecutors alleged McGovern, who received prescriptions from Henson, died of an overdose of the anti-anxiety drug alprazolam and methadone, which is used to wean addicts off heroin.

The government presented evidence at trial that Henson wrote prescriptions in return for cash, postdated prescriptions and wrote them without a medical need or legitimate medical exam. Prosecutors said the doctor prescribed opioid medications in amounts likely to lead to addiction.

He also was convicted of conspiracy to distribute prescription drugs outside the course of medical practice, unlawfully distributing various prescription drugs, presenting false patient records to investigators, obstruction of justice and money laundering.

His case is the latest in a string of prosecutions across the nation targeting physicians accused of overprescribing opioids.

“I want this case to send a message to physicians and the health care community,” U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister said in a news release. “Unlawfully distributing opioids and other controlled substances is a federal crime.”

The National Association of Attorneys General, working under a research grant, found there had been 378 doctors who had been charged or whose cases were resolved by the end of 2016. Of those, U.S. attorneys’ offices charged 249 and state authorities charged 131, its researchers found.

Defense attorney Michael Thompson said his client was disappointed in the sentence and planned to appeal.

“When acting as a physician he always acted with the best interest of patients,” Thompson said.

His attorneys had urged the court to impose the lowest possible sentence, arguing McGovern had ingested far more pills than prescribed on the day he died and had taken other drugs that were not prescribed. They contended Henson did not write a prescription that would have resulted in the death if taken as directed.

In a brief courtroom statement, Henson said he trained hard to become a physician.

“I only had one goal in life as a physician and that is to take excellent care of patients and increase functionality,” he said.

But the judge was unmoved by that statement, telling Henson he put his patient in a position where he had to take those pills in order to get through the day.

“You were exacerbating a problem; you were not treating it,” Marten said.

Several tearful members of the McGovern’s family spoke in court of the impact the death has had on them, telling the court the family deserves to see justice served so this example won’t ever happen to another family.

Some 47,600 Americans died of opioid overdoses in 2017 , according the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid deaths were 13 percent higher compared to 2016, up a notch compared to the nearly 500 percent increase in overdose deaths since 1999. The street drug fentanyl is the top overdose killer now, displacing heroin and pain pills. Prescription painkillers contributed to 14,495 deaths in 2017.

This doctor apparently did not get a trial by jury… just a judge..  Here is a quote from the Prosecutor Prosecutors said the doctor prescribed opioid medications in amounts likely to lead to addiction..ADDICTION IS A MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE

He also stated:  methadone, which is used to wean addicts off heroin..   If a person lives in the state of WASH and is a chronic pain they will ONLY GET METHADONE for their pain – unless allergic to it.

The Defense stated:  McGovern had ingested far more pills than prescribed on the day he died and had taken other drugs that were not prescribed.

This is a non-compliance issues – a PERSONAL CHOICE… how many prescribers have been sent to jail because one or more of their pts DID NOT TAKE THEIR MEDICATION AS DIRECTED and died from complications of their UNTREATED HEALTH ISSUES  ?  HOW ABOUT ZERO !!

Here is a LIE that the media keeps repeating:  Prescription painkillers contributed to 14,495 deaths in 2017  Once “prescription painkillers” are no longer in the possession of the entity/person that has the legal right to possess them (Pharma, wholesaler, Pharmacy, pt prescribed to) they AUTOMATICALLY become an ILLEGAL OPIATE.  Is this a stat that they don’t track or just don’t divulge to the public ?

 

 

Daily Briefing with Dana Perino

Senator introduces bill to end PBM drug rebates in commercial plans

Senator introduces bill to end PBM drug rebates in commercial plans

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/senator-introduces-bill-to-end-pbm-drug-rebates-commercial-plans

The Trump administration has made moves to eliminate drug rebates in federal payers, and now, thanks to a bill introduced in Congress on Wednesday, such contracts in the commercial sector are also on the chopping block. 

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., introduced the Drug Price Transparency Act alongside two other bills aimed at lowering drug prices. The bill looks much like the Department of Health and Human Services’ plan: prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from receiving rebates from drug companies and instead require that such discounts be passed directly on to consumers. 

Braun also introduced legislation to clear the Food and Drug Administration’s approval backlog and boost transparency. 

“I’m offering solutions to address rising healthcare prices by adding transparency to our drug pricing, clearing the backlog on pending drug applications at the FDA and providing oversight and accountability in the healthcare industry,” Braun said. 

HHS unveiled its plan to nix the rebates in January, and in the proposed rule it said it intended to eliminate anti-kickback protections to rebates negotiated by PBMs and instead offer the protections to point-of-sale discounts. 

HHS Secretary Alex Azar said when the agency’s proposal on the matter was unveiled that he hoped Congress would follow suit to ensure it was extended nationwide. And even if legislators hadn’t acted, the administration expected that its rule would have ripple effects beyond Medicare. 

JC Scott, president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM trade group, said in a statement that the legislation doesn’t target the true culprit in high drug prices: pharmaceutical companies. 

“The legislation appears to do absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the problem: the high list prices that only the drug manufacturers have the power to set,” Scott said. “Despite drug manufacturers’ rhetoric, their pricing strategies are unrelated to the rebates they negotiate with PBMs.” 

The bill comes on the heels of a House hearing in which executives at some of the largest drug companies backed eliminating drug rebates

HOW TO BUY A ROLEX AT RETAIL

HOW TO BUY A ROLEX AT RETAIL

How to Buy a Rolex at Retail

Buying a Rolex watch at retail has always been somewhat of an event. Back in the good old days, it usually meant that you were celebrating something (even if you were just celebrating yourself). However, buying a Rolex at retail is now considered an occasion simply because it means that you were lucky enough to get a call from your authorized dealer telling you that the wait is finally over and that you can finally purchase the watch that you want. Check more from these fake rolex deals.

People often talk about the dreaded “waitlist” in regards to Rolex watches and their retail availability, but there are a lot of misconceptions about how allocation is actually determined. While it is certainly true that global demand far exceeds supply, buying a Rolex at retail isn’t actually completely impossible – assuming that you are a genuine enthusiast who is interested in owning the watch, rather than someone who is simply interested in flipping it for a quick profit. Nothing in life is certain (especially when it comes to the retail availability of luxury watches), but here’s how to buy a Rolex at retail.

Rolex Daytona Oysterflex Bracelet

LUXURY AND AVAILABILITY

Before we actually get into how to go about buying a Rolex at retail, it might be worth taking a brief moment to discuss the concept of luxury as it pertains to retail availability. I definitely understand where some people are coming from when they say that a luxury purchase should not involve having to cultivate a relationship with your dealer or spend any amount of time on a waiting list.

To a certain degree, I do agree with that sentiment. A luxury purchase is more than just receiving a premium item in exchange for a decent chunk of change. The process itself should feel luxurious, and (at least in my opinion) a “luxury” experience doesn’t involve being told that you need to wait, nor does it involve buying other items so that you can create a purchase history with your retailer.

However, regardless of our personal sentiments about what constitutes a luxury experience, there is an overwhelming global demand for Rolex watches, and not everyone who wants to buy one is going to be able to get one in a timely manner. I think everyone (including the staff members who work at your local retailer or boutique) would prefer if anyone who wanted a Rolex could simply purchase the watch of their choice (after all, selling watches is how they make money). However, the simple fact that global demand far exceeds supply means that there’s a shortage at a retail level, and whether you like it or not, you’re going to need some relationship with your authorized retailer if you want to buy a brand-new Rolex.

Rolex GMT-Master II Batman

THERE ISN’T ACTUALLY A LIST

Now, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there isn’t actually a Rolex waiting list. When people say they are on the “waitlist” or that they are waiting for their name to come up at their dealer, they really just mean that they are still waiting for their retailer to be able to allocate them a watch.

There isn’t a master list at Rolex’s headquarters in Geneva with all of the names of everyone who has ever asked an authorized dealer for a Rolex. Not only would that be impossible to track and enforce on a global level, but what would it even look like? A giant scroll of golden paper that is locked away behind a green door with your name printed next to the words, “Pepsi GMT-Master II” – absolutely not. That sounds a bit like what Santa Clause does up at the North Pole, which also happens to be pure fantasy.

While the global allocation of watches to its retail network is determined by Rolex, the actual allocation of watches to consumers is often left to the individual retailer. Rolex does have certain policies, guidelines, and rules for its retailers, but Rolex headquarters is not the one who decides whether or not you get your stainless steel Daytona. That being said, it’s also not like the retailers are just sitting on an unlimited number of stainless steel Rolex sports watches and are just being stingy with the distribution of them. They more-or-less receive what Rolex gives them, and have to then decide who actually gets one.

While a first come, first serve policy might seem like it would be the most fair, it would actually be an absolute nightmare. Everyone complains about all of the people who don’t even like watches and only want to buy a Rolex so that they can sell it for a profit (I know, I hate them too). However, if Rolex were to adopt a first come, first serve policy, it would only mean that an even greater percentage of the available watchers would end up in the hands of these people, rather than genuine enthusiasts who actually want to own the watch. It’s easy to be frustrated with Rolex, but the company and all of its retailers (for the most part) are truly trying their best to make everyone happy.

Rolex Sky-Dweller Stainless Steel

DON’T BE AN ENTITLED JERK

Not being an entitled jerk is something that should apply to all aspects of life, and that even includes when it comes time to splurge and buy yourself a luxury timepiece. I completely understand that it can be frustrating to save up for your dream watch and then not be able to purchase it once you finally have the means to buy it. However, it’s important to remember that it is not your retailer’s fault that global demand exceeds supply, so you certainly shouldn’t take out your frustrations on the staff members who work there, and who genuinely would love to sell you the watch of your dreams if only they had one available.

We all know that there are some people out there who don’t often hear the word “no” and they can sometimes turn into truly flagrant trash-humans when they don’t get what they want. Acting like an entitled jerk isn’t a good look for anyone, and it certainly isn’t going to win over the boutique staff and magically get Rolex to start producing more watches.

You haven’t been able to walk into a Rolex boutique and buy the model you want for several years now, and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. Just because you can afford something doesn’t mean that you are free from common courtesy, and it’s important to remember that regardless of whether or not they are able to provide you with what you want in a timely fashion, you and your dealer have the exact same goal: they want to sell you a watch.

Sgt. Robert Rose Jr. (Ret.) on why he filed a $350 million lawsuit against the VA

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Is Requesting Input From The Public On The Re-Scheduling of Cannabis, aka (Marijuana) Delta 9, THC and CBDs. The Comment Period Ends 11:59 14 March 2019

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Is Requesting Input From The Public On The Re-Scheduling of Cannabis, aka (Marijuana) Delta 9, THC and CBDs. The Comment Period Ends 11:59 14 March 2019

http://governmentnewsarticles.com/government_articles/2019/03/the-us-food-and-drug-administration-fda-is-requesting-input-from-the-public-on-the-rescheduling-of-cannabis-aka-marijuana-delta-9-thc-and-cbds-the-comment-period-ends-1159-14-march-2019-461058.htm#.XILeDpBMGyX

Summary

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is providing interested persons with the opportunity to submit comments about the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to impose international manufacturing and distributing restrictions, under international treaties, on certain drug substances. The comments received in response to this notice will be considered in preparing the United States’ position on these proposals for a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, Austria, March 18-22, 2019. This notice is issued under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Dates
Submit either electronic or written comments on the notice by March 14, 2019. The short time period for the submission of comments is needed to ensure that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may, in a timely fashion, carry out the required action and be responsive to the United Nations.

Addresses
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of March 14, 2019. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.”

This notification reflects the recommendation from the 41st WHO Expert Committee for Drug Dependence (ECDD), which met in November 2018. In the Federal Register of October 10, 2018 (83 FR 50938), FDA announced the WHO ECDD review and invited interested persons to submit information for WHO’s consideration.

The following recommendations regarding the review of cannabis and cannabis-related substances are as follows:

Recommendation 5.1: The Committee recommended that Cannabis and Cannabis Resin be deleted from Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
Recommendation 5.2.1: The Committee recommended that dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta- 9-tetrahydrocannabinol) be added to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Recommendation 5.3.1: The Committee recommended that tetrahydrocannabinol (understood to refer to the six isomers currently listed in Schedule I of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances) be added to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, subject to the Commission’s adoption of the recommendation to add dronabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in Schedule I.

Recommendation 5.4: The Committee recommended deleting Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis from Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Recommendation 5.5: The Committee recommended that a footnote be added to Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to read: “Preparations containing predominantly cannabidiol and not more than 0.2 percent of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol are not under international control.

Recommendation 5.6: The Committee recommended that preparations containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol), produced either by chemical synthesis or as a preparation of cannabis, that are compounded as pharmaceutical preparations with one or more other ingredients and in such a way that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) cannot be recovered by readily available means or in a yield which would constitute a risk to public health, be added to Schedule III of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
It is now time for ACTION to #ENDtheMADNESS

Here is your opportunity to make a difference. The short timeline is restrictive but we must deal with it. If you want to change it takes action.

Remember;
If You Do NOTHING, NOTHING will Be Done!