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
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Mandatory Arbitration
What it means to you if you or a family member is entering a nursing home or assisted living center,do not sign papers that require mandatory arbitration in the event of a dispute.
Ask that any arbitration provisios be stricken from the contract.
Ask that any arbitration provisios be stricken from the contract.
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
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Answer to request Finneran Pardon
LOOKING FOR PENSION RETURN!!!!!!\\
A little addition to what was in Howie Carr column as answer to request for pardon and the legacy that Finneran left to keep Senior rights in check vs. Nursing homes and the powerful lobby to keep Seniors "under their thumb"
Answer by a reader
To Concerned; Finneran helped Finneran. It is a disgrace as to how he and ex-Senate President Birmingham allowed the medical lobby to pass legislation that diminished patients rights in this state.Nursing homes and hospitals that allow sub-standard healthcare can only be accountable for $20,000.00 in damages.YES we should stop frivilous law suits.However, legitimate victims of hospital or nursing home abuses should not be punished.No one thinks of this issue until it happens to someone in their family.Finneran is a fast talking sharpie who forgot his roots.
MY QUESTION Is MCAC concerned enough to put on their adgenda to improve Senior right on this issue!!
A little addition to what was in Howie Carr column as answer to request for pardon and the legacy that Finneran left to keep Senior rights in check vs. Nursing homes and the powerful lobby to keep Seniors "under their thumb"
Answer by a reader
To Concerned; Finneran helped Finneran. It is a disgrace as to how he and ex-Senate President Birmingham allowed the medical lobby to pass legislation that diminished patients rights in this state.Nursing homes and hospitals that allow sub-standard healthcare can only be accountable for $20,000.00 in damages.YES we should stop frivilous law suits.However, legitimate victims of hospital or nursing home abuses should not be punished.No one thinks of this issue until it happens to someone in their family.Finneran is a fast talking sharpie who forgot his roots.
MY QUESTION Is MCAC concerned enough to put on their adgenda to improve Senior right on this issue!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)