In what has to go down as perhaps the least surprising news of the political season, big pharma is panicked that Democrats are going to take over Congress.
Panicked may be too mild a word.
Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda
Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda
In what has to go down as perhaps the least surprising news of the political season, big pharma is panicked that Democrats are going to take over Congress.
Panicked may be too mild a word.
Tommy Noe, the political fund raiser/rare coin investor/investment adviser to the State of Ohio’s bureau of workers compensation (BWC), ought to be teaching negotiation seminars in his next life – that’s after he gets out of the pokey.
The deal he negotiated with BWC is far better than any I’ve come across or heard about, According to the article, Noe’s deal prevented any future BWC administrators from reviewing or rejecting his deal, as he did not want them to interfere with his investment “strategy”.
As well they should have.
The march off the cliff has begun in earnest. A new survey indicates underwriters are starting to hold their collective nose and write business that would not have merited a “no thanks” a year ago. As usual, larger risks are getting the best deals, but even small accounts are seeing discounts at renewal.
Bob Vineyard at InsureBlog has an excellent post on how out of touch most American health care consumers are when it comes to understanding the drivers of health care costs.
I hope these folks don’t vote.
There is quite a bit of interest among private equity and venture capital firms in the work comp managed care “space”. These investors seek to buy into companies that are poised for growth, that have a “sustainable competitive advantage”, solid management, long term contracts with customers, and a profitable business model.
A key to success for these investors is to find these firms before the other investors do, which means identifying good companies quickly. Analysts spend lots of time, energy, and brain power analyzing, assessing, and interpreting data. looking for the wheat among the chaff.
A much faster, and probably more accurate way, is to pick up the phone and call the company. Talk to the receptionist, someone in customer service and someone in billing. What they say doesn’t matter nearly as much as how they say it.
Good companies have energy, enthusiasm, and a desire to help that comes through the phone. Not so good ones have none of the above.
I’m suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance, brought on by completely conflicting statements in articles from a single source, the New York Times. In Friday’s business section, Alex Berenson notes that big pharma, led by Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis and Wyeth all enjoyed strong profit gains (free registration required) in the third quarter.
The profits were generated, in large part, by price increases in the US, where Lilly’s prices were up 11%, contributing to a 14% gain in US revenues. Fair enough, prices went up, so did profits.
In the next (virtual) breath, another NYT article quotes the Congressional Budget Office’s as concluding that a Democratic Congress’ efforts to reduce Medicare drug spending by negotiating directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers will not work because private industry is so darn good at negotiating prices. (polemics are mine, but you get the point)
If this continues, big box and discount retailers will be giving drugs away. With the recent announcements that Target is matching Wal-Mart’s $4 drug price deal, Wal-Mart is speeding up the roll-out of their $4 script program, and K-Mart has had a 90 day supply of 184 generics for $15 offer since May, the price war has started.
Among the criticisms of the Wal-Mart initiative is that only one of the 20 drugs most commonly prescribed is on the discount list. Regardless, the Wal-Mart move has shaken up the pharma market, and forced retail outlets to quickly figure out their stance.
Ok, it has been a really long week – mostly spent in airplanes and hotels and conference rooms. So when good friend Chazzy Stone sent me this I just had to put it up.
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which
produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very
little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad
breath. This made him (Oh, man, this is so bad, it’s good)….. A super
calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
My ribs hurt.
I’ve received several anonymous comments from readers recently, which has caused me to rethink comment policy. Here’s how these will be handled in the future.
Anonymous comments that are specific to a topic, show knowledge of that topic, and are not (overly) snarky or mean-spirited or accusatory without substantiation will probably be published. Anonymous posts that don’t meet these criteria will probably not be published.
And anonymous comments from authors that call into question my ethics will most definitely not be published. I’m quite willing to address any concerns if, and only if, the commenter has enough courage and honesty to show their (virtual) face.
I have no patience for cowards who criticize without revealing their identity and therefore enable me, and other readers, to understand the cowards’ potential biases.
Perhaps the insurance industry sees the scandals in Washington as a challenge, a motivating factor, a red flag thrust in front of the industry. How else to explain the daily news on malfeasance and wrongdoing on the part of insurers? Criminal indictments, revelations of unethical behavior, news of commission padding, retroactive rejection of applications, and sleazy products have all hit the mainstream media this year, and the latest may be the biggest yet.