|
|
News Release
MARION BERRY
United States Representative
First District, Arkansas |
| |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
CONTACT: Lillian Pace |
|
October 25, 2005 |
|
202-225-4076 |
| |
|
Berry Fights to Protect Rural Pharmacies |
|
| |
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Congressmen Marion Berry (D-AR, 1st) and Jerry Moran (D-KS) sent a letter today to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee opposing the proposed $5 billion in Medicaid cuts to pharmacies. The letter encouraged the committee to instead consider alternative cost-saving measures that do not hurt pharmacists or Medicaid beneficiaries.
"As the only pharmacist in Congress, I know from experience what a vital role pharmacies play in our rural communities," said Congressman Berry. "In many cases, the local pharmacist is the only health care professional that patients can access without traveling long distances. The last thing we need is to cut services in these communities and force residents to travel even further to access prescription medicines."
The U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce will vote later this week on cuts in an attempt to bring government spending back in line with original 2006 budget projections. House Leadership has proposed at least $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, half of which would come from pharmacists. These cuts would disproportionately affect rural pharmacies that provide prescriptions to a large number of Medicaid patients.
Congressman Berry and Moran proposed several alternative cost-saving methods in their letter such as increasing the use of generic drugs. Right now the average Medicaid brand prescription costs $120 while the average generic prescription costs just $20. By increasing the amount of generic drugs dispensed through Medicaid from 52% to 60%, the U.S. government could save $3.8 billion in just one year.
"There are commonsense ways to save money in the Medicaid program that do not cut vital services out of our communities," said Congressman Berry. "Instead of protecting drug company profits, we need to find ways to get less expensive, effective, and affordable pharmaceuticals to American consumers."' |
|
-- 30 -- |
Text of the letter is included below.
October 25, 2005
Chairman Joe Barton
House Energy and Commerce Committee
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Ranking Member John D. Dingell
House Energy and Commerce Committee
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell:
We write today to offer suggestions regarding finding savings in Medicaid pharmacy reimbursements. Finding savings is necessary, and we commend you for your hard work in the budget reconciliation process. However, current proposals to cut Medicaid pharmacy reimbursements are worrisome to us due to the effects they would have on rural pharmacies and their Medicaid customers.
We urge you to consider the following alternative measures, which hold great promise for saving Medicaid dollars:
- Increasing generic drug use: There is significant room for increased generic drug use in state Medicaid programs. The current average state Medicaid generic dispensing rate is 52 percent, but if generic dispensing were increased to 60 percent in all states, it would save $3.8 billion in just one year alone.
- Increasing the use of electronic prescribing: Some states have already found savings in the use of wireless devices that allow physicians to prescribe electronically. This system helps inform the physician earlier in the prescribing process about other cost effective alternatives, including generics, that the physician may want to consider.
- Enhanced drug use review (DUR): Medicaid could save millions each year by implementing more effective DUR programs. Several studies have shown that Medicaid drug spending is concentrated among a relatively small percentage of recipients who take multiple medications for long periods of time. Many recipients also visit several providers and/or use multiple pharmacies while on Medicaid. Enhanced DUR programs help reduce the overuse of medications and help prescribers and pharmacists better manage a Medicaid recipient’s drug regimen.
By using the above approaches, Congress could find savings in the Medicaid prescription drug benefit without disproportionately affecting rural beneficiaries. Rural pharmacies rely more on Medicaid than their counterparts in the suburbs and cities. Recent data indicate that Medicaid prescriptions account for about 18 percent of pharmacy sales in rural stores, compared to 12 percent in other areas. Because Medicaid comprises a larger part of rural pharmacies’ revenue, proposed reimbursement changes affect them more.
Reductions in Medicaid reimbursements could lead to reductions in pharmacy staffing, services provided, hours of operation, or even pharmacy closures. These disruptions in services could force rural residents to travel even farther than the average of 12 miles they currently travel for their prescriptions.
Thank you for your consideration of alternative ways to find savings in the Medicaid pharmacy program.
Very truly yours,
