AARP has to spend member dues somehow
the AARP sponsored a drug price study so weak, it needs a walker (that was bad...)
the study involves the increase in wholesale prices of 195 brand-name drugs and compared it to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
there are several issues with this study:
- why focus solely on brand-name drugs?
generics serve a major role in prescriptions (7 of the top 9 drugs by prescription are generics, i.e. only 2 of the top 9 are brand-name), yet the study apparently mentions them only in passing: "[W]holesale prices for 75 commonly used generic drugs rose 0.5% in 2004."
a more relevant study would be a prescription-weighted index involving both top
brand-name drugs and
generics. this remains especially relevant considering
patent expiration of blockbuster drugs.
- why compare wholesale prices to Consumer Price Index?
instead of comparing statistics of different scope, the AARP simply could have relied on the
CPI report itself--specifically page 7 on that pdf--which indicates the percent increase in prescription drugs increased 3.3% from 2003 to 2004. if the 2.7% headline CPI number is good enough to use for comparison, why not simply use the 3.3% prescription drug component of CPI?
- why do the study at all?
the simple answer to all these questions is the AARP had arrived at a preconceived
conclusion (drug companies bad...) and steered the study to bear out that conclusion.
great way to spend member dues.
site feed
