Three Pinocchios for the pharma lobby's Medicare ad Viewers who follow public-affairs shows such as CBS's "Face the Nation" may be seeing an ad currently in heavy rotation from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). "They want to repeal a protection in Medicare that protects access to my medicines," an Ohio woman named Sue, who has Type 1 diabetes, says to the camera. "They call it negotiation, but it really means the government decides what medicines I can get." For years, lawmakers and presidents have tried to change the way prices for drugs are negotiated in Medicare, with little success. The ad featuring Sue, who is a real patient, is a pre-emptive response from the PhRMA industry group to some proposals currently being discussed by Democrats in Congress, namely the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which is pending in the House. Congressional aides involved in the legislation were mystified by Sue's claims in the ad, saying the proposals would not allow the government to remove drugs from what is known as the formulary, the list of drugs that may be prescribed by a Medicare Plan D sponsor. Of course, it's reasonable to expect an impact to someone's bottom line if drug prices are cut because of government pressure. You don't get something for nothing. But PhRMA jumped the gun with its ad, and we gave it Three Pinocchios. The legislation does not call for a government-mandated formulary, notwithstanding Sue's concerns that the government one day would choose her medicines. Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this email was forwarded to you, sign up here. Did you hear something fact-checkable? Send it here; we'll check it out. GOP bashes study behind renewed mask mandate "Think about what the CDC did just this week: They forced vaccinated Americans to wear a mask because of a study in India about a vaccine that's not even in America that has not been peer-reviewed," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters at a news conference July 29. In support of its renewed masking recommendation as cases of the delta variant of the coronavirus begin to surge, the CDC pointed to a study from India that was still in "preprint" status, meaning, it had not undergone the typical scientific peer-review process conducted by independent researchers prior to publication. In a fast-moving pandemic, experts say, public health officials do not always have the luxury of waiting until formal peer review is completed. We confirmed that the paper in question had been initially rejected during peer review because a reviewer "was not happy with certain aspects." The paper is now on its fourth revision and still awaiting publication. An expert told us the initial finding that vaccinated people may nonetheless carry "high viral loads" — a finding that had been cited by the CDC — essentially has disappeared from the current version now that more information has been obtained. (Interestingly, the CDC has sought to distance itself from the India study, even though it was cited in the CDC document and also in a CDC slide presentation obtained by The Washington Post. "The India data were not at all used to make this assessment," CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Fox News on July 30.) Given this issue involves a mix of opinion and legitimate disputes about scientific research, we left McCarthy's claim and others like it unrated. We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @rizzoTK, @AdriUsero) or Facebook. Read about our process and rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email 
No comments:
Post a Comment