227

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoes bill aimed at limiting the price of insulin to $35 (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Chunk@lemmy.world 150 points 1 year ago

I looked this shit up.

From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/gavin-newsom-california-insulin-bill-35-dollar-cap which is a better article than the AP one,

“With CalRx, we are getting at the underlying cost, which is the true sustainable solution to high-cost pharmaceuticals,” Newsom wrote in a message explaining why he vetoed the bill on Saturday. “With co-pay caps however, the long-term costs are still passed down to consumers through higher premiums from health plans.”

So there's a state backed insulin manufacturer he thinks will drive down prices. He thinks if you were to force insurance companies to bring down the price of insulin then they'd push the price back into consumers through higher costs elsewhere.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

The article pointed out that his excuse is weak:

tens of thousands of diabetic Californians trapped in the terrible choice between buying insulin and buying food.”

“This is a missed opportunity that will force them to wait months or years for relief from the skyrocketing costs of medical care when they could have had it immediately,” Wiener said in a news release.

[-] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why is that an excuse to begin with? Less of an excuse and more or a reason.

The reason is simple. The price of the insulin from the insurance companies is capped at 35 for a 30 day supply.

So they will just increase the price of their insurance and nothing has changed.

The article could just as well speculate that this relief will be shortlived and only last for 1 month until they raise the cost in other ways

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

and nothing has changed

No, the diabetics get it cheaper and the rest of us pay a few extra cents. Exactly how insurance works.

[-] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The solution, isn't to shift the problem to insurance companies that will shift right back to consumers. Surely you don't need to be reminded how these insurance companies treat those with "Existing conditions"?

This isn't a good solution. The good solution, is for insulin to not be that expensive in the first place that you need an insurance company to finance it for you. Which California is working towards with their state-sponsored production.

How do you not see the hypocrisy of forcing a cap on the insurance companies, rather than the producers?

If you want to go the insurance route, diabetics shouldn't have pay a god damn cent for insulin if they have insurance. Then, you can talk about everyone paying "a few extra cents"

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I agree diabetics shouldn't have to pay for their insulin. Let's do that and pay a few extra cents.

[-] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

The insurance route isn't going to lead you there. And not for a few extra cents either. The cost will primarily be past down on those with diabetes increasing their premiums more than others.

The insurance companies are the entire reason why medical bills are so expensive in the first place. They are not the solution. They are the problem.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

If the prices are gonna drop below $35 for everyone under Newsom's plan, what's the problem with a cap? Insurers are going to gouge everyone as much as possible as often as possible under all circumstances. Insulin people can afford won't change that.

This sounds like the "If we raise the minimum wage, prices will skyrocket" argument. Prices skyrocket whether we raise wages or not.

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

The cap here was on copay, not cap on cost of the drug. They'd still be directly overcharging people for it.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

"...prices are gonna drop..." that section is the problem - "are gonna drop" is not "have now dropped". People literally die in the meantime, however hoping that will be (and that's if the state-backed medication is ever actually produced at scale).

Don't think you'd be in the "what's the problem?" camp if it were you or your grandma that needed that insulin.

[-] alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Did you read the whole comment you replied to?

[-] holycrap@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Since this made me curious I looked up whether they'll offer lispro. Looks like they will, they're starting with three insulins: glargine, lispro, and aspart.

Source: https://www.otcbiotech.com/california-takes-steps-for-safer-more-affordable-insulin-with-civica-rx-partnership/

[-] Chunk@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Are those good or just okay? I have a family member with T1 and it wreaks havoc on their finances. Feels bad.

[-] SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 4 points 1 year ago

these biologics are expected to be interchangeable with Lantus, Humalog, and Novolog respectively

They’re good, they’re the common ones used. There’s better than humalog and novolog for fast acting now but the better stuff has only been out for a few years. So it’s not extremely old and risky to use like the cheap insulin you can get at Walmart.

[-] hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the good summation.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

It's interesting how many Newsom-related news stories are being pushed by the media right now.

[-] sramder@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

It’s because a deadline just passed. He could have signed any of these bills ahead of time and they would have become law. He’s now got a week (I think the deadline was last Sunday) to veto anything remaining or it becomes law automatically.

[-] aquafunk@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

not to say thats not happening as well, but iirc the CA legislature historically has a big cram to pass most of their bills at the end of the session in september. Ive noticed the flood, too, but this happens every year, all the signing and vetoing lumped together

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

How many of them are him vetoing bills. Condoms, insulin, etc.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Well he is a complete tool. Maybe he's trying to catch up to the ghoulish monsters running Florida and Texas.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The bill would have banned health plans and disability insurance policies from imposing any out-of-pocket expenses on insulin prescription drugs above $35 for a 30-day supply.

The state has a $50 million contract with the nonprofit pharmaceutical company Civica Rx to manufacture the insulin under the brand CalRx.

“With CalRx, we are getting at the underlying cost, which is the true sustainable solution to high-cost pharmaceuticals,” Newsom wrote in a message explaining why he vetoed the bill on Saturday.

“With copay caps however, the long-term costs are still passed down to consumers through higher premiums from health plans.”

“This is a missed opportunity that will force them to wait months or years for relief from the skyrocketing costs of medical care when they could have had it immediately,” Wiener said in a news release.

In January, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the companies that make and promote most of the nation’s insulin, accusing them of colluding to illegally increase the price.

The original article contains 311 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What's the excuse for this that everyone is expected to immediately accept or face accusations of being a rightwinger?

[-] finestnothing@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Basically if the bill passed then insurance companies would just raise the prices of premiums or other costs to make up the difference. California is making a state-sponsored insulin manufacturer to sell insulin near or at cost in the future which is a better and more sustainable solution for fixing drug proces than passing laws that could be removed or loopholed around

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Until some years from now, someone gets the great idea to sell the company to private investors to pad the budget and the mess starts all over again.

And any political person in power who wants to do this will sabatoge it until it seems like a great idea since it's doing so bad due to sabatoge.

[-] Poggervania@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Which beings up another problem of America: leaving shit for corporate entities to fix.

You know what the one thing a corporation wants to do? Make more money. They’re not there to provide a service or good unless it can somehow help turn a profit. So when politicians essentially tell companies “hey, do this thing in whatever fashion you want”, what do you think happens? They ruin it and basically pervert the issue so they can make a quick buck.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's not a reason to veto this bill.

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

This makes me think that CA will just charge more than 35 for insulin and he knows that so doesn't want the law.

.. this guy has made some weird vetos lately

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Get ready for everyone to misinterpret this….

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023

227 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19136 readers

3772 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News