4 ms·
Even then, if they were planning on selling it under the $35 limit. Why would they bother vetoing?
by langsoul-com 3y ago
Even then, if they were planning on selling it under the $35 limit. Why would they bother vetoing?
- stouset 3y agoWhy put another law on the books when you believe it will be obviated by other measures? One reason I can think of is that a law might be more politically "durable" than a contract with a third party to produce insulin. But on the whole I think I'd rather one less law.
- csa 3y ago$35 would have been the cap on copay. Costs over that are passed on to the consumer via higher premiums. The CalRx is $30 total. I think insulin specifically and medicines/drugs in general might be another area that CA leads the country in modeling how to manage prices and overall cost.
- kevinventullo 3y agoSo, it’s still under the $35 limit. Seems like that doesn’t answer the grandparent’s question.
- minhazm 3y agoThe $35 is a cap on co-pay, not the actual cost paid out by insurance.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoIt's a bill created by big pharma to whitewash their image while changing nothing about their profiteering. We should not have these sort of laws on the books.