California governor vetoes bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin
California governor vetoes bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin
Bill denial for the prescription drug price cap called ‘a major setback’ for diabetics in the state
Bill denial for the prescription drug price cap called ‘a major setback’ for diabetics in the state
Newsom created CalRX which is a California state based insulin producer that sells 10/mL for $30 to people with or without insurance to anyone in the entire country.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1164572757/california-contract-cheap-insulin-calrx
The state-label insulins will cost no more than $30 per 10 milliliter vial, and no more than $55 for a box of five pre-filled pen cartridges — for both insured and uninsured patients. The medicines will be available nationwide, the governor's office said.
Pick your battles.
There are different types of insulin that work differently. Not only are there short, medium, and long acting insulins, but quite a few people have to take multiple insulins. The CalRX insulin will be great, but it's not going to be the answer for everyone. The insulin cap law would've helped.
Just an FYI. The CalRx insulin is being produced by Civica Rx. They will be producing three insulins for the program. Glargie, Lispro, and Aspart. These are generic biologics that are interchangeable with Lantus (long-acting), Humalog (fact-acting), and Novolog (instant). Additionally, for the products where this makes sense, products will be available in vial and autoinjector formats. The $30 price is that of the vials and $55 for a box of five autoinjectors.
So main take aways should be CalRx will be producing analogs and will be providing a wide band of types for different needs.
People with type 1 pretty much always take a long acting like Lantus and a fast like Novolog, unless you have a pump, in which case it's only fast acting. But I'm sure they've thought of that.
Thank you, this seemed out of character for the guy and the context helped
Copay caps are bullshit anyway. They don't help people with no insurance, and it means the pharma companies still get a ridiculous price, just the insurance pays it - and of course, that's passed on to consumers via higher premiums. The idea of CA making insulin is good, and other than that, it needs a real price cap, not a copay cap.
The context that it's a copay cap only is really important, and I see why it was vetoed - for not going far enough while a viable interim solution is already in place that gives the state breathing room to wait for a more complete solution.
I've been seeing a lot of misleading as hell headlines about this guy's vetoes lately. There was another one yesterday about him vetoing a bill that would have banned caste discrimination, but that one was because CA's anti-discrimination laws already covered discrimination based on ancestry.
Unclear from the article how this veto (or rather, the bill had it not been vetoed) interacts with the contact to produce insulin for the state of California.
It sort of sounds like that is still going ahead, but we all know insurers & pharmaceutical companies will use loopholes to avoid buying that CalRx insulin. Will that contract still be viable if the company is not supplying the bulk of diabetics in the state? Alternatively, will the contract render a cap unnecessary by virtue of undercutting for-profit insulin manufacturers?
Please don't make me "harm reduction" vote for an asshole who looks like Seth Meyers little brother.