California governor vetoes bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin : news

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Humalog (lispro) is approximately the same as Novolog (aspart). There are rapid actings, they are Fiasp and Lyumjev.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Thank you, this seemed out of character for the guy and the context helped

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also the one about psilocybin, which was because he said they needed to provide more detail about regulation. Not because he opposed the general concept. Yeah, probably there's a campaign to make him look bad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'll toss in two more theories:

One, he lost track of the optics of vetoing 3 bills with high visibility and ideological importance to the American left: drug prices, drug decriminalization, and racial discrimination.

Two, the American left has low tolerance for ideological impurity - people are upset that he's not a progressive like Bernie Sanders nor a firebrand like AOC. However, the lack of those two qualities appeals to the middle, it might peel away some disillusioned Republicans. As another commenter said, "pick your battles." Newsom seems to be doing just that.

I'm not saying either of these is more likely than a coordinated effort to discredit him, just that they are other possibilities.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The thing is he did provide valid details and reasons for these vetoes. The headlines didn't have to be phrased in a way that made it look like he disagreed with the main idea. Most people don't bother reading articles and are generally inept at absorbing details, so it's unfortunate he gave someone that ammo.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What a fucking shithead.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Do you not agree with his reasoning? It seems like California will be producing their own insulin, as capping copay prices just makes health insurances gouge patients in other ways or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I don't agree with his reasoning. "We can't in any way restrict corporations because they'll just raise prices" is an old canard peddled by useful idiots and corporate bootlickers, and California's insulin production won't affect the market for quite some time. But, you know, fuck the poor. They don't donate to political campaigns with unlimited funds.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

It's restricting corporations on one charge and not another, and lowering income on one thing just puts pressure on the other to rise. It would lower a copay, and they will absolutely raise premiums to cover it, which they've historically done as drug prices rise. It also doesn't do anything for the uninsured.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that it’s just going to be a way for everyone to get higher premiums - but it would also be a way for diabetics to get life saving medication without needing to skip the groceries. That’s a pretty urgent problem. Premiums will go up one way or another.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I agree that it’s just going to be a way for everyone to get higher premiums - but it would also be a way for diabetics to get life saving medication without needing to skip the groceries. That’s a pretty urgent problem. Premiums will go up one way or another.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

“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.”

Makes sense, when you block a corporation by increasing taxes, they will always pass the "new" cost to the consumers, in this case the "competition" will provide true lower costs...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Please don't make me "harm reduction" vote for an asshole who looks like Seth Meyers little brother.