FT 15.05 - Medical Price Control Act (LAW)

[OBD]

Hm. It seems like this would be a boon to Frémonters (especially those with medical conditions), but how would the companies keep paying the good people who make the production and distribution of the drugs possible without profits? If 'real cost' includes the costs of paying workers (from laborers to the CEO themselves), this is a moot problem, but there's also some issues with creating a concrete definition for 'real cost'. If the First Minister could clarify the definition of 'real cost', as well as the salary issue, I'd be more than happy to back this bill.

[OBD]

In answer to the member from Oregon, I consider the "real cost" of any given procedure or pharmaceutical to include administrative expenses relative to running the hospital, clinic, or dispensary what provides that service, including salaries. As Frémont has already legislated to prevent huge disparities in wages between the highest and lowest ranks within a place of employment, while I would otherwise be concerned that including executive salaries in the "real cost" would allow inflation to continue unabated, I am less so in this case. So to address the thesis presented by the chancellor for Lincoln, "profit" consists only of money charged in excess of what is necessary to pay for the materials and labor necessary to provide a service. If your motive for practicing medicine is to get rich selling insulin to a diabetic, I am prepared to predict with some confidence your ultimate consignment to the Hellfire.

To the member from Washington, this bill would apply to both public and private actors.

Thank you for this information, and I can now say that I'll back this initiative. However, I do think your definition for 'real cost' should be incorporated into the bill, lest future Parliaments interpret it differently and use it to radically change how our medical system works.

[OBD]

To be honest, maybe we could afford it by providing more government funding to Frémont hospitals?

Forgive my lack of perception, but what exactly is the "it" we could maybe afford?

The commonwealth's hospitals being able to not fall into massive debt.

So, are you proposing that the region pay hospitals' administrative expenses?

For the most part, yeah. While I am a huge supporter of giving Frémonters fair hospital bills that aren't needlessly expensive, the hospitals still need someone to pay the staff, buy equipment, pay for the building and its maintenance, et cetera. This is a good idea, hospitals shouldn't charge outrageously high prices to its patience, but they still need to break a little even. I'd say either use tax money or have the hospitals rely on donations, unless if you have a better way to fund it.

Well, the idea behind this bill is that the expenses you mentioned would be included in the calculation of the "real cost" to the provider. But I'm certainly open to discussing public funding as well, if parliament would rather go in that direction! (Perhaps that would answer the member from Washington's quibbles as well.)

Ah, I understand now. It is a good idea. However, maybe we could give the hospitals a wee bit more dough to spend on stuff that would be spent outside treating specific patients, such as building new parts of the building, buying extra first aid just in case, helping to spread health information, maintaining websites, et cetera. I don't know if this is included in your "real cost" of the treatment, however, it would be nice for the hospitals to have a little bit more money, perhaps sent from the government, to have just in case of emergency and/or for funding new projects.

Maybe we could raise the funding threshold from 100% to a number like 105% or 115%, as a sort of 'tip' for doing the remarkably important service of turning raw materials into life-saving medicine. I'm not insisting on this change, but I think it'd be a very appropriate one, especially given that we tip our food service industry on a regular basis for a similar service (though, of course a far less significant one).

[OBD]

I support the hospital expansion clause of the First Minister's amendment - however, I still have serious qualms about Section II of this act. To me, the termage of 'personnel salaries' and 'administrative expenditures' seem to be incredibly vague - and they could be a potential loophole if the administration of these companies decide that they deserve an extra-large paycheck (which will fall under 'personnel salaries'). I don't see how this act defines a reasonable limit for these costs - which seem to me a large part of drug price inflation - and even if a limit was defined, how would we do so in a reasonable and concrete manner?

Also, change the lower Section 4 to Section 5, please.

[OBD]

I don't see how this act defines a reasonable limit for these costs - which seem to me a large part of drug price inflation - and even if a limit was defined, how would we do so in a reasonable and concrete manner?

This act doesn't. Legislation adopted by the Fourteenth Parliament, however, caps executive salaries at three times the salary of the lowest-paid employee at that company —so I am less concerned about this potential loophole than I otherwise would be. That said, I am definitely erring on the side of brevity and am willing to tighten up the language if the member still feels it necessary.

I mean, there's still the possibility that employers will raise their minimum salaries to evade this act in some way (though that does carry benefits for the workers, albeit indirect). I feel that the language regarding the three-times rule should be incorporated into this bill, in the unlikely event that the legislation you refer to gets repealed by a future Parliament. Some additional restrictions on said salaries may also hold merit.

[OBD]

I don't see how this act defines a reasonable limit for these costs - which seem to me a large part of drug price inflation - and even if a limit was defined, how would we do so in a reasonable and concrete manner?

This act doesn't. Legislation adopted by the Fourteenth Parliament, however, caps executive salaries at three times the salary of the lowest-paid employee at that company —so I am less concerned about this potential loophole than I otherwise would be. That said, I am definitely erring on the side of brevity and am willing to tighten up the language if the member still feels it necessary.

I mean, there's still the possibility that employers will raise their minimum salaries to evade this act in some way (though that does carry benefits for the workers, albeit indirect). I feel that the language regarding the three-times rule should be incorporated into this bill, in the unlikely event that the legislation you refer to gets repealed by a future Parliament. Some additional restrictions on said salaries may also hold merit.

What I said here still applies, though if there isn't interest in adding this on we should probably proceed to vote.

[OBD]

Formally motioning to vote.

[OBD]

Aye, with some reservations.