July 14, 2004

Residents rank second in U.S. in prescription drug spending

By Phil Kabler
Staff writer

West Virginians spent more than residents of all but one other state on prescription drugs in 2002, according to a study to be released today by the Health Reform Program at Boston University’s School of Public Health.

West Virginians spent 3 percent of their total income on prescription drugs in 2002, second only to Tennessee, at 3.1 percent, and well above the national average of 1.87 percent, the study found.

Authored by Alan Sager and Deborah Scholar, the report found that the drug cost burden varies significantly from state to state, from Tennessee’s high to as low as 1.3 percent of income in California.

“We found drug cost burdens generally heaviest in poorer, sicker, older states, and where more people are uninsured,” the study’s authors reported.

The study calculates each state’s drug cost burden by weighing the average number of prescriptions per person, and average price per prescription, against the state’s average per capita income.

West Virginia, the study found, has an older population, illness rates far above national averages, and the third-lowest per capita income in the nation.

More significantly, the report finds that, nationally, the drug cost burden increased by more than 50 percent in four years, with the share of U.S. personal income spent on prescription drugs growing from 1.2 percent in 1998 to nearly 1.9 percent in 2002.

In West Virginia, the burden grew from 2.1 percent in 1998 to 3.0 percent.

In an interview Tuesday, Sager said the report shows that ever-increasing drug prices are not sustainable economically, politically or clinically.

The study concludes that the only practical way to reduce the prescription drug burden is to reduce drug costs, since the alternative — lowering the number of prescriptions per person — is not practical or medically advisable.

An effort this year by the state Legislature to control drug costs, the Pharmaceutical Affordability and Availability Act, is discussed at length in the study.

The report calls the 2004 law “innovative and ground-breaking” and says its passage “shocked drug industry and other observers.”

It fails to note that Sager worked closely with proponents of the bill in the Legislature, and came to Charleston, where he spoke in support of the bill for nearly an hour during a public hearing at the Capitol.

“Why West Virginia?” the study asks. “Several traits may have spurred action. West Virginia residents face a particularly heavy burden of prescription drug costs — with low incomes but high drug spending per person.”

On Tuesday, Sager praised West Virginia lawmakers for having the “guts and brains” to pass the law, which created a state council that is studying cost-control options.

Delegate Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, a physician and one of the authors of the legislation, said the growth in the drug cost burden cited in the study is startling.

“Given that trend, something has to be done to control costs,” Foster said. “It’s just not sustainable ... That’s why it’s very important to do what we can to make drugs more affordable.”

Wanda Moebius, spokeswoman for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the study’s focus on drug costs misses the point.

“[Sager] looks at all these conditions, and gets to the wrong conclusion,” she said. “By advocating price controls on prescription drugs, Sager is treating the symptom and not the disease. We need to do a better job of improving health overall, improving treatments — not limiting them — and driving down costs while improving the lives of patients.”

To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.