Today’s WaPo editorial:

IN HIS ELECTION campaign, President Bush didn’t put forward a health care plan so much as a handful of ideas about health care, none of which will extend coverage to all Americans and few of which are likely to cut skyrocketing costs. Although some of his suggestions, such as private health savings accounts and limits on malpractice damage awards, might help drive the cost of health care downward over time, none seem likely to do so in a significant way. That means that controls on health care costs over the next four years are going to have to come from somewhere else: Insurance companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers and others who play big roles in the health care system may find it necessary to get involved.

So, health insurers and PBMs might find it necessary to get involved in controlling health care costs. Um, haven’t they already been trying to do that for the past decade or two?

The Los Angeles Times also has an editorial today bemoaning the rapid increase in health care costs (“Taming a Healthcare Monster“). The Times’ editorial concludes with a call for the use of centralized committed-use contracting by Medicare and Medicaid:

A major reform of the healthcare system would be nice, but if Bush is looking for a way to get the ball rolling, he should repeal his administration’s rules that forbid Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate (sic) lower prices for drugs.

“Negotiate” is a nice way of saying “extract” or “demand,” which is what the federal government would be able to do, given its huge huge buying power. (No drug company in its right mind would allow its product to be excluded from a nationwide Medicare formulary.) Though the LA Times doesn’t say so, this is the same radical proposal that John Kerry supported, which I criticized here. I can’t think of a better way to undermine pharmaceutical companies’ incentive to invest in research and development of new drugs.