On June 4^th, a veto was over-ridden that really gets under my skin. Veto 22, gives DHHS the ability to expand the prior authorization to include mental health medications.
              
As a pharmacist, I witness wasted taxpayer money on prescription drugs on a daily basis. I would like to apply my 20 years of experience in pharmacy to offer solutions to the ever-climbing healthcare costs in the Palmetto State. Currently, Medicaid has a process called prior authorization or PA. This process is applied to some medications. In these situations, generic alternatives must be used first, and in the instance that the generic drug does not work; the more expensive medication may be dispensed. In no way is quality of care in jeopardy. If a consumer is paying cash for a product, naturally, they will try the least expensive option first. When the taxpayer is required to pay for medications covered by Medicaid, I believe we should take the same approach.
                       
Prior Authorization is applied to many life threatening therapeutic classes with little or no problems, yet with exponential savings of the taxpayers’ money. We apply the PA’s to medications treating diabetes, blood pressure, esophageal reflux, and many, many more. I am confident that there is much room for savings in the mental health area.
                
For example, Zyprexa can cost up to $1200 per month. If Zyprexa was placed on PA, a generic alternative such as haloperidol may be used. Haloperidol costs less than a $100 per month. If the patient does not tolerate haloperidol, then Zyprexa may be dispensed. This process would not be applied to a patient on a maintenance regimen with stable results, only new diagnoses.
                         
This proviso does not place any medication on Prior Authorization; it allows Medicaid more options. The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee makes these determinations. Here’s a link to their website
                         
We don’t have an unlimited amount of funds for our Medicaid recipients and I am confident that this proviso will free up scarce Medicaid dollars for areas of need.

After the taxpayer was kicked in the teeth by the General Assembly’s budget conference committee, it looks like members and candidates for Anderson County Council are willing to help with government transparency. My budget proviso to mandate all government bodies post their expenditures got axed, yet the discussion is alive and well. Read on:
                 
Anderson County Council candidates speak out about open government
                       
Part 5 in seven-part series – By Liz Carey (Contact)
                                
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 ANDERSON COUNTY — Over the past year, questions have arisen about how open Anderson County government is with public records. County Council members Cindy Wilson and Bob Waldrep have said the administration has either delayed getting them the information they request or charged them hundreds of dollars to access the files in question.
                                   
Additionally, council members also have requested that financial information be more readily available, if not presented at each council meeting.
                             
Several organizations made Freedom of Information requests in November for credit card expenditures for the county. A review of those records in February revealed thousands of dollars in food and entertainment expenses made by Anderson County Administrator Joey Preston, as well as other department heads.
                           
Since then, South Carolina Senator Kevin Bryant introduced legislation that would require counties to post all of their expenditures online. He said South Carolina Comptroller Eckert had been able to do that for many state cabinets at no cost.
                      
Read the full article

If someone in a Home Depot store offers you assistance and they don’t work there, you may live in South Carolina.
If you are ‘fixin’ to go anywhere or do anything, you may live in South Carolina.
If you’ve worn shorts on Christmas day, you may live in South Carolina.
If you’ve had a telephone conversation with a wrong number, you may live in South Carolina.
If ‘vacation’ means going to Myrtle Beach for a week, you may live in South Carolina.
If you install security alarms on your house and garage, but leave both unlocked, you may live in South Carolina.
If you carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them, you may live in South Carolina.
If the speed limit on the highway is 55, you’re going 70 and everybody is passing you, you may live in South Carolina.
If you find 60 degrees ‘a little chilly’, you may live in South Carolina.
If you  take time off work to watch college football,  you may live in South Carolina.
If you know the names of any NASCAR drivers besides Dale Jr. or Jeff Gordon, you may live in South Carolina.
If you think iced tea only comes pre-sweetened, you may live in South Carolina.
If you know two or more people named ‘Bubba’, you may liv e in South Carolina.
If you think that all Yankee college students should move back home upon graduation, you may live in South Carolina.
If you actually understand these jokes, and share them with your friends, you definitely live in South Carolina.

Wouldn’t it be great if insurance companies paid claims as quickly as they require a policy holder to pay his or her premium? H. 3674 requires just that. This is a simple reasonable regulation that should be implemented in insurance contracts. Never been much on tighter regulations, but this is about fairness.I hope we can get to it before sine die. By the way, sine die is at 5pm on Thursday. I betcha can’t wait!

                 
Family Research Council – Congress may be adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, but a series of misguided state bills aren’t providing any relief for pro-family groups. Just ask the residents of Colorado, where locals are bracing themselves for an “anti-bias” law that is actually changing where people use the restroom. Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, “gender-free.” In other words, anyone–regardless of their biological identity–will be welcome in the men’s or ladies’ room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven’t made up their minds. To read the full article…