http://www.breakingthenews.net/news/details/53868929
The news say as a result of an executive order from a few momths ago which went into effect earlier this week, medicine company in the US can only get paid by Medicare for as much as the price in other developed countries and also ending middlemen rebate, thus effectively restricting the price pharmacies would charge on their drugs in the US.
----
Is this something liked or disliked by thpse companies making those medicines? And why?

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe ... ng-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

There have been challenges in court against Big pharmacy patents by other drug companies.

notably a Federal court invalidated Biogen patent protecting it's exclusive right to produce
TECFIDERA for MS relapse patients The patent was set to expire in 2028. Biogen charges 86k a year per patient. There are currently 1 million patients with relapsing MS who cannot afford this drug and many charities been paying for the meds.

Mylan took Biogen to court and said, that it's patent was to broad. The judge agreed. Biogen appealing the decision. However in the meantime the FDA is allowing Mylan to product a generic form of the drug. Health insurance companies sent letters the day after the FDA approved the generic form stating they will no longer cover this drug, only the generic version. This will save health insurance companies almost 70 million a year and charity organizations can use their resources elsewhere.

https://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/ ... 0treatment.

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Why didn't Trump do this four years ago? I mean really?
could it be because it's so poorly written that it will more than likely been thrown out of court?
Now, on his way out the door, he wants to lower drug prices !!! What was he waiting for?

He had control of both houses of Congress for two years after his election.
oh yeah, the republicans voted against a even weaker version of his executive order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/upsh ... rices.html

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Why didn't Trump do this four years ago? I mean really?

Because deep in the fine print, it’s also going to limit WHAT medications Medicare will pay for. So it’s an indirect defunding of an “entitlement” that many in the Republican Party have been calling for. That would not have played well with some seniors.

From a Politico article:

“And while the administration estimates that the new plan could save Medicare $85.5 billion over those even years, it notes that “a portion of the savings is attributable to beneficiaries not accessing their drugs through the Medicare benefit, along with the associated lost utilization” — essentially, fewer people having access to certain medicines starting in 2023.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... es/589096/

Interesting read about his successes.

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

As Donald Trump said in March 2017,

"Who knew healthcare was so complicated?"

Big pharma and medical insurance companies have contributed more money than to Biden. Also to EVERY senate candidate, and most house candidates. Even to the Trump campaign.

I'm guessing close to 5 or 6 % of every prescription I pay for goes to lobbying both parties. Drug producers and healthcare insurers hedge their bets/ lobbying money with EVERYONE. Who wins doesn't matter that much to them. Most of this will be overturned in the courts. Conservative court judges can see it is overreaching Presidential authority.

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Ugh, healthcare is too expensive in this country. If OP write up is correct and this reduces the cost of medicine, Biden better not reverse it.

LCDFlight wrote:

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

While I dont disagree that Biden is the corporate candidate, what exactly was the alternative that Trump brought?

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Why didn't Trump do this four years ago? I mean really?

I think he has been trying this for a while. Not sure what were the hurdles.

US doesn't have an insurance issue, we have a health care cost issue. Markup a procedure 10x and show 2x as insurance negotiated price. Still it is double than what it should cost.

Perhaps Doctor/Hospital should buy drugs through a central organisation resulting in more competitive pricing.

bennett123 wrote:

Perhaps Doctor/Hospital should buy drugs through a central organisation resulting in more competitive pricing

As long as the US continues bare the burden of the cost of a majority of R & D for the Pharmaceuticals then nothing will change.
Although the EU is just starting to do development in house but that seems to come out of other tax revenue avenues and not reflected in the cost of the drug. Just a matter of which pocket the revenue source comes from I suppose.

Last time I checked many of the EU countries were years in arears of payments to the Pharmaceutical companies, like maybe 4 years or more the best I remember.

Okie

Okie wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Perhaps Doctor/Hospital should buy drugs through a central organisation resulting in more competitive pricing

As long as the US continues bare the burden of the cost of a majority of R & D for the Pharmaceuticals then nothing will change.
Although the EU is just starting to do development in house but that seems to come out of other tax revenue avenues and not reflected in the cost of the drug. Just a matter of which pocket the revenue source comes from I suppose.

Last time I checked many of the EU countries were years in arears of payments to the Pharmaceutical companies, like maybe 4 years or more the best I remember.

Okie

With most of those companies in question being international companies selling drugs to all countries around the world amd making profit all over the world maybe except in india, do you know why their research cost would mainlu be from the US as you claim?

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

So you think that the incoming Biden administration will turnover an easy win policy handed to them by the departing, losing, current administration?

I am 100% certain that you know "favored nation" payments for Medicare drugs pricing has been a goal of Dems for many years? One that has been consistently and strongly opposed by Republicans in the legislature for decades.

Tugg

c933103 wrote:

Okie wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Perhaps Doctor/Hospital should buy drugs through a central organisation resulting in more competitive pricing

As long as the US continues bare the burden of the cost of a majority of R & D for the Pharmaceuticals then nothing will change.
Although the EU is just starting to do development in house but that seems to come out of other tax revenue avenues and not reflected in the cost of the drug. Just a matter of which pocket the revenue source comes from I suppose.

Last time I checked many of the EU countries were years in arears of payments to the Pharmaceutical companies, like maybe 4 years or more the best I remember.

Okie

With most of those companies in question being international companies selling drugs to all countries around the world amd making profit all over the world maybe except in india, do you know why their research cost would mainlu be from the US as you claim?

Most of those companies are based in the US, and gaining US FDA compliance/ certification is the 'gold' standard for the drug companies. If the drug is certified in the US, almost every country in the world accepts the drug without further testing. If a drug had to be certified in every country, the cost in each country would be higher, and many drugs would simply not be available in places where they are needed the most.

At least that is the line the drug companies use to explain their costs. They charge every penny the market will bear in other countries, but many places like very poor undeveloped countries, the drugs are sold for less than the costs of distribution. In other countries, they have no protection for patented processes, specific formulas, etc.

The companies tell the US Congress that they simply cannot afford the costs of developing some drugs if they are not protected.

Of course, no senior executive for a drug company makes a poor salary. Take the pay of a US congressman - time 10 is a minimum, some making 20 times what a congressman makes.

One thing that must be considered as to phama drugs in the USA is to end all the direct to consumer TV, radio and print ads and strict limits on marketing to doctors, hospitals. Perhaps insurance companies along with companies that pay in part for the health insurance for their workers and consumer groups could cause it to happen, saving billion$. Yes, it might hurt in particular TV ad revenues, especially some cable channels, but maybe it will mean fewer junk reality programs.

maverick4002 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

While I dont disagree that Biden is the corporate candidate, what exactly was the alternative that Trump brought?

The alternative was a man who openly hates the Establishment and wants to cover it in his filth so it dies. A lot of people are ok with that idea. He got around 47% of the vote.

LCDFlight wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

While I dont disagree that Biden is the corporate candidate, what exactly was the alternative that Trump brought?

The alternative was a man who openly hates the Establishment and wants to cover it in his filth so it dies. A lot of people are ok with that idea. He got around 47% of the vote.

Which is horse pucky. Trump can brand himself however he wants. He is a product of money and his family’s fortunes facilitated no small part of his wealth. He spent the last thirty years hobnobbing with power brokers. Also, that rhetoric collapses on itself very quickly. You can’t be the party of jobs jobs jobs low taxes help our businesses and then say “F the establishment,” who are a lot of those jobs.

LCDFlight wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

While I dont disagree that Biden is the corporate candidate, what exactly was the alternative that Trump brought?

The alternative was a man who openly hates the Establishment and wants to cover it in his filth so it dies. A lot of people are ok with that idea. He got around 47% of the vote.

Trump was the establish, for four years. The term establishment is a reference to the ruling classes that dominated social, religious, and political life. My God, can you look up the meaning of words before you post.

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Ya'll still don't understand how economies of scale work or how they have been applied in other countries with national health care. You just made the best argument for going to Medicare for all - new taxes, not 'higher' taxes. A monthly Medicare tax of $250 is much cheaper than the current average private insurance for an individual of close to $500. No?

$250/month is derived from the most recent Medicare for all proposals.

rfields5421 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Okie wrote:

As long as the US continues bare the burden of the cost of a majority of R & D for the Pharmaceuticals then nothing will change.
Although the EU is just starting to do development in house but that seems to come out of other tax revenue avenues and not reflected in the cost of the drug. Just a matter of which pocket the revenue source comes from I suppose.

Last time I checked many of the EU countries were years in arears of payments to the Pharmaceutical companies, like maybe 4 years or more the best I remember.

Okie

With most of those companies in question being international companies selling drugs to all countries around the world amd making profit all over the world maybe except in india, do you know why their research cost would mainlu be from the US as you claim?

Most of those companies are based in the US, and gaining US FDA compliance/ certification is the 'gold' standard for the drug companies. If the drug is certified in the US, almost every country in the world accepts the drug without further testing. If a drug had to be certified in every country, the cost in each country would be higher, and many drugs would simply not be available in places where they are needed the most.

At least that is the line the drug companies use to explain their costs. They charge every penny the market will bear in other countries, but many places like very poor undeveloped countries, the drugs are sold for less than the costs of distribution. In other countries, they have no protection for patented processes, specific formulas, etc.

The companies tell the US Congress that they simply cannot afford the costs of developing some drugs if they are not protected.

Of course, no senior executive for a drug company makes a poor salary. Take the pay of a US congressman - time 10 is a minimum, some making 20 times what a congressman makes.

Many of the companies also enjoyed a very profitable 2019:

Pfizer: +$16.2 billion
Roche: +14.1 billion CHF
GlaxoSmithKline: +4.7 billion GBP
Lilly: +$3.2 billion
Merck: +$9.8 billion
AbbVie: +$5.7 billion

Biogen and Johnson & Johnson though somehow managed to be a combined -$15 billion in the red.

Aside from anything else, isn't this EO pretty "un-American" ? What happened to freeeduuummm ?

Now personally I don't have a problem with government intervention on prices in some sectors, but then I don't see why the price should be "as much" as other developed countries ? If your country is richer, shouldn't the price be higher ? I mean some percents higher, not 7000% higher like you have in some cases.

Aesma wrote:

Aside from anything else, isn't this EO pretty "un-American" ? What happened to freeeduuummm ?

Now personally I don't have a problem with government intervention on prices in some sectors, but then I don't see why the price should be "as much" as other developed countries ? If your country is richer, shouldn't the price be higher ? I mean some percents higher, not 7000% higher like you have in some cases.

EOs limit the practical application of policy. True price controls on pharmaceuticals can only be done via bipartisan legislative efforts of Congress.

Okie wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Perhaps Doctor/Hospital should buy drugs through a central organisation resulting in more competitive pricing

As long as the US continues bare the burden of the cost of a majority of R & D for the Pharmaceuticals then nothing will change

the sum total of global pharma R&D spending is 180 billion USD. Much of it is wasted due to competing companies and that research not being in the open, so we benefit only from a fraction of it. If you want to save money, spend a few billion on R&D and make the results open source. Prices for medication would drop to manufacturing & distribution costs quite quick.

In Terms of spending vs. GDP Switzerland, Belgium, Slovenia and Denmark spend more than the US.

rfields5421 wrote:

The companies tell the US Congress that they simply cannot afford the costs of developing some drugs if they are not protected..

"Ok, then... we will set up a grand program for public universities to develop it then".

And suddenly the "we otherwise can´t afford the R&D" argument will never be heard again...

Between profits, marketing and redundant R&D work the insured gets some single digit percentage of that extra spending in benefit.

maverick4002 wrote:

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Ugh, healthcare is too expensive in this country. If OP write up is correct and this reduces the cost of medicine, Biden better not reverse it.

you mean aside of the death panels Trump has included in the EO?

best regards
Thomas

rfields5421 wrote:

Most of those companies are based in the US

"The world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies: Top ten by revenue

1. Johnson & Johnson – $56.1bn (US)

2. Pfizer – $51.75bn (US)

3. Roche – $49.23bn (Swiss)

4. Novartis – $47.45bn (Swiss)

5. Merck & Co. – $46.84bn (US)


6. GlaxoSmithKline – $44.27bn (GB)

7. Sanofi – $40.46bn (France)

8. AbbVie – $33.26bn (US)

9. Takeda – $30.52bn (Japan)

10. Shanghai Pharmaceuticals Holding – $26.69bn (China) "

source: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.c ... s-in-2020/

In Germany we have a similar discussion that we pay too much and other countries profit.

Are you sure all pharma senior executives earn 10-20 times a Congressman's salary? What is a senior executive?

Why would insulin be so expensive?
Are generic medicaments costly? If yes, why?

If a medicine has only seven years intellectual property rights, no wonder they are costly.

My brother in law will have lifelong joint pains. He had Chikungunja, the mild form of Dengue. Since that's a tropical disease and since poor countries are not willing to pay for property rights, no company is interested in finding a medicament.

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that must be considered as to pharma drugs in the USA is to end all the direct to consumer TV, radio and print ads.

Agree 100%

No more prescription drug ads on TV, radio and in print.

Have you been diagnosed with an illness??? Consult with your Dr., or research it on "the internet," and then consult with your Dr.
A 30 second TV ad is not a quality medical consultation. It's a disservice.

The rest of us are quite tired of hearing the dirty side effects of drugs mentioned on Big Pharma ads all day and all night.

Bty, the patents for some of the ED drugs must have expired. All of a sudden I see much less ED ads on TV. The "public service" attitude of the Drug manufacturers evaporates quickly when there is no giant profit to be made by them. IOW, the "we care about you" ads from Big Pharma are ONLY there for the stuff they're selling that they can make the BIG profits on. Yeah, that sums up their "commitment to caring!!"

DIRECTFLT wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that must be considered as to pharma drugs in the USA is to end all the direct to consumer TV, radio and print ads.

Agree 100%

No more prescription drug ads on TV, radio and in print.

Have you been diagnosed with an illness??? Consult with your Dr., or research it on "the internet," and then consult with your Dr.
A 30 second TV ad is not a quality medical consultation. It's a disservice.

Here prescriptions only contain the active substance and dosage, the pharmacist will give you whatever is the cheapest medication (well..technically any of the four cheapest as they don´t always have stock of *the* cheapest).. Even if they write down a specific brand, unless they specifically mark it as "no substitution" you get the cheapest. If they use that mark noticeably often, the health insure will start asking some inconvenient questions. If that only concerns products from certain companies, they may directly talk to prosecutors as that reeks of corruption.
Prescription dug advertisement is also illegal when the target audience is not medical professionals, and since there are no TV or radio stations specifically for them, there is no advertisement.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that must be considered as to pharma drugs in the USA is to end all the direct to consumer TV, radio and print ads.

Agree 100%

No more prescription drug ads on TV, radio and in print.

Have you been diagnosed with an illness??? Consult with your Dr., or research it on "the internet," and then consult with your Dr.
A 30 second TV ad is not a quality medical consultation. It's a disservice.

Here prescriptions only contain the active substance and dosage, the pharmacist will give you whatever is the cheapest medication (well..technically any of the four cheapest as they don´t always have stock of *the* cheapest).. Even if they write down a specific brand, unless they specifically mark it as "no substitution" you get the cheapest. If they use that mark noticeably often, the health insure will start asking some inconvenient questions. If that only concerns products from certain companies, they may directly talk to prosecutors as that reeks of corruption.
Prescription dug advertisement is also illegal when the target audience is not medical professionals, and since there are no TV or radio stations specifically for them, there is no advertisement.

best regards
Thomas

Very similar to Japan - as well there it is illegal to advertise pharma products to a non-medical audience. There are no print or TV ads. Also the Japanese government sets prices for all therapeutics and the pharma companies have to abide by them. The prices are decided by a panel of medical experts and economists at the Ministry of Health.

rfields5421 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Okie wrote:

As long as the US continues bare the burden of the cost of a majority of R & D for the Pharmaceuticals then nothing will change.
Although the EU is just starting to do development in house but that seems to come out of other tax revenue avenues and not reflected in the cost of the drug. Just a matter of which pocket the revenue source comes from I suppose.

Last time I checked many of the EU countries were years in arears of payments to the Pharmaceutical companies, like maybe 4 years or more the best I remember.

Okie

With most of those companies in question being international companies selling drugs to all countries around the world amd making profit all over the world maybe except in india, do you know why their research cost would mainlu be from the US as you claim?

Most of those companies are based in the US, and gaining US FDA compliance/ certification is the 'gold' standard for the drug companies. If the drug is certified in the US, almost every country in the world accepts the drug without further testing. If a drug had to be certified in every country, the cost in each country would be higher, and many drugs would simply not be available in places where they are needed the most.

At least that is the line the drug companies use to explain their costs. They charge every penny the market will bear in other countries, but many places like very poor undeveloped countries, the drugs are sold for less than the costs of distribution. In other countries, they have no protection for patented processes, specific formulas, etc.

The companies tell the US Congress that they simply cannot afford the costs of developing some drugs if they are not protected.

Of course, no senior executive for a drug company makes a poor salary. Take the pay of a US congressman - time 10 is a minimum, some making 20 times what a congressman makes.

Ut when those drugs are essentially to be sold internationally, why would they focus on the US when they calculate the certification cost even if the certification is indeed to be done in the US? That's like saying Boeing would sell a 737 more expensively in the US because they works with FAA in the US

"The companies tell the US Congress that they simply cannot afford the costs of developing some drugs if they are not protected."

What is their profit situation?

How much more is hidden superficially in "research outlay" ?

Then "money for research" is less of a valid metric than "useful (healthwise) results from research".

LCDFlight wrote:

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

I don't know that many people revere large corporations. They have their place but when all we have is large corporations that shut down small businesses, the general feeling is that large corporations are bad. But, they have all the money and power, so they can build wherever they want and write the rules. Look at businesses like Wal-Mart and Amazon. We all hate them, but what choice do we have? They pushed out small businesses.

Some small businesses have made a comeback. Small batch ciders and locally sourced wool yarn and such. Medicine is very different. Only a handful of major companies have the finances to test and produce these medications. We will never see small batch, artisanal, gluten free insulin, for example.

tommy1808 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that must be considered as to pharma drugs in the USA is to end all the direct to consumer TV, radio and print ads.

Agree 100%

No more prescription drug ads on TV, radio and in print.

Have you been diagnosed with an illness??? Consult with your Dr., or research it on "the internet," and then consult with your Dr.
A 30 second TV ad is not a quality medical consultation. It's a disservice.

Here prescriptions only contain the active substance and dosage, the pharmacist will give you whatever is the cheapest medication (well..technically any of the four cheapest as they don´t always have stock of *the* cheapest).. Even if they write down a specific brand, unless they specifically mark it as "no substitution" you get the cheapest. If they use that mark noticeably often, the health insure will start asking some inconvenient questions. If that only concerns products from certain companies, they may directly talk to prosecutors as that reeks of corruption.
Prescription dug advertisement is also illegal when the target audience is not medical professionals, and since there are no TV or radio stations specifically for them, there is no advertisement.

best regards
Thomas

Here the pharmacist also tries to substitute the cheaper brand unless the doctor ticks the same box you mentioned. Even with that, they still try to substitute the generic brand.

That’s when I demand the brand on the prescription or go elsewhere.

One thing interesting I got some vitamin tablets online from a store in Leipzig- well known ones I’ve used before when I was in Austria - they came with a print out from the pharmacist explaining totally the make up of the tablets and detailed instructions. I’ve never seen that here. Don’t know if it is a requirement by German law, but I like it.

LCDFlight wrote:

The big money won the presidential race. How many billionaires supported Trump, and how many supported Biden... look into it. Biden was the corporate candidate. Small business and large business are frequently antagonists. Many of us regard small business as shady scum, yet we revere large corporations. So, what happens is large companies and the government meld into some mutant horror. Which we will now see together.

A large part of Biden being the 'corporate candidate' is the changing nature of corporations in the United States. For decades, arguably a century, the largest most powerful corporations in world were Oil companies and large industrial players who were notoriously conservative. Contemporary Republicans were thus the party of big business.

Today? Big tech makes the Exxons and Chevrons of the world look like dying dinosaurs with tech's colossal piles of cash, profit margins, and ability to disrupt - and big tech is and always will be liberal as a consequence of coming out of Silicon Valley (among other reasons).

It's a shift that should be talked about more.

Aaron747 wrote:

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Ya'll still don't understand how economies of scale work or how they have been applied in other countries with national health care. You just made the best argument for going to Medicare for all - new taxes, not 'higher' taxes. A monthly Medicare tax of $250 is much cheaper than the current average private insurance for an individual of close to $500. No?

$250/month is derived from the most recent Medicare for all proposals.

THIS...if the Government...Us...pooled all of the premiums we Americans are currently paying, both Employer paid and private, and funded a "Medicare for All" single payor system, I am pretty sure both pharma and healthcare costs would be MUCH more manageable. Time to pull the curtain aside and show what we are actually getting for our health care dollars...

cpd wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Agree 100%

No more prescription drug ads on TV, radio and in print.

Have you been diagnosed with an illness??? Consult with your Dr., or research it on "the internet," and then consult with your Dr.
A 30 second TV ad is not a quality medical consultation. It's a disservice.

Here prescriptions only contain the active substance and dosage, the pharmacist will give you whatever is the cheapest medication (well..technically any of the four cheapest as they don´t always have stock of *the* cheapest).. Even if they write down a specific brand, unless they specifically mark it as "no substitution" you get the cheapest. If they use that mark noticeably often, the health insure will start asking some inconvenient questions. If that only concerns products from certain companies, they may directly talk to prosecutors as that reeks of corruption.
Prescription dug advertisement is also illegal when the target audience is not medical professionals, and since there are no TV or radio stations specifically for them, there is no advertisement.

best regards
Thomas

Here the pharmacist also tries to substitute the cheaper brand unless the doctor ticks the same box you mentioned. Even with that, they still try to substitute the generic brand.

That’s when I demand the brand on the prescription or go elsewhere.

One thing interesting I got some vitamin tablets online from a store in Leipzig- well known ones I’ve used before when I was in Austria - they came with a print out from the pharmacist explaining totally the make up of the tablets and detailed instructions. I’ve never seen that here. Don’t know if it is a requirement by German law, but I like it.

In the USA, the initial and sometimes with refills, the pharmacy will give you a detailed printout of the contents, possible side affects, purpose of the prescribed drug.

bhill wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Okie wrote:

https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-joe-biden-fix-drug-pricing-1534809

Precisely why Big Pharma donated $5.9M to Biden campaign.
They need to force the US middle class to pay higher taxes to support Medicare so Big Pharma's can suffer from exorbitant profit. Obviously a terrible situation for Big Pharma to be in.

I suspect that Quid Pro Quo Biden will be suspend that executive order post haste.

Okie

Ya'll still don't understand how economies of scale work or how they have been applied in other countries with national health care. You just made the best argument for going to Medicare for all - new taxes, not 'higher' taxes. A monthly Medicare tax of $250 is much cheaper than the current average private insurance for an individual of close to $500. No?

$250/month is derived from the most recent Medicare for all proposals.

THIS...if the Government...Us...pooled all of the premiums we Americans are currently paying, both Employer paid and private, and funded a "Medicare for All" single payor system, I am pretty sure both pharma and healthcare costs would be MUCH more manageable. Time to pull the curtain aside and show what we are actually getting for our health care dollars...

Absolutely. Would save massive HR costs for companies as well, to be able to end the overhead of plan shopping and HMO/PPO admin. Also paying a matching $250/month would significantly slash employer premium costs too where offered.

Was not Mr Trump supposed to present a Trump care to replace the Obamacare with a more affordable alternative that he and Republican hates? Will people with preconditions be included?

olle wrote:

[...]Will people with preconditions be included?

Yes, that is one thing the Republican's all want: Anyone with any condition can get insurance! Of course they don't match that with financial responsibility. It is either crazy-high premium rates for those people (aka they can't afford and therefore won't actually have healthcare coverage) or the insurance/healthcare industry can't recover the costs by having "healthy people" also required to enroll. You know like the smart way of insurance.....

Sometimes the "new Republican party" really disappoints me. Forever they championed the individual mandate, the idea that everyone should need to "buy in" but then when such a policy is passed by a Democrat administration, suddenly it is terrible and the goal is to "make it fail".

That is the problem to day "make them fail" is more important that getting the work done for the nation. You know: Compromise.

Tugg

Interesting article on prescription health prices( I assume from a health care lobby).

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 4451/full/

Lots of nuggets in there ,but let's look at this one.

Despite accounting for 90 percent of 5.8 billion U.S. outpatient prescriptions in 2018, generic drugs comprised only 20 percent of drug spending, averaging just $19 per prescription. In contrast, the 10 percent of prescriptions for brand drugs constituted almost 80 percent of outpatient drug spending in 2018, with an average price at the pharmacy of $428 per prescription. A subset of brand drugs—biologic or specialty drugs—comprised only 2.2 percent of outpatient prescriptions but accounted for half of outpatient drug spending.

So 5.22 Billion Generic drug prescriptions yielded 99.8 Billion in Revenue, while the 580 million Brand Drug Prescriptions. Yielded 248+ Billion in Revenue.

What we are saying here is that the average prescription cost is $60 per prescription. This is the reason healthcare should be socialized. No one should have to pay the full costs of drugs that usually are inversely proportional to their ability to do work at the time of need.

casinterest wrote:

Interesting article on prescription health prices( I assume from a health care lobby).

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 4451/full/

Lots of nuggets in there ,but let's look at this one.

Despite accounting for 90 percent of 5.8 billion U.S. outpatient prescriptions in 2018, generic drugs comprised only 20 percent of drug spending, averaging just $19 per prescription. In contrast, the 10 percent of prescriptions for brand drugs constituted almost 80 percent of outpatient drug spending in 2018, with an average price at the pharmacy of $428 per prescription. A subset of brand drugs—biologic or specialty drugs—comprised only 2.2 percent of outpatient prescriptions but accounted for half of outpatient drug spending.

So 5.22 Billion Generic drug prescriptions yielded 99.8 Billion in Revenue, while the 580 million Brand Drug Prescriptions. Yielded 248+ Billion in Revenue.

What we are saying here is that the average prescription cost is $60 per prescription. This is the reason healthcare should be socialized. No one should have to pay the full costs of drugs that usually are inversely proportional to their ability to do work at the time of need.

Yeah, but the devil is in the details...big Pharma does not want folks getting generics, as you can see there is no more money in it, sooo, they do 2 things....change or add one little tiny component in that generic, and call it a "new, brand drug" that resets the patent or push providers into prescribing brand new meds...so they DO have it both ways....

bhill wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Interesting article on prescription health prices( I assume from a health care lobby).

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 4451/full/

Lots of nuggets in there ,but let's look at this one.

Despite accounting for 90 percent of 5.8 billion U.S. outpatient prescriptions in 2018, generic drugs comprised only 20 percent of drug spending, averaging just $19 per prescription. In contrast, the 10 percent of prescriptions for brand drugs constituted almost 80 percent of outpatient drug spending in 2018, with an average price at the pharmacy of $428 per prescription. A subset of brand drugs—biologic or specialty drugs—comprised only 2.2 percent of outpatient prescriptions but accounted for half of outpatient drug spending.

So 5.22 Billion Generic drug prescriptions yielded 99.8 Billion in Revenue, while the 580 million Brand Drug Prescriptions. Yielded 248+ Billion in Revenue.

What we are saying here is that the average prescription cost is $60 per prescription. This is the reason healthcare should be socialized. No one should have to pay the full costs of drugs that usually are inversely proportional to their ability to do work at the time of need.

Yeah, but the devil is in the details...big Pharma does not want folks getting generics, as you can see there is no more money in it, sooo, they do 2 things....change or add one little tiny component in that generic, and call it a "new, brand drug" that resets the patent or push providers into prescribing brand new meds...so they DO have it both ways....

Yes, and this is why it is not really a free market. My Doctor controls a lot of what I get, as does my pharmacist. Both of whom have vested interests in pleasing their suppliers for prescriptions.

There should be an option given to everyone of effectiveness ratings for these "new" drugs that really isolates whether it is a big leap or not, and that should be given to patients .

I use the free Good RX app to get the best price for any generic drug. The US FDA requires any generic drug to accomplish the same as the "Brand Name" version of the drug, so I'm always happy to purchase the generic version.

Krugman has noted that government does two things well - fighting wars and providing insurance. It does the later better than free market companies because it does not have to answer to Wall Street and stockholders who rightfully want their due profit, and usually want to distort the market for high and very high profits. Social Security and Medicare manage with very low administrative costs compared to private companies.