PhRMA launches 7-figure ad campaign against Democrats' drug pricing measures

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/572397-phrma-launches-7-figure-ad-campaign-against-democrats-drug-pricing-measures

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced Wednesday that it is launching a seven-figure ad campaign against the proposals moving through Congress to lower prescription drug prices.

The group also released an open letter signed by the heads of all of its member companies pointing to the COVID-19 vaccines and treatments developed by the industry and arguing the proposals would “sacrifice future medical advances.”

Let China and the EU pay for the R&D.

Agreed - their argument falls flat. The top pharma companies in the US have almost $500B in equity. They can stomach lower drug prices.

So they have enough money to campaign against lowering drug prices but have no money to actually lower drug prices? Quelle surprise....

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Let China and the EU pay for the R&D.

Hilarious. We (EU) , did for COVID and do for others.

Free markets, how dare the Dems want that ?

Insulin goes for upwards of $400 a vial in the US. Mexico $15. Bush2's drug plan got its support only if big pharm got the almost absolute right to set prices, Insulins had been high, but below $100. Gee, I wonder what happened. Walmart, bless their soul, does carry two insulins for $25 a vial. Regular and NPH, the later is a little clunky to use. Medical and pharm spreads the word that the two are terrible old fashion insulins and don't work. Both are genuine human insulin, human genes inserted into a microbe, and better for most than the old cow or pig sourced insulins. Of course they were thought pretty miraculous - and were. Anyway yeah GMOs. If I can inject them into my body, why not eat them in my food.

How does pricing work now?

Pharm industry has added some bandaids, but they are designed to hold the inflated price lines.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

PhRMA launches 7-figure ad campaign against Democrats' drug pricing measures

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/572397-phrma-launches-7-figure-ad-campaign-against-democrats-drug-pricing-measures

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced Wednesday that it is launching a seven-figure ad campaign against the proposals moving through Congress to lower prescription drug prices.

The group also released an open letter signed by the heads of all of its member companies pointing to the COVID-19 vaccines and treatments developed by the industry and arguing the proposals would “sacrifice future medical advances.”

Let China and the EU pay for the R&D.

I've seen this movie already, they'll get what they want.

Dieuwer wrote:

How does pricing work now?

In the US? Like this:

In the United States, the price of prescription drugs is relatively unregulated, enabling pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug prices beyond inflation rates and regardless of demand.
-The majority of a pharmaceutical company’s revenue comes from steadily increasing prices of drugs that have been on the market for some time.
-When pricing their drugs, pharmaceutical companies consider a drug's uniqueness, competition from other companies, and a drug's effectiveness.
-Companies also consider the huge research and development (R&D) costs incurred to bring a drug to market, a consideration that often leads to high prices for new drugs.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -drugs.asp

Unlike virtually every other western economy where to varying extents rates are set by government boards or by the health ministry directly.

Not merely unregulated, a variety of IP rights are granted which guarantees them a monopoly. I will note that the purpose of patents and copyrights were in the constitution to encourage innovation and creativity, not to create cash cows.

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

How does pricing work now?

In the US? Like this:

In the United States, the price of prescription drugs is relatively unregulated, enabling pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug prices beyond inflation rates and regardless of demand.
-The majority of a pharmaceutical company’s revenue comes from steadily increasing prices of drugs that have been on the market for some time.
-When pricing their drugs, pharmaceutical companies consider a drug's uniqueness, competition from other companies, and a drug's effectiveness.
-Companies also consider the huge research and development (R&D) costs incurred to bring a drug to market, a consideration that often leads to high prices for new drugs.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -drugs.asp

Unlike virtually every other western economy where to varying extents rates are set by government boards or by the health ministry directly.

You would think that with generics available, competition would drive down prices.
Also, if a newer version of a medication is available but at a much higher costs, then perhaps one should continue using the cheaper, older medication. Especially if the side effects are relatively mild.
Regardless, I think the Patent System should be overhauled to only allow really new medications be covered. This nonsense about getting a patent - and thereby monopoly power - over an old medication like insulin - is ridiculous.

On top of this all, it seems that America is overmedicated.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Americans consume 75 percent of the world’s prescription drugs. Nearly three in five American adults take a prescription drug at any given time.

https://www.adsdatasystems.com/overmedi ... s-seniors/

Consuming 75 percent of the world's prescription drugs is totally ridiculous. It is time for Americans to come to their senses and not be scare-mongered in taking another expensive drug.
A healthier lifestyle is a must. Away with fast food other bad eating habits! That should help to prevent a lot of diseases like cancer. And in turn alleviate the need for drugs.

Dieuwer wrote:

A healthier lifestyle is a must. Away with fast food other bad eating habits! That should help to prevent a lot of diseases like cancer. And in turn alleviate the need for drugs.

Okay sure - agree. But how? Just as an example, US healthcare has been preaching about the importance of lowering sodium intake since the 1980s. But in that same time:

Back in 1986, sodium content in entrees averaged 36% of the recommended daily allowance–which is pretty high for a single entree (a burger, say). Bad as that is, though, by 2016 this had increased to 47%. Thus a single fast-food entree has nearly half of an entire day's allowance of salt. Sides increased from 14% of the RDA to 26%, which means that if you have an entree and a side (fries!), you're getting 75% of your daily salt allowance. On average, they're adding 50% more salt today than in 1986.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz ... 57c5b2723a

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

How does pricing work now?

In the US? Like this:

In the United States, the price of prescription drugs is relatively unregulated, enabling pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug prices beyond inflation rates and regardless of demand.
-The majority of a pharmaceutical company’s revenue comes from steadily increasing prices of drugs that have been on the market for some time.
-When pricing their drugs, pharmaceutical companies consider a drug's uniqueness, competition from other companies, and a drug's effectiveness.
-Companies also consider the huge research and development (R&D) costs incurred to bring a drug to market, a consideration that often leads to high prices for new drugs.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -drugs.asp

Unlike virtually every other western economy where to varying extents rates are set by government boards or by the health ministry directly.

It all comes down to lobbying of which big pharma spends big bucks.. I have said it before lobbying should be absolutely illegal. It is influence peddling and bribery plain and simple. The rest of the world negotiates their prices we should be able to as well .

stratosphere wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

How does pricing work now?

In the US? Like this:

In the United States, the price of prescription drugs is relatively unregulated, enabling pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug prices beyond inflation rates and regardless of demand.
-The majority of a pharmaceutical company’s revenue comes from steadily increasing prices of drugs that have been on the market for some time.
-When pricing their drugs, pharmaceutical companies consider a drug's uniqueness, competition from other companies, and a drug's effectiveness.
-Companies also consider the huge research and development (R&D) costs incurred to bring a drug to market, a consideration that often leads to high prices for new drugs.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -drugs.asp

Unlike virtually every other western economy where to varying extents rates are set by government boards or by the health ministry directly.

It all comes down to lobbying of which big pharma spends big bucks.. I have said it before lobbying should be absolutely illegal. It is influence peddling and bribery plain and simple. The rest of the world negotiates their prices we should be able to as well .

Money = free speech and corporations are just like citizens and cannot be denied their freedom to speak.

Sooo...

It is the ultimate reasonable capitalist conundrum.

Tugg

seb146 wrote:

So they have enough money to campaign against lowering drug prices but have no money to actually lower drug prices? Quelle surprise....

The article is worded exactly so you think its a lot of money, but a "seven-figure ad campaign" is ... $9,999,999 at most. Its pocket change and wouldn't result in noticeably lower prices even if spread out amongst the most needed medications.

The companies are basically doing a leaflet campaign, thats what that amount of money equates to in real terms. But the wording gets people all het up, for sure.

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

How does pricing work now?

In the US? Like this:

In the United States, the price of prescription drugs is relatively unregulated, enabling pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug prices beyond inflation rates and regardless of demand.
-The majority of a pharmaceutical company’s revenue comes from steadily increasing prices of drugs that have been on the market for some time.
-When pricing their drugs, pharmaceutical companies consider a drug's uniqueness, competition from other companies, and a drug's effectiveness.
-Companies also consider the huge research and development (R&D) costs incurred to bring a drug to market, a consideration that often leads to high prices for new drugs.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -drugs.asp

Unlike virtually every other western economy where to varying extents rates are set by government boards or by the health ministry directly.

This is a common misconception - even in the UK with the NHS, drug prices are negotiated and not set, so often top tier or newer drugs and treatments are priced out of the general NHS market until they become cheaper (they may get special dispensation for specific cases, but won't be available for wider prescribed usage). The government requires pharma companies to be fair, but it does not dictate prices to them - if the pharma company wants to sell its cancer treatment for $1million a dose, then the government will just not buy it. But if the pharma company sells its cancer treatment for $50 a dose, it cannot demand $500 on contract renewal.

The "government not buying it" is a very strong incentive to have reasonable prices. The drug might not even get authorized otherwise, so even a rich person couldn't get it, short of travelling to a country where it is available.

moo wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

How does pricing work now?

In the US? Like this:

In the United States, the price of prescription drugs is relatively unregulated, enabling pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug prices beyond inflation rates and regardless of demand.
-The majority of a pharmaceutical company’s revenue comes from steadily increasing prices of drugs that have been on the market for some time.
-When pricing their drugs, pharmaceutical companies consider a drug's uniqueness, competition from other companies, and a drug's effectiveness.
-Companies also consider the huge research and development (R&D) costs incurred to bring a drug to market, a consideration that often leads to high prices for new drugs.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -drugs.asp

Unlike virtually every other western economy where to varying extents rates are set by government boards or by the health ministry directly.

This is a common misconception - even in the UK with the NHS, drug prices are negotiated and not set, so often top tier or newer drugs and treatments are priced out of the general NHS market until they become cheaper (they may get special dispensation for specific cases, but won't be available for wider prescribed usage). The government requires pharma companies to be fair, but it does not dictate prices to them - if the pharma company wants to sell its cancer treatment for $1million a dose, then the government will just not buy it. But if the pharma company sells its cancer treatment for $50 a dose, it cannot demand $500 on contract renewal.

Yeah, same here in Australia for PBS items. For it to be added to the listing for subsidised access it needs to stack up on a cost/outcome basis.

Dieuwer wrote:

On top of this all, it seems that America is overmedicated.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Americans consume 75 percent of the world’s prescription drugs. Nearly three in five American adults take a prescription drug at any given time.

Someone could also argue that prescription drugs are accessible and not necessarily that they're overmedicated. Now granted, a doctor with good judgement would not give medication to a patient upon their request. And rather than allow a patient to "experiment" with different drugs, it can be spread out such that the doctor can find out which medicine works best for a certain condition.

Growing up I was amazed at how my mom would "request" medication, as in, specify what kind she wanted us to take rather than the one that worked. Cold? Please give us Zithromax for the sore throat and decongestant and cough suppressor (I forgot their names). Allergies? Claritin/Zyrtec 90 day supply with refills please. She also tried to keep some handy so that if we fell sick again, we would have medicine at the ready (without a formal diagnosis). I wouldn't be surprised if in many places of the country, this is what's happening.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

On top of this all, it seems that America is overmedicated.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Americans consume 75 percent of the world’s prescription drugs. Nearly three in five American adults take a prescription drug at any given time.

Someone could also argue that prescription drugs are accessible and not necessarily that they're overmedicated. Now granted, a doctor with good judgement would not give medication to a patient upon their request. And rather than allow a patient to "experiment" with different drugs, it can be spread out such that the doctor can find out which medicine works best for a certain condition.

Growing up I was amazed at how my mom would "request" medication, as in, specify what kind she wanted us to take rather than the one that worked. Cold? Please give us Zithromax for the sore throat and decongestant and cough suppressor (I forgot their names). Allergies? Claritin/Zyrtec 90 day supply with refills please. She also tried to keep some handy so that if we fell sick again, we would have medicine at the ready (without a formal diagnosis). I wouldn't be surprised if in many places of the country, this is what's happening.

One thing I was astounded at when I visited the US was the fact that they had *prescription* medications being advertised on TV - "got X? Ask your doctor for Y today!"

In all the countries I've lived in, only over-the-counter medications are advertised - I vaguely remember one prescription product trying the American approach back in the early 2000s and rapidly being thrown off TV, and nothing since.

Under the NHS, you get an option to try alternatives should you have an issue with one brand, but doctors generally go by the NICE guidelines and whats in the BNF books - you cant walk into a doctors surgery and say "I want Y" without a damn good reason (ie you have a history and you know you work better on Y and its documented in your notes).

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

A healthier lifestyle is a must. Away with fast food other bad eating habits! That should help to prevent a lot of diseases like cancer. And in turn alleviate the need for drugs.

Okay sure - agree. But how? Just as an example, US healthcare has been preaching about the importance of lowering sodium intake since the 1980s. But in that same time:

Back in 1986, sodium content in entrees averaged 36% of the recommended daily allowance–which is pretty high for a single entree (a burger, say). Bad as that is, though, by 2016 this had increased to 47%. Thus a single fast-food entree has nearly half of an entire day's allowance of salt. Sides increased from 14% of the RDA to 26%, which means that if you have an entree and a side (fries!), you're getting 75% of your daily salt allowance. On average, they're adding 50% more salt today than in 1986.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz ... 57c5b2723a

And on that Note the US Govt. is finally taking some baby steps...

F.D.A. Issues Guidelines to Reduce Salt in Foods

The new recommendations are aimed at food manufacturers and restaurants. Some experts say they don’t go far enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/heal ... -food.html

Eating too much salt is making Americans sick. Even a 12% reduction can save lives
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... save-lives

FDA lowers voluntary sodium guidelines, but not to recommended levels
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/health/f ... index.html

And, as a comment on supply chain shortages, I have noticed that Nabisco doesn't have any "No Salt" Crackers on the selves, but they sure don't have problem getting and supplying the salted crackers.

moo wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

On top of this all, it seems that America is overmedicated.

Someone could also argue that prescription drugs are accessible and not necessarily that they're overmedicated. Now granted, a doctor with good judgement would not give medication to a patient upon their request. And rather than allow a patient to "experiment" with different drugs, it can be spread out such that the doctor can find out which medicine works best for a certain condition.

Growing up I was amazed at how my mom would "request" medication, as in, specify what kind she wanted us to take rather than the one that worked. Cold? Please give us Zithromax for the sore throat and decongestant and cough suppressor (I forgot their names). Allergies? Claritin/Zyrtec 90 day supply with refills please. She also tried to keep some handy so that if we fell sick again, we would have medicine at the ready (without a formal diagnosis). I wouldn't be surprised if in many places of the country, this is what's happening.

One thing I was astounded at when I visited the US was the fact that they had *prescription* medications being advertised on TV - "got X? Ask your doctor for Y today!"

In all the countries I've lived in, only over-the-counter medications are advertised - I vaguely remember one prescription product trying the American approach back in the early 2000s and rapidly being thrown off TV, and nothing since.

Under the NHS, you get an option to try alternatives should you have an issue with one brand, but doctors generally go by the NICE guidelines and whats in the BNF books - you cant walk into a doctors surgery and say "I want Y" without a damn good reason (ie you have a history and you know you work better on Y and its documented in your notes).

Japanese folks always told me that was one of the most shocking items for them when going to live in the US on assignment. Pharma advertising on TV is unheard of in Japan because it's illegal in most cases.

Aaron747 wrote:

Japanese folks always told me that was one of the most shocking items for them when going to live in the US on assignment. Pharma advertising on TV is unheard of in Japan because it's illegal in most cases.

It was a great day when the ED pills went generic and we could stop seeing those goddamn Viagra and Cialis commercials.

Newark727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Japanese folks always told me that was one of the most shocking items for them when going to live in the US on assignment. Pharma advertising on TV is unheard of in Japan because it's illegal in most cases.

It was a great day when the ED pills went generic and we could stop seeing those goddamn Viagra and Cialis commercials.

I know - those were the absolute worst. They got funny for awhile, and then were just either cringe or plain stupid.

Reinhardt wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Let China and the EU pay for the R&D.

Hilarious. We (EU) , did for COVID and do for others.

The EU has been falling behind the US and Asia in pharmaceutical research for decades now. It’s pricing policy is largely to blame.

What the US needs is sensible IP reform, most certainly NOT follow the populist road to failure the EU adopted.

“Would the last pharmaceutical investor in Europe please turn the lights out

…

The sobering reality is that Europe has lost its place as the world’s leading driver of medical innovation. Today, 47% of global new treatments are of US origin compared to just 25% emanating from Europe (2014-2018)[2]. It represents a complete reversal of the situation just 25 years ago.

…”
https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-ef ... ights-out/

“ Bayrou, head of the centrist MoDem party and named by Macron last year as commissioner for long-term government planning, said the problem was a brain-drain from France to the United States.

Speaking on France Inter radio, he said it was "not acceptable that our best researchers, the most brilliant of our researchers, are sucked up by the American system".

He referred to Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who heads US-based biotech firm Moderna, whose vaccine was the second to be approved for use in the United States and Europe.”

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2021 ... of-decline

Cut through the French drama and read between the lines.

Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest payers of prescription drugs in the USA. Then add in all the medical insurance companies also paying out. That means by taxes or high insurance premiums by individuals or employers as well as individuals, individuals without insurance priced out of critical drugs are getting screwed.

A new balance is very much needed in pricing. All prescription drugs must be subject to reasonable prices for all payers. The big pharma companies, many of which are based in Europe as well as the USA make the most profits in the USA due to our lack of pricing regulations. The government should regulate pricing for all, not paying for excessive compensation of executives, the billion$ in marketing and advertising to consumers and doctors from what we all pay. Part of the pricing in the USA is our extremely costly liability litigation culture unlike almost any other country. Some reasonable regulations of excess of that is needed but it must be enough to make sure drugs are safe and effect

I would also like to see most drugs sold in the USA to be made here. A recent group of drugs I use/used had maybe only one made in the USA, the others were made in Israel, Croatia, Canada, India and possibly China. I think American taxpayers money should be kept in-country as much as possible including the profits and jobs from them as well as secure manufacturing facilities.

ltbewr wrote:

Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest payers of prescription drugs in the USA. Then add in all the medical insurance companies also paying out. That means by taxes or high insurance premiums by individuals or employers as well as individuals, individuals without insurance priced out of critical drugs are getting screwed.

A new balance is very much needed in pricing. All prescription drugs must be subject to reasonable prices for all payers. The big pharma companies, many of which are based in Europe as well as the USA make the most profits in the USA due to our lack of pricing regulations. The government should regulate pricing for all, not paying for excessive compensation of executives, the billion$ in marketing and advertising to consumers and doctors from what we all pay. Part of the pricing in the USA is our extremely costly liability litigation culture unlike almost any other country. Some reasonable regulations of excess of that is needed but it must be enough to make sure drugs are safe and effect

I would also like to see most drugs sold in the USA to be made here. A recent group of drugs I use/used had maybe only one made in the USA, the others were made in Israel, Croatia, Canada, India and possibly China. I think American taxpayers money should be kept in-country as much as possible including the profits and jobs from them as well as secure manufacturing facilities.

It is a known fact that price regulation kills investment into whatever product or service is being regulated. It is no different with pharmaceutical drugs or made in China widgets, no matter how emotionally attached one might be to one product.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2293

What needs to be better regulated are IP rights. Not pricing freedom. Also, expedite and lower cost of regulatory approvals, including reduced legal liability. It’s absurd to claim one wants to support drug development but when it comes to experimentation, we release lawyers with pitchforks and money sniffing dogs the moment something doesn’t go precisely according to plan.

PPVRA wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest payers of prescription drugs in the USA. Then add in all the medical insurance companies also paying out. That means by taxes or high insurance premiums by individuals or employers as well as individuals, individuals without insurance priced out of critical drugs are getting screwed.

A new balance is very much needed in pricing. All prescription drugs must be subject to reasonable prices for all payers. The big pharma companies, many of which are based in Europe as well as the USA make the most profits in the USA due to our lack of pricing regulations. The government should regulate pricing for all, not paying for excessive compensation of executives, the billion$ in marketing and advertising to consumers and doctors from what we all pay. Part of the pricing in the USA is our extremely costly liability litigation culture unlike almost any other country. Some reasonable regulations of excess of that is needed but it must be enough to make sure drugs are safe and effect

I would also like to see most drugs sold in the USA to be made here. A recent group of drugs I use/used had maybe only one made in the USA, the others were made in Israel, Croatia, Canada, India and possibly China. I think American taxpayers money should be kept in-country as much as possible including the profits and jobs from them as well as secure manufacturing facilities.

It is a known fact that price regulation kills investment into whatever product or service is being regulated. It is no different with pharmaceutical drugs or made in China widgets, no matter how emotionally attached one might be to one product.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2293

What needs to be better regulated are IP rights. Not pricing freedom. Also, expedite and lower cost of regulatory approvals, including reduced legal liability. It’s absurd to claim one wants to support drug development but when it comes to experimentation, we release lawyers with pitchforks and money sniffing dogs the moment something doesn’t go precisely according to plan.

Cuts both ways.
I'm not sure how Medicare exactly works. In other countries, lack of pricing power on the buyers' side can have fairly catastrophic outcomes, even when the government-backed drug buying schemes are involved.
I remember a court case (was it Russia? I'm not sure, but tend to remember so) where a family in semi-rural area had a child, affected with Mucopolysaccharidosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucopolysaccharidosis
A fairly horrible disease, and treatments are expensive. Single shot costs millions of dollars, or so. Local public clinic had no budget for those. The family sued, and the court delivered a verdict -- public health provider has to deliver the drugs to the child, for free, in perpetuity, come hell or high water.
Drug producer/distributor, not inclined to bargain even before the verdict, at that point was no longer interested to negotiate.
Locale scrambled, as the money for the drug would come either from shutting down a fair portion of local medical (and possibly not only medical, but I don't remember their exact budgetary tribulations) service and/or go to regional authority and demand a subvention to cover that specific outlay (no idea if successful or not).

Saddest thing is that Mucopolysaccharidosis is basically incurable, and it's about quality of (remaining) life. But that's not part of the "drug prices" discussion.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

PhRMA launches 7-figure ad campaign against Democrats' drug pricing measures

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/572397-phrma-launches-7-figure-ad-campaign-against-democrats-drug-pricing-measures

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced Wednesday that it is launching a seven-figure ad campaign against the proposals moving through Congress to lower prescription drug prices.

The group also released an open letter signed by the heads of all of its member companies pointing to the COVID-19 vaccines and treatments developed by the industry and arguing the proposals would “sacrifice future medical advances.”

Let China and the EU pay for the R&D.

Totally agree with you and Democrats need to get it together if they think they can play coy with this one in the upcoming bill. It's a total mess.

The counterpoint A Manchin daughter or Sinema type or "Problem solvers caucus" type (READ: corporate-aligned) would give you is that we wouldn't have advanced treatments unless we allow the Merck's and GSKs of the world (read: management and shareholders) to get rich bilking federal and state Medicare, Medicaid programs and oh yeah, employer and individual commercial plans... at least until they go on generic. It is funny it almost feels sometimes like we have three parties - the left, the right and the corporate.

For-profit healthcare is a cruel and dehumanizing force in this country, but Democrats in the early 90s, then 2009, decided it wasn't worth the hassle to get this figured out so here we are and we are leaving it, once again to the most conservative Democrats to decide what their donors will "allow." The politicians here are essentially bribed into submission and then are 'reminded' of the numbers of workers and what their average wages are paid by these companies any time they get near a state or their lobbyist. Should we wonder why Cory Booker killed drug re-importation from Canada even when Bernie Sanders and John McCain voted FOR it? Funny how not a SINGLE of Booker's fellow Democrats on the primary debate stage in '20 brought that one up. Too busy talking about free healthcare for undocumented people. The theatrics of it all to end up right back where we were.

Phosphorus wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest payers of prescription drugs in the USA. Then add in all the medical insurance companies also paying out. That means by taxes or high insurance premiums by individuals or employers as well as individuals, individuals without insurance priced out of critical drugs are getting screwed.

A new balance is very much needed in pricing. All prescription drugs must be subject to reasonable prices for all payers. The big pharma companies, many of which are based in Europe as well as the USA make the most profits in the USA due to our lack of pricing regulations. The government should regulate pricing for all, not paying for excessive compensation of executives, the billion$ in marketing and advertising to consumers and doctors from what we all pay. Part of the pricing in the USA is our extremely costly liability litigation culture unlike almost any other country. Some reasonable regulations of excess of that is needed but it must be enough to make sure drugs are safe and effect

I would also like to see most drugs sold in the USA to be made here. A recent group of drugs I use/used had maybe only one made in the USA, the others were made in Israel, Croatia, Canada, India and possibly China. I think American taxpayers money should be kept in-country as much as possible including the profits and jobs from them as well as secure manufacturing facilities.

It is a known fact that price regulation kills investment into whatever product or service is being regulated. It is no different with pharmaceutical drugs or made in China widgets, no matter how emotionally attached one might be to one product.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2293

What needs to be better regulated are IP rights. Not pricing freedom. Also, expedite and lower cost of regulatory approvals, including reduced legal liability. It’s absurd to claim one wants to support drug development but when it comes to experimentation, we release lawyers with pitchforks and money sniffing dogs the moment something doesn’t go precisely according to plan.

Cuts both ways.
I'm not sure how Medicare exactly works. .

So in America we actually have two different Medicare systems. "Original Medicare" where someone pays a premium for Part B and then pays another premium for Part D (Drug plan) . Medicare Part A is for hospital but is typically premium FREE. All of this is funded out of a trust fund we all pay into during our working years so we can get older and then Boomers can trash talk us about bootstraps while we literally pay for the Medicare plans that keep them alive for the luxury of doing so. A "compact between generations" indeed

but then we also have Part C which is Medicare advantage where you give up original medicare for a privatized scheme where theoretically the insurance company negotiates for better prices on drugs, doctors, hospitals, even vision and dental on some plans. Medicare advantage is a capitated ("Flat amount") scheme where the federal government pays an insurance company a flat fee (lets say $10k per year but it various by how sick they think yer gonna be, regardless of if that person uses any healthcare services AT ALL)What in reality ends up happening is that elaborate formularies are drawn up that make the costliest and newest drugs obscenely expensive or unavailable to a great number of people. Look into that new hepatitis drug. Drug companies are on this new kick where every new drug is a biologic and should cost $5000 per month, because...R&D costs... something-something....greatest medical care in the world!!! The politicians as a whole seem to be ushering/tolerating/wink-wink-nod-nodding people into Medicare advantage as of late. There are INCREDIBLE incentives to private interests like insurance brokers to get people into these Advantage plans. In my state of Arizona, the insurance companies are already running ads "Tell XXXX Senator not to cut any dollars from Medicare advantage!". Pretty slick if you can see whats going on. So Democrats may do just that and then they can see ads - "So and so TURNED THEIR BACK and cut Medicare!" (note they won't specifically call it Medicare advantage in THOSE ads) when in actuality D just want to cut some of the federal capitated payments to insurers who do the Medicare advantage plans. It's obfuscation.

Basically the entire system is built on Medicare beneficiaries and the public at large not knowing what is going on but screaming very loud.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

A healthier lifestyle is a must. Away with fast food other bad eating habits! That should help to prevent a lot of diseases like cancer. And in turn alleviate the need for drugs.

Okay sure - agree. But how? Just as an example, US healthcare has been preaching about the importance of lowering sodium intake since the 1980s. But in that same time:

Back in 1986, sodium content in entrees averaged 36% of the recommended daily allowance–which is pretty high for a single entree (a burger, say). Bad as that is, though, by 2016 this had increased to 47%. Thus a single fast-food entree has nearly half of an entire day's allowance of salt. Sides increased from 14% of the RDA to 26%, which means that if you have an entree and a side (fries!), you're getting 75% of your daily salt allowance. On average, they're adding 50% more salt today than in 1986.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz ... 57c5b2723a

And on that Note the US Govt. is finally taking some baby steps...

F.D.A. Issues Guidelines to Reduce Salt in Foods

The new recommendations are aimed at food manufacturers and restaurants. Some experts say they don’t go far enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/heal ... -food.html

Eating too much salt is making Americans sick. Even a 12% reduction can save lives
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... save-lives

FDA lowers voluntary sodium guidelines, but not to recommended levels
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/health/f ... index.html

And, as a comment on supply chain shortages, I have noticed that Nabisco doesn't have any "No Salt" Crackers on the selves, but they sure don't have problem getting and supplying the salted crackers.

Lmao but remember 2011 when they tried it last time? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/campbells-adding-salt-back-to-its-soups/article587037/

The just about the entire medical care system in the US is in a state of market failure. Free market assumes multiple suppliers and bargaining power on both sides. The system by and large had captured pricing power using the very federal power and regulations attempting to give some power to consumers.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The just about the entire medical care system in the US is in a state of market failure. Free market assumes multiple suppliers and bargaining power on both sides. The system by and large had captured pricing power using the very federal power and regulations attempting to give some power to consumers.

And the sad part is the monopolies are happening now creeping into generic drugs in certain situations Or a company will change a delivery mechanism ever so slightly and then justify that addition of a spring or change of a plastic part as "New and improved!" +$400.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The just about the entire medical care system in the US is in a state of market failure. Free market assumes multiple suppliers and bargaining power on both sides. The system by and large had captured pricing power using the very federal power and regulations attempting to give some power to consumers.

Ironically, this is the fault of democrats. By pushing every last little illness and disease (and even preventive care) into the health insurance fold through government regulation, large companies have captured it all and there’s no pricing transparency because everything is done behind the scene. All this because democrats don’t want to see money exchanged at the doctor’s office.

PPVRA wrote:

“ Bayrou, head of the centrist MoDem party and named by Macron last year as commissioner for long-term government planning, said the problem was a brain-drain from France to the United States.

Speaking on France Inter radio, he said it was "not acceptable that our best researchers, the most brilliant of our researchers, are sucked up by the American system".

He referred to Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who heads US-based biotech firm Moderna, whose vaccine was the second to be approved for use in the United States and Europe.”

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2021 ... of-decline

Cut through the French drama and read between the lines.

You can read between the lines both ways. If the US had adopted "populist" european ways, then more research would come from Europe, not less overall. The scientists would still be here. The managers and shareholders would be a bit less rich, so what ?

We still have doctors and surgeons despite them being paid 10 times less than in the US. No country can spend like the US, nor should they. Especially if all that money ends up ruining the world through unfettered consumption and associated CO2 emissions.

Sometimes populism is just doing what the people actually want. Very few people in Europe want their healthcare system to look remotely like the dystopian horror show you have in the US.

Aesma wrote:

the dystopian horror show you have in the US.

I wasn't aware that that's what our health system was. Good to know.

Aesma wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

“ Bayrou, head of the centrist MoDem party and named by Macron last year as commissioner for long-term government planning, said the problem was a brain-drain from France to the United States.

Speaking on France Inter radio, he said it was "not acceptable that our best researchers, the most brilliant of our researchers, are sucked up by the American system".

He referred to Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who heads US-based biotech firm Moderna, whose vaccine was the second to be approved for use in the United States and Europe.”

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2021 ... of-decline

Cut through the French drama and read between the lines.

You can read between the lines both ways. If the US had adopted "populist" european ways, then more research would come from Europe, not less overall. The scientists would still be here. The managers and shareholders would be a bit less rich, so what ?

We still have doctors and surgeons despite them being paid 10 times less than in the US. No country can spend like the US, nor should they. Especially if all that money ends up ruining the world through unfettered consumption and associated CO2 emissions.

Sometimes populism is just doing what the people actually want. Very few people in Europe want their healthcare system to look remotely like the dystopian horror show you have in the US.

Yes, let’s take the carrot away from the donkey. It’ll just keep moving anyway, right? And you finally get to eat the carrot.

That’s not my view. The industry would shrink, as would global investment in pharmaceuticals. You’re souring the environment and that will turn it unsustainable.

PPVRA wrote:

Aesma wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

“ Bayrou, head of the centrist MoDem party and named by Macron last year as commissioner for long-term government planning, said the problem was a brain-drain from France to the United States.

Speaking on France Inter radio, he said it was "not acceptable that our best researchers, the most brilliant of our researchers, are sucked up by the American system".

He referred to Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who heads US-based biotech firm Moderna, whose vaccine was the second to be approved for use in the United States and Europe.”

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2021 ... of-decline

Cut through the French drama and read between the lines.

You can read between the lines both ways. If the US had adopted "populist" european ways, then more research would come from Europe, not less overall. The scientists would still be here. The managers and shareholders would be a bit less rich, so what ?

We still have doctors and surgeons despite them being paid 10 times less than in the US. No country can spend like the US, nor should they. Especially if all that money ends up ruining the world through unfettered consumption and associated CO2 emissions.

Sometimes populism is just doing what the people actually want. Very few people in Europe want their healthcare system to look remotely like the dystopian horror show you have in the US.

Yes, let’s take the carrot away from the donkey. It’ll just keep moving anyway, right? And you finally get to eat the carrot.

That’s not my view. The industry would shrink, as would global investment in pharmaceuticals. You’re souring the environment and that will turn it unsustainable.

You get your news from the same people that jacked the price of insulin in the US by 6x over 10-ish years.

Time to pour some salt on them.

I don't know how much of this is right or not but here goes -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRWEteXYD_Y

That for me pretty much sums it up. Now what goes behind the scene is for you guys to share. And I did read all the posts above.

JJJ wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Aesma wrote:

You can read between the lines both ways. If the US had adopted "populist" european ways, then more research would come from Europe, not less overall. The scientists would still be here. The managers and shareholders would be a bit less rich, so what ?

We still have doctors and surgeons despite them being paid 10 times less than in the US. No country can spend like the US, nor should they. Especially if all that money ends up ruining the world through unfettered consumption and associated CO2 emissions.

Sometimes populism is just doing what the people actually want. Very few people in Europe want their healthcare system to look remotely like the dystopian horror show you have in the US.

Yes, let’s take the carrot away from the donkey. It’ll just keep moving anyway, right? And you finally get to eat the carrot.

That’s not my view. The industry would shrink, as would global investment in pharmaceuticals. You’re souring the environment and that will turn it unsustainable.

You get your news from the same people that jacked the price of insulin in the US by 6x over 10-ish years.

Time to pour some salt on them.

Like I said, we need IP reform. And Europe needs to stop pouring salt on itself before it’s gonna have to import insulin at jacked up prices. Europe needs to contribute with competition and innovation, rather than shrink.

PPVRA wrote:

JJJ wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Yes, let’s take the carrot away from the donkey. It’ll just keep moving anyway, right? And you finally get to eat the carrot.

That’s not my view. The industry would shrink, as would global investment in pharmaceuticals. You’re souring the environment and that will turn it unsustainable.

You get your news from the same people that jacked the price of insulin in the US by 6x over 10-ish years.

Time to pour some salt on them.

Like I said, we need IP reform. And Europe needs to stop pouring salt on itself before it’s gonna have to import insulin at jacked up prices. Europe needs to contribute with competition and innovation, rather than shrink.

Even Ethiopia makes their own insulin now. And it's not IP what drives insulin prices in the US. Even the good stuff is generic now.

JJJ wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

JJJ wrote:

You get your news from the same people that jacked the price of insulin in the US by 6x over 10-ish years.

Time to pour some salt on them.

Like I said, we need IP reform. And Europe needs to stop pouring salt on itself before it’s gonna have to import insulin at jacked up prices. Europe needs to contribute with competition and innovation, rather than shrink.

Even Ethiopia makes their own insulin now. And it's not IP what drives insulin prices in the US. Even the good stuff is generic now.

Nope, not in the US. Only three companies control 90% of the US insulin market. Their devices used to inject insulin are patent protected and they are using this as a way to extend their pricing power over their insulin products.

Also, there are several legal and regulatory issues creating barriers to entry for generic and biosimilar products.

https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/7/ ... 61/5918811

PPVRA wrote:

Also, expedite and lower cost of regulatory approvals, including reduced legal liability.

If Covid taught us anything it's that this is unacceptable to a sizable vocal group of people. Here they are complaining about how quick the vaccines were rolled out and how they don't want to take them while under the EUA because if any serious side-effects happen, they can't go after the manufacturers...though given that they will eat horse paste and aquarium tablets to treat a virus, their concerns should be ignored.

PPVRA wrote:

JJJ wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Like I said, we need IP reform. And Europe needs to stop pouring salt on itself before it’s gonna have to import insulin at jacked up prices. Europe needs to contribute with competition and innovation, rather than shrink.

Even Ethiopia makes their own insulin now. And it's not IP what drives insulin prices in the US. Even the good stuff is generic now.

Nope, not in the US. Only three companies control 90% of the US insulin market. Their devices used to inject insulin are patent protected and they are using this as a way to extend their pricing power over their insulin products.

The same players hold similar market share in all other developed markets (2 out of these 3 players are European btw).

It's not about IP. Incremental improvements on pens don't explain a fraction of the price dynamic.