Medicare dictating a price sounds fine. Gravy train is ending (pharma dictating the price) and pharma is in shambles.
I’d like the Times and the media in general to start reporting the names of the individuals participating in these efforts, instead of faceless corporations.
Agreed. Recently we’ve seen some multi-million/billionaires called out specifically for saying horrific things about their workers striking and it’s great. When you hoard so much wealth I honestly don’t know how it could be argued you should have privacy. We should have public accounting of their goings on, they’re sometimes more influential than our presidents.
How about we dictate a price on whatever industry you happen to be in? Maybe your product cost billions of dollars to develop, but how about we force you to sell it to everyone for peanuts?
There is no logical reason that pharma should be on the receiving end of all this hate. Especially considering that their job is literally to save lives.
> How about we dictate a price on whatever industry you happen to be in? Maybe your product cost billions of dollars to develop, but how about we force you to sell it to everyone for peanuts?
If I work in an industry where human life depends on it, yes! I entirely agree. This is not a market to corner, regardless of your innovation and how clever you are.
> Especially considering that their job is literally to save lives.
Positive contributions must not lead to “these people can hold those who have medical needs economically hostage.” Don’t like the deal, get out of pharma and let other people (operating under a different ideology on the topic) build.
> Today, 1 in 4 Americans cannot afford to take their medications as prescribed. Too many seniors are having to ration their treatments to get by until their next social security check arrives. And contrary to what industry lobbyists argue, soaring drug prices are not the inevitable result of research and development costs to bring breakthrough drugs to market. It’s time to put this widely debunked excuse to bed.
Roads are profitable? Non profits are profitable? There is an enormous amount of valuable work done in aggregate, every day, funded without the intent to profit and with work performed by people not maximizing for comp.
DARPA's mRNA research that directly led to rapid COVID vaccine development comes to mind. Cut out the middleman. Fund the research directly. We're paying for the end result one way or another (if not with direct government payment, with government payment to companies who are then taking profit, spending marketing/admin expenses, etc).
You make it sound as if nothing will get done if poor corporations can't lock medical tech up behind economic gates. We can always go back to ruthless capitalism if pharma price controls don’t work.
There are any number of industries that people need to live. You really want Donald Trump (or someone just as crazy) dictating what the prices are for those industries?
Every other developed country imposes price controls on at least parts of the healthcare industry. Drugs are just about always on the list. Either directly, or through monopsony power.
Sure maybe they have to say “yes” to the price, but I’m asking if they have to actually provide the drugs. Could they just decide not to sell them at that price or to just sell less?
My post was ambiguous, sorry. I am saying my understanding is the drug companies are arguing that they literally do not have the ability to not provide the drugs. So no - they cannot decide not to sell the drugs to the govt. They cannot "walk away" no matter the price the govt names.
They can walk away, but the government can levy additional tax if they do.
But realistically, from a moral point of view, they can't really walk away in the first place unless the government demands are ridiculously unreasonable (e.g. demanding a price lower than production). The only drugs subject to negotiation are those without generic alternatives (i.e. where a free market doesn't really exist), so stopping supply would quite literally kill people. This gives drug companies an enormous advantage in negotiations in the first place, so this kind of compensates for that.
Selling at an artificially low price will result in shortages. Always does. Short of nationalizing these companies, there is no way to "force" them to produce anything.
We are talking about prescription drugs here right? This isn't about something people want it's about something doctors are prescribing individuals for their health or survival. Regular supply and demand should not apply here. If it does this is an indication of another pharma industry issue -- creating consumer demand for drugs through advertising.
Using goodRX has really opened my eyes to the shady practices of drug pricing. The same drug with or without insurance at different pharmacies can range in price by 80+% (often with the higher rate "discounted" for insurance). The drug companies are willing to be this flexible with the prices when dealing with retailers. In the case of a Wal-Mart or Costco the negotiations don't sound so different. So what's the difference with what's happening with the government? It's on public record not in a private corporate meeting room. The business side of Healthcare in this country follows protection racket economics and it doesn't look like this is going to change any time soon.
I'm of the opinion that a lot of prescription drug demand is created. Why else so many ads that are basically "ask your doctor about [our medication]."
There is a whole class of ailments that people could cure on their own by getting to a healthy weight, exercising, and not eating garbage. But it's easier to ask your doctor for a pill.
I never argued otherwise. I was simply pointing out that unless drug companies are actually being forced to priced the drugs (which I don’t think they are), they always have the option to direct more of their sales to a higher bidder.
Seen a different way, we pay for goods with two currencies: money and time. If the dollar price is artificially low, the time to acquire the good increases to compensate.
I’d like the Times and the media in general to start reporting the names of the individuals participating in these efforts, instead of faceless corporations.