[nozzlegear]

> But here's Pfizer CEO: "When [we] do the math, shall we reduce the US price to France’s level or stop supplying France? We [will] stop supplying France. So they will stay without new medicines. The system will force us not to be able to accept the lower prices.”

This person is a less than neutral source in an industry that's already infamous for lying through its teeth to grind out every red cent from its customers. I would lend precisely zero credence to what he says when he's trying to justify why his poor billion dollar company wouldn't be able to lighten up on its wholesale fleecing of American customers.

[estearum]

"Poor billion dollar company" cannot possibly be a slur in an industry that requires $2 billion in investment (and rising!) to make each subsequent product. Maybe if the product were a luxury good that the world could do without, but it's not, and we cannot.

You don't need to trust anything except that left to their own devices, those greedy pharma companies will price as efficiently as possible in order to maximize revenues. Despite this revenue maximization, the industry as a whole is nearly uninvestable.

Any deviation from the optimal pricing will reduce their overall revenues, which will obviously make the industry even less investable.

In an R&D heavy sector means they will no longer make new products, i.e. no new breakthrough medications that you or I or our parents or children may need.

Sure, I doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France. Far more likely they will both reduce US prices and raise EU+ prices, but this still ultimately results in fewer drugs for fewer people today, and definitely much slower innovation toward new drugs by virtue of having less cash on hand and much worse expected ROI.

You do not need "trust" whatsoever, this is just basic logic.

If you want to understand how Americans should actually reduce drug prices, you can start to get an idea here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46933520

[nozzlegear]

> Sure, I doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France. Far more likely they will both reduce US prices and raise EU+ prices

This is my point – quoting the man on what he says will happen is pointless because he's just using scary hypotheticals to make the best case to keep the cash hose turned on. He's not some altruistic saint bestowing new formulations upon the world if only he had more money, he's a slimeball pharma CEO trying to balance that R&D with reaping maximum profits.

Would lowering prices for Americans mean the world has less R&D bankrolled by American consumers? Probably. But the current situation is untenable.

[estearum]

Please engage with the substance of the argument put in front of you.

The thrust of the comment above is that you do not need to trust him.

[nozzlegear]

> Please engage with the substance of the argument put in front of you.

Back at you bub. My original comment was addressing why a quote from the guy who would be most affected by drug prices changing is hog wash, and you skillfully dodged my whole point to talk about R&D, investments and revenue. I didn't write my comment to dive into those things, I wrote it to point out that Pfizer's CEO would say anything if it means his company will get more money.

[estearum]

Your point being that you don't trust the words of a pharma CEO?

Fine! Why is that relevant to me?

Just because you're starting from the prior of "pharma CEOs are liars" doesn't mean everyone else is. Some people find it quite helpful to hear from the most powerful and most informed people on issues they want to learn about, even if you have to discount them due to conflicted interests (spoiler alert: nearly everyone who's well-informed on an issue will have some type of conflict to be discounted).

Evidently you are fine writing the words of Pfizer's CEO down to zero value, which is fine!

That's why I provided an alternative path by which applying your own critical thinking skills would get you to the same conclusion.

"Applying basic logic gets me to a similar conclusion as Pfizer's CEO, but Pfizer's CEO is a liar and conflicted and can't be trusted, therefore... [ ??? ]"

Edit in response to your edit: Don't act as if I introduced revenue/investment/R&D/etc after you raised the issue about Bourla's quote. That was the entire basis of the conversation from the start. Profoundly low-quality contribution to just chime in with "pharma CEO is conflicted." Yeah, everyone is aware of that. That's why there's an entire comment around the quote.

[nozzlegear]

Literally you yourself said a few comments above that you "doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France." It sounds like you don't trust his words either, so why are you going to bat for this guy?

> That's why I provided an alternative path by which applying your own critical thinking skills would get you to the same conclusion.

To be clear, the only thing I've taken issue with here is his own words and how you've quoted him. I don't believe I've said anything regarding your overall position on drug prices and pharma profits, so it's weird that you're attacking me like I've specifically taken a position against it.

[snovv_crash]

Americans are willing to pay higher prices because direct to consumer advertising is allowed, making people more willing to pay a higher price because an ad convinced them it will be worth it. If people wouldn't pay, then pharma companies would lower the prices.

Fix the demand side and the supply side will adjust.

[estearum]

I would suggest it's the reverse. Americans accept higher prices because they have many many layers of intermediation.

Americans pick their employer. Their employer picks their health plan. Their health plan picks which drugs are covered and which doctors and pharmacies they can use.

With the "innovation" of vertical integration between insurers, healthcare providers, and PBMs, there is effectively zero incentive for health insurers to manage costs, because those costs show up as revenue for their own subsidiaries. This is actually hugely advantageous for insurers because they are required by law to spend a certain percentage (~80%) of their members' premiums on healthcare goods and services, not profit or business development.

Well... if you own the pharmacies, the PBMs, the GPOs, and especially the healthcare providers... you can arbitrarily siphon money at any % rate you want while increasing the gross dollar intake by simply raising prices at your subsidiary companies!

All of this is well documented. Here are a few places to start:

https://www.statnews.com/unitedhealth-group-investigation-he...

https://hntrbrk.com/pbmgpo/

https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/unitedhealth-medicare-...

[mhb]

Do you have some information on the relationship between advertising and the willingness to pay higher prices for the advertised product?