• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion How do you feel? Big Pharma drug costs $20000 a year in US vs costing $60 a year overseas

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who is right about Big Pharmaceutical companies price gouging?

  • AOC is right.. the price gouging by pharmaceutical companies needs to be brought under control.

  • GOP Rep. Glieb is correct. The Pharmaceutical companies deserve to make as much profit as they can

  • I only care about wearing my Trump/ MAGA hat!


Results are only viewable after voting.

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
I like that idea. Single payer fixes my car, buys my food and cooks it. Put a page of single payer onto an altar and pray to it and it will fix your life.

Details are everything, the difference between good and awful, worse than we have.
Healthcare is a human right. Your car isn’t.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
Oh I expect it will happen and be as good as Mitch and others can produce. That they have no knowledge of care makes them on par with most of the general public.
and? care givers should have an absolute input on what happens. We should also stop doctors limiting the amount of new doctors every year. A lot is gonna change and hopefully we will get most of it right. For what we get wrong I hope we can fix it later like most every large legislation aside from evil obama care.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
Gouging is done but it appears that people want new meds for $60. I want a new Lambo for the price of an Impala.

Now what?

At a billion or two a pop for a flop cheap isn't happening and that's why I propose a different paradigm because what people think they should have is incompatable with reality and again I'm not talking about things like insulin or an existing drug that goes up a thousand times just because.
You don’t need a Lamborghini or an impala. You will pay anything to live. Why do you keep using horrible examples?
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,223
1,587
136
The argument that drug development will stop when US price gouging stops falls on death ears. Fix price gouging and THEN see if drug innovation stops. If it slows or stops, then adjust policy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
and? care givers should have an absolute input on what happens. We should also stop doctors limiting the amount of new doctors every year. A lot is gonna change and hopefully we will get most of it right. For what we get wrong I hope we can fix it later like most every large legislation aside from evil obama care.
You called Obamacare evil but it wasn't. It didn't focus on care but it's time to do that now. As far as "absolute input"? What does that even mean? They may request treatment but no system on the planet that I am aware of allows providers carte blanche. You might become better informed with "limiting doctors" because that's not the problem at all. No, it's getting residencies that is at issue and that is not controlled by medical schools and much of that is public underfunding. It's not that your desire to provide care is bad, quite the reverse, but a lot of people have strong opinions they haven't the slightest idea about.

Here's one. What is the most cost effective thing which could be done that would lower medical costs in the long run, improve patient outcomes, and mitigate or cure some illnesses before the patient even knows they are there?

Let's see if anyone here knows.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,399
584
126
To your point, interchange, drug spend is about 11% of annual healthcare budget in the US. I'm a scientist at a drug company that makes some of the most expensive drugs on the planet. That said, we've been profitable all of 2 quarters in 20 years of operations.

I dont know the specifics of the PREP regime, but I find it suspicious that CDC own the patent; it's likely that they investigated the specific protocol but didnt do the original development of the drug for marketing approval, which is where the real costs are (hundreds of millions to billions).

The government usually sponsors basic research to the tune of several million, and typically at the university level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: interchange

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
Here's one. What is the most cost effective thing which could be done that would lower medical costs in the long run, improve patient outcomes, and mitigate or cure some illnesses before the patient even knows they are there?

Let's see if anyone here knows.
dont hide the answer. why dont you just say what it is?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
see that just proved my point,,,,,,
whats your point? I never claimed to be an expert on single payer health care and I doubt anyone posting here is either. Dude used to be a nurse. That doesnt make him an expert.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
19,642
1,261
126
I like that idea. Single payer fixes my car, buys my food and cooks it. Put a page of single payer onto an altar and pray to it and it will fix your life.

Details are everything, the difference between good and awful, worse than we have.
I can't be much worse than now no matter the details. Nowhere else in the world do the have Atena's, Cigna's, Blue cross, ect. These companies make billions by trying desperately to deny coverage and deny claims. We are lining the pockets of these Pharma Co's with letting them have free reign on pricing. It's a sad state of affairs when people routinely DIE in the US because the cannot afford Insulin or another drug.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,150
156
106
You called Obamacare evil but it wasn't. It didn't focus on care but it's time to do that now. As far as "absolute input"? What does that even mean? They may request treatment but no system on the planet that I am aware of allows providers carte blanche. You might become better informed with "limiting doctors" because that's not the problem at all. No, it's getting residencies that is at issue and that is not controlled by medical schools and much of that is public underfunding. It's not that your desire to provide care is bad, quite the reverse, but a lot of people have strong opinions they haven't the slightest idea about.

Here's one. What is the most cost effective thing which could be done that would lower medical costs in the long run, improve patient outcomes, and mitigate or cure some illnesses before the patient even knows they are there?

Let's see if anyone here knows.
Big data analytics and preventive care / population health.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_health


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,233
472
126
You called Obamacare evil but it wasn't. It didn't focus on care but it's time to do that now. As far as "absolute input"? What does that even mean? They may request treatment but no system on the planet that I am aware of allows providers carte blanche. You might become better informed with "limiting doctors" because that's not the problem at all. No, it's getting residencies that is at issue and that is not controlled by medical schools and much of that is public underfunding. It's not that your desire to provide care is bad, quite the reverse, but a lot of people have strong opinions they haven't the slightest idea about.

Here's one. What is the most cost effective thing which could be done that would lower medical costs in the long run, improve patient outcomes, and mitigate or cure some illnesses before the patient even knows they are there?

Let's see if anyone here knows.
Anything sold based on lies and bait and switch is evil regardless whether it is a car, a house, healthcare, etc., no matter how good you believe your intentions are.

ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#4194cafa7c05

In the video, Gruber points out that if Democrats had been honest about these facts, and that the law’s individual mandate is in effect a major tax hike, Obamacare would never have passed Congress.





https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,223
1,587
136
Like I stated before. The argument made against regulating drug prices is that companies will stop innovating. This is mostly an empty threat and even if they do stop innovating because incentives have changed we can still be in a position to adjust policy to address this and spur innovation again. Simply sitting on our hands whilst every drug coming out these days costs 250K per year per person is not sustainable.

There are just a handful of industries that have seen higher rises in prices after adjusting for inflation than the drug industry: college prices, college textbook prices, and hospital costs in general.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
To your point, interchange, drug spend is about 11% of annual healthcare budget in the US. I'm a scientist at a drug company that makes some of the most expensive drugs on the planet. That said, we've been profitable all of 2 quarters in 20 years of operations.

I dont know the specifics of the PREP regime, but I find it suspicious that CDC own the patent; it's likely that they investigated the specific protocol but didnt do the original development of the drug for marketing approval, which is where the real costs are (hundreds of millions to billions).

The government usually sponsors basic research to the tune of several million, and typically at the university level.
Obviously you should be selling things at 60 bucks and yes that was not serious. I find the CDC having patented the protocol as strange but perhaps this was a way to prevent additional complications by corporate lawyers?

In any case, if you were given an alternative offer of like or better benefits, wages and working conditions but not dealing with the corporate world, would you consider such an offer, or know those who might? You are somewhat isolated from normal BS but even so...?
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,707
654
126
What’s not reality about single payer? It’s the reality in most 1st world counties.
So how do we get to a single payer system without crashing our health care system? If our current system is bloated and overpriced as everyone reports, how many people and facilities do we lose once the bloat is trimmed?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
if your job hinges on the fact that you are making a profit off of someones inability to choose or die then you dont need a job. You are a fuckign lich for wanting to go into that industry to begin with. Im talking about executive types here not care givers or researchers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Dec 10, 2005
20,737
2,134
126
A system built on denying coverage and killing people needs to crash.
In a way, single payer systems are also built on a denying-coverage model. The ability to keep drug prices low requires that they payer be able to say no to the drug company, especially when there are equivalently efficacious treatment options available.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,166
1,099
136
Except it is possible. There are generics. If those companies are capable of producing it for that cheap then all the power to them. They just arn't legal everywhere. Make them legal. Now some people will argue about initial R&D, but that's a one time cost. If a market is empty, it will get filled. Someone will fill it at some point because no matter what there will be money to be made, it just won't be the billions and billions that capitalists want, but there is more to making medication than money, some people actually care about making something that can help others. Let those people fill the market if the capitalists are too scared of people stealing their idea since they want to gouge people and be a monopoly.

Heck, they could probably make initial R&D government funded. At least for more serious life saving medications, cancer treatments, that kind of thing. We as humanity have to stop allowing money to be an artificial limit to saving lives.
Here is the problem. Company A does R&D to develop a drug, and then also puts forth the money to produce the drug. Company B doesn't do R&D, just produces generics. Considering the price to produce a drug is typically orders of magnitude less than the cost to develop a drug, how could company A compete with company B? They couldn't. Company B could always undercut company A on prices. This is why we have patents, to encourage investment in intellectual assets. Patents expire so that companies can't hold a monopoly on a product long after the cost of the intellectual investment has been recuperated. There is definitely a balance that needs to be achieved, but we can't just throw out patents in medicine without another method of protecting IP in place.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY