Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Harvoni is the name of a very useful drug that was recently developed that is capable of curing Hepatitis C which untreated leads to liver failure and death. The physician who developed Harvoni has worked for the VA and admits that he spent 7/8's of his time working for that agency. During the remaining 1/8 of his time, he says he invented Harvoni. He earned $400 million for inventing this drug which is in addition to any salary he got while working for the VA.
The problem with Harvoni is that it is costing each patient $84,000. The VA alone spends over $1 billion a year to pay for the Harvoni it needs--yet many veterans are still going without treatment because of the cost. The VA gets a discount on Harvoni, but it still has to pay $42,000 per patient.
To add insult to injury, the drug is marketed overseas at much lesser price. Instead of paying $84,000 or $42,000, patients in other countries can pay as little as $900 for the drug.
No one disputes that there is a huge development cost in bringing new drugs onto the market in this country. That cost has to be paid for in some fashion. Nor, should we argue that someone who invents such a drug deserves high compensation for doing so.
However, there should be limit somewhere particularly when this cost is passed on to taxpayers, third party insurance payers, and those who simply cannot afford to pay.
The situation with prescription drugs has become a scandal in this country. Americans are stuck with huge bills so that pharmaceutical companies can earn enormous profits.
I submit its time to accept the fact that the free market system has failed this country in terms of guaranteeing us access to affordable drugs. Its time for another approach. I would recommend that we consider regulation of the pharmaceutical industry in the same way that public utilities are regulated. Fix the prices they can charge for medications. Let them earn a reasonable rate of return based on the investment they have in the product. Make them go before the equivalent of a public commission and justify price hikes. Finally, make them require people in other countries to pay part of the cost of R &D for medications. America shouldn't have to subsidize the rest of the world. Either we do something or eventually prescription drugs will be unaffordable for is either not wealthy, or whom has a cadillac insurance plan.
I have linked to this awful story below. If it doesn't make you sick, it should.
I submit its time to accept the fact that the free market system has failed this country in terms of guaranteeing us access to affordable drugs. Its time for another approach.
Could not agree more. It's frightening.
"I asked Ghiya why the cost of Cortisporin has risen so much.
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Because it can.”
The answer is actually more troubling — and illustrates multiple problems with the U.S. healthcare industry, including unwarranted markups as a result of repeated corporate acquisitions and the slimy practice of ducking U.S. taxes by relocating abroad."
This is a new drug only released for prescription use since 2014. This means that for the past 10 or more years, Gilead has pumped millions (possibly billions) of dollars into research, study, testing, more testing, more testing, more testing, in order to get permission from the USA to sell it - and even then, only by prescription.
They need to recoup their expenses, and their customer base is going to be pretty small until it's proven publically and endorsed by the medical majority.
Once it does, it'll have earned the "privilege" of no longer being the only drug of its kind in the USA, as other Rx companies will be allowed free access to the formula and manufacture generics.
It'll be affordable in around 7 years, in this country, because you'll be able to get the generic then. Prior to 2014 this drug didn't even exist. There are a few unlicensed, unscrupulous fakes around the globe taking advantage of the through-the-ceiling prices in the USA and desperate people infected with the virus who aren't in financial condition to pay for the 12-week treatment at home. And, there is the bonafide licensed generic in India, which were approved early to combat the fakes.
The newly-licensed drugs are always more expensive than the generics that become available years later. That is the nature of pharmaceuticals. The creator has to bear the greatest burden of expense in creating the drug, testing it, and getting the formula approved for use. The generics simply duplicate the existing formula, get it properly licensed, and market it.
This is a new drug only released for prescription use since 2014. This means that for the past 10 or more years, Gilead has pumped millions (possibly billions) of dollars into research, study, testing, more testing, more testing, more testing, in order to get permission from the USA to sell it - and even then, only by prescription.
They need to recoup their expenses, and their customer base is going to be pretty small until it's proven publically and endorsed by the medical majority.
Once it does, it'll have earned the "privilege" of no longer being the only drug of its kind in the USA, as other Rx companies will be allowed free access to the formula and manufacture generics.
It'll be affordable in around 7 years, in this country, because you'll be able to get the generic then. Prior to 2014 this drug didn't even exist. There are a few unlicensed, unscrupulous fakes around the globe taking advantage of the through-the-ceiling prices in the USA and desperate people infected with the virus who aren't in financial condition to pay for the 12-week treatment at home. And, there is the bonafide licensed generic in India, which were approved early to combat the fakes.
The newly-licensed drugs are always more expensive than the generics that become available years later. That is the nature of pharmaceuticals. The creator has to bear the greatest burden of expense in creating the drug, testing it, and getting the formula approved for use. The generics simply duplicate the existing formula, get it properly licensed, and market it.
Do you see nothing wrong with the inventor of this drug receiving $400 million in addition to the salary he was earning with the VA? Shouldn't the VA patients at least be getting this drug for only a little above its actual cost? Should the taxpayers really be expected to subsidize this windfall by paying exorbitant prices for the poor, our veterans, and the elderly to receive this drug?
You see, these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked about the system we have. Its not working for many of us. Even those who will never need Harvoni should not be expected to guarantee an inventor and a manufacturer exorbitant profits. Other countries wouldn't tolerate this. America shouldn't either. My suspicion these drugs would get invented anyway. Its just less money would be siphoned off to a few people at the very top.
Do you see nothing wrong with the inventor of this drug receiving $400 million in addition to the salary he was earning with the VA? Shouldn't the VA patients at least be getting this drug for only a little above its actual cost? Should the taxpayers really be expected to subsidize this windfall by paying exorbitant prices for the poor, our veterans, and the elderly to receive this drug?
You see, these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked about the system we have. Its not working for many of us. Even those who will never need Harvoni should not be expected to guarantee an inventor and a manufacturer exorbitant profits. Other countries wouldn't tolerate this. America shouldn't either. My suspicion these drugs would get invented anyway. Its just less money would be siphoned off to a few people at the very top.
What makes you think they would be invented anyway? I understand that the cost of the drug is a problem for some that need it, but it won't be invented just because someone needs it if the payoff for inventing it isn't worth to the inventor. If profit is what matters and it is like it or not, those looking for a way to make money will find something more profitable to do.
Do you see nothing wrong with the inventor of this drug receiving $400 million in addition to the salary he was earning with the VA? Shouldn't the VA patients at least be getting this drug for only a little above its actual cost? Should the taxpayers really be expected to subsidize this windfall by paying exorbitant prices for the poor, our veterans, and the elderly to receive this drug?
You see, these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked about the system we have. Its not working for many of us. Even those who will never need Harvoni should not be expected to guarantee an inventor and a manufacturer exorbitant profits. Other countries wouldn't tolerate this. America shouldn't either. My suspicion these drugs would get invented anyway. Its just less money would be siphoned off to a few people at the very top.
I don't know. What value do you place a HepC patient's life at? What number do you feel is appropriate and how did you arrive at that number? Here's an idea - add up ALL the patients with HepC who will benefit from this drug. Divide by 4million. The sum will be the amount of money each patient's total bill contributes to the inventor's payment for his work. I'll do the math for you.
There are approximately 3.2 million people just in the USA who have HepC. Divide 3.2/4mil and that = approximately $125 per person.
So out of those tens of thousands of dollars the patients are paying if each person got this drug - only around $125 is covering the inventor's fee for his invention.
What makes you think they would be invented anyway? I understand that the cost of the drug is a problem for some that need it, but it won't be invented just because someone needs it if the payoff for inventing it isn't worth to the inventor. If profit is what matters and it is like it or not, those looking for a way to make money will find something more profitable to do.
Because few inventions are really unique. Often pharmaceutical companies are developing competing medications at exactly the same time. There would have been mass production of automobiles without Henry Ford. We would have invented an atomic bomb without Einstein, Fermi, or any one particular scientist. They may have sped up the process a year or two. Inventors, as a class of people, have great value to society. However, its a myth that, but for one inventor, society would have been sunk.
I support pharmaceutical companies and everyone else who does something useful in this country earning a profit. I don't believe that a lifeguard with a life preserver in his hand, should be able to tell a drowning person how much he should have to pay before he is thrown the life preserver. Its not what is meant by competition in a free market. That sort of competition implies at least a certain level of choice.
One of the problems in America is that we have taken individual freedom to such a level that some don't see a need to do any balancing against the overall good of the country. My proposal to regulate pharmaceutical prices through the equivalent of a public utilities commission is not revolutionary. On the contrary, it would give these companies profits and yet restore some badly needed balance to a system that is failing for large numbers of Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick
I don't know. What value do you place a HepC patient's life at? What number do you feel is appropriate and how did you arrive at that number? Here's an idea - add up ALL the patients with HepC who will benefit from this drug. Divide by 4million. The sum will be the amount of money each patient's total bill contributes to the inventor's payment for his work. I'll do the math for you.
There are approximately 3.2 million people just in the USA who have HepC. Divide 3.2/4mil and that = approximately $125 per person.
So out of those tens of thousands of dollars the patients are paying if each person got this drug - only around $125 is covering the inventor's fee for his invention.
A root canal costs more than that.
We should place a high value on everyone's life. Yet, I don't think that means that we should give anyone carte blanche' to charge whatever they want to treat them for disease and expect either private insurance companies or governmental entities like Medicare or Medicaid to pay whatever price is demanded for medications.
My suggestion is necessary because when third party payers are added to the mix, it means that thousands of people who will never have a disease or condition will be expected to subsidize the greediest companies.
In Canada and the United Kingdom prices of medications are controlled by the fact that universal health care systems are the only purchasers of these drugs. Unless the pharmaceutical company is willing to sell its product at something resembling a reasonable price, it will not find a buyer. As such, many medications cost about 1/5 or 1/6 as much as they do in this country. The link I have cited below explains how this works.
My type of suggestion is a necessity if we are ever going to control health care costs in this country.
Because few inventions are really unique. Often pharmaceutical companies are developing competing medications at exactly the same time. There would have been mass production of automobiles without Henry Ford. We would have invented an atomic bomb without Einstein, Fermi, or any one particular scientist. They may have sped up the process a year or two. Inventors, as a class of people, have great value to society. However, its a myth that, but for one inventor, society would have been sunk.
I support pharmaceutical companies and everyone else who does something useful in this country earning a profit. I don't believe that a lifeguard with a life preserver in his hand, should be able to tell a drowning person how much he should have to pay before he is thrown the life preserver. Its not what is meant by competition in a free market. That sort of competition implies at least a certain level of choice.
One of the problems in America is that we have taken individual freedom to such a level that some don't see a need to do any balancing against the overall good of the country. My proposal to regulate pharmaceutical prices through the equivalent of a public utilities commission is not revolutionary. On the contrary, it would give these companies profits and yet restore some badly needed balance to a system that is failing for large numbers of Americans.
We should place a high value on everyone's life. Yet, I don't think that means that we should give anyone carte blanche' to charge whatever they want to treat them for disease and expect either private insurance companies or governmental entities like Medicare or Medicaid to pay whatever price is demanded for medications.
My suggestion is necessary because when third party payers are added to the mix, it means that thousands of people who will never have a disease or condition will be expected to subsidize the greediest companies.
In Canada and the United Kingdom prices of medications are controlled by the fact that universal health care systems are the only purchasers of these drugs. Unless the pharmaceutical company is willing to sell its product at something resembling a reasonable price, it will not find a buyer. As such, many medications cost about 1/5 or 1/6 as much as they do in this country. The link I have cited below explains how this works.
My type of suggestion is a necessity if we are ever going to control health care costs in this country.
And part of their ability to control costs, is because these are the same pharmaceutical companies that make what they make from sales of drugs here in the USA.
The money has to come from somewhere. They can reduce our costs, but they'd have to raise them somewhere else. We're not just paying for the poor in the USA. We're also paying for Canada's low costs, and the lower costs of other countries. You have to demand that those other countries pay more, if you have any hope of getting the companies to lower costs here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
