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.
When Gilead Sciences launched its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi at $1,000 per pill in 2013, and then charged even more for the follow-up combination drug Harvoni, it sparked public outrage and forced unprecedented rationing of these life-saving medicines. The costs and widespread need overwhelmed patients, insurers, and government coffers. Why were these prices so high?
Last week, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee concluded an 18-month investigation that gave us the ugly answer. Lead Senators Ron Wyden and Chuck Grassley, Democrat and Republican respectively, found that Gilead “pursued a calculated scheme for pricing and marketing its hepatitis C drugs based on one goal: maximizing revenue, regardless of the human consequences.”
Gilead knew that its pricing would deny access to its cure to the vast majority of the three million Americans living with hepatitis C. And it didn’t care. “Let’s hold our position … no matter the headlines,” wrote Gilead’s executive vice president for commercial operations in an internal email disclosed by the Senate investigation.
The investigation also debunked one of the most common myths on which the pharmaceutical industry relies: that high prices are needed to spur innovation and recoup investment in research and development. It found that R&D costs did not factor into Gilead’s pricing at all—and neither did its $11 billion outlay to acquire Pharmasett, the company that developed the active ingredient behind the hepatitis C medicines. Rather, the company set the price based on what they thought they could get away with, balancing public outcry against profit maximization.
The public would be even more upset if it realized that drug companies were not even the primary investors in the risky R&D that drives innovation. (The companies spend far, far more on marketing). As much as half of biomedical R&D is actually paid for by the public. American taxpayers in particular are the greatest contributor to biomedical R&D, investing $30 billion annually in the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Much of the R&D behind Sovaldi was financed by the NIH and other public institutions.
Sure, but the reality is the odds are against it. That's the hilarious part about liberals. They act like death is just around the corner (meaning, for people not in their 70s), even for a 25 year old or a 10 year old. The statistical odds of that happening are virtually zero, but it's always "omg, without insurance, you'll definitely get sick and die!" No, actually, you probably won't. Most likely nothing will happen and you'll live. So, yes, someone might get a heart attack at age 38, but the odds are extremely against that. It's why liberals don't grasp insurance and actuarial tables and think "OMG, these rates are unfair!" No, they're not. They're math.
Death was not right around the corner for me, but blindness was, so I'm very happy my husband and I had the forethought and resources to purchase excellent health insurance.
I don't think the rates are unfair; I believe that the way this country makes healthcare available and affordable to most Americans leaves them extremely vulnerable, and it's time to change that.
Actually there has been more deaths contributed to Obama Care than in the past. However I do see the Pre existing conditions not going away. There will be parts of Obama Care that make sense will stay!
Were you trying to prove that pharmaceutical companies deserve high sums of money for curing hepatitis C? Because otherwise, you could just not take it and continue to have hepatitis C and die. That's no problem.
I don't think the rates are unfair; I believe that the way this country makes healthcare available and affordable to most Americans leaves them extremely vulnerable, and it's time to change that.
No, it doesn't. As I said (and you just agreed), the rates are fair. And you can purchase insurance. Therefore, what's to complain about?
No, they could. They just didn't want to pay the rates they were supposed to.
My parents could not buy any health insurance before ACA due to preexisting conditions after my dad lost his job and couldn't find anything with benefits due to looking for work in his 50s during a recession. Zippo. Nada. Zilch. What rate were they not willing to pay when no company would cover them on any rate? Lack of healthcare for years before the ACA means that my father no longer is capable of working. Mazel tov - the taxpayer ends up paying *more* in the numerous scenarios like these that exist just in my personal life (raised upper middle class, currently middle class for the record).
I was 22 and being quoted over $800 a month for a high deductible, catastrophic plan when every other insurance company denied me. While that may fall under "just didn't want to pay the rates [i] was supposed to" to you, it would have meant needing to be homeless (because you can't pay for rent and food if half your take home income is going to health insurance premiums) so I went without. Thankfully I had found a job with benefits 4 months later when I was diagnosed with totally unrelated stage IV cancer.
My state didn't offer a pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Many people fell into this bucket.
Which explains why it's becoming more and more difficult to find a GP under the age of fifty.
Although it seems like a lot of young women med school graduates go into Family Practice. There really is no "GP" any more here; they either work in FP or Internal Med.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war
If US universities are not competitive, those trying to get into medicine would do well to look elsewhere for their education.
But since the US is physically isolated by two large oceans from most the rest of the world, studying abroad is a concept they are simply unfamiliar with.
That is a big "IF". I frankly don't agree.
Additionally, the US/Canadian medical education system is very different from that of Europe, with which the comparisons are always being made. In the US one gets a bachelor's degree in anything, taking the pre-reqs for med school. Medical school is a graduate level education of 4 years duration, followed by residency which is at least 3 years (pediatrics, family practice and internal medicine) and in most other cases longer. https://residency.wustl.edu/Residenc...sidencies.aspx In Canada, the system is slightly different, but still requires some bachelor's education, though not always a full bachelor's degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_school_in_Canada In most European countries, medicine is undergraduate, with the final degree similar to a master's level education in the US. Then they enter a vocational phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...United_Kingdom
I think some are getting off on a tangent here, with this talk of "fewer doctors" than other health care systems (yes, that's why there are longer waits in those systems /s), and fewer doctor visits per capital. It's also totally untrue that there are no foreign doctors in the UK. The UK is more reliant on foreign doctors than any other major EU nation | Daily Mail Online
No, it doesn't. As I said (and you just agreed), the rates are fair. And you can purchase insurance. Therefore, what's to complain about?
I have explained repeatedly why I think the current system is problematic, and you clearly have either not read or have chosen to ignore my point. I'm done.
Were you trying to prove that pharmaceutical companies deserve high sums of money for curing hepatitis C? Because otherwise, you could just not take it and continue to have hepatitis C and die. That's no problem.
LOL
Desperate attempt at moving goalposts.
This is getting hillarious.
You're assertion was that americans pay higher prices on prescription drugs in order to fund R&D by those companies.
Now it transpires that those companies are just rewarding CEO's, shareholders and funneling most of those profits into Marketing.
That is not R&D
Meanwhile the same companies are taking public funds to fund R&D!
My parents could not buy any health insurance before ACA due to preexisting conditions after my dad lost his job and couldn't find anything with benefits due to looking for work in his 50s during a recession. Zippo. Nada. Zilch. What rate were they not willing to pay when no company would cover them on any rate? Lack of healthcare for years before the ACA means that my father no longer is capable of working. Mazel tov - the taxpayer ends up paying *more* in the numerous scenarios like these that exist just in my personal life (raised upper middle class, currently middle class for the record).
I was 22 and being quoted over $800 a month for a high deductible, catastrophic plan when every other insurance company denied me. While that may fall under "just didn't want to pay the rates [i] was supposed to" to you, it would have meant needing to be homeless (because you can't pay for rent and food if half your take home income is going to health insurance premiums) so I went without. Thankfully I had found a job with benefits 4 months later when I was diagnosed with totally unrelated stage IV cancer.
My state didn't offer a pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Many people fell into this bucket.
Uh ...so what?
He could buy health insurance, you just mean it was expensive. That's life. If he's that sick that he "is not capable of working," then insurance companies would be right to charge him a lot. Also, you claim that "lack of healthcare" is what made him disabled. Nope, his poor health did. (Also, a lot of people who are "disabled," although perhaps not your father specifically, aren't actually disabled in any real way.)
Second of all, if you want to buy insurance at 22, that's pretty pointless. But if you wanted to and couldn't get it, sounds like you are also pretty unhealthy. And then you claim that AFTER they charged you high rates, you were diagnosed with stage IV cancer. Or is it that you were unhealthy beforehand and then you got cancer?
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.
