Many are not going to trust such studies any more than they trust climate-change research, and would rather the market "fix" the problems than a gov't-centric approach.
The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
91–100 of 537 posts
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#92It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
R&D only comes to about $500 per capita per year. That doesn’t amount to a significant fraction of Americans’ inflated costs.
It's not just about pure R&D, it's about all the financial incentive for all the wheels that will be greased by it all throughout the industry. On the outside we don't like it, but we can't pretend the drive for research isn't also built on the back of the drive for profits outside of research.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#93Everyone wants to blame drug prices but let's not ignore the problems of obesity, diabetes, etc. Much of which is a result of urban sprawl, poor diet (both in food culture, and in crop subsidies), and poor work culture.
As a U.S. immigrant who struggles to find truly healthy food choices in Manhattan of all places, I couldn't agree more.
Most really healthy people cook for themselves.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#94It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
I think it is also worth noting that number of drugs patented is not necessarily the best metric for measuring healthcare success. I think one of the best is perhaps life expectancy - and that's dropping in America, patents or no.
I don't think anyone was arguing it is a success, so not worth debating that non argument. The commenter simply pointed out something that exists.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#95It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
It is true that the US pays for a significant portion of drug R&D for the world. However the vast majority of that R&D is funded by the NIH which in turn is funded by U.S. taxpayers. It is a myth that it is the pharma companies who fund much of R&D even though they do spend some money on it. They set the prices so high because they can. The patents give them a monopoly, and they do everything in their power to "evergreen", or extend, the patents so they can continue their monopoly. One example is first patenting the left version of a molecule then patenting the right version (mirror image). How do they acquire these patents if they don't do their own R&D? They buy them.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#96It's worth noting that the U.S. market does pay for the lion's share of patented drugs, effectively funding a significant portion of R&D that benefits the whole world years later when generics come into market (at least for those drugs which are not costly to manufacture, which happen to be the majority). I'm not saying this model is right. I'm just saying that doing away with it will have fundamental consequences to…
Everyone asking for sources fornthis, just think about it. What if Europe decided that iPhones we're too expensive and implemented Single-Payer Phone Care? They'd dictate a price that the government would pay for iPhones in their countries and Apple would either not sell iPhones in Europe at all, or they would sell for the dictated price. They'd do their market studies and possibly conclude that they can jack up U.S.…
What percent of us health costs are pharmaceuticals?
You also have to factor in that americans take more pharmaceuticals than in other places, likely fruitlessly or even harmfully in a lot of cases.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that every company involved in the healthcare industry in America (drug companies, insurance companies, hospitals, etc.) make hundreds of billions (or trillions) in profit each and every year. The reason for the high prices is because healthcare in the US is an extremely, extremely lucrative for-profit industry.
Health insurers and hospitals have profit margins under 5%. Pharma margins are larger but not outrageously so. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052515/what-usual-p... https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/05/18/moodys-re... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
That doesn't mean anything at all. The problem is dissipation of rents -- when an industry gets an economic rent, expenses will tend to increase to the maximum allowed by market discipline. This is true for all bureaucracies -- e.g. Universities are always out of money but keep charging more. Hospitals are always out of money but still charge too much. That a firm finds a way to spend the money does not mean that the amount charged is the minimum that is possible in a long term stable solution. Prices are clearly out of line in these fields with OECD averages, yet each specific firm finds that its expenses are great enough that they only earn the market required return.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EpiPen is one of the "hard to manufacture" drugs I mentioned. Although it is top of mind to many, it is not representative of the market. EDIT: "hard to manufacture" is in quotes because it's what I said in my parent comment (though to be fair I said "costly to manufacture"), but I meant it as an umbrella term for everything that can't be substituted by generics
EpiPens used to cost under $100 for a 2-pack, but now they cost over $600 for a 2-pack. Epinephrine costs like $0.17 per ml, and an EpiPen dose is 0.3 ml. http://mshpriceguide.org/en/single-drug-information/?DMFId=2...
I feel like it's probably worth, to combat the false exoticism, pointing out that "epinephrine" is just a medical industry name for what is generally known as adrenaline.
There are no "real" implications to calling it one or the other, but people think differently about "a substance I've never heard of" and a common household name.
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#99The book The Healing of America by T.R. Reid, 2010 was a phenomenal look at this subject and the conclusion was this: we are the only developed nation whose government allows for-profit health insurance companies to exist with ZERO regulation to cap healthcare prices. Because of this, we spend 20% of every dollar on "administrative" costs compared to 3%-7% in the European and Asian countries. The goal for American he…
"Never confuse an unregulated market with a free market."
---
(Yes, yes, I understand that to an economist, a "free market" is free of regulation, a product of laissez-faire economics. But to the lay person, a "free market" is one where prices are set by perfect competition, which requires a balance of power, the prevention of monopolization, and information symmetry.)
Re: The US spends more on healthcare for no gain says new report from Johns Hopkins
#100It's worth noting that a recent analysis of S.1804, the Medicare for All Act, "could reduce total health care spending in the U.S. by nearly 10 percent" [1]. Even conservative analysis [2] has the program project to save in the trillions over a decade.
All while providing comprehensive, universal healthcare, free at the point-of-service.
Also, Medicare For All would theoretically be able to command substantially lower drug prices by nearly monopolizing demand.
Notably, given the study's analysis focus on OECD countries, the United States is (said to be [3]) the only of the top 25 wealthiest countries and one of two total member countries to not provide universal healthcare coverage.
[1] https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-an... [2] https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare... [3] https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/d...