131–140 of 422 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. If I asked my GP for a specific medication they'd look at me like an alien.
They do that pretty much no matter what planet you live on :)
I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…
> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned
The TV ads you see for drugs add up to $6 billion, which is a small fraction compared to industry R&D.
I'm really past the whole "pharma need to charge high prices to fund research" line of argument. Aside from being factually untrue (research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example[0]), it is also arguing for a continued unhealthy relationship with pharmaceutical care. A large amount of research is currently publicly funded. Either via public academic research or directly. When that research bears fruit it is oft…
Pharma companies are profiting off of your tax dollars No. Pharma companies are paying taxes collectively which are then used to fund basic research they can all benefit from. Another way to do it would be to form a consortium like SEMATECH [1]. If the government didn't tax and regulate companies and people so highly they would have more left over to join voluntary associations and do the same thing. [1] https://en.w…
It may very well be quite true that the price of insulin is too high but price controls really are not that great. If the price now is to high, $100 probably still is too high. Also, in the more general case (not for insulin, obviously) pharma does need to recover its research costs and who is going to say what is a good price and what not. You know, capitalism actually kind of works and price controls just don't. Th…
You're way overthinking this. What needs to happen is, again and again with health care issues, transparency. Manufacturers should be required to declare and with audits prove how much they're spending to manufacture everything. Then everyone can see the price they're being charged and figure in their head what sort of markup they are being charged. Then we can start to push back on the companies need to recoup prima…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, insulin is a great example of why your premise is false: Insulin replacement was developed a century ago, being first discovered by a government entity (U of Toronto). Private companies commercialized the treatments in the 1940s and 1950s, developing long acting forms that could be administered in a single injection per day. Since then, pharmaceutical companies have made continuous improvements with fewer…
So your solution to drug companies jacking up the prices as much as they can is to reward them by removing regulations?
You can't coherently and simultaneously believe that markets are inefficiently pricing insulin too high and that the government should be imputing gigantic costs on firms that want to introduce new, unencumbered insulin products. The two thoughts aren't compatible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned
It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. If I asked my GP for a specific medication they'd look at me like an alien.
Doctors are mortals too and can only have so much time to draw on info they crammed X years ago. Patients can quickly become more expert than GPs with regards to their own diseases, especially if they have months to research it.
Anecdotal example - my sister had a wierd skin condition in high school. My mom researched skin images and symptoms for hours and hours and concluded it was shingles. My Mom then brought her in and discussed her findings with the GP who scoffed and said she was far too young for it to be shingles. He then admonished my mom for doing her own research. Long story short and one embarrassed GP later, it was shingles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can only charge $100, but it costs $110, what happens isn't that it gets sold at $100 anyhow. What happens is that it doesn't get sold. Nobody has an obligation to manufacture insulin. I'm not saying the costs are $110. I don't know. I'm just explaining why this can result in lost insulin.
Manufacturers that can't (or won't) sell a month's worth of insulin for $100 will be replaced by those who can.
People will die, that's the system we have. The only question is do we relent and give in to what amounts to terrorist demands?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will people lose their insulin over this?
Let's say that you write a bill "you can't sell insulin for over $100". If insulin sellers refuse to sell for less than $100, there's no insulin available. However, the bill might also say that insurance companies must keep the out-of-pocket costs under $100 or that the state will make up any amount over $100. In reality, it seems unlikely to harm insulin availability since most jurisdictions have cheap insulin and t…
But studies show that the US currently pays as much as 7x what the UK does for insulin[0]. How can insulin be so cheap in some places but so expensive in others to the point that manufacturers stop making it?
0: https://insulinnation.com/treatment/u-s-pays-much-uk-insulin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will people lose their insulin over this?
If you can only charge $100, but it costs $110, what happens isn't that it gets sold at $100 anyhow. What happens is that it doesn't get sold. Nobody has an obligation to manufacture insulin. I'm not saying the costs are $110. I don't know. I'm just explaining why this can result in lost insulin.