Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

nbc15.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 422 posts

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#171

Post by chimeracoder »

snapetom wrote: post #47
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other developed countries have price controls (more specifically, government negotiated prices) and it seems to be working well for them.

> government negotiated prices That's what we don't have in the US. You can certain make the case that we should, but that's a separate argument. Now we have a situation where we have a flat out price control, and it's going to have unintended consequences written all over it. All these arguments for "look at Europe" doesn't fly in health economics. There are not subtle differences in the US legally, infrastructurall…

> All these arguments for "look at Europe" doesn't fly in health economics. There are not subtle differences in the US legally, infrastructurally, and culturally.

Not to mention: European countries wouldn't be able to negotiate those prices if the US market didn't exist. Pharmaceutical companies - many of whom are based in Europe - know that they'll make most of their revenue from the US, which is not only the single largest market by number of patients[0], but also a disproportionately lucrative market, because the expected per-patient revenue is also higher.

If the Netherlands (a country whose population is lower than the state of New York alone) decides to "negotiate" a few extra Euro off the price of a particular drug, AstraZeneca doesn't care, because they know they'll more than make it up in the US market.

If the US passed a "most favored nation" law with respect to drug pricing, or allowed pharmaceutical imports from Europe/Canada (as has been proposed in the past), we'd see drug prices in the US drop dramatically, but drug prices in Europe would also increase.

[0] China and India are in a totally different category, because of their respective patent laws (whereas the US and Europe have harmonized patent treatment)

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#172

Post by efa »

sorrymate wrote: post #2

Best line in the very short article “Health care is a right for all, not a privilege and that is why I am so proud that we created an insulin price cap that successfully puts patients above profit,” according to Gov. JB Pritzker.

I hate the constant misuse of the word "right". How would a country guarantee this right? What if every doctor in the US quit tomorrow? What if I decided to live on the top of a mountain where there is no population? How does the government guarantee my right to healthcare? Rights are around restrictions. I have the right NOT to be killed. I have a right NOT to be silenced. When something requires someone else doing something and giving it to me - that can't be a right.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#173

Post by michael_j_ward »

rayiner wrote: post #54
Someone1234 wrote: post #8

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…

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…

In addition to reducing regulatory barriers that prevent generic producers, why is no one suggesting altering the pharmaceutical intellectual property system?

Twenty years to hold monopoly production rights is an obscene amount of time.

Yes, reducing that twenty to say five will reduce capital investments in drug research, but it will also alter the structure of those investments.

Investing in improvements at the margin might make sense when you can collect 20 years of royalties, but if you can only collect 5 then it'll more often make sense to fund cures and use that 5 year monopoly to cure as many people as you can before the drug goes generic.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#174

Post by vonmoltke »

redisman wrote: post #108
vonmoltke wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is where I live, so weird visiting the US and seeing "ask your doctor for" adverts. Those ads are a small portion of pharma marketing budgets for prescription products. The vast majority goes to direct-to-doctor marketing.

That's 10 times more unnerving though. Especially given the very recent opioid prescription crisis.

Absolutely. I feel it is important to point out, though, given the number of people here who think these budgets are driven by American DTC ads.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#175

Post by UnFleshedOne »

fortran77 wrote: post #114
ptah wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example i really believe pharma advertising should be banned

When television cigarette advertising was banned (in the US) profits and stock prices went up! [1] Since all the cigarette companies were in an even playing field, they saved a lot of money by not having to advertise. I think it may be a win-win if the U.S. prohibited television medical advertising. [1] https://economicdynamics.org/meetpapers/2011/paper_868.pdf

Let us not stop at medical advertising...

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#176

Post by mattrp »

Murrawhip wrote: post #131
mattrp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do that pretty much no matter what planet you live on :)

Nope, it's only legal in US and New Zealand.

Sorry that’s not what I meant... it was a joke of course but I was saying if you suggest any course of treatment to a doctor you’re going to get a hairy eyeball in response. I wasn’t saying anything at all about the places where ads are allowed.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#177

Post by klaudius »

zentiggr wrote: post #133
klaudius wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wow, you believe companies actually pay taxes? Ok, a bit hyperbolic, but really. A half a century of deregulation and tax breaks isn't making this _worse_ for companies.

Yes, companies pay taxes. Company owners also pay taxes on dividends, capital gains or distributions. Most taxes are paid by minority of relatively well off people.

My point is that SEMATECH shows you can have a voluntary consortium where different parties fund an organization and then collectively benefit from it.

Government does that, but on a more general level and it's not based on voluntary interaction (you must pay taxes, otherwise if you resist arrest you will be murdered).

I'm responding to people who complain how companies are ripping the public off, when in reality it's the government that takes almost half of GDP in developed nations.

If the government took less in taxes, then companies would have more left over to fund a voluntary consortium which would do similar things that NIH and NSF do.

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#178

Post by chimeracoder »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #149
ivolimmen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we (the Dutch) have pharmacies that take the prescription of the doctor and then determine, based on your current medicine and medical history, alter your new prescription to fit your need (and he will confer with the GP if needed)

In the US, we have something similar (but evil) that people don't know or refuse to acknowledge. A Doctor writes a script, and then a pharmacist (not on their own, but at the direction of an insurance company) suggests a change typically to benefit the insurer (for example changing a name brand to a generic or changing 30 days to 90 days so the patient doesn't get seen by the doctor again for 90 days for additional t…

> for example changing a name brand to a generic

In most states, the law explicitly requires the pharmacist to fill a prescription with a generic (if available) unless the doctor specifically writes "dispense as written". Not allows - requires.

The purpose of these laws is to protect patients - in the overwhelming majority of cases, the generic and brand name drugs are equivalent for patients, so patients save money by purchasing the generic medication even if the physician prescribed the drug using its more well-known name (the brand name).

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#179

Post by thinkcontext »

ptah wrote: post #42
Someone1234 wrote: post #8

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

I don't disagree but by far the largest amount of marketing is spent targeting doctors not patients. Every few years they get caught sending them on junkets, paying them kickbacks disguised as fake speaking gigs, hiring cheerleaders or strippers as "sales associates", etc

Re: Illinois governor signs law capping insulin costs at $100 per month

#180

Post by pkaye »

ollie87 wrote: post #76
ptah wrote: post #42

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.

I have a lot of serious long term health issues and quickly found out you have to be the champion for your own health and research everything. But that doesn't mean just asking for the latest drug in the market. Its about asking the right questions. Unless you have a common well understood health issues, you will quickly reach a roadblock.
Post reply on HN