You already fond a snag.. That's my point about sensitivity of time! Anytime the Gubment gets involved it only slow the process and makes it far more expensive and complicated.. Let the free market hand it..
I agree if we actually make it a free market and let us buy abroad. Bearing in mind that profit is being made at these lower prices. We can reimport from Canada cheaper than the local Walgreens. Same American made meds.
Most of us have, and we can thank socialist price caps in other countries for much of that. Price Controls on Drugs Would Stifle Innovation, Reduce Access https://www.realclearhealth.com/art..._stifle_innovation_reduce_access_110927.html#! One crucial starting point for any discussion of drug policy reforms is the recognition that developing new medicines is a costly and high-risk enterprise. When all is said and done, bringing a new drug to market costs nearly $3 billion. And that doesn’t account for the nearly 9 in 10 drugs that reach clinical trials but don’t get approved by the FDA. In countries with strict limits on drug prices, few manufacturers are willing to invest in the R&D needed to develop new treatments, and patients who could have benefitted from innovative drugs lose that opportunity. It’s no coincidence that the U.S. funds 44 percent of the world’s medical R&D, more than all of Europe combined. Researchers estimate that if pharmaceutical R&D in Europe had grown at the same rate as in the U.S. from 1986 to 2004, forty-six more medicines would be available to consumers today. The negative effects of price controls don’t stop there. The U.S. also vastly outperforms the rest of the world in drug availability to patients. Of the 290 new medicines launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018, Americans have access to nearly 90 percent. On average, residents of other advanced countries like Germany, Denmark, and France have access to fewer than half of all new drugs. In Greece, which some policymakers have cited as a potential model for the U.S., just 14 percent of new drugs are available. Even innovative medicines are ultimately made available, patients in other countries commonly wait more than a year longer than in the U.S. Importing the price controls prevalent in those countries to the U.S. may well lead to the same access restrictions on cutting-edge medicines. Another crucial issue is that the heavily discounted drug prices that foreign countries enjoy are often achieved by ripping off the intellectual property (IP) rights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Some countries threaten to impose compulsory licensing (which allows IP to be expropriated without the owner’s consent) in order to coerce U.S. drug makers to accept lower prices.
Why don't the pharmaceuticals cut the offending countries off? Just don't sell them any drugs till they come to terms and stop taking the shortfall from Americans. Or just sell us the drugs at what you sell them elsewhere.
Because we've born most of the cost here, so they can sell it there for additional revenue. But that would be a good approach, including not letting the foreign countries violate our IP without paying up.
We've discussed how this may not be the most sensible idea in the past. Price-fixing often results in shortages. When you take away profits, it takes away incentives for future developments. Part of the reason American drug prices are higher than in many other countries with socialized healthcare systems is because American consumers are the ones footing the bill for research and development, even though other countries are eventually benefiting.
I don't EVEN pretend to know, but if a non-generic drug costs out of pocket $600 a month, and I pay $12 for a 90 DAY supply, SOMEBODY'S picking up the extra freight....drug prices in the US versus the same drugs in other countries is a joke, someone's getting milked like a herd of Holsteins by Big Pharma.
A company that holds a patent and put in the time and expense of developing any product is deserving of a profit....that said, what IS a "fair and equitable profit margin" versus old school gouging ( which seems to plague the Pharma industry), I don't honestly know what answer you're expecting for "too high", so I'll go with the old one for porn....I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.
When the price of an EPI pen goes from $95 to $700 due to lack of competition, that's too high. Assume that the profit on $100 was 25%. That would be 933%. Would you not say that is too high? I would say that anything over 60% is too high. That's a ton of profit that still allows for R&D.
That argument sounds good, but is not accurate. First off, NEGOTIATING prices is what any large business may do with its suppliers. It is NOT, "price-fixing." Though this should be obvious, 100% of the power, in such a negotiation, does not rest with Medicare. Depending on the benefit of the drug in question, there is an assumed desire, on the part of Medicaid, to cover the drug. If the price offered, does not permit the pharm manufacturer an adequate profit, they can always turn down the deal. Biden, in his speech-- did you not watch? Go to the OP!-- assured that allowing significant profit for pharmaceutical companies, was part of his, & the government's, calculus. It is very easy to see if your argument, that Medicare's negotiating for a lower price, would make it unprofitable for pharmaceutical concerns to develop new drugs, passes the smell-test. If the company is ALREADY SELLING that drug, in OTHER COUNTRIES at a LOWER PRICE than the amount that Medicare is offering, that proves it is sufficiently profitable for them. So when one starts hearing the claim that trying to reduce the price that Medicaid pays on a drug-- that it is being charged a 100 or 200% premium over what the manufacturer charges other customers-- it will destroy our supply-line for new pharmaceuticals, one should realize the wisdom of holding one's nose.
And that guy who did so faces federal charges doesn't he. So 60% is the point at which you would say profits are excessive?
Of course they will, investors will not risk their money in those companies if the successful products do not also cover there research and development and regulatory cost of those who do not make it to market. Tell at what net income, what % net profit, do you believe is too much for pharmaceutical companies.
Who came up with this crap? Try putting controls in place, open the market for Americans to buy outside this market. Big Pharma is in business and why in the world would they quit because the US took steps to protect it's people? Did they stop selling drugs to Europe when they capped prices? Stop worrying about what you think is under the bed and take a look and find out. It may be imagination.
That was your response to @Heartburn , saying: Heartburn said: ↑ I agree if we actually make it a free market and let us buy abroad. Bearing in mind that profit is being made at these lower prices... <End Snip> I am taking the liberty of answering for him since, to do so, I only need one of your own quotes: The fact that a company manufactures, ships, & sells its product all around the world IS, in and of itself, proof that it is worth it, for them to do so; in other words, that it still brings them a sufficient level of profit. (I'm just repeating your quote, below, in a form that will carry-over, if this post is quoted, as your quote is essential to anyone's understanding my post). 21Bronco said: ↑ Yes, they will. I guess you've never run a business.
The cost of "wining and dining" doctors to push certain medications and the pharmaceutical reps that do the "wining and dining" have a cut. My sister and one of my sisters-in-law were pharma reps and both were able to pay cash for their first properties in cash (by the ages of 21 and 23).
You’re confused. We absorb most of the cost here. If we cap drug prices, those companies will not have as much profit globally for a particular drug. You need a certain amount of return on investment since the average cost of a new drug to develop is $3 BILLION. If you project out the revenues, you may very well decide the gamble is not worth the investment. Without the US paying more for the drugs, the profits wouldn’t have justified the initial investment.
Another argument of yours for which your own quotes give the best reply: (Repeat, for survivability in a quote: 21Bronco said: ↑ That's an assumption you cannot prove. <End Snip>) Of course, if we cut back on pharm companies gouging us, they will have lower profits. But that their business model only functions because of exploitative prices paid by all Americans (and this is true, regardless of what counter-price a person pays for their medicines, because the rest of that cost leads to higher health insurance rates, and higher Medicaid & Medicare taxes), is not a factually-supported conclusion. Pharmaceutical company profits are exponentially more than enough to fund their researching of new drugs. That's why they have the funds to invest in stock buy-backs. Tell you what, I'll look for data on drug company profits, and you look for and post ANYTHING CREDIBLE that buttresses your claim, above, that w/out doubling & tripling the price of their products, for the U.S. market, drug makers would be unable to afford, or get the financing for, research. Deal? Actually, I just remembered that I already posted this: So I guess you are participating in a discussion about Biden proposals, outlined in a speech that you have not bothered to WATCH! This does not do much to bolster confidence, that you HAVE done your due diligence, researching your claims about profit and research-investment feasibility. This fact, about companies spending more on stock buy-backs & dividends (which are purposes generally reserved for surplus profits) than on research, as stated by our President, seriously undercuts your argument-- do you not realize this?
