6 ms·

I'm going to make the statement that perscription drugs aren't like other products and shouldn't be viewed as such. People literally need them to survive. This

I'm going to make the statement that perscription drugs aren't like other products and shouldn't be viewed as such. People literally need them to survive. This whole system of having something you need to survive being subject to market forces like some other widget is ridculous. Price fixing is absolutely a reasonable tactic to employ when the market for prescription drugs in the US is as completely useless at delivering reasonable costs to patients as it is.

db48x 10y ago
You need food to survive as well, but any price fixing inevitably reduces supply. Reducing supplies of food is counterproductive.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joshuaheard 10y ago
We need food to survive, and market forces work fine. In fact, I would say that the U.S. supermarket is a model of market efficiency.
- torpfactory 10y ago
  When I can buy drugs from the Pharamacy for $1.69 a pound I'll be happy to see it driven by market forces. The market simply isn't doing a good enough job getting medications to consumers at a reasonable price.
  - refurb 10y ago
    When it costs $1.69 to create a new drug, then you'd have a point.
  - replicatorblog 10y ago
    https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-presscriptions/1078664 https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-presscriptions/1078664
  - unabridged 10y ago
    Look at OTC medication costs, every store makes their own generic and they are very cheap.
    - replicatorblog 10y ago
      Not to be pedantic, but a handful of pharma companies, like Teva and Perrigo make them on behalf of the stores. It's a small, but important distinction. The pharma market is more of a market than most people appreciate. One pharma co's margin is another's opporunity.
- jellicle 10y ago
  A great deal of agricultural regulation and subsidy goes into ensuring the food supply is consistent and in excess of demand. Also, food is almost entirely substitutable - you don't NEED any particular food item. (And for items where there aren't good substitutes, like milk for babies, we have extra subsidies to ensure supply.) Also, no one has a government-granted monopoly on "bread" or "fish". Therefore, the market for food doesn't degenerate under the conditions that prevail currently. If you needed to eat a whole wheat bagel (only) in the next 24 hours or you would die, and whole wheat bagels were under a government-granted monopoly, the bagel manufacturer could charge you any amount they'd like, couldn't they?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Are you claiming that hunger, malnutrition, and diet-imposed diseases (diabetes, obesity, vitamin deficiencies) don't exist? If that's the case, then perhaps the market is working find. If it isn't, then ... perhaps your assertion fails.
rayiner 10y ago
The system is always subject to market forces. The government can budge the market around, but it's like pushing on one part of a balloon--it'll just have an effect somewhere else. When you set prices, you drive investment and talent out of the industry. Why spend years getting a PhD in biochemistry when you can go make $400k/year with just a BS at Google? It's precisely because people need drugs to survive that it's counterproductive to take measures that make pharmaceuticals a less attractive market to invest in, which fixing prices would do.
- torpfactory 10y ago
  Almost all other developed economies use this approach and it works for them. Many Of these very companies are based on those very countries. We need a reasonable price for these medications. The market isn't delivering them. The scandal here isn't the pay these companies researchers receive. I'm happy to have them paid more for their work. To me the scandal is how much profit is being taken while many people go without due to the price. What do you say to those people who might die for lack of funds?
  - replicatorblog 10y ago
    How much are you willing to pay the nine teams of scientists whose experimentation fails to yield any useful medications for every one that works? The problem is that most people only want to pay for the ones that work. Thankfully there are companies that manage that market risk taking on our behalf and take a fee for the service.
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      "How much are you willing to pay the nine teams of scientists whose experimentation fails to yield any useful medications for every one that works?" The same yearly salary that the folks on the "success" team make. I don't see why success is the issue here. I'd just make sure the failure is public information so that others can learn from it. After all, the things that don't work aren't valueless and the drug may be effective for something else.
replicatorblog 10y ago
You're over privileging people using the drug today and undervaluing the hundreds of millions who will use it for decades to come. For the most part, the expensive drugs like Sovaldi are under patent protection. That protection lasts for 20 years at max, and practically, a much smaller window since R&D cycles eat much of that time up leaving a small commercial window. Once the patent expires, companies like Teva and Perrigo line up to make generic versions of the drugs and flood the market at ridiculously low prices. A small group pays a surcharge for the long term benefit of society.
- galdosdi 10y ago
  Sort of. Once the patent expires, the R&D machine will try hard to create new drugs that are just slightly different or potentially "better" in some vague small way for some small number of people, and then the sales/marketing machine will try hard to market to doctors and consumers the idea that this new, still patented version is the right thing and the best and the old stuff is crap. The new stuff will actually benefit a tiny number of people, but mostly, you'll end up with a lot of those future generation which you think were going to save money, not saving any because they're wrongly prescribed a newer fancier drug that doesn't actually have any benefits for them over the old generic one. This is how pharma has their cake and eats it too.

db48x 10y ago

You need food to survive as well, but any price fixing inevitably reduces supply. Reducing supplies of food is counterproductive.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joshuaheard 10y ago

We need food to survive, and market forces work fine. In fact, I would say that the U.S. supermarket is a model of market efficiency.

torpfactory 10y ago
When I can buy drugs from the Pharamacy for $1.69 a pound I'll be happy to see it driven by market forces. The market simply isn't doing a good enough job getting medications to consumers at a reasonable price.
- refurb 10y ago
  When it costs $1.69 to create a new drug, then you'd have a point.
- replicatorblog 10y ago
  https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-presscriptions/1078664 https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-presscriptions/1078664
- unabridged 10y ago
  Look at OTC medication costs, every store makes their own generic and they are very cheap.
  - replicatorblog 10y ago
    Not to be pedantic, but a handful of pharma companies, like Teva and Perrigo make them on behalf of the stores. It's a small, but important distinction. The pharma market is more of a market than most people appreciate. One pharma co's margin is another's opporunity.
jellicle 10y ago
A great deal of agricultural regulation and subsidy goes into ensuring the food supply is consistent and in excess of demand. Also, food is almost entirely substitutable - you don't NEED any particular food item. (And for items where there aren't good substitutes, like milk for babies, we have extra subsidies to ensure supply.) Also, no one has a government-granted monopoly on "bread" or "fish". Therefore, the market for food doesn't degenerate under the conditions that prevail currently. If you needed to eat a whole wheat bagel (only) in the next 24 hours or you would die, and whole wheat bagels were under a government-granted monopoly, the bagel manufacturer could charge you any amount they'd like, couldn't they?
dredmorbius 10y ago
Are you claiming that hunger, malnutrition, and diet-imposed diseases (diabetes, obesity, vitamin deficiencies) don't exist? If that's the case, then perhaps the market is working find. If it isn't, then ... perhaps your assertion fails.

rayiner 10y ago

The system is always subject to market forces. The government can budge the market around, but it's like pushing on one part of a balloon--it'll just have an effect somewhere else. When you set prices, you drive investment and talent out of the industry. Why spend years getting a PhD in biochemistry when you can go make $400k/year with just a BS at Google? It's precisely because people need drugs to survive that it's counterproductive to take measures that make pharmaceuticals a less attractive market to invest in, which fixing prices would do.

torpfactory 10y ago
Almost all other developed economies use this approach and it works for them. Many Of these very companies are based on those very countries. We need a reasonable price for these medications. The market isn't delivering them. The scandal here isn't the pay these companies researchers receive. I'm happy to have them paid more for their work. To me the scandal is how much profit is being taken while many people go without due to the price. What do you say to those people who might die for lack of funds?
- replicatorblog 10y ago
  How much are you willing to pay the nine teams of scientists whose experimentation fails to yield any useful medications for every one that works? The problem is that most people only want to pay for the ones that work. Thankfully there are companies that manage that market risk taking on our behalf and take a fee for the service.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    "How much are you willing to pay the nine teams of scientists whose experimentation fails to yield any useful medications for every one that works?" The same yearly salary that the folks on the "success" team make. I don't see why success is the issue here. I'd just make sure the failure is public information so that others can learn from it. After all, the things that don't work aren't valueless and the drug may be effective for something else.

replicatorblog 10y ago

You're over privileging people using the drug today and undervaluing the hundreds of millions who will use it for decades to come. For the most part, the expensive drugs like Sovaldi are under patent protection. That protection lasts for 20 years at max, and practically, a much smaller window since R&D cycles eat much of that time up leaving a small commercial window. Once the patent expires, companies like Teva and Perrigo line up to make generic versions of the drugs and flood the market at ridiculously low prices. A small group pays a surcharge for the long term benefit of society.

galdosdi 10y ago
Sort of. Once the patent expires, the R&D machine will try hard to create new drugs that are just slightly different or potentially "better" in some vague small way for some small number of people, and then the sales/marketing machine will try hard to market to doctors and consumers the idea that this new, still patented version is the right thing and the best and the old stuff is crap. The new stuff will actually benefit a tiny number of people, but mostly, you'll end up with a lot of those future generation which you think were going to save money, not saving any because they're wrongly prescribed a newer fancier drug that doesn't actually have any benefits for them over the old generic one. This is how pharma has their cake and eats it too.