3 ms·
Those compliance costs are in the best interest of large pharmaceutical companies, they lobby for it. If these regulations did not exist, small companies would
by gridlockd 6y ago
Those compliance costs are in the best interest of large pharmaceutical companies, they lobby for it. If these regulations did not exist, small companies would be destroying the disproportionate profits to be made from generic drugs.
I wouldn't otherwise argue for price controls, but if you give these companies the gift of keeping competition from the bottom out, you need to account for that, because competition is the only thing keeping a lid on prices in a free market.
- nickff 6y agoI'm not arguing that the pharmaceutical companies are 'good guys', just that the situation was created by the FDA. I think the simplest and safest solution is to reduce compliance costs (which are extremely high in the USA), and allow the new entrants (initially small companies) to rectify the situation. This is not an instantaneous fix, and I will admit that it is a bit unsatisfying, but it's a robust solution.
- gridlockd 6y agoFair enough, but with that proposal you have the FDA and pharmaceutical companies positioned against you. Price controls - at least with a Democratic administration - are more realistic, because the FDA doesn't care about that and the pharmaceutical companies at least get to keep their moat, which they will prefer over some lost profits from generics.
- nickff 6y agoI completely agree that the pharmaceutical companies will lobby to keep the current regulatory barriers. 'Big Pharma' has specialized in regulatory compliance, not drug development and production, so they'll fight to protect the barriers. I don't think price controls will work quite as well as you do, and I disfavor solutions which require a benevolent bureaucracy (and executive branch).