13 ms·

We - the US consumer, not the US government - subsidize global pharma with the ridiculously high prices we are forced to pay for drugs. That is exactly my point

We - the US consumer, not the US government - subsidize global pharma with the ridiculously high prices we are forced to pay for drugs. That is exactly my point.

willcipriano 4y ago
With CHIP[0], Medicare[1] and Medicaid[2] that isn't really true. The US taxpayer foots the bill for the majority of medical costs in the US. If you are a child, elderly or disabled (ie. most of the people with high medical costs) it's very likely that you fall under one of those programs. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
oblak 4y ago
Certain companies making crazy markups is not the same as subsidising the world. Get off your high horse
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  Let unpack both of your points separate. Last point, first: I don't mind subsidizing the world to a degree. A lot of these are US companies or international pharma with substantial US presence. The US is a phenomenally wealthy country, and a healthy and stable world is in everyone's interest along with being a moral imperative. The balance of whom that is falling on is inequitable for various reasons within the US, though. Back to your first point: this is exactly about companies charging crazy markups. Look at https://costplusdrugs.com/ https://costplusdrugs.com/ for some examples of how bad it is. Now, we all understand that R&D and studies for safety are necessary and expensive, and not every drug succeeds. Every successful drug pays those as amortized costs, it's not simply a matter of manufacturing and raw materials. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli was a famous and egregious example vis a vis Daraprim of a common practice. Further, you have increases for non-elastic needs (insulin, epi-pens) that far exceeds increases to increases in manufacturing costs. Then you ones like Solvaldi that are just priced on the max the market will bear: https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-giant-sovaldi-china-at-one-fifth-u-s-price-report https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-... ... this is not all about recovering development and testing costs, obviously.

We - the US consumer, not the US government - subsidize global pharma with the ridiculously high prices we are forced to pay for drugs. That is exactly my point.

willcipriano 4y ago

With CHIP[0], Medicare[1] and Medicaid[2] that isn't really true. The US taxpayer foots the bill for the majority of medical costs in the US. If you are a child, elderly or disabled (ie. most of the people with high medical costs) it's very likely that you fall under one of those programs. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

oblak 4y ago

Certain companies making crazy markups is not the same as subsidising the world. Get off your high horse

throwaway5752 4y ago
Let unpack both of your points separate. Last point, first: I don't mind subsidizing the world to a degree. A lot of these are US companies or international pharma with substantial US presence. The US is a phenomenally wealthy country, and a healthy and stable world is in everyone's interest along with being a moral imperative. The balance of whom that is falling on is inequitable for various reasons within the US, though. Back to your first point: this is exactly about companies charging crazy markups. Look at https://costplusdrugs.com/ https://costplusdrugs.com/ for some examples of how bad it is. Now, we all understand that R&D and studies for safety are necessary and expensive, and not every drug succeeds. Every successful drug pays those as amortized costs, it's not simply a matter of manufacturing and raw materials. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli was a famous and egregious example vis a vis Daraprim of a common practice. Further, you have increases for non-elastic needs (insulin, epi-pens) that far exceeds increases to increases in manufacturing costs. Then you ones like Solvaldi that are just priced on the max the market will bear: https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-giant-sovaldi-china-at-one-fifth-u-s-price-report https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-... ... this is not all about recovering development and testing costs, obviously.