9 ms·
Drugmakers are ‘throwing the kitchen sink’ to halt Medicare price negotiations
- haspoken 3y agohttps://archive.is/ryYJd https://archive.is/ryYJd
- jmclnx 3y ago>Supreme Court might be sympathetic to some of the industry’s arguments No surprise here, the US Supreme Court is now just like the rest of the US Gov, they are very happy to take bribes. And due to how the US Gov is structured, no way to stop them from holding out their hand. So getting appointed to that Court is a great gig, you do not even have to care about the law these days.
- paulddraper 3y ago> no way to stop them from holding out their hand Same as for any other official: impeachment
- scrubs 3y agoThe Supreme court is/will be bounded by the fact the inflation reduction act is law. This isn't like abortion where there is no federal law passed by congress and signed by the president. I'm very happy to see this. And surely pricing transparency is good: we're gonna see just how this works. Further I'm glad the US government is challenging corporate America. Corporations implicitly threaten the US public saying if minimum wage goes up they'll be forced to cut jobs. They implicitly threaten a leaner pipeline of drug advances if prices are negioated down. Let's see how this cookie crumbles. The US congress is explicitly tasked with the federal checkbook. Negotiating prices down is clearly in their purview and is consistent with agency they've always had. Has congress ever negotiated a price with defense, office supply chains? Has the congress solicited competitive bids on work? Then why not meds?
- jfengel 3y agoThe Supreme Court has the authority to strike down any law it finds unconstitutional. It may have to work slightly harder, but I have no doubt that they can find grounds on which the Inflation Reduction Act is unconstitutional. In fact, googling those last five words turns up an industry lawsuit alleging precisely that: https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines/NICA-GCCA-PhRMA-Litigation-Asserts-Price-Setting-Provisions-in-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-are-Unconstitutional https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines... I am certain that some members of the Court will agree, and others will not. It will come down to a count of votes. And I strongly doubt that I will agree with the reasoning that justifies those votes, either way.
- synetic 3y agoJustice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts.
- _dujt 3y agoI imagine by the time a lawyer is experienced enough to be given a seat at the Supreme Court that they’re well past the point of needing an income. With that being said, I’m not surprised in the slightest someone as corrupt as Thomas would have this opinion. Ginni Thomas and Clarence’s defense of her has forever tarnished the reputation of the Supreme Court and I don’t want to hear another word from his office. His replacement honestly cannot come soon enough.
- callmeal 3y ago> Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts^H^H^H^H^H bribes. FTFY. As of 2022, the salary of a US Supreme Court Justice is $274,200 per year. The Chief Justice of the United States, who is the head of the Supreme Court, receives a slightly higher salary of $286,700 per year. Of course no one will take that job. How much does a banana cost again? $10?
- kelipso 3y agoYeah, how many millions of government employees and contractors who have to be under very strict gift policies and much lower salaries. Somehow they stay in their jobs without taking bribes.
- scrubs 3y agoBingo. Once again rules are different for the powerful. I don't buy it for a minute.
- selectodude 3y agoFrankly it's unreasonable that a supreme court justice should be expected to only have two modest homes instead of three enormous ones.
- mc32 3y agoThe gov should do what Singapore does: pay senior officials well but exterminate any sort of non monetary perquisites and impeach or fire violators. Also ban any gov person from trading on insider info. Also, if I had it my way, no government person while in the employ of the gov, should be able to vote at the level they represent or work in. If they’re fed employees no voting in fed elections and so on. Yes, I know under our constitution this would violate their rights. But you know, one can wish. I see it as a conflict of interest.
- epistasis 3y agoFor a long time, basic pride by Supreme Court justices kept this in check. But now it's time for external enforcement. There are too many justices who think that they embody law and order in themselves, and therefore no matter what they do they are obeying the law, since they are the law. Similar to most police forces these days.
- refurb 3y agoFor a long time, basic pride by Supreme Court justices kept this in check. That's incredibly naive. If anything politics and was dirtier in the past than the present. The media in the past did a great job of covering up things since they were so cozy with politicians. Read about some of the politics of the 1800's in the US and it's far worse than today.
- Applejinx 3y agoOh, they are, in theory and in practice. Their literal job is embodying law and order and they make up the rules, and everyone else is stuck with what they decree, handing down final decisions like legal Gods. I do not get how they then turn around and insist on also having uncountable wealth. Surely there are a lot of people who would be content with just having unaccountable power? Maybe they should make minimum wage, while also having final say over what law is.
- andrei_says_ 3y ago“Now”? Seems like this has been going on for a very long time. We started paying attention now. As for the US gov and institutionalized corruption I highly recommend Lester Lessig’s work around political donations reform as the first step to democracy in the US. We the people and the republic we must reclaim is an excellent summary of the issue and the solution: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
- tebut 3y agoYeah it turns out humans are mush and goo seeking to survive and propagate When exactly was this magical past where things were better, I wonder?
- dantheman 3y agoHow about something far simpler - reduce to the us government to only enumerated powers. If they want to do something not enumerated pass an amendment.
- mschuster91 3y agoThat would just end in a situation even worse than now - such a policy requires a government in the continental European parliamentary form to make sure the government always has a parliamentary backing.
- nradov 3y agoNo, actually it would be far superior. We should strictly limit the power of the Federal government to what was actually intended by the Founders instead of using the Commerce Clause as a loophole. Devolve everything else to the several states.
- krapp 3y agoWe tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation[0]. It was an unmitigated disaster, and the reason we have our current Constitution with power actually consolidated under a Federal government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
- gigatexal 3y agoShow me you’re a part of the problem, corrupt drug maker without telling me you’re a part of the problem, corrupt drug maker.
- Justsignedup 3y agoAn industry that heavily lobbied for a law which heavily boosts their profits wants to heavily lobby against the destruction of such a law? Shocked. /s Honestly I see no theoretical benefit to not allowing the government to negotiate. Maybe there is a practical one?
- miley_cyrus 3y agoSure, if you want much less innovation: "IRA means 40% reduction in new drugs over 10 years, report finds" https://bio.news/health/ira-impact-new-drugs-pharmaceutical-companies-price-controls-inflation-reduction-act/ https://bio.news/health/ira-impact-new-drugs-pharmaceutical-...
- bamfly 3y agoThen we should: 1) Explicitly fund research with public dollars, then, not make people who need drugs that aren't even very new fund it. 2) Stop paying to fund everyone else's research (I think this is about 90% bullshit, seeing as other developed countries have strong drug research sectors and I doubt that's solely because of their sales in the US, but even if it's not bullshit—why the hell would we do that?) Every time someone tries to defend the status quo, they seem not to notice that they're defending a very shitty version of what they're advocating for, even if all their claims are true.
- nradov 3y agoMost of the basic research is already publicly funded. Where pharmaceutical companies have huge expenses is in running large scale clinical trials necessary to bring drugs to market. In theory that work could be nationalized but in practice I doubt that government bureaucrats without a profit motive would make good choices. More likely they would operate based on political pressure and focus on whichever diseases have the loudest advocates.
- willio58 3y agoPeople innovate because the want to, not because they can use that innovation to price gauge sick and dying people. The only people you are protecting with this idea are the top 1% of the top 1%. We will always value medicine, but we don’t have to line the pockets of billionaires with our cash so they will bestow upon us cures from the ether.
- mhb 3y agoThe NYT keeps getting worse. The article goes on and on and doesn't say anything (in the first ~75% or so that I muddled through) about how the proposed negotiations are different than the status quo.
- BurningFrog 3y agoObligatory reminder that "negotiations" in this case just means that Medicare dictates a price.
- bamfly 3y agoEvery other developed country imposes price controls on at least parts of the healthcare industry. Drugs are just about always on the list. Either directly, or through monopsony power.
- BurningFrog 3y agoYes, currently most of the world is "free riding" on the US, which is the only country paying full price for drugs. If/when the US also stops paying, I expect drug development will stagnate a lot.
- refurb 3y agoThe US already imposes price controls in the US. Look up things like 340B, Medicaid mandatory rebates, etc.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoMedicare dictating a price sounds fine. Gravy train is ending (pharma dictating the price) and pharma is in shambles. I’d like the Times and the media in general to start reporting the names of the individuals participating in these efforts, instead of faceless corporations.
- willio58 3y agoAgreed. Recently we’ve seen some multi-million/billionaires called out specifically for saying horrific things about their workers striking and it’s great. When you hoard so much wealth I honestly don’t know how it could be argued you should have privacy. We should have public accounting of their goings on, they’re sometimes more influential than our presidents.
- miley_cyrus 3y ago