4 ms·

I think the complexity of the issue isn't really reflected by the article. The most obvious points that are missing are the risks associated with developing a n

I think the complexity of the issue isn't really reflected by the article. The most obvious points that are missing are the risks associated with developing a new drug, the costs of research, and the regulatory requirements from the FDA Since pharmaceutical companies are, for the most part, publicly traded they're beholden to stock holders to create a profit. If they stop doing that they're in trouble If the ability to generate profit from developing new drugs are limited, they'll simply stop doing it Personally I think this kind of profit incentive for healthcare is perverse and ultimately doesn't serve public interest, but until the systemic issues behind these prices are addressed, I find it difficult to see a solution that'll ultimately benefit the end-user

lostlogin 3y ago
Regulating drug pricing is what has started to happen. And I’ll bet they don’t like that. A single payer system would at least change the negotiating power that big pharma has - even in a small market, drug companies hate dealing with a single buying. Here in New Zealand the point even made it into the TPP agreement negotiations. The US wanting our (deeply imperfect) healthcare system to be a bit more like the US one is rather grim.
- Scandiravian 3y ago
  Completely agree. That's part of why Ozempic is cheaper in Europe. I actually worked for the company who negotiates drug purchases for all hospitals here in Denmark (Amgros), so I'm somewhat familiar with the process There's flaws in this approach as well, but in the end it's definitely an improvement to the issues US patients are facing in regards to costs
aceofspades19 3y ago
No, publicly traded companies are beholden to act in the interests of the shareholders which in practicality is fairly vague. All companies are sort of designed to turn a profit or try to as they generally need that to continue existing but there is no legal requirement that they need to create a profit or maximize it, publicly traded or not. Obviously, companies do try to maximize profit as it makes everyone involved money but they don't have to.
- Scandiravian 3y ago
  Which I think aligns with what I wrote, since I specifically didn't state that they are required to maximise profits for their shareholders, only that they are beholden to said shareholders In reality those shareholders will pretty much always demand that the company maximise their ROI, so in reality I don't think it matters whether they are required to or not If they don't they'll be eaten by a company that does and the outcome will be the same
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lostlogin 3y ago

Regulating drug pricing is what has started to happen. And I’ll bet they don’t like that. A single payer system would at least change the negotiating power that big pharma has - even in a small market, drug companies hate dealing with a single buying. Here in New Zealand the point even made it into the TPP agreement negotiations. The US wanting our (deeply imperfect) healthcare system to be a bit more like the US one is rather grim.

Scandiravian 3y ago
Completely agree. That's part of why Ozempic is cheaper in Europe. I actually worked for the company who negotiates drug purchases for all hospitals here in Denmark (Amgros), so I'm somewhat familiar with the process There's flaws in this approach as well, but in the end it's definitely an improvement to the issues US patients are facing in regards to costs

aceofspades19 3y ago

No, publicly traded companies are beholden to act in the interests of the shareholders which in practicality is fairly vague. All companies are sort of designed to turn a profit or try to as they generally need that to continue existing but there is no legal requirement that they need to create a profit or maximize it, publicly traded or not. Obviously, companies do try to maximize profit as it makes everyone involved money but they don't have to.

Scandiravian 3y ago
Which I think aligns with what I wrote, since I specifically didn't state that they are required to maximise profits for their shareholders, only that they are beholden to said shareholders In reality those shareholders will pretty much always demand that the company maximise their ROI, so in reality I don't think it matters whether they are required to or not If they don't they'll be eaten by a company that does and the outcome will be the same

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]