4 ms·
What the US could do is cap prices in the US at some modest multiple of the cheapest price charged in other countries. The drug maker would then have a choice:
by pfdietz 2y ago
What the US could do is cap prices in the US at some modest multiple of the cheapest price charged in other countries. The drug maker would then have a choice: cater to either the US market at an elevated price while losing the cheaper markets, or abandon the US market to have a possibly larger market elsewhere at lower prices.
- nradov 2y agoThat is one option. It would mean that some drugs, especially those for rare conditions, are never brought to market in the first place because the expected worldwide revenue would be too low to justify spending $1B+ on a stage-3 clinical trial that might fail. Is that a good trade-off? Depends on your perspective I guess.
- pfdietz 2y agoIt might actually increase world revenue, if it causes some countries to bite the bullet and accept a higher price.
- nradov 2y agoWell then we have a game theory problem. Every country wants to freeload on drug development spending to minimize their own expenses. It's unrealistic to expect that countries like India or France will voluntarily accept higher drug prices just to incentivize new drug development. If the USA decides to stop subsidizing the rest of the world then the most likely outcome will be a permanent reduction in the rate of new drug development. Would that be an improvement?
- michaelmrose 2y agoWe have people dying of treatable ailments that have been understood for decades which cost less than the labour used to deny them treatment and lobby against their interests. A slower pace for rare ailments seems like an obviously acceptable trade off.
- throwaway14356 2y agoyou make a committee of old doctors and have them set the prices.