4 ms·

What percent of those drugs exist explicitly because they can charge high prices for them? Are companies going to continue to invest countless millions developi

by donatj 2y ago

What percent of those drugs exist explicitly because they can charge high prices for them? Are companies going to continue to invest countless millions developing drugs they have no chance to recoop? I'd argue everyone benefits from a world where cures exist but are expensive, when the alternative is everything that exists is affordable, but progress halts.

vundercind 2y ago
Then everyone should pay. For some reason, only we do. As far as the crazy-high prices.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  > Then everyone should pay. For some reason, only we do. As far as the crazy-high prices. Who are the “we” and who are the “they” in your telling?
  - vundercind 2y ago
    The US. The rest of the world. Including many countries host to major drug companies. Somehow I don’t think they’ll let those companies’ R&D departments starve if the US stops paying $700 for things that cost other countries $120, or what have you.
- ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
  I remember reading that part of the problem is that Medicare/Medicaid is not allowed to actually negotiate prices with drug companies but must pay the list price. That seems ridiculous and a legally sanctioned way to basically milk the government and co-insurance payers is money. It appears to have been addressed by the Biden administration though: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/10/22/biden-harris-administrations-inflation-reduction-act-saves-medicare-enrollees-nearly-1-billion-just-first-half-2024.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/10/22/biden-harris-admin...
Buttons840 2y ago
This view is a bit too simplistic when the "countless millions" is often paid by taxpayers. Taxpayers pay the company to develop a drug, and then the company gets to seek profit by maximally exploiting taxpayers who paid for the drug. We don't need to forcefully regulate drug companies, all we have to do, as taxpayers, is ask for something in return for our tax dollars. "We will pay to develop your drug, but then we get to regulate the price, and you'll still make a reasonable profit. That's the deal, take it or leave it." No force, no compulsion, just us taxpayers asking for something in return for our dollars and coming to an agreement before handing over our dollars.
- tnorthcutt 2y ago
  I wasn’t aware that taxpayers funded drug development. Can you share examples? I am genuinely asking.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-comprehensive-look https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-c... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2804378 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic... https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dolla... Also, the prohibition on letting Medicare negotiate drug prices could be seen as taxpayer funded drug development, assuming that money were used to fund drug development rather than enrich shareholders.
  - jackthetab 2y ago
    Will some news[1] articles[2] that refer to government and think-tank papers suffice or are you looking for spreadsheet-level data? [1] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/29/hhs-selects-the-first-drugs-for-medicare-drug-price-negotiation.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/29/hhs-selects-the-fi... [2] https://www.levernews.com/americans-paid-11-billion-to-make-drugs-you-cant-afford/ https://www.levernews.com/americans-paid-11-billion-to-make-...
noapologies 2y ago
From this [1] 2017 report: > pharmaceutical and biotechnology sales revenue increased from $534 billion to $775 billion between 2006 and 2015 > worldwide company-reported R&D spending, most of which went to drug development (rather than research) ... $89 billion in 2015 dollars > During the same period, federal spending, which funded a greater amount of basic research relative to industry, remained stable at around $28 billion So only ~11% of total revenue was being reinvested, mostly into drug development. And basic research was funded largely by federal spending. [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-40 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-40
- derektank 2y ago
  Drug development is a pretty critical component of getting a drug to the consumer, unless you don't consider completing human clinical trials and receiving FDA approval to be valuable
CharlieDigital 2y ago
As if science and medicine didn't exist before it was about padding some executive's bank account with a few million more.
- realce 2y ago
  How many medicines are required just to treat issues brought on by unrepentant greed in other industries? Does Ozempic treat obesity and diabetes or does it treat the lack of regulation in food quality and advertising? How much cancer is an outcome of greed in exchange for disregarding public health, how much depression is the outcome of greed and economically-produced hopelessness, on and on. How have so many people lost their hearts and minds to this tail-chasing madness?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    The median human is vastly healthier today than any time before industrialisation.
    - realce 2y ago
      The comment we're both responding to is about the validity of modern pharmaceutical research and what kinds of medicines they produce as an outcome of US federal government investment. "Before industrialization" is over 400 years ago.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Sure. The median human today is vastly healthier than before WWII. The median American is vastly healther today than pre-War.
        realce 2y ago
        None of these statements relate to the comment thread you're responding to IMO. Are you saying that the median human today is "vastly" "healthier" because of medications developed by American pharmaceutical companies, that they are "healthier" because of medications created to alleviate the outcomes of pollution/greed? What point of the discussion said humans are not healthier than they once were?
slt2021 2y ago
it is a question of who is going to subsidize global pharma R&D? same drug costs $10k in US is sold for $5k in EU and $10 in India. The biggest question is: Why should US consumer subsidize pharma R&D so that pharma can sell it globally and hoard profits in Switzerland? note: all pharma companies are incorporated in a way to pay de-minimus tax in US/EU/Asia via transfer pricing schemes and hoard all extra profits in Switzerland because of Swiss laws taxing licensing IP only at 15% example: 1. Pharma, Inc sells drug for $10,000 in US 2. it licenses IP from Swiss entity and swiss entity charges it $9999 royalty 3. Pharma, Inc pays US tax on $1 of profit at 35% 4. Swiss entity records $9999 profit and pays 15% tax so US consumer is screwed in the end. US consumer think twice: do you want to pay $10,000 for a drug + $20,000 in insurance premium+copay when you can travel to India/Egypt/Turkey/Germany and get the same treatment for the same brand name drug for 1/10 (or 1/1000 of cost). We need to talk about geographical arbitrage of healthcare costs more

by donatj 2y ago

vundercind 2y ago

Then everyone should pay. For some reason, only we do. As far as the crazy-high prices.

andsoitis 2y ago
> Then everyone should pay. For some reason, only we do. As far as the crazy-high prices. Who are the “we” and who are the “they” in your telling?
- vundercind 2y ago
  The US. The rest of the world. Including many countries host to major drug companies. Somehow I don’t think they’ll let those companies’ R&D departments starve if the US stops paying $700 for things that cost other countries $120, or what have you.
ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
I remember reading that part of the problem is that Medicare/Medicaid is not allowed to actually negotiate prices with drug companies but must pay the list price. That seems ridiculous and a legally sanctioned way to basically milk the government and co-insurance payers is money. It appears to have been addressed by the Biden administration though: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/10/22/biden-harris-administrations-inflation-reduction-act-saves-medicare-enrollees-nearly-1-billion-just-first-half-2024.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/10/22/biden-harris-admin...

Buttons840 2y ago

This view is a bit too simplistic when the "countless millions" is often paid by taxpayers. Taxpayers pay the company to develop a drug, and then the company gets to seek profit by maximally exploiting taxpayers who paid for the drug. We don't need to forcefully regulate drug companies, all we have to do, as taxpayers, is ask for something in return for our tax dollars. "We will pay to develop your drug, but then we get to regulate the price, and you'll still make a reasonable profit. That's the deal, take it or leave it." No force, no compulsion, just us taxpayers asking for something in return for our dollars and coming to an agreement before handing over our dollars.

tnorthcutt 2y ago
I wasn’t aware that taxpayers funded drug development. Can you share examples? I am genuinely asking.
- eesmith 2y ago
  https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-comprehensive-look https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-c... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2804378 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic... https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dolla... Also, the prohibition on letting Medicare negotiate drug prices could be seen as taxpayer funded drug development, assuming that money were used to fund drug development rather than enrich shareholders.
- jackthetab 2y ago
  Will some news[1] articles[2] that refer to government and think-tank papers suffice or are you looking for spreadsheet-level data? [1] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/29/hhs-selects-the-first-drugs-for-medicare-drug-price-negotiation.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/29/hhs-selects-the-fi... [2] https://www.levernews.com/americans-paid-11-billion-to-make-drugs-you-cant-afford/ https://www.levernews.com/americans-paid-11-billion-to-make-...

noapologies 2y ago

From this [1] 2017 report: > pharmaceutical and biotechnology sales revenue increased from $534 billion to $775 billion between 2006 and 2015 > worldwide company-reported R&D spending, most of which went to drug development (rather than research) ... $89 billion in 2015 dollars > During the same period, federal spending, which funded a greater amount of basic research relative to industry, remained stable at around $28 billion So only ~11% of total revenue was being reinvested, mostly into drug development. And basic research was funded largely by federal spending. [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-40 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-40

derektank 2y ago
Drug development is a pretty critical component of getting a drug to the consumer, unless you don't consider completing human clinical trials and receiving FDA approval to be valuable

CharlieDigital 2y ago

As if science and medicine didn't exist before it was about padding some executive's bank account with a few million more.

realce 2y ago
How many medicines are required just to treat issues brought on by unrepentant greed in other industries? Does Ozempic treat obesity and diabetes or does it treat the lack of regulation in food quality and advertising? How much cancer is an outcome of greed in exchange for disregarding public health, how much depression is the outcome of greed and economically-produced hopelessness, on and on. How have so many people lost their hearts and minds to this tail-chasing madness?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  The median human is vastly healthier today than any time before industrialisation.
  - realce 2y ago
    The comment we're both responding to is about the validity of modern pharmaceutical research and what kinds of medicines they produce as an outcome of US federal government investment. "Before industrialization" is over 400 years ago.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Sure. The median human today is vastly healthier than before WWII. The median American is vastly healther today than pre-War.
      - realce 2y ago
        None of these statements relate to the comment thread you're responding to IMO. Are you saying that the median human today is "vastly" "healthier" because of medications developed by American pharmaceutical companies, that they are "healthier" because of medications created to alleviate the outcomes of pollution/greed? What point of the discussion said humans are not healthier than they once were?

slt2021 2y ago

it is a question of who is going to subsidize global pharma R&D? same drug costs $10k in US is sold for $5k in EU and $10 in India. The biggest question is: Why should US consumer subsidize pharma R&D so that pharma can sell it globally and hoard profits in Switzerland? note: all pharma companies are incorporated in a way to pay de-minimus tax in US/EU/Asia via transfer pricing schemes and hoard all extra profits in Switzerland because of Swiss laws taxing licensing IP only at 15% example: 1. Pharma, Inc sells drug for $10,000 in US 2. it licenses IP from Swiss entity and swiss entity charges it $9999 royalty 3. Pharma, Inc pays US tax on $1 of profit at 35% 4. Swiss entity records $9999 profit and pays 15% tax so US consumer is screwed in the end. US consumer think twice: do you want to pay $10,000 for a drug + $20,000 in insurance premium+copay when you can travel to India/Egypt/Turkey/Germany and get the same treatment for the same brand name drug for 1/10 (or 1/1000 of cost). We need to talk about geographical arbitrage of healthcare costs more