3 ms·

My understanding is that HHS under RFK (The next administration's intended US Health Director) will drop government contracts with device or drug manufacturers

My understanding is that HHS under RFK (The next administration's intended US Health Director) will drop government contracts with device or drug manufacturers selling medicare-covered goods abroad, at a fraction of the US medicare rate. That way the Medicare dollars from a grocery clerk worker in Delaware is not subsidizing the cheap lifestyle drug of someone in germany, for example.

dfxm12 2y ago
Do you have a particular drug in mind or are there details of this plan somewhere? Most drugs are cheaper in other countries because single payer systems have stronger negotiation power and can buy in bulk. The VA is similar in this regard and often gets drugs cheaper than the rest of the US. Think of it like how if you buy in bulk at costco vs buying something at the corner store, it's cheaper per unit because costco is buying direct, in bulk, from the manufacturers & there's fewer middlemen between you and the products. So, the grocery clerk worker in Delaware isn't subsidizing someone in Germany or our vets, they're just paying extra because of inefficiencies in the system. If the US moved to a similar single payer system, we could reap these benefits, too.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  Nope. Its not "inneficiency" . ITs regulation. Literal dollars extracted from all US classes (including the poor on medicare and medicaid) and shifted to healthcare R&D due to the healthcare market regulations that permit monstrosities such as coverage mandates, payment for new drugs with marginal benefit, or Medicare non-negotiation with manufacturers. So, France may offer Pfizer $1 for drugs that take $100M to research. And Pzifer may calculate its advantageous to sell for that price if they plan to recover R&D cost from selling it in the US for $1000. That's not efficiency, that's a subsidized opportunity. The US can (and hopefully will) break that game by quitting to subsidize it. If France wants cutting edge devices for $1, France can make their own. Spend their own taxpayer R&D millions. Pfizer will need to make price decisions affecting all buyers, not just US taxpayers.
  - dfxm12 2y ago
    We can only hope RFK has a better understanding of this. P.s.: I spelled "inefficiency" correctly.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
      I think that's where I am hopeful. I am more concerned on whether he will be allowed to do what must be done. He's running head-first into very, very powerful interests in industrial Food, forever drugs, and media (whose major revenue source is the former 2 groups). Its not a coincidence his mere nomination caused a bit of a ruckus already. There's been documented meetings from all major lobbyist groups getting together to plan how to take him down already. There's nothing sinister, to be clear. Its just status quo. When people's expensive DC mortages depends on whether you have a job, and whether you have a job depends on whether your client can sell even more missisipi children lucky charms and ozempic via SNAP food assistance, the lobbyst do what must be done, from their perspective. He screws the missisipi poor children and the tax payer, no 2nd thoughts needed.

dfxm12 2y ago

Do you have a particular drug in mind or are there details of this plan somewhere? Most drugs are cheaper in other countries because single payer systems have stronger negotiation power and can buy in bulk. The VA is similar in this regard and often gets drugs cheaper than the rest of the US. Think of it like how if you buy in bulk at costco vs buying something at the corner store, it's cheaper per unit because costco is buying direct, in bulk, from the manufacturers & there's fewer middlemen between you and the products. So, the grocery clerk worker in Delaware isn't subsidizing someone in Germany or our vets, they're just paying extra because of inefficiencies in the system. If the US moved to a similar single payer system, we could reap these benefits, too.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
Nope. Its not "inneficiency" . ITs regulation. Literal dollars extracted from all US classes (including the poor on medicare and medicaid) and shifted to healthcare R&D due to the healthcare market regulations that permit monstrosities such as coverage mandates, payment for new drugs with marginal benefit, or Medicare non-negotiation with manufacturers. So, France may offer Pfizer $1 for drugs that take $100M to research. And Pzifer may calculate its advantageous to sell for that price if they plan to recover R&D cost from selling it in the US for $1000. That's not efficiency, that's a subsidized opportunity. The US can (and hopefully will) break that game by quitting to subsidize it. If France wants cutting edge devices for $1, France can make their own. Spend their own taxpayer R&D millions. Pfizer will need to make price decisions affecting all buyers, not just US taxpayers.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  We can only hope RFK has a better understanding of this. P.s.: I spelled "inefficiency" correctly.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    I think that's where I am hopeful. I am more concerned on whether he will be allowed to do what must be done. He's running head-first into very, very powerful interests in industrial Food, forever drugs, and media (whose major revenue source is the former 2 groups). Its not a coincidence his mere nomination caused a bit of a ruckus already. There's been documented meetings from all major lobbyist groups getting together to plan how to take him down already. There's nothing sinister, to be clear. Its just status quo. When people's expensive DC mortages depends on whether you have a job, and whether you have a job depends on whether your client can sell even more missisipi children lucky charms and ozempic via SNAP food assistance, the lobbyst do what must be done, from their perspective. He screws the missisipi poor children and the tax payer, no 2nd thoughts needed.