4 ms·
> Meanwhile, US companies remain the global leaders in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. That development is often subsidized by US tax
by heavyset_go 1y ago
> Meanwhile, US companies remain the global leaders in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. That development is often subsidized by US taxpayers and the remainder is largely recovered from US patients because the single-payer systems in other countries often impose price controls that largely don't exist in the US.
From the first link in the OP you're replying to:
> The United States Senate Committee on Finance launched an 18-month investigation of Gilead's Sovaldi pricing, and argued in its 2015 report that Gilead set prices high in disregard of the human cost and in order to set the stage for a higher eventual price for Sovaldi's successor, Harvoni. The committee's investigation, based in part on internal documents obtained from Gilead, revealed that the company had considered prices ranging from $50,000 to $115,000 per year, trying to strike a balance between revenue and predicted activist and public relations blowback, with little regard to research and development costs.
The pricing was found to be intentionally divorced from R&D costs. They are charging as much as they can because they can, not because of R&D.
- maxerickson 1y ago$84,000 for a (likely) cure is a huge improvement over ~$300,000 for a liver transplant. This is partly how they established the pricing, they knew that insurers would go for the cost savings. It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest.
- fc417fc802 1y ago> It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest. Keep in mind that the value is only "theirs" by force of IP law which at least officially exists for the benefit of society as a whole. Permitting a situation where people are priced out of a cure because the only available alternative is exorbitantly expensive doesn't seem moral or useful. If the concern is ensuring corporate investment into R&D then public policy could be adopted to subsidize R&D expenses either up front or after the fact.
- maxerickson 1y agoMaybe IP law was a subsidy all along.
- markdown 1y agoThe price to the recipient of a liver transplant in India is USD$20k to $35k. There's no good reason a liver transplant should cost 300k, so yours is a false comparison.
- f1shy 1y agoDid you read the comments? OP is comparing costs in USA. The cost of the drug in India is much less
- inglor_cz 1y agoIn Czechia, with its public insurance system, the cost of a liver transplant is about 70 000 USD. But our medical professionals make peanuts compared to the US, and they don't need medical malpractice insurance. I suspect that the lowest realistic cost in the US could be about 150k. When compared to conservative treatments, transplants are expensive everywhere. A very invasive treatment with a small army of specialists involved.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y agoI don't think that affects the GP point though. If the US is a profit center for pharma, that makes developing drugs more profitable overall, which means more drugs will be developed. Pharma companies are gamblers. They gamble on the cost of R&D, the market size for the drug, the amount they will be able to charge. The higher the expected value of their profits, the wider variety of drugs look like attractive prospects financially.