Another real reform defeated Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?
Arraya
December 23, 2009 @
11:47 AM
I don’t know about this bill. I don’t know about this bill. But, I do know, we need more drugs. Lots of them and fast.
partypup
December 23, 2009 @
12:05 PM
Arraya wrote:I don’t know [quote=Arraya]I don’t know about this bill. But, I do know, we need more drugs. Lots of them and fast.[/quote]
LOL! Arraya, thanks for giving me the best laugh of the week!
briansd1
December 23, 2009 @
12:24 PM
Arraya wrote:I don’t know [quote=Arraya]I don’t know about this bill. But, I do know, we need more drugs. Lots of them and fast.[/quote]
Arraya, love your sense of humor. 😉
Remember that life is about the pursuit of happiness. You pursue it but you never get it. That’s why it’s fun.
briansd1
December 23, 2009 @
12:20 PM
jimmyle wrote:
My guess is [quote=jimmyle]
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
The US is a democracy but those with more money have stronger voices. That’s the plain truth. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s deal with reality.
The health care reform bill is better than no bill at all. Can’t have everything in life. Get what you can.
Arraya
December 23, 2009 @
12:25 PM
The best democracy money can The best democracy money can buy.
Ricechex
December 23, 2009 @
8:10 PM
Arraya wrote:The best [quote=Arraya]The best democracy money can buy.[/quote]
Is vicodin on the plan?
waiting for bottom
December 23, 2009 @
9:37 PM
jimmyle wrote:Another real [quote=jimmyle]Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world. How do you propose we get other countries to pick up the tab? Obviously we can’t with the wave of a wand. So then what do you have? No money for R&D and no innovation.
ucodegen
December 23, 2009 @
11:48 PM
So naive. #2 is exactly the
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world.
Which means that part of the reason why other countries health care costs are lower, is because we are subsidizing the R&D costs.. not necessarily because of their universal health care..
Simple way to fix it is to allow the importation. This way, the pharmaceutical companies can’t fracture the market and charge what they can in each. Instead, everyone everywhere pays about the same cost for the same drug.
waiting for bottom
December 24, 2009 @
12:40 AM
ucodegen wrote:
Simple way to [quote=ucodegen]
Simple way to fix it is to allow the importation. This way, the pharmaceutical companies can’t fracture the market and charge what they can in each. Instead, everyone everywhere pays about the same cost for the same drug.[/quote]
If the US allows importation, the Pharmas will cap the supply sent to the foreign countries. Trade war.
The primary reason Pharmas sell at lower prices in those countries is to cover fixed costs in the U.S. They are making a profit on the marginal unit.
The U.S. is well behind the game here on cost cutting. Any moves here will have ripple effects accross the globe. Either other countries pay up or innovation stops. There will be a lag either way…could set us back 10-20 years from a medical technology standpoint.
ucodegen
December 24, 2009 @
1:11 PM
If the US allows importation,
If the US allows importation, the Pharmas will cap the supply sent to the foreign countries. Trade war.
The primary reason Pharmas sell at lower prices in those countries is to cover fixed costs in the U.S. They are making a profit on the marginal unit.
Second paragraph does not support the first. In fact the second does not support itself. If Pharmas sell at lower prices to cover fixed costs in the US, then why are the prices lower in foreign markets. If you are transferring costs from the US market to the foreign market, the foreign market will have higher, not lower prices. The reality is that the fixed costs are largely handled solely by the US market. What really happens is that the Pharmas front load the R&D and development costs to the US sales while only effectively loading the foreign side with their incremental costs of manufacturing (not a fixed cost – ie difference between NRE vs RE costs. NRE = Non Recurrent Engineering, RE = Recurrent Engineering).
Foreign countries are acting like large bargaining cartels while the US market is acting like a free market separate from the buying cartels. This distorts the market as a whole. Free markets are generally more effective unless there is a cartel (buying or selling).
Any moves here will have ripple effects accross the globe. Either other countries pay up or innovation stops. There will be a lag either way…could set us back 10-20 years from a medical technology standpoint.
This I agree with, though I don’t think there will be much of a lag and I don’t think it will set us back. It might hold us in place for a while though. It will also force the Pharmas to consider walking away from the country cartel’s bargaining table if the true cost of manufacture can’t be covered. One thing that it is important to note: Pharmas actually spend a surprising amount of money on ‘enhancing’ drugs that are about to go off patent. The quote on ‘enhancing’ is important because many times, there is really no difference. The only real purpose was to maintain patent.
waiting for bottom
December 24, 2009 @
4:00 PM
Yes, the second paragraph Yes, the second paragraph does support itself. I should disclose that I worked in finance for a big Pharma so I know how it works first hand. We sold at a marginal profit (sales price above variable cost)in most foreign countries (ex. Japan – they pay more than the US does). This marginal profit covered our fixed costs in the US (both MFG and G&A) so US covered R&D and large large profit.
Other than that I think we pretty much agree. The lag time is debatable but it is ultimately a game of chicken. Who will blink first? The Pharma or the UKs and Canadas of the world that will go without drugs if they don’t raise their price. Of course, to even get to that point, the US gov’t would have to squeez the Pharma’s….5-10 years away.
Net, net big Pharma is a benefit to the US. I hate it when people whine about high drug costs. Don’t buy them then. If someone wasn’t willing to risk their cash to invent them, you wouldn’t have a drug to whine about. If you don’t want to reward that risk then no drug for you.
CA renter
December 25, 2009 @
12:15 AM
waiting for bottom wrote:Yes, [quote=waiting for bottom]Yes, the second paragraph does support itself. I should disclose that I worked in finance for a big Pharma so I know how it works first hand. We sold at a marginal profit (sales price above variable cost)in most foreign countries (ex. Japan – they pay more than the US does). This marginal profit covered our fixed costs in the US (both MFG and G&A) so US covered R&D and large large profit.
Other than that I think we pretty much agree. The lag time is debatable but it is ultimately a game of chicken. Who will blink first? The Pharma or the UKs and Canadas of the world that will go without drugs if they don’t raise their price. Of course, to even get to that point, the US gov’t would have to squeez the Pharma’s….5-10 years away.
Net, net big Pharma is a benefit to the US. I hate it when people whine about high drug costs. Don’t buy them then. If someone wasn’t willing to risk their cash to invent them, you wouldn’t have a drug to whine about. If you don’t want to reward that risk then no drug for you.[/quote]
But what about all the money the taxpayers are putting into R&D? Things like the NIH, public universities, public grants to private or non-profit companies/researchers, etc.? It seems most **useful and important drugs/technologies** were initially funded with public money. The private market tends to step in and take over once something looks like it will be profitable. I know that’s not always the case, but you can look at almost any life-saving drug/technology and find public money behind it.
waiting for bottom
December 26, 2009 @
5:47 PM
CA renter wrote:
But what [quote=CA renter]
But what about all the money the taxpayers are putting into R&D? Things like the NIH, public universities, public grants to private or non-profit companies/researchers, etc.? It seems most **useful and important drugs/technologies** were initially funded with public money. The private market tends to step in and take over once something looks like it will be profitable. I know that’s not always the case, but you can look at almost any life-saving drug/technology and find public money behind it.[/quote]
You expected a response to this without any hard data? Or an example?
Arraya
December 26, 2009 @
9:40 PM
Here ya go!
In 95′ tax payer Here ya go!
In 95′ tax payer funded research was 55% of the top five selling drugs and other fun facts.
A simpler measure – also derived from data provided by the industry – suggests that after-tax R&D costs ranged from $57 million to $71 million for the average new drug brought to market in the 1990s, including failures. (See Section II)
An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995.(See Section III)
snip
In addition to receiving research subsidies, the drug industry is lightly taxed, thanks to tax credits. The drug industry’s effective tax rate is about 40 percent less than the average for all other industries. (See Section VII)
Drug companies also receive a huge financial incentive for testing the effects of drugs on children. This incentive called pediatric exclusivity, which Congress may reauthorize this year, amounts to $600 million in additional profits per year for the drug industry – and that’s just to get companies to test the safety of several hundred drugs for children. It is estimated that the cost of such tests is less than $100 million a year. (See Section VIII)
The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D. (See Section X)
)
Heck, back in 2000 marketing was 30%. Every other commercial is for some useless drug these days.
waiting for bottom
December 26, 2009 @
10:00 PM
Arraya – Again, don’t care Arraya – Again, don’t care about S&M %. R&D and Profit are about the same. Lives are extended and improved.
Thanks for the current data from 1995 on the NIH. What were the top 5 selling drugs in 1995? That’s like 1920 in medical terms dude.
Let’s take CA renter’s logic and also give credit to the 6th grade teachers for every scientist who invented a drug for big pharma. That was a public $ invested in big pharma too. Where do you stop?
When is someone going to address my basic premise: If you don’t want the drugs….don’t buy them.
patb
December 28, 2009 @
10:41 PM
waiting for bottom [quote=waiting for bottom]Arraya – Again, don’t care about S&M %. R&D and Profit are about the same. Lives are extended and improved.
Thanks for the current data from 1995 on the NIH. What were the top 5 selling drugs in 1995? That’s like 1920 in medical terms dude.
Let’s take CA renter’s logic and also give credit to the 6th grade teachers for every scientist who invented a drug for big pharma. That was a public $ invested in big pharma too. Where do you stop?
When is someone going to address my basic premise: If you don’t want the drugs….don’t buy them.[/quote]
costs would drop if they weren’t allowed to advertise on TV.
we don’t let cigarettes be advertised on TV, why
should we allow that?
And most US Pharma companies don’t develope drugs,they leverage NIH research.
waiting for bottom
December 29, 2009 @
2:15 PM
patb wrote:waiting for bottom [quote=patb][quote=waiting for bottom]Arraya – Again, don’t care about S&M %. R&D and Profit are about the same. Lives are extended and improved.
Thanks for the current data from 1995 on the NIH. What were the top 5 selling drugs in 1995? That’s like 1920 in medical terms dude.
Let’s take CA renter’s logic and also give credit to the 6th grade teachers for every scientist who invented a drug for big pharma. That was a public $ invested in big pharma too. Where do you stop?
When is someone going to address my basic premise: If you don’t want the drugs….don’t buy them.[/quote]
costs would drop if they weren’t allowed to advertise on TV.
we don’t let cigarettes be advertised on TV, why
should we allow that?
And most US Pharma companies don’t develope drugs,they leverage NIH research.[/quote]
You don’t know that costs would drop if they didn’t advertise. Yes, advertising costs would drop – but if sales volume fell they’d have to recoup it somehow man.
waiting for bottom
December 26, 2009 @
10:36 PM
Arraya wrote:Here ya go!
. [quote=Arraya]Here ya go!
. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D. (See Section X)
)
Heck, back in 2000 marketing was 30%. Every other commercial is for some useless drug these days.[/quote]
Umm….see my earlier post. How much was marketing, and how much was administration? You conclude that 0% was admin. Please read your data before drawing conclusions.
waiting for bottom
December 26, 2009 @
10:40 PM
Arraya wrote:Here ya go! [quote=Arraya]Here ya go!
snip
In addition to receiving research subsidies, the drug industry is lightly taxed, thanks to tax credits. The drug industry’s effective tax rate is about 40 percent less than the average for all other industries. [/quote]
It’s not thanks to US tax credits. It’s because most Pharma mfg is done in tax advantaged locations. If you lower the US corporate tax rate, these jobs come back to the US….and tax revenue actually goes up. This is a concept liberals just can’t seem to grasp. (No, I’m not a republican, I’m a capitalist).
waiting for bottom
December 26, 2009 @
10:46 PM
Arraya wrote:Here ya go!
An [quote=Arraya]Here ya go!
An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995.(See Section III)
[/quote]
Besides this being one data point from 15 years ago, is this 55% of the number of projects or 55% of the value of projects?
Arraya
December 26, 2009 @
11:43 PM
That’s a good question, That’s a good question, waiting. We really don’t know do we? Or what the updated numbers are. Really, I don’t spend to much time thinking about it other than a sporadic article here and there and the 30 minutes I spent since this thread was put up.
Though, like every other major industry. It goes through painstaking steps to cover up all the negative aspects and counters with transparent bogus data and other propaganda. That’s status-quo for these types of things.
When I flip on the tv, I see either a hard on, antidepressant or indigestion medicine add every 5 minutes. I look at stats on how drugged up americans are and I just shake my head.
I see the amount these clowns spend on lobbying and the death grip they and every other major industry have on washington and I doubt the existence of a “free market”
In fact, the closer you look at everything the more bullshit you always see. It’s pretty much that way with everything.
My gut feeling is, the industry as a whole is a little bit of good and a huge cost to society. Just a whole bunch of unnecessary. But that’s just me.
CA renter
December 27, 2009 @
1:46 AM
waiting for bottom wrote:CA [quote=waiting for bottom][quote=CA renter]
But what about all the money the taxpayers are putting into R&D? Things like the NIH, public universities, public grants to private or non-profit companies/researchers, etc.? It seems most **useful and important drugs/technologies** were initially funded with public money. The private market tends to step in and take over once something looks like it will be profitable. I know that’s not always the case, but you can look at almost any life-saving drug/technology and find public money behind it.[/quote]
You expected a response to this without any hard data? Or an example?[/quote]
Based on your quote above, I had assumed you were familiar with R&D funding and already knew about the public funding of most life-saving technologies/medicines:
“Yes, the second paragraph does support itself. I should disclose that I worked in finance for a big Pharma so I know how it works first hand.”
Some of the funding for medical research is indirect funding:
Compounding the fiscal and economic unpredictability of federal funding for medical
research is its growing complexity. Increasingly, advances in research to improve
public health build upon basic research in other fields such as physics, chemistry,
engineering and mathematics, all of which are supported by agencies other than
NIH. Some of these agencies also contribute directly to medical advances through
life sciences research in support of their own missions. The interdependence of research
among many scientific and engineering disciplines requires long-term, stable
commitments to ensure that a balanced portfolio of research programs is
maintained.
Why Medical Research and Public Health Education Program Funding is Important to Cardiovascular Specialists
According to recent testimony by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, the ground-breaking research on the causes and treatment of heart disease, supported in large part by NIH, is largely responsible for the decline in cardiovascular disease. Without recent developments such as drug coated stents, safe levels of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering therapies, heart attacks would still account for 1.2 to 1.3 million deaths per year instead of the actual 515, 000 deaths experienced today.
Mark Heeson, President of the National Venture Capital Association, noted the indispensable role of the government in advancing technology when he said, “As everyone knows, Venture Capitalists (VCs) don’t invest in basic R&D; they invest in applied R&D. But it is critical to realize that applied R&D is a product of years of seeding of basic R&D across the gamut of sciences. And, it is the federal government that has been a critical investor in those seeds. Decreases in basic R&D in the long run mean fewer new ideas for VCs to look at down the road, which translates to less innovation, fewer new high-tech jobs and fewer lives saved from new drugs and defense-related items.”
[Good info about public funding of the sciences, too.]
Conservative estimates have placed at least a quarter of the quality medical research done in the world as funded by NIH grants and contracts.
[Mind you, this is just NIH funding. We fund much of the advancements in medical science through other entities as well — like the CDC, NASA, and the USDA, for example — not included in these numbers at all. It also doesn’t include the publicly-funded scientific discoveries made in the past, without which these new technologies couldn’t exist. Additionally, this does not cover public funding/reseach done by other countries. Many European countries/researchers are responsible for some of our greatest advances in medicine.]
Okay, I’ll leave this post where it is. Will start a new post with some more info in the next couple of days. CAR
CA renter
December 27, 2009 @
2:30 AM
Just putting up an example of Just putting up an example of one of the arguments against private/for-profit funding:
The Stanford University School of Medicine announced it will no longer accept support from pharmaceutical or device companies for specific programs in continuing medical education, as industry- directed funding may compromise the integrity of these education programs for practicing physicians, officials said.
Meanwhile, for more than 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has been investing larger amounts in research and development than the federal government — $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2005,2 for instance, or 78 percent more than NIH funding that year. Fiscal conservatives may view this industry investment as an appropriate, market-driven solution that should suffice and that does not justify additional government funding for biomedical research. However, the lion’s share of industry funds is applied to drug development, especially clinical trials, rather than to fundamental research and is targeted to applications that are first and foremost of value to the industry. Federal funding has traditionally targeted a broad range of investigator-initiated research, from studies of molecular mechanisms of disease to population-based studies of disease prevalence, promoting an unrestricted environment of biomedical discovery that serves as the basis for industry-driven development. These approaches are complementary, and both have served society well.
NIH actually has a 30.5 NIH actually has a 30.5 billion dollars a year budget to medical research. Also, it does not appear that the subsidies for drugs that don’t have that high a marketability are included in the budget. I can’t find numbers on that.
You figure, 30 billion a year going into all the main areas of research, heart, cancer, ect…. Pharma must benefit greatly. No wonder they have so much money for marketing!
It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was “instrumental” for 15.
So, it looks like we can conclude, Pharma loves government intervention of all sorts.
waiting for bottom
December 27, 2009 @
1:39 PM
Arraya wrote:NIH actually has [quote=Arraya]NIH actually has a 30.5 billion dollars a year budget to medical research. Also, it does not appear that the subsidies for drugs that don’t have that high a marketability are included in the budget. I can’t find numbers on that.
You figure, 30 billion a year going into all the main areas of research, heart, cancer, ect…. Pharma must benefit greatly. No wonder they have so much money for marketing!
It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was “instrumental” for 15.
So, it looks like we can conclude, Pharma loves government intervention of all sorts.[/quote]
So $30B a year in ‘medical research’ by NIH means that the Pharma’s take no risk and therefore deserve no return? Is that your conclusion?
How much of the entire NIH budget is spent on drug research? How many drugs has the NIH taken all the way to market? I guarantee you more $ is required on the “D” than in the “R”.
In 2008, Pfizer, J&J, Merck, Lily, Bristol, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Baxter and Wyeth spent $35B combined on R&D – more than the entire NIH budget. I’ll be generous and say half of the NIH’s $30B is used on drug research…that gives them $15B out of $50B…and we are only talking about 10 pharma/devices companies out of a population of hundreds. Throw in foreign Pharma’s like Roche, Glaxo, Novartis, etc. that do research and sell a ton in the US market and your NIH argument is weak at best.
Should we also credit the gov’t for funding public education of the scientists at the big pharmas?
Again…I thought people on this blog felt risk and reward/loss should go hand in hand. You want Big pharma to take risks and get no rewards…or even give away thier drugs for free.
capeman
December 27, 2009 @
9:49 PM
Quote: How much of the entire [quote] How much of the entire NIH budget is spent on drug research? How many drugs has the NIH taken all the way to market? I guarantee you more $ is required on the “D” than in the “R”. [/quote]
That’s what a lot of people don’t understand. The government through the NIH funds early “R” for early research. It is extremely difficult to get any reasonable amount of money from NIH for “D” activities since the government believes that “D” funding should be paid for by the private sector since they get the profits in the end. The costs of getting a drug to market are usually 10-20% “R” and the remaining 80-90% “D” so if you look at it from the $800 million to get approval estimate the private sector/investors are shouldering well over a half billion dollars of that cost.
This doesn’t justify some of the pricing that goes on. This type of business is a lot riskier and with insane overhead costs vs. creating some magical financial instrument where the risk is borne by the “Sucker”/buyer and the benefit goes to the magical wizard behind the curtain who only needed a PC and some legal paper.
CA renter
December 27, 2009 @
10:20 PM
waiting,
You didn’t read my waiting,
You didn’t read my post.
If not for all that reseach, the development would never occur. Additionally, the taxpayers fund many scientific ventures that do bring certain drugs/technologies all the way through complete development. Perhaps it’s subjective, but I believe the scientific foundation that is the springboard for all the later development is more valuable than what comes after it.
One of the biggest developments (if not THE biggest) in medical science was the discovery of and ability to mass produce antibiotics. Here’s the history:
————————-
History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.
…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.
Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.
The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
The beginnings of The beginnings of chemotherapy (and another example of research/development that was publicly funded, but not included in NIH appropriations, as this was done through the DOD):
Goodman and Gilman were recruited for their expertise by the US Department of
Defense to study whether chemical weapons could be used to treat diseases. Based on
autopsy results showing that soldiers exposed to mustard gas also appeared to suffer from
lymphoid suppression, Goodman and Gilman hypothesized that mustard gas could be used
to treat tumors of lymphoid cells. Their initial experiments in mice supported their hypothesis, and in
1946, Goodman and Gilman reported that injection of mustine, a related compound, reduced the
size of tumors in a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patient, providing the first successful human application
of a cancer chemotherapeutic agent.
Perhaps it’s subjective, but I believe the scientific foundation that is the springboard for all the later development is more valuable than what comes after it.
—————
To clarify that statement a bit…
The financial “risks” are greatest at the initial stages of R&D (when the likelihood of a profitable outcome is very miniscule) vs. in later developmental stages (when a profitable outcome is more likely) because a majority of the failures will have already been shouldered during earlier stages of R&D — which were funded by public money.
In other words, it’s the taxpayers that shoulder the greatest financial risks in R&D, not the private companies that have the luxury of looking at existing (taxpayer-funded) data, so they can determine what appears to be more marketable, patentable, and profitable.
capeman
December 28, 2009 @
10:05 PM
CA renter wrote:From my post [quote=CA renter]From my post above:
Perhaps it’s subjective, but I believe the scientific foundation that is the springboard for all the later development is more valuable than what comes after it.
—————
To clarify that statement a bit…
The financial “risks” are greatest at the initial stages of R&D (when the likelihood of a profitable outcome is very miniscule) vs. in later developmental stages (when a profitable outcome is more likely) because a majority of the failures will have already been shouldered during earlier stages of R&D — which were funded by public money.
In other words, it’s the taxpayers that shoulder the greatest financial risks in R&D, not the private companies that have the luxury of looking at existing (taxpayer-funded) data, so they can determine what appears to be more marketable, patentable, and profitable.[/quote]
That’s wrong. Initial funding of research to the stage of proof of principle is very low and is usually piggybacked on earlier research ideas. You could very easily get to a proof of principle conclusion that can be published and still have a huge risk in taking that drug forward into very expensive development. It’s drugs that are not properly derisked and taken into full blown development that raise the average $ amount to approval toward the $800 million number. Since the vast majority of the development costs are borne by investors who more times than not lose their ass on a one-trick-pony company it’s tough to say that taxpayers are taking it worse in the pocketbook. The taxpayers take it worse when the drug gets approved and they have to pay up to 10s of thousands per year for treatments. 😉
briansd1
December 29, 2009 @
9:26 AM
capeman wrote: The taxpayers [quote=capeman] The taxpayers take it worse when the drug gets approved and they have to pay up to 10s of thousands per year for treatments. ;-)[/quote]
That’s very well said.
If the drugs didn’t exist, the doctor would simply say “I’m sorry M’am but there’s nothing that can be done. But please change your eating habits and exercise more.”
As far as costs go, I don’t know why we are paying billions for drugs such as Celebrex when Aspirin taken with a meal does just as well.
The deductible should be very high on the designer drugs so patients think twice before taking them.
KSMountain
December 29, 2009 @
10:59 AM
briansd1 wrote:
If the drugs [quote=briansd1]
If the drugs didn’t exist, the doctor would simply say “I’m sorry M’am but there’s nothing that can be done. But please change your eating habits and exercise more.”
As far as costs go, I don’t know why we are paying billions for drugs such as Celebrex when Aspirin taken with a meal does just as well.
The deductible should be very high on the designer drugs so patients think twice before taking them.[/quote]
In general I fully agree.
But what are you talking about with Celebrex v. Aspirin? If you’re talking about inflammation say for sports injuries, they’re not even in the same ballpark.
patb
December 25, 2009 @
8:55 AM
waiting for bottom [quote=waiting for bottom][quote=ucodegen]
Simple way to fix it is to allow the importation. This way, the pharmaceutical companies can’t fracture the market and charge what they can in each. Instead, everyone everywhere pays about the same cost for the same drug.[/quote]
If the US allows importation, the Pharmas will cap the supply sent to the foreign countries. Trade war.
The primary reason Pharmas sell at lower prices in those countries is to cover fixed costs in the U.S. They are making a profit on the marginal unit.
The U.S. is well behind the game here on cost cutting. Any moves here will have ripple effects accross the globe. Either other countries pay up or innovation stops. There will be a lag either way…could set us back 10-20 years from a medical technology standpoint.[/quote]
What pharma is terrified of is basic drugs being imported into the US without the FDA acting as a gatekeeper for Pharma.
Generics, off patent, the formularies of the 1970s.
All that is waiting to roar into the US as soon as the barriers come down.
Canada, France, Germany, UK, Japan, China, Russia, India all have their own drug establishments.
The US Pharma uses their captive market domestically to try and undercut the foreign makers.
The US Cut off drugs to india, screwed them a bit then they built their own manufacturing facilities.
now they are tearing up off-patent drugs. That’s why Walmart has the $4 generics.
Soon enough, they will be pushing in with other drugs, and watch what happens.
Pharma will seek to ban imports.
patb
December 28, 2009 @
10:31 PM
waiting for bottom [quote=waiting for bottom][quote=jimmyle]Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world. How do you propose we get other countries to pick up the tab? Obviously we can’t with the wave of a wand. So then what do you have? No money for R&D and no innovation.[/quote]
So why are the Electronics industry and auto industry able to somehow survive?
Toyota supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers. Sony supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers.
waiting for bottom
December 29, 2009 @
2:16 PM
patb wrote:waiting for bottom [quote=patb][quote=waiting for bottom][quote=jimmyle]Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world. How do you propose we get other countries to pick up the tab? Obviously we can’t with the wave of a wand. So then what do you have? No money for R&D and no innovation.[/quote]
So why are the Electronics industry and auto industry able to somehow survive?
Toyota supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers. Sony supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers.[/quote]
Not quite apples to apples with car R&D and drug R&D. Also, it looks like you have not done any research on consumer prices in Japan either.
capeman
December 23, 2009 @
11:01 AM
It’s a shame that we are It’s a shame that we are subsidizing so much of the worlds healthcare by paying such a high price for development in the US and then paying so much more for the drugs.
patb
December 25, 2009 @
8:23 AM
capeman wrote:It’s a shame [quote=capeman]It’s a shame that we are subsidizing so much of the worlds healthcare by paying such a high price for development in the US and then paying so much more for the drugs.[/quote]
if only that were true, it might even be a social benefit. Drugs cost a fortune in this country to support large executive pay and masive ad campaigns.
Pharma spends more on Ads and Hottie Sales girls then they ever do on RD.
waiting for bottom
December 25, 2009 @
12:23 PM
patb wrote:
Pharma spends [quote=patb]
Pharma spends more on Ads and Hottie Sales girls then they ever do on RD.[/quote]
Back that up with some data please. All public info will separate SG&A and R&D within operating expenses. Yes, SG&A is 2x R&D. Problem is you are claiming the S is bigger than the R&D without any way of knowing what the G&A is.
Data please, not speculation.
capeman
December 25, 2009 @
8:10 PM
patb wrote:capeman wrote:It’s [quote=patb][quote=capeman]It’s a shame that we are subsidizing so much of the worlds healthcare by paying such a high price for development in the US and then paying so much more for the drugs.[/quote]
if only that were true, it might even be a social benefit. Drugs cost a fortune in this country to support large executive pay and masive ad campaigns.
Pharma spends more on Ads and Hottie Sales girls then they ever do on RD.[/quote]
The cost to get a drug approved is upwards of $800 million on average including the cost of failures. Ads and sales girls don’t come close.
GH
December 25, 2009 @
7:56 AM
The State of California pays The State of California pays $500 a month for my sons prescription, which means those of you who still pay tax are footing the bill for some drug companies massive profits (almost $20 a pill).
I think this is another reason we need to get rid of health insurance altogether except for major conditions like serious injury or illness.
If people had to actually PAY for their medications this nonsense would quickly come to an end. Instead you all blindly pay outrageous taxes and health insurance fees, further justifying a desire to get your moneys worth out of the system.
It was precisely because people did not have to pay for overprices houses with their own money we had a massive real estate bubble. 20% down and it would never have happened. Same is true for medical costs. you don’t have to pay for health care, so you use it regardless of price.
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
Finally, how about privatizing our Fire Departments. Imagine “negotiating” the extraction of your family from a burning house while your family cries for help. How is that different from the way we run our medical concerns today, where sick people even with insurance are bankrupted just trying to survive another day?
patb
December 25, 2009 @
8:49 AM
GH wrote:The State of [quote=GH]The State of California pays $500 a month for my sons prescription, which means those of you who still pay tax are footing the bill for some drug companies massive profits (almost $20 a pill).
I think this is another reason we need to get rid of health insurance altogether except for major conditions like serious injury or illness.
If people had to actually PAY for their medications this nonsense would quickly come to an end. Instead you all blindly pay outrageous taxes and health insurance fees, further justifying a desire to get your moneys worth out of the system.
It was precisely because people did not have to pay for overprices houses with their own money we had a massive real estate bubble. 20% down and it would never have happened. Same is true for medical costs. you don’t have to pay for health care, so you use it regardless of price.
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
Finally, how about privatizing our Fire Departments. Imagine “negotiating” the extraction of your family from a burning house while your family cries for help. How is that different from the way we run our medical concerns today, where sick people even with insurance are bankrupted just trying to survive another day?[/quote]
Gosh, How many confounded, foolish statements can one man state in one posting.
1) If the state didn’t provide Medi-cal for your son, he’d just die untreated, which was basically how the system worked in the 1920’s and 30’s.
Pharma was just as greedy, they just extracted as much as they could from people in the 20’s and 30’s.
2) In the 1920’s people paid 50% down and then
borrowed 15 year money for houses, they still overpaid in the bubble, in fact we had numerous bubbles and crashes all through the 19th century.
3) We socialized fire protection because it’s not a market good. The 19th century system was hostage taking, it was more effecient and fairer to charge everyone a millage on property for fire protection and then add regulation on fire code to prevent fires.
waiting for bottom
December 25, 2009 @
12:27 PM
GH wrote:
There is NO good [quote=GH]
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
[/quote]
patb – you could have included this one in your “foolish” critique as well.
Ever heard of supply and demand curves? Why does Japan pay more for almost EVERY product than the US does? Same can be said for US vs. Latin America.
GH, please take Econ 101 before making blanket statements like that.
GH
December 25, 2009 @
8:19 PM
waiting for bottom wrote:GH [quote=waiting for bottom][quote=GH]
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
[/quote]
patb – you could have included this one in your “foolish” critique as well.
Ever heard of supply and demand curves? Why does Japan pay more for almost EVERY product than the US does? Same can be said for US vs. Latin America.
GH, please take Econ 101 before making blanket statements like that.[/quote]
Unless of course our government intervened on behalf of private companies and made it unlawful to compete by purchasing products from overseas. Economics 101, try paid for govt. 101 Nothing foolish here at all. Don’t defend these crooks.
Economics 101 only works in a free market. We have not seen that bird in decades.
waiting for bottom
December 25, 2009 @
9:19 PM
GH wrote:waiting for bottom [quote=GH][quote=waiting for bottom][quote=GH]
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
[/quote]
patb – you could have included this one in your “foolish” critique as well.
Ever heard of supply and demand curves? Why does Japan pay more for almost EVERY product than the US does? Same can be said for US vs. Latin America.
GH, please take Econ 101 before making blanket statements like that.[/quote]
Unless of course our government intervened on behalf of private companies and made it unlawful to compete by purchasing products from overseas. Economics 101, try paid for govt. 101 Nothing foolish here at all. Don’t defend these crooks.
Economics 101 only works in a free market. We have not seen that bird in decades.[/quote]
The point you are missing is that the majority of products that are trying to be imported (especially from Canada) are THE BIG PHARMA’S DRUGS, not a competitor, not a knock-off, not a generic…THEIR DRUGS sold at a lower price to foreign countries at a price negotiated in a free market.
scaredyclassic
December 25, 2009 @
9:43 PM
i was gonna get back on i was gonna get back on zoloft in 2010, cause i have insurance, but then i thought about it some more and said, screw it, I’ve had it with zoloft, I prefer my normal slightly bummer self to the somewhat cheerier zolofted self. no need to thank me for bringing your costs down slightly.
CA renter
December 25, 2009 @
10:32 PM
scaredycat wrote:i was gonna [quote=scaredycat]i was gonna get back on zoloft in 2010, cause i have insurance, but then i thought about it some more and said, screw it, I’ve had it with zoloft, I prefer my normal slightly bummer self to the somewhat cheerier zolofted self. no need to thank me for bringing your costs down slightly.[/quote]
And we enjoy your slightly bummer self, too, scaredy. The world needs its worriers just as much as it needs its optimists. 🙂
KSMountain
December 28, 2009 @
11:18 PM
CA renter wrote:scaredycat [quote=CA renter][quote=scaredycat]i was gonna get back on zoloft in 2010, cause i have insurance, but then i thought about it some more and said, screw it, I’ve had it with zoloft, I prefer my normal slightly bummer self to the somewhat cheerier zolofted self. no need to thank me for bringing your costs down slightly.[/quote]
And we enjoy your slightly bummer self, too, scaredy. The world needs its worriers just as much as it needs its optimists. :)[/quote]
I agree. I want the authentic scaredy.
scaredyclassic
December 29, 2009 @
12:09 AM
in addition, I’m not messing in addition, I’m not messing with cholesterol lowering crap. I’m just gonna run, drink red wine, and drop dead hopefully with one massive heart attack instead of a string of small strokes. I have a feeling lipitor is going to screw with my predestined death reality like zoloft would change the mood lighting on my stark black ‘n white noir life. Also, take your angioplasty and shove it. Not sure about the bypass. I am not eschewing dental work, though. I’ll pay cash on the barrelhead to save these choppers. And you can have a look at my prostate, i guess…maybe…
scaredyclassic
December 25, 2009 @
9:43 PM
dupe dupe
Arraya
December 26, 2009 @
5:10 AM
Leave Big Pharma [img_assist|nid=12525|title=Leave Big Pharma alone!|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=535|height=400]
Waiting – You need to do a U-tube video
Poor ole’ Pharma gets gubmint money for drugs that aren’t that marketable. For the ones that are, well, they will sell a lot more than 800 million of the them and charge more than a dollar per.
What does econ 101 say about the 400 million they spent on lobbying for the healthcare bill?
Some studies show they spend twice as much on marketing than R&D other studies show it’s about equal and another shows that marketing is half of R&D. Hmmm… Can you guess who funded the ones that show they spend more on R&D???
Of course, that commie Ralph Nader did a study in 2001 that says bringing a drug to market is only 100 million as well.
Cost to bring new drug to market – between 100-800 million
Political pull and 1000 person lobbyist army – priceless
God forbid people took care of themselves. It would ruin the economy! A little bit of exercise and proper diet would destroy many of their markets.
waiting for bottom
December 26, 2009 @
8:47 AM
Arraya – For someone who Arraya – For someone who argues for a free market, you sure give big pharma a bad time. All I am saying is if a business invents a product they can charge whatever they want for it. If the consumer doesn’t want to pay for it, then don’t buy it.
Call marketing more or less than R&D…I don’t care. Fact is they spend a ton on R&D, which benefits society. Look at Pfizer in 2007 & 2008 – they spent about $16B on R&D and made a profit of about $16B after tax…what’s wrong with that????
Call it $100M or $800M to bring a drug to market….I don’t care either. (Although I suspect the difference is the cost of drugs not making it to market being included in the $800M). Fact is they are bringing new therapies to market.
Finally, I totally agree people should take care of themselves. Fact is, people don’t. There is a market there and Big Pharma serves it. Again, if you don’t like it, don’t use their drugs. Your loss. Now go hug a tree and vote for Obama.
scaredyclassic
December 26, 2009 @
9:20 AM
there are herbs out there there are herbs out there people. find the herbs. ignore the drug companies. also try to eat right, exercise and relax.
CA renter
December 26, 2009 @
4:58 PM
Nobody’s addressed my Nobody’s addressed my question above regarding public funding for research and technology. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get something for their money? Why does all the profit have to go to private companies, while the public funds much of the needed research for **life-saving** medicine/technologies?
jimmyle
December 28, 2009 @
7:12 AM
If you support free market, If you support free market, why can’t I legally buy many drugs from Canada? The point is our government collaborates with big Pharmaceuticals to prevent Americans from importing drugs so they can charge us as much as they want.
[quote=waiting for bottom]Arraya – For someone who argues for a free market, you sure give big pharma a bad time. All I am saying is if a business invents a product they can charge whatever they want for it. If the consumer doesn’t want to pay for it, then don’t buy it.
Call marketing more or less than R&D…I don’t care. Fact is they spend a ton on R&D, which benefits society. Look at Pfizer in 2007 & 2008 – they spent about $16B on R&D and made a profit of about $16B after tax…what’s wrong with that????
Call it $100M or $800M to bring a drug to market….I don’t care either. (Although I suspect the difference is the cost of drugs not making it to market being included in the $800M). Fact is they are bringing new therapies to market.
Finally, I totally agree people should take care of themselves. Fact is, people don’t. There is a market there and Big Pharma serves it. Again, if you don’t like it, don’t use their drugs. Your loss. Now go hug a tree and vote for Obama.[/quote]
scaredyclassic
December 28, 2009 @
7:16 AM
maybe “the free market is maybe “the free market is dead” is the new “god is dead”.
Arraya
December 28, 2009 @
8:36 AM
scaredycat wrote:maybe “the [quote=scaredycat]maybe “the free market is dead” is the new “god is dead”.[/quote]
No scaredy, the free market is like big foot. A mythical beast with a few sightings, but no real evidence it ever existed.
Capital and the state have had a monogamous relationship since it’s inception. Telling everybody what the “free market” is.
briansd1
December 28, 2009 @
5:11 PM
waiting for bottom wrote:All [quote=waiting for bottom]All I am saying is if a business invents a product they can charge whatever they want for it. If the consumer doesn’t want to pay for it, then don’t buy it.[/quote]
That I agree with.
But the government should not be forced to pay for expensive drugs through medicare, medic-aid, VA, non-taxable health plans, etc…
Health care needs to be rationed and allocated better so that the general population is healthier. It makes so sense that some people are getting expensive drugs at taxpayers’ expense while some can’t even see the doctor for a flu shot.
I’m sorry, but I’m willing to sacrifice someone’s grandmother so that thousands of uninsured can have basic health care.
I have elderly relatives on medicare and I know how broken the system is. Some patients (my own dad) needlessly cost big bucks because they can just go see the doctor over nothing and the doctor will needlessly do tests, prescribe medication, etc… My aunt, on the other hand chooses to not abuse the system and goes to the doctor only once every other year. She does blood tests once per year and if there’s nothing, she skips the doctor visit and sees him the following year.
Clearly, my dad needs to be penalized and my aunt should be rewarded. They are in their late eighties.
BTW, my aunt makes her own apple peel salads, dried fruits, yogurt, etc. She eat nothing packaged and processed at all. She uses no salt and might eat 1/2 pound of raw sugar per year, if that.
My dad will eat his steaks but his eating habits have changed in the last decade, and he goes to the gym everyday because he doesn’t want to join his peers 6ft under.
Health care is not just access to drugs, doctors and tests. It’s a lifestyle. You’re better off changing your diet than taking cholesterol or blood pressure medication.
Health education is very important. Right now, most of the population is pretty stupid when it comes to health care.
meadandale
December 29, 2009 @
10:17 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I’m sorry, [quote=briansd1]
I’m sorry, but I’m willing to sacrifice someone’s grandmother so that thousands of uninsured can have basic health care.[/quote]
How generous of you…
You know it’s funny that the media made such a fuss over Sarah Palin’s comments about Death Panels but here you are advocating just such a thing.
You would get along great with Cass Sunstein and Ezekial Emmanual….
briansd1
December 29, 2009 @
10:40 AM
meandandale, didn’t Jesus die meandandale, didn’t Jesus die so that we may live?
Arraya
December 29, 2009 @
11:01 AM
Jesus was all about Jesus was all about privatization and profit. Some nice conservatives are currently trying to re-write the bible to give jesus and more “free market” slant.
“What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.”
Becomes
What soul haveth a man if he not profits
And
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
becomes
Let he who is without insurance meet the first death panel.
It’s gonna be great!
briansd1
December 29, 2009 @
11:12 AM
Arraya wrote:Some nice [quote=Arraya]Some nice conservatives are currently trying to re-write the bible[/quote]
I think than insuring I think than insuring everyone is a noble goal and it’s better than nothing.
But I don’t have much hope for real reform because the medical industrial complex won’t let it happen.
For the same amount we are spending now, we could well provide health care for everyone. But why would the health care interests let that happen because it would mean more work them for the same amount of money? The only way anything will pass is if MORE money is spent in the system.
Reform will not happen until we have a crisis that threatens to bankrupt the system.
Look at the financial crisis. Had we let the banks fail and a huge painful recession occur, we would have had real financial reform. But no, we mortgaged the country to bail out the financial system and it’s business as usual — until we have the next crisis. Eventually our country will be bankrupt and it will be of our own doing.
meadandale
December 29, 2009 @
11:39 AM
briansd1 wrote:meandandale, [quote=briansd1]meandandale, didn’t Jesus die so that we may live?[/quote]
Jesus sacrificed HIMSELF. He didn’t off someone else.
Zeitgeist
December 29, 2009 @
11:49 AM
What about those uninsured by What about those uninsured by choice because they do not want to pay because they have money to pay as they go or because they are young and healthy? Why should they pay for you? This bill is theft by legislative fiat. It will never do what you want it to do and it will create great harm. Be careful what you wish for. Finally, under the Senate version there will still be millions of uninsured. Sometimes nothing is better, when it is the difference between sh!+ and nothing. This bill is sh!+. I look forward to it being the downfall of the liberal wing of the dem. party. The sooner the better. Happy New Year!
Arraya
December 29, 2009 @
12:10 PM
“It is easier for a camel to
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 18:25)”
Becomes
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for those with pre-existing conditions get medical coverage. Aetna 23:16
sobmaz
December 28, 2009 @
4:07 PM
I guess I need to go back to I guess I need to go back to school!!!
I was under the impression that since the Constitution declares that we are a Republic, we must be a Republic.
GH
December 28, 2009 @
6:52 PM
The problem with our medical The problem with our medical industry is the same problem with caused our housing bubble. People not paying enough out of pocket. Start charging people a percentage of the care they get and I am sure we will have people all over saying “is that really necessary?” or “is there a generic version?
Start charging people less for insurance and make them pay part of the bill for medications and office visits, and all of a sudden everyone will be price shopping.
That is free market!
felix
December 29, 2009 @
11:12 AM
The ever growing cost of The ever growing cost of health care is something most Americans would like brought under control regardless of party or ideology.
The issue is what are the costs.
To many Americans they don’t know the costs because their employer run health plans cover almost all the costs. To other Americans, with their own individual plans, the insurance cost is the cost of their health care. But is it really?
Isn’t the cost the money paid to hospitals and clinics, doctors and nurses, medical supplies and to the point of the this thread, drug companies? What is being done to rein in these costs? Apparently very little.
I think the defeat of this bill highlights what is wrong with the move for health care reform. This drug importation bill would have drastically lowered prices of meds thus reducing costs to everyone. However, it would cost drug companies huge profits so it is no surprise it was defeated. Well funded lobbies win again. Is this change?
The proposed health care bills initially provided for reductions in payments to Drs accepting medicare patients but that seems to have been shoved under the rug and thus the AMA has now supported the bill.
I don’t see anything at all with regard to the costs medical facilities charge. What should be the cost of a bed in a hospital or of any given treatment?
Is anyone doing anything about these costs besides the vilified health insurers? If so, I haven’t seen nor read about anything being done to rein in the real costs. Much of what is being debated about these bills is being done behind closed doors. Is this transparency?
Congressmen are being bought off to support the bill. Is this the end to the old ways of deal making?
I see and hear rhetoric from one side saying costs will go down and the other saying costs will go up with the passage of the proposed bills. I’ve been around long enough to know that costs don’t seem to ever be going down.
December 23, 2009 @ 9:09 AM
Another real reform defeated
Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?
December 23, 2009 @ 11:47 AM
I don’t know about this bill.
I don’t know about this bill. But, I do know, we need more drugs. Lots of them and fast.
December 23, 2009 @ 12:05 PM
Arraya wrote:I don’t know
[quote=Arraya]I don’t know about this bill. But, I do know, we need more drugs. Lots of them and fast.[/quote]
LOL! Arraya, thanks for giving me the best laugh of the week!
December 23, 2009 @ 12:24 PM
Arraya wrote:I don’t know
[quote=Arraya]I don’t know about this bill. But, I do know, we need more drugs. Lots of them and fast.[/quote]
Arraya, love your sense of humor. 😉
Remember that life is about the pursuit of happiness. You pursue it but you never get it. That’s why it’s fun.
December 23, 2009 @ 12:20 PM
jimmyle wrote:
My guess is
[quote=jimmyle]
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
The US is a democracy but those with more money have stronger voices. That’s the plain truth. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s deal with reality.
The health care reform bill is better than no bill at all. Can’t have everything in life. Get what you can.
December 23, 2009 @ 12:25 PM
The best democracy money can
The best democracy money can buy.
December 23, 2009 @ 8:10 PM
Arraya wrote:The best
[quote=Arraya]The best democracy money can buy.[/quote]
Is vicodin on the plan?
December 23, 2009 @ 9:37 PM
jimmyle wrote:Another real
[quote=jimmyle]Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world. How do you propose we get other countries to pick up the tab? Obviously we can’t with the wave of a wand. So then what do you have? No money for R&D and no innovation.
December 23, 2009 @ 11:48 PM
So naive. #2 is exactly the
Which means that part of the reason why other countries health care costs are lower, is because we are subsidizing the R&D costs.. not necessarily because of their universal health care..
Simple way to fix it is to allow the importation. This way, the pharmaceutical companies can’t fracture the market and charge what they can in each. Instead, everyone everywhere pays about the same cost for the same drug.
December 24, 2009 @ 12:40 AM
ucodegen wrote:
Simple way to
[quote=ucodegen]
Simple way to fix it is to allow the importation. This way, the pharmaceutical companies can’t fracture the market and charge what they can in each. Instead, everyone everywhere pays about the same cost for the same drug.[/quote]
If the US allows importation, the Pharmas will cap the supply sent to the foreign countries. Trade war.
The primary reason Pharmas sell at lower prices in those countries is to cover fixed costs in the U.S. They are making a profit on the marginal unit.
The U.S. is well behind the game here on cost cutting. Any moves here will have ripple effects accross the globe. Either other countries pay up or innovation stops. There will be a lag either way…could set us back 10-20 years from a medical technology standpoint.
December 24, 2009 @ 1:11 PM
If the US allows importation,
Second paragraph does not support the first. In fact the second does not support itself. If Pharmas sell at lower prices to cover fixed costs in the US, then why are the prices lower in foreign markets. If you are transferring costs from the US market to the foreign market, the foreign market will have higher, not lower prices. The reality is that the fixed costs are largely handled solely by the US market. What really happens is that the Pharmas front load the R&D and development costs to the US sales while only effectively loading the foreign side with their incremental costs of manufacturing (not a fixed cost – ie difference between NRE vs RE costs. NRE = Non Recurrent Engineering, RE = Recurrent Engineering).
Foreign countries are acting like large bargaining cartels while the US market is acting like a free market separate from the buying cartels. This distorts the market as a whole. Free markets are generally more effective unless there is a cartel (buying or selling).
This I agree with, though I don’t think there will be much of a lag and I don’t think it will set us back. It might hold us in place for a while though. It will also force the Pharmas to consider walking away from the country cartel’s bargaining table if the true cost of manufacture can’t be covered. One thing that it is important to note: Pharmas actually spend a surprising amount of money on ‘enhancing’ drugs that are about to go off patent. The quote on ‘enhancing’ is important because many times, there is really no difference. The only real purpose was to maintain patent.
December 24, 2009 @ 4:00 PM
Yes, the second paragraph
Yes, the second paragraph does support itself. I should disclose that I worked in finance for a big Pharma so I know how it works first hand. We sold at a marginal profit (sales price above variable cost)in most foreign countries (ex. Japan – they pay more than the US does). This marginal profit covered our fixed costs in the US (both MFG and G&A) so US covered R&D and large large profit.
Other than that I think we pretty much agree. The lag time is debatable but it is ultimately a game of chicken. Who will blink first? The Pharma or the UKs and Canadas of the world that will go without drugs if they don’t raise their price. Of course, to even get to that point, the US gov’t would have to squeez the Pharma’s….5-10 years away.
Net, net big Pharma is a benefit to the US. I hate it when people whine about high drug costs. Don’t buy them then. If someone wasn’t willing to risk their cash to invent them, you wouldn’t have a drug to whine about. If you don’t want to reward that risk then no drug for you.
December 25, 2009 @ 12:15 AM
waiting for bottom wrote:Yes,
[quote=waiting for bottom]Yes, the second paragraph does support itself. I should disclose that I worked in finance for a big Pharma so I know how it works first hand. We sold at a marginal profit (sales price above variable cost)in most foreign countries (ex. Japan – they pay more than the US does). This marginal profit covered our fixed costs in the US (both MFG and G&A) so US covered R&D and large large profit.
Other than that I think we pretty much agree. The lag time is debatable but it is ultimately a game of chicken. Who will blink first? The Pharma or the UKs and Canadas of the world that will go without drugs if they don’t raise their price. Of course, to even get to that point, the US gov’t would have to squeez the Pharma’s….5-10 years away.
Net, net big Pharma is a benefit to the US. I hate it when people whine about high drug costs. Don’t buy them then. If someone wasn’t willing to risk their cash to invent them, you wouldn’t have a drug to whine about. If you don’t want to reward that risk then no drug for you.[/quote]
But what about all the money the taxpayers are putting into R&D? Things like the NIH, public universities, public grants to private or non-profit companies/researchers, etc.? It seems most **useful and important drugs/technologies** were initially funded with public money. The private market tends to step in and take over once something looks like it will be profitable. I know that’s not always the case, but you can look at almost any life-saving drug/technology and find public money behind it.
December 26, 2009 @ 5:47 PM
CA renter wrote:
But what
[quote=CA renter]
But what about all the money the taxpayers are putting into R&D? Things like the NIH, public universities, public grants to private or non-profit companies/researchers, etc.? It seems most **useful and important drugs/technologies** were initially funded with public money. The private market tends to step in and take over once something looks like it will be profitable. I know that’s not always the case, but you can look at almost any life-saving drug/technology and find public money behind it.[/quote]
You expected a response to this without any hard data? Or an example?
December 26, 2009 @ 9:40 PM
Here ya go!
In 95′ tax payer
Here ya go!
In 95′ tax payer funded research was 55% of the top five selling drugs and other fun facts.
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7065
Heck, back in 2000 marketing was 30%. Every other commercial is for some useless drug these days.
December 26, 2009 @ 10:00 PM
Arraya – Again, don’t care
Arraya – Again, don’t care about S&M %. R&D and Profit are about the same. Lives are extended and improved.
Thanks for the current data from 1995 on the NIH. What were the top 5 selling drugs in 1995? That’s like 1920 in medical terms dude.
Let’s take CA renter’s logic and also give credit to the 6th grade teachers for every scientist who invented a drug for big pharma. That was a public $ invested in big pharma too. Where do you stop?
When is someone going to address my basic premise: If you don’t want the drugs….don’t buy them.
December 28, 2009 @ 10:41 PM
waiting for bottom
[quote=waiting for bottom]Arraya – Again, don’t care about S&M %. R&D and Profit are about the same. Lives are extended and improved.
Thanks for the current data from 1995 on the NIH. What were the top 5 selling drugs in 1995? That’s like 1920 in medical terms dude.
Let’s take CA renter’s logic and also give credit to the 6th grade teachers for every scientist who invented a drug for big pharma. That was a public $ invested in big pharma too. Where do you stop?
When is someone going to address my basic premise: If you don’t want the drugs….don’t buy them.[/quote]
WFB
http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html
costs would drop if they weren’t allowed to advertise on TV.
we don’t let cigarettes be advertised on TV, why
should we allow that?
And most US Pharma companies don’t develope drugs,they leverage NIH research.
December 29, 2009 @ 2:15 PM
patb wrote:waiting for bottom
[quote=patb][quote=waiting for bottom]Arraya – Again, don’t care about S&M %. R&D and Profit are about the same. Lives are extended and improved.
Thanks for the current data from 1995 on the NIH. What were the top 5 selling drugs in 1995? That’s like 1920 in medical terms dude.
Let’s take CA renter’s logic and also give credit to the 6th grade teachers for every scientist who invented a drug for big pharma. That was a public $ invested in big pharma too. Where do you stop?
When is someone going to address my basic premise: If you don’t want the drugs….don’t buy them.[/quote]
WFB
http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html
costs would drop if they weren’t allowed to advertise on TV.
we don’t let cigarettes be advertised on TV, why
should we allow that?
And most US Pharma companies don’t develope drugs,they leverage NIH research.[/quote]
You don’t know that costs would drop if they didn’t advertise. Yes, advertising costs would drop – but if sales volume fell they’d have to recoup it somehow man.
December 26, 2009 @ 10:36 PM
Arraya wrote:Here ya go!
.
[quote=Arraya]Here ya go!
. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D. (See Section X)
)
Heck, back in 2000 marketing was 30%. Every other commercial is for some useless drug these days.[/quote]
Umm….see my earlier post. How much was marketing, and how much was administration? You conclude that 0% was admin. Please read your data before drawing conclusions.
December 26, 2009 @ 10:40 PM
Arraya wrote:Here ya go!
[quote=Arraya]Here ya go!
snip
In addition to receiving research subsidies, the drug industry is lightly taxed, thanks to tax credits. The drug industry’s effective tax rate is about 40 percent less than the average for all other industries. [/quote]
It’s not thanks to US tax credits. It’s because most Pharma mfg is done in tax advantaged locations. If you lower the US corporate tax rate, these jobs come back to the US….and tax revenue actually goes up. This is a concept liberals just can’t seem to grasp. (No, I’m not a republican, I’m a capitalist).
December 26, 2009 @ 10:46 PM
Arraya wrote:Here ya go!
An
[quote=Arraya]Here ya go!
An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995.(See Section III)
[/quote]
Besides this being one data point from 15 years ago, is this 55% of the number of projects or 55% of the value of projects?
December 26, 2009 @ 11:43 PM
That’s a good question,
That’s a good question, waiting. We really don’t know do we? Or what the updated numbers are. Really, I don’t spend to much time thinking about it other than a sporadic article here and there and the 30 minutes I spent since this thread was put up.
Though, like every other major industry. It goes through painstaking steps to cover up all the negative aspects and counters with transparent bogus data and other propaganda. That’s status-quo for these types of things.
When I flip on the tv, I see either a hard on, antidepressant or indigestion medicine add every 5 minutes. I look at stats on how drugged up americans are and I just shake my head.
I see the amount these clowns spend on lobbying and the death grip they and every other major industry have on washington and I doubt the existence of a “free market”
In fact, the closer you look at everything the more bullshit you always see. It’s pretty much that way with everything.
My gut feeling is, the industry as a whole is a little bit of good and a huge cost to society. Just a whole bunch of unnecessary. But that’s just me.
December 27, 2009 @ 1:46 AM
waiting for bottom wrote:CA
[quote=waiting for bottom][quote=CA renter]
But what about all the money the taxpayers are putting into R&D? Things like the NIH, public universities, public grants to private or non-profit companies/researchers, etc.? It seems most **useful and important drugs/technologies** were initially funded with public money. The private market tends to step in and take over once something looks like it will be profitable. I know that’s not always the case, but you can look at almost any life-saving drug/technology and find public money behind it.[/quote]
You expected a response to this without any hard data? Or an example?[/quote]
Based on your quote above, I had assumed you were familiar with R&D funding and already knew about the public funding of most life-saving technologies/medicines:
“Yes, the second paragraph does support itself. I should disclose that I worked in finance for a big Pharma so I know how it works first hand.”
My mistake.
————————
Here are the 2009 appropriations for the NIH:
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY09/FY%202009%20Enacted%20Appropriations%20(Final).pdf
Their research project grants:
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY09/Number%20of%20RPG%20Awards.pdf
————
Some of the funding for medical research is indirect funding:
Compounding the fiscal and economic unpredictability of federal funding for medical
research is its growing complexity. Increasingly, advances in research to improve
public health build upon basic research in other fields such as physics, chemistry,
engineering and mathematics, all of which are supported by agencies other than
NIH. Some of these agencies also contribute directly to medical advances through
life sciences research in support of their own missions. The interdependence of research
among many scientific and engineering disciplines requires long-term, stable
commitments to ensure that a balanced portfolio of research programs is
maintained.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/fundscience/medres.pdf
————————
Of the 81 American Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine since 1945, 62 either worked at or were funded by the NIH before winning the prize.
[other good info at this link as well]
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2003/od-06.htm
————–
Why Medical Research and Public Health Education Program Funding is Important to Cardiovascular Specialists
According to recent testimony by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, the ground-breaking research on the causes and treatment of heart disease, supported in large part by NIH, is largely responsible for the decline in cardiovascular disease. Without recent developments such as drug coated stents, safe levels of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering therapies, heart attacks would still account for 1.2 to 1.3 million deaths per year instead of the actual 515, 000 deaths experienced today.
http://www.acc.org/advocacy/pdfs/MedicalResearchFundingIssueBrief051206.pdf
—————–
Mark Heeson, President of the National Venture Capital Association, noted the indispensable role of the government in advancing technology when he said, “As everyone knows, Venture Capitalists (VCs) don’t invest in basic R&D; they invest in applied R&D. But it is critical to realize that applied R&D is a product of years of seeding of basic R&D across the gamut of sciences. And, it is the federal government that has been a critical investor in those seeds. Decreases in basic R&D in the long run mean fewer new ideas for VCs to look at down the road, which translates to less innovation, fewer new high-tech jobs and fewer lives saved from new drugs and defense-related items.”
[Good info about public funding of the sciences, too.]
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-108-2-2
—————-
Conservative estimates have placed at least a quarter of the quality medical research done in the world as funded by NIH grants and contracts.
[Mind you, this is just NIH funding. We fund much of the advancements in medical science through other entities as well — like the CDC, NASA, and the USDA, for example — not included in these numbers at all. It also doesn’t include the publicly-funded scientific discoveries made in the past, without which these new technologies couldn’t exist. Additionally, this does not cover public funding/reseach done by other countries. Many European countries/researchers are responsible for some of our greatest advances in medicine.]
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16373
——————————
Okay, I’ll leave this post where it is. Will start a new post with some more info in the next couple of days. CAR
December 27, 2009 @ 2:30 AM
Just putting up an example of
Just putting up an example of one of the arguments against private/for-profit funding:
The Stanford University School of Medicine announced it will no longer accept support from pharmaceutical or device companies for specific programs in continuing medical education, as industry- directed funding may compromise the integrity of these education programs for practicing physicians, officials said.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-155865902.html
————————
The argument behind the need for public funding:
Meanwhile, for more than 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has been investing larger amounts in research and development than the federal government — $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2005,2 for instance, or 78 percent more than NIH funding that year. Fiscal conservatives may view this industry investment as an appropriate, market-driven solution that should suffice and that does not justify additional government funding for biomedical research. However, the lion’s share of industry funds is applied to drug development, especially clinical trials, rather than to fundamental research and is targeted to applications that are first and foremost of value to the industry. Federal funding has traditionally targeted a broad range of investigator-initiated research, from studies of molecular mechanisms of disease to population-based studies of disease prevalence, promoting an unrestricted environment of biomedical discovery that serves as the basis for industry-driven development. These approaches are complementary, and both have served society well.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1665
December 27, 2009 @ 9:34 AM
NIH actually has a 30.5
NIH actually has a 30.5 billion dollars a year budget to medical research. Also, it does not appear that the subsidies for drugs that don’t have that high a marketability are included in the budget. I can’t find numbers on that.
You figure, 30 billion a year going into all the main areas of research, heart, cancer, ect…. Pharma must benefit greatly. No wonder they have so much money for marketing!
It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was “instrumental” for 15.
So, it looks like we can conclude, Pharma loves government intervention of all sorts.
December 27, 2009 @ 1:39 PM
Arraya wrote:NIH actually has
[quote=Arraya]NIH actually has a 30.5 billion dollars a year budget to medical research. Also, it does not appear that the subsidies for drugs that don’t have that high a marketability are included in the budget. I can’t find numbers on that.
You figure, 30 billion a year going into all the main areas of research, heart, cancer, ect…. Pharma must benefit greatly. No wonder they have so much money for marketing!
It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was “instrumental” for 15.
So, it looks like we can conclude, Pharma loves government intervention of all sorts.[/quote]
So $30B a year in ‘medical research’ by NIH means that the Pharma’s take no risk and therefore deserve no return? Is that your conclusion?
How much of the entire NIH budget is spent on drug research? How many drugs has the NIH taken all the way to market? I guarantee you more $ is required on the “D” than in the “R”.
In 2008, Pfizer, J&J, Merck, Lily, Bristol, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Baxter and Wyeth spent $35B combined on R&D – more than the entire NIH budget. I’ll be generous and say half of the NIH’s $30B is used on drug research…that gives them $15B out of $50B…and we are only talking about 10 pharma/devices companies out of a population of hundreds. Throw in foreign Pharma’s like Roche, Glaxo, Novartis, etc. that do research and sell a ton in the US market and your NIH argument is weak at best.
Should we also credit the gov’t for funding public education of the scientists at the big pharmas?
Again…I thought people on this blog felt risk and reward/loss should go hand in hand. You want Big pharma to take risks and get no rewards…or even give away thier drugs for free.
December 27, 2009 @ 9:49 PM
Quote: How much of the entire
[quote] How much of the entire NIH budget is spent on drug research? How many drugs has the NIH taken all the way to market? I guarantee you more $ is required on the “D” than in the “R”. [/quote]
That’s what a lot of people don’t understand. The government through the NIH funds early “R” for early research. It is extremely difficult to get any reasonable amount of money from NIH for “D” activities since the government believes that “D” funding should be paid for by the private sector since they get the profits in the end. The costs of getting a drug to market are usually 10-20% “R” and the remaining 80-90% “D” so if you look at it from the $800 million to get approval estimate the private sector/investors are shouldering well over a half billion dollars of that cost.
This doesn’t justify some of the pricing that goes on. This type of business is a lot riskier and with insane overhead costs vs. creating some magical financial instrument where the risk is borne by the “Sucker”/buyer and the benefit goes to the magical wizard behind the curtain who only needed a PC and some legal paper.
December 27, 2009 @ 10:20 PM
waiting,
You didn’t read my
waiting,
You didn’t read my post.
If not for all that reseach, the development would never occur. Additionally, the taxpayers fund many scientific ventures that do bring certain drugs/technologies all the way through complete development. Perhaps it’s subjective, but I believe the scientific foundation that is the springboard for all the later development is more valuable than what comes after it.
One of the biggest developments (if not THE biggest) in medical science was the discovery of and ability to mass produce antibiotics. Here’s the history:
————————-
History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.
…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.
http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Penicillin.htm
History of Peoria Lab (penicillin and more):
Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.
The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihy000223.html
December 27, 2009 @ 10:25 PM
The beginnings of
The beginnings of chemotherapy (and another example of research/development that was publicly funded, but not included in NIH appropriations, as this was done through the DOD):
Goodman and Gilman were recruited for their expertise by the US Department of
Defense to study whether chemical weapons could be used to treat diseases. Based on
autopsy results showing that soldiers exposed to mustard gas also appeared to suffer from
lymphoid suppression, Goodman and Gilman hypothesized that mustard gas could be used
to treat tumors of lymphoid cells. Their initial experiments in mice supported their hypothesis, and in
1946, Goodman and Gilman reported that injection of mustine, a related compound, reduced the
size of tumors in a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patient, providing the first successful human application
of a cancer chemotherapeutic agent.
http://molinterv.aspetjournals.org/content/7/6/304.full.pdf
December 27, 2009 @ 10:55 PM
From my post above:
Perhaps
From my post above:
Perhaps it’s subjective, but I believe the scientific foundation that is the springboard for all the later development is more valuable than what comes after it.
—————
To clarify that statement a bit…
The financial “risks” are greatest at the initial stages of R&D (when the likelihood of a profitable outcome is very miniscule) vs. in later developmental stages (when a profitable outcome is more likely) because a majority of the failures will have already been shouldered during earlier stages of R&D — which were funded by public money.
In other words, it’s the taxpayers that shoulder the greatest financial risks in R&D, not the private companies that have the luxury of looking at existing (taxpayer-funded) data, so they can determine what appears to be more marketable, patentable, and profitable.
December 28, 2009 @ 10:05 PM
CA renter wrote:From my post
[quote=CA renter]From my post above:
Perhaps it’s subjective, but I believe the scientific foundation that is the springboard for all the later development is more valuable than what comes after it.
—————
To clarify that statement a bit…
The financial “risks” are greatest at the initial stages of R&D (when the likelihood of a profitable outcome is very miniscule) vs. in later developmental stages (when a profitable outcome is more likely) because a majority of the failures will have already been shouldered during earlier stages of R&D — which were funded by public money.
In other words, it’s the taxpayers that shoulder the greatest financial risks in R&D, not the private companies that have the luxury of looking at existing (taxpayer-funded) data, so they can determine what appears to be more marketable, patentable, and profitable.[/quote]
That’s wrong. Initial funding of research to the stage of proof of principle is very low and is usually piggybacked on earlier research ideas. You could very easily get to a proof of principle conclusion that can be published and still have a huge risk in taking that drug forward into very expensive development. It’s drugs that are not properly derisked and taken into full blown development that raise the average $ amount to approval toward the $800 million number. Since the vast majority of the development costs are borne by investors who more times than not lose their ass on a one-trick-pony company it’s tough to say that taxpayers are taking it worse in the pocketbook. The taxpayers take it worse when the drug gets approved and they have to pay up to 10s of thousands per year for treatments. 😉
December 29, 2009 @ 9:26 AM
capeman wrote: The taxpayers
[quote=capeman] The taxpayers take it worse when the drug gets approved and they have to pay up to 10s of thousands per year for treatments. ;-)[/quote]
That’s very well said.
If the drugs didn’t exist, the doctor would simply say “I’m sorry M’am but there’s nothing that can be done. But please change your eating habits and exercise more.”
As far as costs go, I don’t know why we are paying billions for drugs such as Celebrex when Aspirin taken with a meal does just as well.
The deductible should be very high on the designer drugs so patients think twice before taking them.
December 29, 2009 @ 10:59 AM
briansd1 wrote:
If the drugs
[quote=briansd1]
If the drugs didn’t exist, the doctor would simply say “I’m sorry M’am but there’s nothing that can be done. But please change your eating habits and exercise more.”
As far as costs go, I don’t know why we are paying billions for drugs such as Celebrex when Aspirin taken with a meal does just as well.
The deductible should be very high on the designer drugs so patients think twice before taking them.[/quote]
In general I fully agree.
But what are you talking about with Celebrex v. Aspirin? If you’re talking about inflammation say for sports injuries, they’re not even in the same ballpark.
December 25, 2009 @ 8:55 AM
waiting for bottom
[quote=waiting for bottom][quote=ucodegen]
Simple way to fix it is to allow the importation. This way, the pharmaceutical companies can’t fracture the market and charge what they can in each. Instead, everyone everywhere pays about the same cost for the same drug.[/quote]
If the US allows importation, the Pharmas will cap the supply sent to the foreign countries. Trade war.
The primary reason Pharmas sell at lower prices in those countries is to cover fixed costs in the U.S. They are making a profit on the marginal unit.
The U.S. is well behind the game here on cost cutting. Any moves here will have ripple effects accross the globe. Either other countries pay up or innovation stops. There will be a lag either way…could set us back 10-20 years from a medical technology standpoint.[/quote]
What pharma is terrified of is basic drugs being imported into the US without the FDA acting as a gatekeeper for Pharma.
Generics, off patent, the formularies of the 1970s.
All that is waiting to roar into the US as soon as the barriers come down.
Canada, France, Germany, UK, Japan, China, Russia, India all have their own drug establishments.
The US Pharma uses their captive market domestically to try and undercut the foreign makers.
The US Cut off drugs to india, screwed them a bit then they built their own manufacturing facilities.
now they are tearing up off-patent drugs. That’s why Walmart has the $4 generics.
Soon enough, they will be pushing in with other drugs, and watch what happens.
Pharma will seek to ban imports.
December 28, 2009 @ 10:31 PM
waiting for bottom
[quote=waiting for bottom][quote=jimmyle]Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world. How do you propose we get other countries to pick up the tab? Obviously we can’t with the wave of a wand. So then what do you have? No money for R&D and no innovation.[/quote]
So why are the Electronics industry and auto industry able to somehow survive?
Toyota supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers. Sony supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers.
December 29, 2009 @ 2:16 PM
patb wrote:waiting for bottom
[quote=patb][quote=waiting for bottom][quote=jimmyle]Another real reform defeated again. When will we be able to pass this law?
Why should Americans paid twice for the same drugs as Japanese, Europeans, Australian and Canadians? These people are as rich as Americans. I can understand the pharmaceuticals giving lower the prices to third world countries.
The arguments from the pharmaceuticals are:
1. Drugs from Europe/Canada/Japan/Australia are unsafe. FALSE, they follow the same FDA standards.
2. The profit is needed for R&D cost. Why Americans have to shoulder most of the R&D cost? Why not spread it around to other countries mentioned above?
My guess is that most Americans would support the bill. Is the US even a democracy?[/quote]
So naive. #2 is exactly the reason it won’t happen. Yes, it is a fact that the US subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world. How do you propose we get other countries to pick up the tab? Obviously we can’t with the wave of a wand. So then what do you have? No money for R&D and no innovation.[/quote]
So why are the Electronics industry and auto industry able to somehow survive?
Toyota supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers. Sony supports R&D without crushing japanese consumers.[/quote]
Not quite apples to apples with car R&D and drug R&D. Also, it looks like you have not done any research on consumer prices in Japan either.
December 23, 2009 @ 11:01 AM
It’s a shame that we are
It’s a shame that we are subsidizing so much of the worlds healthcare by paying such a high price for development in the US and then paying so much more for the drugs.
December 25, 2009 @ 8:23 AM
capeman wrote:It’s a shame
[quote=capeman]It’s a shame that we are subsidizing so much of the worlds healthcare by paying such a high price for development in the US and then paying so much more for the drugs.[/quote]
if only that were true, it might even be a social benefit. Drugs cost a fortune in this country to support large executive pay and masive ad campaigns.
Pharma spends more on Ads and Hottie Sales girls then they ever do on RD.
December 25, 2009 @ 12:23 PM
patb wrote:
Pharma spends
[quote=patb]
Pharma spends more on Ads and Hottie Sales girls then they ever do on RD.[/quote]
Back that up with some data please. All public info will separate SG&A and R&D within operating expenses. Yes, SG&A is 2x R&D. Problem is you are claiming the S is bigger than the R&D without any way of knowing what the G&A is.
Data please, not speculation.
December 25, 2009 @ 8:10 PM
patb wrote:capeman wrote:It’s
[quote=patb][quote=capeman]It’s a shame that we are subsidizing so much of the worlds healthcare by paying such a high price for development in the US and then paying so much more for the drugs.[/quote]
if only that were true, it might even be a social benefit. Drugs cost a fortune in this country to support large executive pay and masive ad campaigns.
Pharma spends more on Ads and Hottie Sales girls then they ever do on RD.[/quote]
The cost to get a drug approved is upwards of $800 million on average including the cost of failures. Ads and sales girls don’t come close.
December 25, 2009 @ 7:56 AM
The State of California pays
The State of California pays $500 a month for my sons prescription, which means those of you who still pay tax are footing the bill for some drug companies massive profits (almost $20 a pill).
I think this is another reason we need to get rid of health insurance altogether except for major conditions like serious injury or illness.
If people had to actually PAY for their medications this nonsense would quickly come to an end. Instead you all blindly pay outrageous taxes and health insurance fees, further justifying a desire to get your moneys worth out of the system.
It was precisely because people did not have to pay for overprices houses with their own money we had a massive real estate bubble. 20% down and it would never have happened. Same is true for medical costs. you don’t have to pay for health care, so you use it regardless of price.
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
Finally, how about privatizing our Fire Departments. Imagine “negotiating” the extraction of your family from a burning house while your family cries for help. How is that different from the way we run our medical concerns today, where sick people even with insurance are bankrupted just trying to survive another day?
December 25, 2009 @ 8:49 AM
GH wrote:The State of
[quote=GH]The State of California pays $500 a month for my sons prescription, which means those of you who still pay tax are footing the bill for some drug companies massive profits (almost $20 a pill).
I think this is another reason we need to get rid of health insurance altogether except for major conditions like serious injury or illness.
If people had to actually PAY for their medications this nonsense would quickly come to an end. Instead you all blindly pay outrageous taxes and health insurance fees, further justifying a desire to get your moneys worth out of the system.
It was precisely because people did not have to pay for overprices houses with their own money we had a massive real estate bubble. 20% down and it would never have happened. Same is true for medical costs. you don’t have to pay for health care, so you use it regardless of price.
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
Finally, how about privatizing our Fire Departments. Imagine “negotiating” the extraction of your family from a burning house while your family cries for help. How is that different from the way we run our medical concerns today, where sick people even with insurance are bankrupted just trying to survive another day?[/quote]
Gosh, How many confounded, foolish statements can one man state in one posting.
1) If the state didn’t provide Medi-cal for your son, he’d just die untreated, which was basically how the system worked in the 1920’s and 30’s.
Pharma was just as greedy, they just extracted as much as they could from people in the 20’s and 30’s.
2) In the 1920’s people paid 50% down and then
borrowed 15 year money for houses, they still overpaid in the bubble, in fact we had numerous bubbles and crashes all through the 19th century.
3) We socialized fire protection because it’s not a market good. The 19th century system was hostage taking, it was more effecient and fairer to charge everyone a millage on property for fire protection and then add regulation on fire code to prevent fires.
December 25, 2009 @ 12:27 PM
GH wrote:
There is NO good
[quote=GH]
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
[/quote]
patb – you could have included this one in your “foolish” critique as well.
Ever heard of supply and demand curves? Why does Japan pay more for almost EVERY product than the US does? Same can be said for US vs. Latin America.
GH, please take Econ 101 before making blanket statements like that.
December 25, 2009 @ 8:19 PM
waiting for bottom wrote:GH
[quote=waiting for bottom][quote=GH]
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
[/quote]
patb – you could have included this one in your “foolish” critique as well.
Ever heard of supply and demand curves? Why does Japan pay more for almost EVERY product than the US does? Same can be said for US vs. Latin America.
GH, please take Econ 101 before making blanket statements like that.[/quote]
Unless of course our government intervened on behalf of private companies and made it unlawful to compete by purchasing products from overseas. Economics 101, try paid for govt. 101 Nothing foolish here at all. Don’t defend these crooks.
Economics 101 only works in a free market. We have not seen that bird in decades.
December 25, 2009 @ 9:19 PM
GH wrote:waiting for bottom
[quote=GH][quote=waiting for bottom][quote=GH]
There is NO good reason a product should sell for more here than elsewhere.
[/quote]
patb – you could have included this one in your “foolish” critique as well.
Ever heard of supply and demand curves? Why does Japan pay more for almost EVERY product than the US does? Same can be said for US vs. Latin America.
GH, please take Econ 101 before making blanket statements like that.[/quote]
Unless of course our government intervened on behalf of private companies and made it unlawful to compete by purchasing products from overseas. Economics 101, try paid for govt. 101 Nothing foolish here at all. Don’t defend these crooks.
Economics 101 only works in a free market. We have not seen that bird in decades.[/quote]
The point you are missing is that the majority of products that are trying to be imported (especially from Canada) are THE BIG PHARMA’S DRUGS, not a competitor, not a knock-off, not a generic…THEIR DRUGS sold at a lower price to foreign countries at a price negotiated in a free market.
December 25, 2009 @ 9:43 PM
i was gonna get back on
i was gonna get back on zoloft in 2010, cause i have insurance, but then i thought about it some more and said, screw it, I’ve had it with zoloft, I prefer my normal slightly bummer self to the somewhat cheerier zolofted self. no need to thank me for bringing your costs down slightly.
December 25, 2009 @ 10:32 PM
scaredycat wrote:i was gonna
[quote=scaredycat]i was gonna get back on zoloft in 2010, cause i have insurance, but then i thought about it some more and said, screw it, I’ve had it with zoloft, I prefer my normal slightly bummer self to the somewhat cheerier zolofted self. no need to thank me for bringing your costs down slightly.[/quote]
And we enjoy your slightly bummer self, too, scaredy. The world needs its worriers just as much as it needs its optimists. 🙂
December 28, 2009 @ 11:18 PM
CA renter wrote:scaredycat
[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredycat]i was gonna get back on zoloft in 2010, cause i have insurance, but then i thought about it some more and said, screw it, I’ve had it with zoloft, I prefer my normal slightly bummer self to the somewhat cheerier zolofted self. no need to thank me for bringing your costs down slightly.[/quote]
And we enjoy your slightly bummer self, too, scaredy. The world needs its worriers just as much as it needs its optimists. :)[/quote]
I agree. I want the authentic scaredy.
December 29, 2009 @ 12:09 AM
in addition, I’m not messing
in addition, I’m not messing with cholesterol lowering crap. I’m just gonna run, drink red wine, and drop dead hopefully with one massive heart attack instead of a string of small strokes. I have a feeling lipitor is going to screw with my predestined death reality like zoloft would change the mood lighting on my stark black ‘n white noir life. Also, take your angioplasty and shove it. Not sure about the bypass. I am not eschewing dental work, though. I’ll pay cash on the barrelhead to save these choppers. And you can have a look at my prostate, i guess…maybe…
December 25, 2009 @ 9:43 PM
dupe
dupe
December 26, 2009 @ 5:10 AM
Leave Big Pharma
[img_assist|nid=12525|title=Leave Big Pharma alone!|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=535|height=400]
Waiting – You need to do a U-tube video
Poor ole’ Pharma gets gubmint money for drugs that aren’t that marketable. For the ones that are, well, they will sell a lot more than 800 million of the them and charge more than a dollar per.
What does econ 101 say about the 400 million they spent on lobbying for the healthcare bill?
Some studies show they spend twice as much on marketing than R&D other studies show it’s about equal and another shows that marketing is half of R&D. Hmmm… Can you guess who funded the ones that show they spend more on R&D???
Of course, that commie Ralph Nader did a study in 2001 that says bringing a drug to market is only 100 million as well.
Cost to bring new drug to market – between 100-800 million
Political pull and 1000 person lobbyist army – priceless
God forbid people took care of themselves. It would ruin the economy! A little bit of exercise and proper diet would destroy many of their markets.
December 26, 2009 @ 8:47 AM
Arraya – For someone who
Arraya – For someone who argues for a free market, you sure give big pharma a bad time. All I am saying is if a business invents a product they can charge whatever they want for it. If the consumer doesn’t want to pay for it, then don’t buy it.
Call marketing more or less than R&D…I don’t care. Fact is they spend a ton on R&D, which benefits society. Look at Pfizer in 2007 & 2008 – they spent about $16B on R&D and made a profit of about $16B after tax…what’s wrong with that????
Call it $100M or $800M to bring a drug to market….I don’t care either. (Although I suspect the difference is the cost of drugs not making it to market being included in the $800M). Fact is they are bringing new therapies to market.
Finally, I totally agree people should take care of themselves. Fact is, people don’t. There is a market there and Big Pharma serves it. Again, if you don’t like it, don’t use their drugs. Your loss. Now go hug a tree and vote for Obama.
December 26, 2009 @ 9:20 AM
there are herbs out there
there are herbs out there people. find the herbs. ignore the drug companies. also try to eat right, exercise and relax.
December 26, 2009 @ 4:58 PM
Nobody’s addressed my
Nobody’s addressed my question above regarding public funding for research and technology. Why shouldn’t taxpayers get something for their money? Why does all the profit have to go to private companies, while the public funds much of the needed research for **life-saving** medicine/technologies?
December 28, 2009 @ 7:12 AM
If you support free market,
If you support free market, why can’t I legally buy many drugs from Canada? The point is our government collaborates with big Pharmaceuticals to prevent Americans from importing drugs so they can charge us as much as they want.
[quote=waiting for bottom]Arraya – For someone who argues for a free market, you sure give big pharma a bad time. All I am saying is if a business invents a product they can charge whatever they want for it. If the consumer doesn’t want to pay for it, then don’t buy it.
Call marketing more or less than R&D…I don’t care. Fact is they spend a ton on R&D, which benefits society. Look at Pfizer in 2007 & 2008 – they spent about $16B on R&D and made a profit of about $16B after tax…what’s wrong with that????
Call it $100M or $800M to bring a drug to market….I don’t care either. (Although I suspect the difference is the cost of drugs not making it to market being included in the $800M). Fact is they are bringing new therapies to market.
Finally, I totally agree people should take care of themselves. Fact is, people don’t. There is a market there and Big Pharma serves it. Again, if you don’t like it, don’t use their drugs. Your loss. Now go hug a tree and vote for Obama.[/quote]
December 28, 2009 @ 7:16 AM
maybe “the free market is
maybe “the free market is dead” is the new “god is dead”.
December 28, 2009 @ 8:36 AM
scaredycat wrote:maybe “the
[quote=scaredycat]maybe “the free market is dead” is the new “god is dead”.[/quote]
No scaredy, the free market is like big foot. A mythical beast with a few sightings, but no real evidence it ever existed.
Capital and the state have had a monogamous relationship since it’s inception. Telling everybody what the “free market” is.
December 28, 2009 @ 5:11 PM
waiting for bottom wrote:All
[quote=waiting for bottom]All I am saying is if a business invents a product they can charge whatever they want for it. If the consumer doesn’t want to pay for it, then don’t buy it.[/quote]
That I agree with.
But the government should not be forced to pay for expensive drugs through medicare, medic-aid, VA, non-taxable health plans, etc…
Health care needs to be rationed and allocated better so that the general population is healthier. It makes so sense that some people are getting expensive drugs at taxpayers’ expense while some can’t even see the doctor for a flu shot.
I’m sorry, but I’m willing to sacrifice someone’s grandmother so that thousands of uninsured can have basic health care.
I have elderly relatives on medicare and I know how broken the system is. Some patients (my own dad) needlessly cost big bucks because they can just go see the doctor over nothing and the doctor will needlessly do tests, prescribe medication, etc… My aunt, on the other hand chooses to not abuse the system and goes to the doctor only once every other year. She does blood tests once per year and if there’s nothing, she skips the doctor visit and sees him the following year.
Clearly, my dad needs to be penalized and my aunt should be rewarded. They are in their late eighties.
BTW, my aunt makes her own apple peel salads, dried fruits, yogurt, etc. She eat nothing packaged and processed at all. She uses no salt and might eat 1/2 pound of raw sugar per year, if that.
My dad will eat his steaks but his eating habits have changed in the last decade, and he goes to the gym everyday because he doesn’t want to join his peers 6ft under.
Health care is not just access to drugs, doctors and tests. It’s a lifestyle. You’re better off changing your diet than taking cholesterol or blood pressure medication.
Health education is very important. Right now, most of the population is pretty stupid when it comes to health care.
December 29, 2009 @ 10:17 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I’m sorry,
[quote=briansd1]
I’m sorry, but I’m willing to sacrifice someone’s grandmother so that thousands of uninsured can have basic health care.[/quote]
How generous of you…
You know it’s funny that the media made such a fuss over Sarah Palin’s comments about Death Panels but here you are advocating just such a thing.
You would get along great with Cass Sunstein and Ezekial Emmanual….
December 29, 2009 @ 10:40 AM
meandandale, didn’t Jesus die
meandandale, didn’t Jesus die so that we may live?
December 29, 2009 @ 11:01 AM
Jesus was all about
Jesus was all about privatization and profit. Some nice conservatives are currently trying to re-write the bible to give jesus and more “free market” slant.
“What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.”
Becomes
What soul haveth a man if he not profits
And
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
becomes
Let he who is without insurance meet the first death panel.
It’s gonna be great!
December 29, 2009 @ 11:12 AM
Arraya wrote:Some nice
[quote=Arraya]Some nice conservatives are currently trying to re-write the bible[/quote]
I heard about the Bible rewrite. True story.
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/conservapedia-rewrite-bible/
December 29, 2009 @ 11:16 AM
I think than insuring
I think than insuring everyone is a noble goal and it’s better than nothing.
But I don’t have much hope for real reform because the medical industrial complex won’t let it happen.
For the same amount we are spending now, we could well provide health care for everyone. But why would the health care interests let that happen because it would mean more work them for the same amount of money? The only way anything will pass is if MORE money is spent in the system.
Reform will not happen until we have a crisis that threatens to bankrupt the system.
Look at the financial crisis. Had we let the banks fail and a huge painful recession occur, we would have had real financial reform. But no, we mortgaged the country to bail out the financial system and it’s business as usual — until we have the next crisis. Eventually our country will be bankrupt and it will be of our own doing.
December 29, 2009 @ 11:39 AM
briansd1 wrote:meandandale,
[quote=briansd1]meandandale, didn’t Jesus die so that we may live?[/quote]
Jesus sacrificed HIMSELF. He didn’t off someone else.
December 29, 2009 @ 11:49 AM
What about those uninsured by
What about those uninsured by choice because they do not want to pay because they have money to pay as they go or because they are young and healthy? Why should they pay for you? This bill is theft by legislative fiat. It will never do what you want it to do and it will create great harm. Be careful what you wish for. Finally, under the Senate version there will still be millions of uninsured. Sometimes nothing is better, when it is the difference between sh!+ and nothing. This bill is sh!+. I look forward to it being the downfall of the liberal wing of the dem. party. The sooner the better. Happy New Year!
December 29, 2009 @ 12:10 PM
“It is easier for a camel to
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 18:25)”
Becomes
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for those with pre-existing conditions get medical coverage. Aetna 23:16
December 28, 2009 @ 4:07 PM
I guess I need to go back to
I guess I need to go back to school!!!
I was under the impression that since the Constitution declares that we are a Republic, we must be a Republic.
December 28, 2009 @ 6:52 PM
The problem with our medical
The problem with our medical industry is the same problem with caused our housing bubble. People not paying enough out of pocket. Start charging people a percentage of the care they get and I am sure we will have people all over saying “is that really necessary?” or “is there a generic version?
Start charging people less for insurance and make them pay part of the bill for medications and office visits, and all of a sudden everyone will be price shopping.
That is free market!
December 29, 2009 @ 11:12 AM
The ever growing cost of
The ever growing cost of health care is something most Americans would like brought under control regardless of party or ideology.
The issue is what are the costs.
To many Americans they don’t know the costs because their employer run health plans cover almost all the costs. To other Americans, with their own individual plans, the insurance cost is the cost of their health care. But is it really?
Isn’t the cost the money paid to hospitals and clinics, doctors and nurses, medical supplies and to the point of the this thread, drug companies? What is being done to rein in these costs? Apparently very little.
I think the defeat of this bill highlights what is wrong with the move for health care reform. This drug importation bill would have drastically lowered prices of meds thus reducing costs to everyone. However, it would cost drug companies huge profits so it is no surprise it was defeated. Well funded lobbies win again. Is this change?
The proposed health care bills initially provided for reductions in payments to Drs accepting medicare patients but that seems to have been shoved under the rug and thus the AMA has now supported the bill.
I don’t see anything at all with regard to the costs medical facilities charge. What should be the cost of a bed in a hospital or of any given treatment?
Is anyone doing anything about these costs besides the vilified health insurers? If so, I haven’t seen nor read about anything being done to rein in the real costs. Much of what is being debated about these bills is being done behind closed doors. Is this transparency?
Congressmen are being bought off to support the bill. Is this the end to the old ways of deal making?
I see and hear rhetoric from one side saying costs will go down and the other saying costs will go up with the passage of the proposed bills. I’ve been around long enough to know that costs don’t seem to ever be going down.
We are being lied to and screwed again.